PUBLIC TRANSIT

Length of 

Development 

Process, Cost 

Estimates, and 

Ridership Forecasts 

for Capital-Investment 

Grant Projects

Report to Congressional Committees

May 2014

GAO-14-472

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-472, a report to 

congressional committees

May 2014

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Length of Development Process, Cost Estimates, and 

Ridership Forecasts for Capital-Investment Grant 

Projects

Why GAO Did This Study

FTA provides funds to transit project 

sponsors to build new or extensions to 

existing fixed-guideway transit systems

through the Capital Investment Grant 

program. This program funds New, 

Small, and Very Small Starts 

projects—funds that are based partly 

on the project’s total estimated cost. 

For example, for New Starts, project 

capital costs exceed $250 million or 

the program contribution exceeds $75 

million; for Small Starts, capital costs 

are less than $250 million and the 

program contribution is less than $75 

million. The pre-construction 

development process for these 

projects includes various steps 

between the time when a project 

sponsor identifies the project to be 

funded and the formal award of FTA 

construction funds. During this 

process, the scope, capital cost, and 

ridership estimates can change.

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 

21st Century Act mandated that GAO 

biennially review these types of 

projects. This report describes (1) the 

length of the development process 

across these projects and the factors 

affecting the length, (2) capital costestimate changes throughout this

process, and the factors contributing to 

the changes, and (3) how project 

sponsors forecast ridership, including 

support that FTA provides. GAO 

analyzed pertinent laws, regulations, 

agency guidance, and FTA data for the 

32 New, Small, and Very Small Starts 

projects initiated and funded from 2005 

to 2013, prior to recent changes in 

program processes. GAO interviewed 

FTA staff and project sponsors. DOT 

reviewed a draft of this report and 

provided technical comments, which 

were incorporated as appropriate. 

What GAO Found

For the 32 New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts projects funded from

2005 to 2013 that GAO reviewed, the length of the development process varied

substantially, from as little as 2 to as long as 14 years, based on GAO’s analysis

of data from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and project-sponsors. GAO 

found that the development process took 3 to 14 years to complete for New 

Starts projects, 3 to 12 years for Small Starts projects, and 2 to 11 years for Very 

Small Starts projects. The length of the process is generally driven by factors that 

are often unique to each project, including (1) the extent of local-planning 

activities prior to formal approval for funding, (2) the extent and availability of 

local and financial support, and (3) the extent of FTA oversight activities. For 

example, sponsors of 17 of the 32 projects GAO reviewed stated that activities to 

secure local funding contributed to the length of the development process. FTA 

has taken some steps to streamline this process. For example, in January 2012, 

FTA eliminated the requirement for the development of a hypothetical alternative

that served as a basis of comparison to evaluate a proposed project. 

GAO found that capital cost estimates for New Starts, Small Starts, and Very 

Small Starts projects during the development process generally did not change 

substantially prior to the award of federal funding. For 23 of the 32 projects GAO 

reviewed, the final cost estimated prior to receiving federal funding was within 10 

percent of the original cost estimates. The remaining 9 projects varied by as 

much as 41 percent lower and 55 percent higher than the estimates used at the 

end of the development process. Several project sponsors told us that, when 

changes did occur, it was a result of changing market conditions and FTA’s

recommending that sponsors increase project costs to cover unforeseen events, 

among other factors. For example, officials at the Valley Transportation Authority, 

located in Santa Clara, California, stated that FTA recommended that it increase 

the project’s cost by $100 million to cover unforeseen events.

New and Small Starts project sponsors whom GAO interviewed generally 

forecast ridership using regional travel models prepared by metropolitan-planning 

organizations (MPO). Specifically, 8 out of the 9 New Starts project sponsors and 

3 out of 4 Small Starts project sponsors GAO spoke with use these travel 

models. For example, for a Portland, Oregon, streetcar project, the project 

sponsor used travel forecasts prepared by the Portland MPO. The other New 

Starts and Small Starts project sponsors use actual transit-ridership data from 

surveys of regional transit riders; and a statewide travel model, respectively. On 

the other hand, FTA procedures permit sponsors of Very Small Starts projects to 

essentially demonstrate, through a detailed counting of riders of existing public 

transportation in the project’s corridor, that the proposed project will service at 

least 3,000 transit riders on an average weekday. FTA has taken a number of 

actions to support the development of ridership forecasts. These include, among 

other actions, providing funding to state agencies and MPOs to help them collect 

travel data and develop forecasting procedures and providing technical support, 

such as reviews of final forecasts. GAO interviewed 13 New Starts and Small 

Starts project sponsors and most said that FTA’s technical assistance, which 

includes reviewing the ridership forecasts, was generally helpful. View GAO-14-472. For more information, 

contact David J. Wise at (202) 512-2834 or 

wised@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

Letter 1

Background 4

The Length of the Development Process for Projects Varies 

Substantially Depending upon Project-Specific and Local 

Factors 10

The Majority of Capital Cost Estimates Did Not Change 

Significantly during the Development Process, and Changes 

That Did Occur Were due to Various Factors 21

Project Sponsors Use Regional Travel Models to Forecast 

Ridership, and FTA Provides Funding and Technical support 25

Agency Comments 31

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 32

Appendix II Key Milestone Dates and Cost Estimates for Selected New Starts 

Projects Reviewed by GAO (Dollars in Millions) 35

Appendix III Key Milestone Dates and Cost Estimates for Selected Small 

and Very Small Starts Projects Reviewed by GAO

(Dollars in Millions) 37

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Acknowledgments 39

Tables

Table 1: Duration of Development Process for Selected New 

Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts Projects by 

Mode, 2005–2013 15

Table 2: New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts Project 

Sponsors Interviewed 33

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

Figures

Figure 1: Development Process for New Starts and Small Starts 

(Including Very Small Starts) Projects as Defined by the 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act—A Legacy for Users 5

Figure 2: Length of Development Process for Selected Funded 

New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts Projects, 

2005–2013 11

Figure 3: Length of Development Process and Pipeline (in Years) 

for Selected New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small 

Starts Projects, 2005–2013 14

Figure 4: Differences between Initial Cost and Final Cost 

Estimated during the Development Process 22

Abbreviations

BRT bus rapid transit

DOT Department of Transportation

FFGA full-funding grant agreement 

FTA Federal Transit Administration

LPA locally preferred alternative 

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

MPO metropolitan-planning organization 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 

PCGA project-construction grant agreement 

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

 Equity Act—A Legacy for Users 

STOPS Simplified Trips-on-Project Software

TRB Transportation Research Board

TRIMET Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of 

Oregon 

UTA Utah Transportation Authority 

VTA Valley Transportation Authority (in Santa Clara, 

California)

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-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

May 30, 2014

The Honorable Tim Johnson

Chairman

The Honorable Michael D. Crapo

Ranking Member

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Bill Shuster

Chairman

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II

Ranking Member

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Capital Investment Grant 

program,1 which includes the New Starts and Small Starts programs, 

provided, as we found in a 2012 report, about $15.1 billion in federal 

capital funds over the past 8 fiscal years2 to help many states, cities, and 

localities plan and build new “fixed-guideway” systems3

 1

Under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA-LU) the 49 U.S.C. § 5309 Capital Investment Grant program comprised 

three FTA funding-programs: Major Capital Investment (New Starts and Small Starts), 

Fixed Guideway Modernization, and Buses and Bus-Related Equipment and Facilities. 

Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1573-1589 (2005). Given that this report utilizes 

program data during the time period of October 2005, through March 2013, discussion of 

programs in this report primarily reflects statutory provisions in place during that time and 

does not focus on various amendments made subsequently in July 2012 by the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405 

(2012). 

or extensions to 

2

GAO, Public Transit: Funding for New Starts and Small Starts Projects, October 2004 

through June 2012, GAO-13-40 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2012).

3

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

of public transportation services, such as fixed rail and exclusive lanes for buses and other 

high-occupancy vehicles.
Page 2 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

existing fixed-guideway systems.4 Since the early 1970s, the federal 

government has provided a large share of the nation’s capital investment 

through the New Starts program. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 

created the Small Starts program for funding lower-cost fixed-guidewaysystem projects in 2005. FTA created the Very Small Starts project 

category for funding very low cost projects at the same time.5 While MAP21 made certain revisions to the program, because this report covers 

projects under SAFTEA-LU prior to the implementation of MAP-21 

changes, we focus on SAFETEA-LU related requirements.6 Although FTA 

has provided funding for New, Small, and Very Small Starts projects, 

these projects are designed and implemented by project sponsors, 

typically local transit agencies. The project sponsors often coordinate with 

local metropolitan-planning organizations (MPOs) in designing and 

implementing these projects, and FTA awards funding to project sponsors 

upon completion of the pre-construction development process,7

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

mandated GAO to biennially review FTA’s processes and procedures for 

which 

includes a range of local policy development and decision-making 

activities, where the specific transit corridor and project are identified, and 

then refined as design progresses. FTA evaluates and rates the projects 

selected, and, ultimately, awards funding. The scope and estimates of 

capital costs and ridership can change as the local project sponsor 

refines the project before FTA awards funding.

 4

Under the MAP-21, revised definition, “new fixed guideway capital project” means (1) a 

new fixed-guideway project that is a minimum operable segment or extension to an 

existing fixed-guideway system; or (2) a fixed-guideway bus rapid transit project that is a 

minimum operable segment or an extension to an existing bus rapid transit system. 49 

U.S.C. § 5309(a)(5). 

5

SAFETEA-LU created Small Starts to streamline the project-development process and 

the evaluation and rating criteria that apply to larger-dollar New Starts projects. FTA 

created an even more streamlined evaluation process for Very Small Starts.

6

For the purposes of this report, unless otherwise provided, references to New Startsrelated statutory, regulatory and other FTA requirements are to those provisions in place 

following the implementation of SAFETEA-LU related requirements and prior to the 

implementation of MAP-21-related requirements.

7

We define the development process as the activities related to the development of a New 

Starts, Small Starts, or Very Small Starts project that occur between when a project 

sponsor selects the project and the formal award of construction funding through a grant 

agreement.
Page 3 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

evaluating, rating, and recommending new fixed-guideway capital 

projects and core-capacity improvement projects and the Department of 

Transportation’s (DOT) implementation of such processes and 

procedures.8

To address all of these objectives, we reviewed and summarized relevant 

laws, such as SAFETEA-LU, FTA circulars, and policy guidance, as well 

as our body of work on the Capital Investment Grant Program. To 

determine the extent to which the length of the development process 

varied across New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts projects 

and the extent to which capital cost estimates for these projects changed 

throughout the development process, we collected and analyzed 

schedule milestone data and capital-cost estimate data from FTA on all 

32 of the New Starts, Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects that had 

been: (1) approved to enter the preliminary engineering phase

In this report, we focus on the 2005 through 2013 time 

period to identify (1) the extent to which the length of the development 

process varies across New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts 

projects and what factors affect the length of this process; (2) the extent 

to which capital cost estimates for New Starts, Small Starts, and Very 

Small Starts projects change throughout the development process, and 

what factors contribute to the changes; and (3) how project sponsors 

forecast ridership, including any support that FTA provides in helping 

them develop these forecasts.

9

 8

Pub. L. No. 112-141, § 20008, 126 Stat. 656, 674 (July 6, 2012). See, for example, GAO, 

Public Transit: Funding for New Starts and Small Starts Projects, October 2004 through 

June 2012, 

of the 

development process following the implementation of SAFETEA-LU in 

October 2005 and (2) awarded a grant agreement prior to the March 2013 

implementation of the current surface transportation legislation, MAP-21. 

To verify and assess the reliability of the data compiled by FTA, we 

compared it to project data we received from project sponsors we 

interviewed. We resolved any discrepancies with the data with FTA 

headquarters staff, and we determined that the data were sufficiently 

reliable for the purposes of this report. To provide insight on the factors 

contributing to the project’s timeline trends and challenges and the 

project’s cost-estimate changes and to obtain information on how 

GAO-13-40 (Washington, D.C.: Nov.14, 2012); and GAO, Public Transit: 

Requirements for Smaller Capital Projects Generally Seen as Less Burdensome, 

GAO-11-778 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2, 2011).

9

During this phase, project sponsors refine the design of the selected project and its 

estimated costs, benefits, and impacts.
Page 4 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

ridership forecasts are developed, we interviewed 23 project sponsors 

representing 30 of the 32 projects.10

We conducted this performance audit from August 2013 to May 2014 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.

The information obtained from these 

interviews is not generalizable to all New Starts, Small Starts and Very 

Small Starts projects. We also interviewed FTA officials to determine the 

support that FTA provides to help project sponsors develop ridership 

forecasts. Further details on our scope and methodology can be found in 

appendix I.

Under SAFETEA-LU, FTA’s primary source of funding for new fixedguideway capital projects or extensions to existing fixed-guideway-transit 

systems was the Capital Investment Grant program. Within the Capital 

Investment Grant program, project sponsors typically applied for funding 

as either a New Starts or Small Starts project. FTA’s New Starts projects 

under SAFETEA-LU were defined as new fixed guideway or extensions to 

existing fixed guideway capital projects with a total capital cost of $250 

million or more or a Capital Investment Grant program contribution of $75 

million or more. The Small Starts program was created by SAFETEA-LU 

in 2005 to provide a more streamlined evaluation and rating process for 

lower-cost and less complex projects, defined as new fixed-guideway 

projects, extensions to fixed guideways or corridor-based bus projects 

whose estimated capital cost was under $250 million and whose Capital 

Investment Grant program contribution was under $75 million. Within the 

Small Starts program, as defined in SAFETEA-LU, FTA created a 

category for very low cost Small Starts projects, known as Very Small 

Starts. These projects must contain the same elements as Small Starts 

projects and also contain the following three features: (1) location in 

corridors with more than 3,000 existing riders per average weekday who 

will benefit from the proposed project, (2) have a total capital cost of less 

 10One project sponsor declined to be interviewed; and we were unable to contact one 

other after several attempts. 

Background
Page 5 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

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

less than $3 million, excluding rolling stock (such as train cars, buses, 

etc). As part of the application process, sponsors of New Starts, Small 

Starts, and Very Small Starts projects are expected to identify local 

sources of funding to contribute to the project along with federal funding 

provided through both the Capital Investment Grant program and 

potentially other sources of federal funding.11

The steps in the development process depend on whether a project is a 

New Starts project or a Small or Very Small Starts project (see fig.1).

Figure 1: Development Process for New Starts and Small Starts (Including Very 

Small Starts) Projects as Defined by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users

a

FFGA = full-funding grant agreement.

b

PCGA = project-construction grant agreement.

• New Starts. Under SAFETEA-LU, sponsors of New Starts projects 

were required by statute to go through a planning and development 

process. In the alternatives analysis phase, project sponsors identified

the transportation needs in a specific corridor and evaluated a range 

of alternatives to address the locally identified problems in that 

 11In addition to the Capital Investment Grant program, federal sources for New Starts, 

Small Starts, and Very Small starts projects may include the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009), Federal Highway 

Administration Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, or other FTA program 

funds. Project sponsors may use local sources of revenue, including, sales taxes, fees, 

concessions, etc., to pay the project’s costs. In addition, financing mechanisms, such as 

bonds, or loans, may be used to pay for these projects costs as payments come due. 
Page 6 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

corridor.12 Project sponsors completed the alternatives analysis phase 

by selecting a locally preferred alternative (LPA). Subsequently, 

during the preliminary-engineering phase, project sponsors refined the 

design of the locally preferred alternative and its estimated costs, 

benefits, and impacts. Further, under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, and implementing 

regulations, New Starts project sponsors were required to complete 

the NEPA environmental review process to receive Major Capital 

Investment program funding.

13 When the preliminary -engineering 

phase was completed and federal environmental requirements are 

satisfied, FTA may approve the project’s advancement into final 

design, if the project obtained an acceptable rating under the statutory 

evaluation criteria and met other readiness requirements.14 For a 

project to receive funding, FTA needed to recommend it for a full 

funding grant agreement (FFGA) in the President’s budget.15

• Small Starts. Under SAFETEA-LU, the development process for Small 

Starts was condensed by combining the preliminary-engineering and 

final-design phases into one “project development” phase. When 

projects applied to enter project development, FTA evaluated and 

rated them according to the statutory criteria. Under SAFETEA-LU, 

there were fewer statutory criteria specified for Small Starts projects 

compared to New Starts projects. Either using annual appropriations 

or existing FTA appropriations that remain available, FTA provided 

 12A 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. 

13See Pub. L. No. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (1070), 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. Under SAFETEA-LU, to gain 

approval for entry into preliminary engineering, a New Starts project must have been (1)

selected as the locally preferred alternative at the completion of an alternatives analysis 

process, (2) included in the region’s fiscally constrained long-term transportation plan, (3) 

rated acceptably under statutorily defined project justification and financial criteria, and (4) 

met other FTA readiness requirements including a demonstration by the project’s 

sponsors that they had the technical capability to manage the project during the 

preliminary engineering phase. 

14Under SAFETEA-LU, final design was 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. 

15An FFGA establishes the terms and conditions for federal participation in a transit 

project
Page 7 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

funding for Small Starts projects in one of two ways: through projectconstruction grant agreements (PCGA) or single-year construction 

grants when the Small Starts funding request was less than $25 

million.16 For a project to receive funding, FTA needed to recommend 

it in the President’s budget.

• Very Small Starts. Very Small Starts projects also progressed through 

a single-project development phase and were evaluated and rated on 

the same project criteria as Small Starts projects. However, they 

qualified for automatic medium or better ratings, which required 

submittal of less data to FTA, because they had sufficient existing 

transit ridership in the corridor and met low cost parameters to 

“warrant” them for satisfactory ratings. FTA provided funding for Very 

Small Starts projects through PCGAs or single-year construction 

grants. For a project to receive funding, FTA needed to recommend it 

in the President’s budget.

Under SAFETEA-LU, any transit project that fit the definition of a new 

fixed-guideway capital project or extension to an existing fixed-guideway 

project was eligible to compete for funding under the Capital Investment 

Grant program that provides funding for New Starts, Small Starts, and 

Very Small Starts projects. Such projects included:

• 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 rights-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.

 16A PCGA is a contract that sets the terms and conditions for Small Starts funding, as an 

FFGA does for New Starts funding. 
Page 8 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

• 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 (BRT)—bus systems that vary in design, but 

generally included service enhancements to attract riders and provide 

similar transit-related benefits as rail transit, characterized by 

improvements such as dedicated bus lanes, improved stations, 

improved vehicles, off-vehicle fare collection, special branding of the 

service, and frequent service, among other things.17

FTA’s most recent authorization legislation, MAP-21, has made changes 

to the overall Capital Investment Grant program that provides funding for 

New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts projects, to consolidate 

and streamline the number of phases for New Starts and Small Starts 

projects and alter the definition of eligible bus rapid transit projects, 

among other things.18 In addition, the legislation removed the New Starts 

transportation-planning-related alternatives analysis requirement, and 

FTA’s final rule implementing the MAP-21 changes provides that the new 

process will instead rely on the review of alternatives performed during 

the Metropolitan Transportation Planning and NEPA environmentalreview processes.19

 17This definition of bus rapid transit corresponds to the definition as described in 

implementing regulations prior to MAP-21. MAP-21 included a few changes that affected 

BRT. For example, MAP-21 defined BRT more narrowly and specifically than under 

SAFETEA-LU. Specifically, MAP-21 requires that BRT projects include features that 

emulate the services provided by rail, including defined stations rather than bus stops. In 

addition, MAP-21 made a distinction between BRT projects that are eligible for New Starts 

versus Small Starts funding. 

According to FTA officials, for New Starts projects 

MAP-21 requires that the first phase in the process, entitled “project 

development” must be completed within a 2-year time frame. MAP-21 

also requires FTA to develop an expedited review process for determining 

the technical capacity of project sponsors to undertake the proposed 

project if they have recently and successfully completed at least one other 

18Pub. L. No. 112-141, § 20008, 126 Stat. 405 (2012). As noted previously, this report 

describes the project development process in effect from October 2005 through March 

2013, prior to the implementation of changes from MAP-21. 

1976 Fed. Reg. 1992 (Jan. 9, 2013).
Page 9 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

New Starts project.20 FTA has not yet implemented these changes fully, 

but has issued some guidance on how these changes will affect the 

program.21

FTA and its project-management oversight contractors are to provide 

oversight during the development process. FTA maintains its 

headquarters in Washington, D.C., with 10 regional offices throughout the 

continental United States, and employs about 500 employees to oversee 

and provide funding for a variety of transit programs and initiatives, 

including for New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts projects.

FTA and its contractors are to conduct oversight reviews throughout the 

project’s planning and design as well as before FTA recommends a 

project for funding; these reviews are to include an evaluation of the 

project’s risk, scope, cost, schedule, and project management plan, as 

well as the project sponsor’s technical capacity and capability. Project 

sponsors also submit periodic updates to FTA on different aspects of 

major projects, such as the cost, expected schedule, and projected 

ridership of the project. In addition, proposed projects are required to 

complete the NEPA environmental review processes in order to receive 

federal funding.

FTA plans to conduct additional rule-making on MAP-21 topics 

in the future, though FTA officials told us that there is no firm date on 

when the various policy changes will take effect.

22

 20MAP-21 requires the expedited technical capacity review process to be applicable to 

such applicants that (1) have achieved budget, cost, and ridership outcomes for the 

project that are consistent with or better than projections, and (2) demonstrated staff 

expertise and other resources necessary to implement a new project. 49 U.S.C. § 

5309(c)(3). 

Specifically, NEPA and implementing regulations 

require, among other things, an environmental review document with 

information on alternative courses of action and a consideration of social, 

21In a notice in the Federal Register published in March 2014, (70 Fed. Reg. 13462, (Mar. 

10, 2014)) FTA stated that the agency will be completing future additional rulemaking and 

guidance documents related to MAP–21 provisions including: getting into and through the 

steps in the New Starts and Small Starts processes; warrants; expedited technical 

capacity reviews; and programs of inter-related projects, among other things. However, 

FTA has not yet determined when these activities will be completed. 

2249 C.F.R. § 611.7(c)(1)(i). For example, FTA Guidance on New Starts Policies and 

Procedures requires projects to have progressed beyond the NEPA scoping phase before 

entering into New Starts preliminary engineering. The scoping phase of a project is a 

requirement of the NEPA process focused on identifying significant issues related to a 

proposed federal action. Additionally, the scoping phase may include a determination of 

the range of alternatives to be addressed in NEPA documents. 
Page 10 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

economic, and environmental impacts of the proposed transportation 

improvement.23

The length of the development process for New Starts, Small Starts, and 

Very Small Starts projects under SAFETEA-LU varied substantially. As 

discussed previously, the development process encompasses both local 

and federal activities that occur between when a project sponsor selects 

the locally preferred alternative and the formal award of funding through a 

grant agreement.24 According to our analysis of FTA and project sponsor 

data, the length of the development process varied from as short as 2 

years for a Small Starts project to as long as 14 years for a New Starts 

project and is generally driven by factors that are often unique to each 

project and local in nature. More specifically, these factors included the 

extent of local planning activities conducted prior to entering the Capital 

Investment Grant pipeline25, the extent and availability of local and 

financial support, and the extent of FTA’s oversight activities, among 

other factors.

Among the 32 transit projects we reviewed, we found significant variation 

in the length of time sponsors of New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small 

Starts projects needed to complete the development process (see fig. 2).

Specifically, for the approved projects we examined, the development 

process ranged from 2 years for a 6.8 mile Bus Rapid Transit project in 

Monterey, California, to over 14 years for a 30 mile commuter rail project 

in Denver, Colorado. The wide range of time needed to plan, design, and 

secure funding for these transit projects prior to construction is similar to 

the range of time that is generally considered necessary to plan and 

design other types of capital projects. For example, studies have 

 23See e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 4332(c) (iii), 40 C.F.R. § 1501.2(c) requiring the application of the 

NEPA process including the study and development of alternatives to a proposed action. 

See also 23 C.F.R. Part 771. 

24FTA considered the federal portion of the development process under SAFETEA-LU to 

have begun when a project sponsor entered either the preliminary engineering (New 

Starts) or the project development phase (Small Starts and Very Small Starts).

25Under SAFETEA-LU, FTA referred to New Starts projects in preliminary engineering and 

final design, as well as Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects in the project 

development phase, as being in the “pipeline” through which successful projects advance 

to receive funding. 

The Length of the 

Development Process 

for Projects Varies 

Substantially 

Depending upon 

Project-Specific and 

Local Factors

Length of the 

Development Process 

Varies Substantially across 

Projects
Page 11 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

suggested that for major highway projects the activities leading up to the 

construction of a highway may vary from 1 year for a minor project to 7 to 

14 years for a major project.26

Figure 2: Length of Development Process for Selected Funded New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts Projects, 

2005–2013

Notes: Figure reflects data for 31 of 32 projects accepted into preliminary engineering (New Starts) or 

project development (Small Starts and Very Small Starts) on or after October 1, 2005, and awarded 

funding no later than March 31, 2013. Figure does not include data for Mid-City Rapid bus rapid 

transit project as we could not obtain data on the date the locally preferred alternative was selected. 

For more information on these projects, see appendixes II and III. BRT refers to bus rapid transit.

 26Congressional Research Service, Accelerating Highway and Transit Project Delivery: 

Issues and Options for Congress, R41947 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 3, 2011).
Page 12 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

a

The Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension was originally approved for preliminary engineering in 2002 

as a 16-mile project, but was withdrawn from the New Starts program in 2005. The project was readmitted into preliminary engineering in December 2009.

b

The Eagle Commuter Rail project was originally two separate projects—the East Corridor and the 

Gold Line—that eventually were combined into a single FFGA. The East Corridor locally preferred 

alternative (LPA) was selected in July 1997, while the Gold Line LPA was selected in January 2005.

According to project sponsor officials, the East Corridor LPA was identified in July 1997, but final 

adoption by all parties did not occur until September 1998.

c

For the purposes of this report, we define the development process as the activities related to the 

development of a New Starts, Small Starts, or Very Small Starts project that occur between when a 

project sponsor identifies the project that FTA is to evaluate for funding (known as the locally 

preferred alternative) and the formal award of construction funding through a grant agreement.

The variation across projects is attributable, in part, to conditions and 

factors specific to each project.

• For some projects, the development process was lengthy. For 

example, for the Eagle Commuter Rail Line project, the development 

process, beginning with the selection of the locally preferred 

alternative in 1997 until the project was awarded an FFGA, lasted 

over 14 years. Project sponsors stated that they did not pursue entry 

into preliminary engineering until after completing further investment 

studies that expanded the scope of the project in the early 2000s and 

securing funding through a local referendum in 2004. In addition, prior 

to entering the Capital Investment Grant pipeline, officials worked to 

finalize the technology for the project and secure approval from the 

project sponsor’s board of directors. Officials stated that once the 

project was approved into the pipeline in 2009, the project progressed 

quickly through the remainder of the process, and the project sponsor 

secured an FFGA approximately two and a half years after 

acceptance into preliminary engineering.

• For sponsors of the Mason Corridor project, which successfully 

completed a Small Starts bus rapid-transit line from Aspen to 

Glenwood Springs, Colorado, the development process extended 

over 11 years as a result of challenges related to, among other things, 

securing funding for the project and obtaining agreement for the 

project among local stakeholders.

However, for other projects, the length of the development process was 

comparatively shorter. For example, the development process for the 7.3-

mile, 10 station, Portland-Milwaukie light-rail New Starts project lasted 

about 4 years. In this case, project sponsors stated that they encountered 

no major obstacles during this time, though they noted that the process 

was extended by 6 months while the project sponsor identified additional 

local funds and reduced to project’s scope in response to lower than 

anticipated federal funding for the project. We will discuss in more detail 
Page 13 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

the general types of factors that affected the length of the development 

process later in the report.

In general, larger projects, such as those that applied for funding as New 

Starts projects, required more time to progress through the development 

process than smaller projects, such as those that apply for funding as 

Small and Very Small Starts projects. On average, the development 

process was 17 months longer in duration for New Starts projects than for 

Small Starts projects and 12 months longer than for Very Small Starts 

projects. Specifically, according to our analysis of FTA and project 

sponsor data, we found that New Starts projects took about 3 to 14 years 

to complete the development process, Small Starts projects took about 3 

to 12 years, while Very Small Starts projects took about 2 to 11 years.

According to FTA officials, the length of the development process is 

unique for each project, and generally depended upon the project’s 

specific characteristics, such as scope, corridor location, and availability 

of local funding, among other factors.

Some of the variability across the New Starts, Small Starts, and Very 

Small Starts projects resulted from activities that took place later in the 

process, after the locally preferred alternative was selected and before 

the project was formally accepted into FTA’s pipeline. The “pipeline” is a 

sub-component of the overall development process and is defined as the 

period of time between when a project is accepted into the preliminaryengineering (New Starts) or project-development (Small and Very Small 

Starts) phase and the final award of construction funding by FTA.

Depending on the project, the time between the selection of the locally 

preferred alternative and entry into the pipeline took as little as a few 

months to over a decade. According to project sponsors, activities during 

this period included revising the project scope, securing local funding, and 

preparing to enter into the project pipeline, among other things. Once a 

project was been accepted into the pipeline, we found that the length of 

the process was similar across all three project categories, and generally 

lasts from 2 to 5 years, and averages about 3 years (see fig. 3). However, 

within each of the three types of projects, the length of time in the pipeline 

for an individual project varied widely depending on the project’s specific 

characteristics. Furthermore, as previously discussed, FTA officials stated 

it is difficult to characterize an “average” project, as each proposed transit 

project has its own unique project characteristics, physical-operating 

environment, and challenges.
Page 14 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

Figure 3: Length of Development Process and Pipeline (in Years) for Selected New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts 

Projects, 2005–2013

Notes: Figure reflects data for 31 of 32 projects accepted into preliminary engineering (New Starts) or 

project development (Small Starts and Very Small Starts) on or after October 1, 2005, and awarded 

construction funding no later than March 31, 2013. Figure does not include data for Mid-City Rapid 

bus rapid transit project, as we could not obtain data on the date the locally preferred alternative was 

selected. For more information on these projects, see appendixes II and III.

For the purposes of this report, we define the development process as the activities related to the 

development of a New Starts, Small Starts or Very Small Starts project that occur between when a 

project sponsor’s identifies the project that FTA is to evaluate for funding (known as the locally 

preferred alternative) and the formal award of construction funding through a grant agreement. The 

pipeline, which is a sub-component of the overall development process, is defined as the period of 

time between when a project is accepted into the preliminary-engineering (New Starts) or projectdevelopment (Small and Very Small Starts) phase and the final award of construction funding by FTA.

While there was substantial variation in the length of the overall 

development process within and across transportation modes, the 

variation in the Capital Investment Grant pipeline duration was similar 

across the modes of the projects we reviewed. (See table 1.) For 

example, light rail projects required 3 to 10 years to complete the 

development process, while commuter rail projects required 5 to 14 years 

to complete this process. As previously noted, a portion of the variability 

in length of the development process was due to activities that occur after 

a locally preferred alternative is selected but before FTA accepted the 

project into the pipeline. However, projects generally required 2 to 5 years 
Page 15 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

to progress through the pipeline, regardless of the mode proposed by a 

project sponsors.

Table 1: Duration of Development Process for Selected New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts Projects by Mode, 

2005–2013

Number of funded 

projects

Duration of overall development process 

(years)a Duration of Capital Investment 

Grant pipeline (years)b

Bus rapid transit 18 2 to 12 2 to 5

New Starts - - -

Small Starts 3 3 to 12 2 to 5

Very Small 

Starts

15 2 to 11 2 to 5

Commuter rail 3 5 to 14 2 to 5

New Starts 2 7 to 14 2 to 4

Small Starts 1 5 5

Very Small 

Starts

- - -

Heavy railc 2 6 to 10 2 to 3

Light rail 7 3 to 10 2 to 5

New Starts 6 3 to 10 2 to 5

Small Starts 1 3 2 

Very Small 

Starts

- - -

Streetcard 1 3 3

Source: GAO analysis of FTA and project sponsor data.

Note: Data is rounded to the nearest year. Table reflects data for 31 of 32 projects accepted into 

preliminary engineering (New Starts) or project development (Small Starts and Very Small Starts) on 

or after October 1, 2005 and awarded funding no later than March 31, 2013. Table does not include 

data for Mid-City Rapid bus rapid transit project, as we could not obtain data on the date the locally 

preferred alternative was selected. For more information on these New Starts and Small Starts 

projects, see appendices II and III.

a

The development process was the activities related to the development of a New Starts, Small 

Starts, or Very Small Starts project that occur between when a project sponsor’s identifies the project 

that FTA will evaluate for funding (known as the locally preferred alternative) and the formal award of 

construction funding through a grant agreement.

b

The pipeline, which is a sub-component of the overall development process, is defined as the period 

of time between when a project is accepted into the preliminary-engineering (New Starts) or projectdevelopment (Small and Very Small Starts) phase and the final award of construction funding by FTA.

c

Each of the heavy rail projects approved by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was a New 

Starts project.
Page 16 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

d

This project was a Small Starts project.

Our review found that local factors, specific to each project, were 

generally the primary elements that determined the development 

process’s length. Furthermore, our prior work has found that some of 

these of factors—particularly obtaining project funding and community 

support—also commonly affect the length of time to complete other types 

of capital projects, including highway projects.27

• Local Financing: Project sponsors noted that securing local funding, 

such as through local sales taxes and referendums, can be 

challenging. We previously found that local funding remains a 

substantial component of the overall funding for New Starts, Small 

Starts, and Very Small Starts projects.28

 27GAO, Highway Projects: Some Federal and State Practices to Expedite Completion 

Show Promise, 

Sponsors of 17 of 32 of the 

projects we reviewed stated that activities to secure local funding 

contributed to the length of the development process. For example, 

the project sponsor of the Mason Corridor BRT stated that securing 

local commitment was particularly challenging and extended the 

development process by about 7 years. The project sponsor selected 

a bus rapid transit as a locally preferred alternative in 2000, but was 

unable to secure local funding until 2007. The time needed to identify 

and secure local funding was a significant factor in extending the 

development process over 11 years, as federal funding for the project 

was contingent upon the project’s sponsor securing a local funding 

source. Similarly, the project sponsor of the Mid-Jordan light rail 

project in Salt Lake City, Utah, stated that securing local funding for 

the project delayed its development by about a year. According to the 

project’s sponsor, while it selected the locally preferred alternative in 

2005, the project sponsor did not enter into preliminary engineering 

until 2007, when the project had secured funding through a local 

referendum in 2006 that increased the local sales tax.

GAO-12-593 (Washington, D.C: June 6, 2012). 

28See GAO-13-40. Specifically, in that report, we found that for the 25 New Starts projects 

funded between October 2004 and June 2012, local funding exceeded total federal 

funding contributions, accounting for $16.3 billion, or almost half, of $33.8 billion of total 

project funding. Local funding for the 32 Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects 

approved over the same time period represented nearly one-quarter, or $513 million of the 

$2.1 billion used for overall project funding.

Local Factors 

Substantially Affect the 

Length of the 

Development Process
Page 17 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

• Local Community Support: The development process can also be 

extended as a result of efforts project sponsors undertake to secure 

local community approval for a project. Sponsors of 12 of the 32 of the 

projects we reviewed stated that community support for their project 

affected the length of the development process. For example, project 

sponsor officials who oversaw the development of a BRT project in 

Northern California stated that the major hurdle in the development of 

the project was overcoming some community opposition to the 

planned route that arose in 2008 after the selection of the locally 

preferred alternative. Specifically, the alignment of the project was 

scheduled to go through a residential area where residents had 

historically opposed the location of a bus route. According to the 

project sponsor, the change provoked some community opposition to 

the project, and as a result, the alignment of the project was modified.

Officials estimated that the development process was extended by 

about 3 to 6 months. However, community support can take a 

significant amount of time to develop and sustain. For example, 

officials from the project sponsor overseeing the construction of the 

High Capacity Transit Corridor heavy rail project in Honolulu worked 

for 10 years—starting before the locally preferred alternative was 

selected—to develop support for the project.

• Stakeholder Coordination: Coordinating with other local government 

agencies as well as other transportation providers can also be 

challenging and may affect the length of the development process.

Specifically, for 8 of the 32 projects we reviewed, sponsors stated that 

the process of coordinating with other stakeholders extended the 

development process. For example, project sponsors overseeing the 

development of a light rail project in Charlotte, North Carolina, had to 

coordinate with local freight-rail operators and Amtrak to relocate 

service to minimize disruption to Amtrak’s existing service. The 

project’s design was modified as a result of these negotiations, which 

extended the project’s development nearly 7 months, according to the 

project’s sponsor. Project sponsor officials stated that they did not 

anticipate the complexity of the negotiations with the railroad 

operators and, accordingly, noted that earlier coordination with these 

operators might have accelerated the project timeline modestly.

• Environmental review. The effect of a proposed project on the local 

environment, as well as steps required by law to mitigate 

environmental impacts from the proposed project, may also affect the 

duration of the development process. Specifically, under the NEPA 

environmental review process, project sponsors may measure the 

impact of different alternatives by the extent to which the alternative 
Page 18 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

meets the project’s purpose and need, and is consistent with the 

goals and objectives of any local urban planning. The NEPA 

environmental review process also requires federal agencies to 

evaluate and in some cases prepare detailed statements assessing 

the environmental impact of and alternatives to major federal actions 

significantly affecting the environment. However, according to FTA 

officials and project sponsors, this process can be time consuming.

Specifically, both FTA officials and project sponsors for 8 of the 32 

projects we reviewed noted that the required NEPA environmental 

review process, may add time to the development process. For 

example, officials from one project sponsor stated that it took nearly 

two and a half years to complete the NEPA process.

• Scope and configuration changes. The factors described above may 

also result in revisions to the project’s scope and configuration, which 

may in turn extend the development process. Revisions to a project’s 

design ranged from minor alterations to pedestrian access to a project 

to changes to a project’s proposed alignment or service route. Project 

sponsors for 7 of the 32 projects we reviewed identified changes in 

scope as a factor affecting the development process, which 

sometimes resulted from one of the factors described above. For 

example, for the Charlotte light rail project described above, in 

addition to the design changes arising from coordination with local 

stakeholders, recession-related reductions in the sales-tax revenue 

funding the project forced the project sponsors to further revise the 

project, thus extending the overall development process.

According to some project sponsors we interviewed, FTA assistance is 

generally helpful in completing the development process, though they 

noted that the duration of some oversight reviews can be lengthy. We 

have previously found FTA and its oversight approach have improved 

sponsor’s management of their projects.29

 29GAO, Public Transportation: Use of Contractors Is Generally Enhancing Transit Project 

Oversight, and FTA Is Taking Actions to Address Some Stakeholder Concerns, 

However, for 12 of the 32 

projects we reviewed, project sponsors stated that some types of 

oversight reviews can be time-intensive and extend the development 

process, sometimes by weeks or months. For example, project sponsors 

for 2 of the 32 projects we reviewed cited FTA’s risk assessment as a 

GAO-10-909 (Washington, D.C: Sept. 14, 2010). 

FTA Has Taken Steps and 

Identified Future 

Opportunities to Reduce 

the Duration of the 

Development Process
Page 19 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

requirement that affected the length of the development process.30

Finding the right balance between protecting federal investments through 

project management oversight and advancing projects through the 

development process is challenging. We have previously found that a 

balance exists between expediting project development and maintaining 

the rigor and accountability over the development of New Starts, Small 

Starts, and Very Small Starts projects.

In 

addition, sponsors of 4 of the 16 Very Small Starts projects we reviewed 

speculated that some of the longer review times for smaller projects may 

have been a result of FTA’s initial uncertainty in how it would implement 

the simplified review process for Very Small Starts projects. Conversely, 

one project sponsor noted that because much of the development 

process is driven by local factors, there was not much FTA could have 

done to accelerate the process.

31 Furthermore, we have previously 

found that FTA’s oversight efforts help the agency ensure that a federally 

funded transit project’s scope, schedule, and cost are well developed and 

that the project’s design and construction conform to applicable statutes, 

regulations, and guidance.32

• In its January 2013 final rule implementing some MAP-21 changes, 

FTA eliminated the requirement for the development of a baseline 

alternative, removing the requirement to compare a proposed project 

We also previously found that reviews may 

take longer than expected, because project sponsors sometimes provide 

information that is incomplete or inaccurate, resulting in additional review 

time and delays. While FTA has acknowledged that the process can be 

lengthy and frustrating, FTA has taken some steps over the last several 

years to further streamline the development process.

 30FTA’s risk assessment review evaluates the reliability of the project sponsor’s project 

scope, cost estimate, and schedule, focusing specifically on the uncertainty associated 

with project implementation and surrounding project conditions. 

31GAO, 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.: Aug. 6, 2009).

32GAO-10-909. 
Page 20 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

to a hypothetical alternative.33 Project sponsors for 3 of 32 projects we 

reviewed stated that development of a baseline alternative was a 

time- and resource-consuming part of the development process.

• The January 2013 final rule also allows proposed projects to 

automatically receive a satisfactory rating on a certain rating and 

some evaluation criteria based on the project’s characteristics or the 

characteristics of the project corridor. For example, for Small Starts 

projects, if the operating and maintenance cost of the proposed 

project is less than 5 percent of current system-wide operating and 

maintenance cost, the project qualifies for automatic medium or better 

rating on its local financial commitment evaluation. FTA officials told 

us that they plan to explore expanding the types of projects that may 

prequalify for automatic ratings.

• In September 2013, FTA introduced a new tool to assist project 

sponsors in estimating ridership on their projects. According to FTA 

officials, the tool, known as the Simplified Trips-on-Project Software 

(STOPS), may help to significantly shorten the time projects’ sponsors 

need to develop ridership estimates. We will discuss ridership 

estimation for projects later in this report.

FTA estimates these changes could reduce the development process 

time for projects by six months or more. 34 In addition, FTA expects that 

as more MAP-21 requirements are formally implemented through the 

rule-making process, it may identify additional efficiencies in the 

development process.

 3378 Fed. Reg. 1992 (Jan. 9, 2013), The final rule became effective in April 2013. Under 

SAFTEA-LU, FTA required that the proposed project be evaluated against a baseline 

alternative. Within the New Starts program, the baseline alternative established a basis of 

comparison for project evaluation and provided a consistent framework for estimating the 

relative merits of proposed projects during project development. The baseline alternative 

was drawn from the alternatives defined during alternatives analysis. Under SAFTEA-LU, 

FTA required that the proposed project be evaluated against a baseline alternative.

34Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, Statement on The 

Capital Investment Grants (New Starts) Program, before the U.S. House of 

Representatives Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, 113th Cong., 1st sess., 

December 11, 2013. 
Page 21 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

We found that capital cost estimates for New Starts, Small Starts, and 

Very Small Starts projects during the development process generally did 

not change substantially prior to the award of federal funding.35 Project 

sponsors told us that cost estimate changes occurred as a result of 

changing market conditions, FTA’s application of additional project 

contingencies36 and scope modifications, among others. However, most 

estimates did not change much from the initial capital cost estimated 

upon entry into the development process.

The majority of cost estimates of the projects we reviewed did not change 

significantly. For 23 of the 32 projects we reviewed, the original cost 

estimated upon entry into the Capital Investment Grant pipeline was 

within 10 percent of the final cost estimated prior to receiving federal 

funding. The original capital cost estimates for the remaining 9 projects 

varied by as much as 41 percent lower and 55 percent higher from the 

estimates used at the end of the development process. Of those projects, 

4 were New Starts, 3 were Small Starts, and 2 were Very Small Starts 

projects. Figure 4 shows the range of cost changes for these projects.

 35We examined capital cost estimates that project sponsors developed and updated 

during the project development pipeline, which is defined as the period of time between 

when a project is accepted into the preliminary-engineering (New Starts) or projectdevelopment (Small and Very Small Starts) phase and the final award of construction 

funding by FTA.

36Contingencies are set-aside estimated amounts that are included within the overall cost 

targets for a project. The amounts are designed to be used to overcome increases in cost 

that are due to potential risks, and for which no other mitigation measure is available.

The Majority of 

Capital Cost 

Estimates Did Not 

Change Significantly 

during the 

Development 

Process, and 

Changes That Did 

Occur Were due to 

Various Factors

While Cost Estimates 

Changed Significantly for 

Several Projects, the 

Majority of Capital Cost 

Estimates Did Not
Page 22 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

Figure 4: Differences between Initial Cost and Final Cost Estimated during the Development Process

While the majority of the capital cost estimates did not change 

significantly during the development process, some estimates did change. 

However, we did not assess project sponsors’ cost-estimating 

procedures, or related FTA policies, and how that might have contributed 

to the cost estimates that did change. But, as noted in our previous 

reports, federal agencies have experienced challenges in conducting cost 

estimating—some of the agencies’ programs cost more than expected 

and deliver results that do not satisfy all requirements.

37

 37See for example, GAO, IRS Management: Cost Estimate for New Information Reporting 

System Needs to be Made More Reliable, 

Project sponsors 

may experience some of those same challenges. Reliable capital-cost 

GAO-12-59 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2012); 

Information Technology: Better Informed Decision Making Needed on Navy’s Next 

Generation Enterprise Network Acquisition, GAO-11-150 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 11, 

2011); Department of Energy: Actions Needed to Develop High-Quality Cost Estimates for 

Construction and Environmental Cleanup Projects, GAO-10-199 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 

14, 2010); and VA Construction: VA Is Working to Improve Initial Project Cost Estimates, 

but Should Analyze Cost and Schedule Risks, GAO-10-189 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 14, 

2009). 
Page 23 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

estimates are necessary for the New Starts program for a number of 

reasons:

• to support decisions about funding one capital improvement project 

over another,

• to develop annual funding requests to Congress,

• to evaluate resource requirements at key project-development 

decision points, and

• to develop performance measurement baselines.

We plan to examine FTA’s and project sponsors’ implementation of best 

practices for developing and managing capital program costs in future 

work on the Capital Investment Grant program.

Our review identified a number of factors that led to cost estimate 

changes during the development process, as described below. In some 

cases, a combination of factors contributed to cost estimate changes.

• Economic and Market Conditions. Nine project sponsors stated that 

economic conditions, such as the recession from 2007 to 2009, likely 

increased competition for some of its contracts and created a bidding 

environment favorable to the agency for reducing costs. For example, 

Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (located in Livermore, 

California) officials stated that because of the recession, companies 

submitted lower bids than initially anticipated on each of the four 

major construction contracts associated with the project. According to 

the officials, the project finished about $4.5 million under its approved 

budget, due in large part to the recession. The Utah Transportation 

Authority (UTA) also stated that the recession affected the cost 

estimate over the development process. The officials said that the 

recession created competition that helped reduce the construction 

costs associated with these projects due to a reduced demand for 

construction and contracting services. However, these types of 

projects are also sensitive to changes in material prices. For example, 

right before FTA awarded the grant for the Mid-Jordan project, the 

cost of steel increased substantially, adding $1.5 million to the cost of 

the overall project.

• Contingency levels. According to project sponsors, capital cost 

estimates for 6 projects increased as a result of FTA’s risk and 

Several Factors Have 

Contributed to Cost 

Estimate Changes
Page 24 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

contingency reviews. For example, officials at Valley Transportation 

Authority (VTA) (located in Santa Clara, California) stated that, as part 

of FTA’s risk assessment review, the project-management oversight 

contractor recommended an increase in the contingency amount for 

the project by $100 million. VTA officials further stated that 

contingency amounts fluctuated throughout the development process 

as the design of the project was further refined. We have previously 

found that FTA’s risk reviews have helped to improve project 

sponsors’ controls over project costs and provided FTA with a better 

understanding of the issues surrounding projects, such as the 

potential problems that could lead to cost increases.38 FTA uses its 

reviews to analyze whether the project sponsor has included a 

sufficient level of contingency within their cost estimate.

• Scope and Configuration Changes. Project sponsors stated that the 

scope of 12 projects was reduced or increased significantly during the 

development process, changes that led to capital cost-estimate 

changes. For example, the Minneapolis Metropolitan Council stated 

that its project had a $24 million increase from preliminary engineering 

to FFGA, and $15.6 million of the increase in capital cost that was 

attributable to inclusion of three at-grade infill stations.

• Refined Cost Estimate as Project Progressed: Because the majority of 

project estimates were developed in the planning stage, they will 

continue to change as part of the development process. For example, 

the Denver Regional Transportation District stated that the capital cost 

estimate for their project decreased because as the project advanced 

through the project development process, the cost estimators had a 

better idea of the project’s scope and design, which led to more 

accurate cost estimating. Generally, the more information that is 

known about a project, the more accurate and less variable the 

estimate is expected to be. We have previously found that cost 

estimates are based on many assumptions and are expected to 

change as project requirements are clarified.39

 38GAO-10-909

39GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and 

Managing Capital Program Costs, GAO-09-3SP (Washington, D.C.: March 2009).
Page 25 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

Project sponsors rely on support from MPOs to develop their ridership 

forecasts. According to FTA officials, most travel-forecasting procedures 

are maintained by MPOs. The MPOs produce travel forecasts as they 

prepare transportation plans for metropolitan areas and assess the plans’

conformity with federal air-quality requirements. Based on a 

Transportation Research Board (TRB) study on metropolitan travel 

forecasting, MPOs estimate future travel demand and analyze the 

impacts of alternative transportation investment situations using 

computerized travel-demand-forecasting models. According to this study, 

forecasts derived from travel models enable policy makers to make 

informed decisions on investments and policies relating to the 

transportation system.40 In a 2009 report, we found that these MPO travel 

models are complex and require inputs of extensive current information 

on roadway and transit system characteristics and operations, as well as 

current and forecasted demographic information.41 Creating and 

operating the models requires a high degree of technical training and 

expertise. However, we also found in 2009 that some MPOs face 

challenges in travel demand forecasting, including a lack of technical 

capacity and data necessary to conduct the complex transportation 

modeling required to meet planning needs.42

 40TRB, Metropolitan Travel Forecasting: Current Practice and Future Direction, Special 

Report 288 (2007).

The TRB also noted that 

41See GAO, Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Options Exist to Enhance 

Transportation Planning Capacity and Federal Oversight, GAO-09-868 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 9, 2009).

42GAO-09-868.

Project Sponsors Use 

Regional Travel 

Models to Forecast 

Ridership, and FTA 

Provides Funding and 

Technical support

Project Sponsors 

Generally Forecast 

Ridership Using Regional 

Travel Models
Page 26 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

MPOs face a much broader and more complex set of requirements and 

needs in their travel modeling.43

By and large, New and Small Starts project sponsors whom we 

interviewed generally use the regional travel models of the project 

sponsor’s local MPO to forecast ridership.

• Eight out of the nine New Starts project sponsors reported using MPO 

travel models. For example, officials from the Regional Transportation 

District (Denver, CO) said that the local MPO’s (Denver Regional 

Council of Government) approved regional travel-demand model is 

used to develop the Regional Transportation District’s ridership 

forecasts. Officials from the Utah Transit Authority (Salt Lake City, 

Utah) also used a regional travel model maintained by the Wasatch

Front Regional Council—the MPO for the Salt Lake City area. The 

model incorporates information from highway usage, rail, and other 

mass transit ridership, as well as transit rider surveys. However, one 

project sponsor, Sound Transit (Seattle, WA) used the incremental 

method to forecast its ridership. This method essentially uses actual 

transit ridership data, which includes, among other data, observed 

origins and destinations of transit users and surveys of region-wide 

transit riders.

• Three out of four Small Starts project sponsors use travel models 

developed by the local MPO. For example, for the Portland, Oregon, 

Streetcar Loop project, the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation 

District of Oregon (TRIMET) used travel forecasts prepared by the 

Portland Metropolitan Planning Organization. According to TRIMET 

officials, the model includes and is continually updated with 

employment and population data, as well as, data on roadway and 

transit routes. According to these officials, the MPO travel model is 

one of the more sophisticated ridership models for an urban area. 

One project sponsor used its statewide travel model to forecast 

ridership, instead of a local MPO travel model. According to the 

Montachusett Regional Transit Authority (Fitchburg, MA), it used a 

local travel model which was a component of the overall 

Massachusetts state travel model to forecast ridership.

 43TRB, Metropolitan Travel Forecasting: Current Practice and Future Direction, Special 

Report 288 (2007).
Page 27 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

Project sponsors that use regional travel models to forecast transit 

ridership for New Starts and Small Starts projects are required to test the 

forecasts for accuracy against current data describing actual transit 

ridership, per FTA requirements. To implement this test, the travel models 

are used to prepare a forecast of current ridership using current 

population, employment, highway conditions, and transit service levels. 

According to FTA, comparisons of these current-year forecasts against 

current-year data demonstrate the extent to which the models grasp 

actual ridership patterns and support improvements to the models when 

errors are evident. When the models are able to pass the tests, they are 

then ready to make forecasts for the proposed project.

FTA procedures permit Very Small Starts project sponsors to document 

current transit volumes in the project corridor and thereby avoid the need 

to prepare ridership projections for the project. As previously mentioned, 

according to FTA, one of the key requirements for a Very Small Starts 

project is that at least 3,000 existing transit riders will use the proposed 

project on an average weekday. Through this requirement, FTA can 

ensure that the proposed project will have sufficient ridership and produce 

enough travel benefits to be considered cost-effective without having to 

do detailed travel forecasts or other complicated analysis to prove the 

project is justified. To adequately document the required number of 

existing transit riders, the sponsoring agency must conduct a detailed 

counting of riders of existing public transportation in the project corridor, 

and estimate the number of existing riders that will use the Very Small 

Starts project. FTA guidance requires that the counts be conducted on 

existing routes serving the project corridor that either:

• operate on the street segments where the Very Small Start will 

operate, or

• on streets parallel or nearby that will be rerouted to operate on the 

Very Small Starts street segments after the project is completed.

• For example, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority (Metro) developed its ridership projections for its two Very 

Small Starts bus rapid transit projects we reviewed, based on actual 

experience with another bus rapid-transit service. According to Metro 

officials, in order to validate ridership projections, Metro used data 

collected from its Automatic Passenger Counter system on the 

existing bus rapid-transit service. Metro officials told us that automatic 

passenger counters are installed on every bus in its fleet to provide 

accurate passenger ridership data.
Page 28 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

FTA has endorsed two alternative approaches for developing ridership 

forecasts that rely less on travel models and more on current data on 

actual travel patterns.

1. Incremental Methods rely on rider survey data to describe current 

transit ridership patterns. This method essentially focuses on changes 

in transit ridership caused by proposed projects and by growth in 

population and employment. According to FTA officials, in corridors 

where transit is well established, these incremental methods offer a 

quick, and possibly more reliable, ridership-forecasting approach.

2. Simplified Trips-on-Project Software package (STOPS) which FTA 

released in September 2013, is an approach that local agencies can 

use instead of, or in conjunction with, metro-area models. STOPS 

uses data from the Census Transportation Planning Package 

(currently from the 2000 decennial census) to replace some 

component models and provides already calibrated models of transitversus-auto choice. For local agencies whose travel models are not 

ready to provide reliable forecasts for transit projects, STOPS offers 

an alternative that can avoid the need for project sponsors to perform 

data collection and model updates, processes that can sometimes 

take as long as 2 years to complete. Instead, using STOPS, 

developing ridership forecasts can take as little as 2 weeks.

We did not assess the adequacy of any of these travel models. However, 

the TRB study noted that there is no single approach to travel forecasting 

or set of procedures that is correct for all applications or all MPOs. 

Additionally, the study stated that FTA is to be commended for taking 

steps to ensure quality in the travel forecasting methods used for major 

project planning. In particular, the study noted that FTA’s initiatives to 

ensure the quality of New Starts ridership forecasting have been useful in 

uncovering weaknesses and that FTA has taken a strong role in 

improving modeling practice.44

 44TRB, Metropolitan Travel Forecasting: Current Practice and Future Direction, Special 

Report 288 (2007).
Page 29 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

According to FTA officials, regardless of the approach project sponsors 

use to forecast ridership, all ridership forecasts have uncertainties. FTA 

officials identified at least two areas of uncertainty:

• Data inputs that are forecasts. Travel models require information on 

population, employment, household incomes, transit service levels, 

transit fares, highway capacity, and other influences on travel 

patterns. Consequently, ridership forecasts for future years are 

grounded in predicted future conditions rather than data on actual 

conditions. For distant years and in rapidly growing metro areas, 

uncertainties in these predictions can be large.

• Optimism. Sponsors and planners of new transit projects anticipate 

good outcomes. As a result, optimistic assumptions are common on 

such things as operating speeds, accessibility to stations, and the 

amount of new development within a given area. Travel models tend 

to compound this across-the-board optimism in many ways leading to 

forecasts that may be much more optimistic than any one of the 

inputs, and this optimism may lead sponsors to reject less-thanhoped-for ridership projections and search for ways to increase the 

projections.

Some project sponsors we interviewed also identified the following 

challenges affecting ridership estimates:

• The difficulty in developing accurate population and employment 

growth estimates.

• The unpredictability of gas price levels on ridership. For instance, 

higher prices will encourage higher ridership and a large decline in 

prices will discourage ridership. One project sponsor told us that the 

economy has a significant effect on ridership, and more specifically, 

the economy affects the price of gas and cost of parking, which in turn 

affects ridership.

FTA has taken a number of actions to support the development of 

ridership forecasts. These include the following:

Funding. According to FTA officials, the agency contributes funding to 

state agencies and MPOs to support, among many other activities, the 

collection of travel data and the development of travel-forecasting 

procedures. MPOs receive annual funding from both the Federal Highway 

Uncertainties Create 

Challenges for Developing 

Ridership Forecasts

FTA Supports the 

Development of Ridership 

Forecasts through 

Funding and Technical 

Support
Page 30 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

Administration and FTA, in addition to state matching funds. Nationally, 

FTA’s share of this funding is about $129 million for fiscal year 2014.

Technical support. FTA told us that, since the inception of the Capital 

Investment Grant program, it has filled at least one staff position with a 

nationally recognized expert in travel forecasting who is responsible for 

assisting project sponsors in the development of travel forecasts and for 

oversight of Capital Investment Grant project ridership forecasts. FTA has 

also allocated approximately two full-time staff to oversight activities.

These activities include the following:

• Technical assistance in travel forecasting methods development. 

According to FTA, at the invitation of local agencies, FTA staff 

provides comments, participates in peer-review panels, and engages 

in ongoing discussions with local project sponsors and their 

contractors during the development of new travel forecasting 

procedures for metropolitan areas.

• Early reviews of methods and assumptions. FTA officials also stated 

that the agency encourages project sponsors and their contractors to 

meet with FTA staff early in the preparation of forecasts in support of 

proposed projects. These officials said that this early engagement 

identifies potential problems with forecasting methods and planning 

assumptions at a point in time when these issues can be dealt with 

efficiently—essentially avoiding late surprises when project sponsors 

have finished their forecasts.

• Reviews of final travel forecasts. Before a proposed project is 

approved for entry into preliminary engineering (New Starts) or project 

development (Small Starts), FTA staff review the travel forecasts 

submitted by project sponsors in support of these projects. Staff 

document any significant uncertainties found in the forecasts and 

make recommendations to FTA’s Office of Planning and Environment 

regarding acceptance of the forecasts as sufficiently reliable for the 

agency’s use in project evaluation and rating.

We interviewed 13 New Starts and Small Starts project sponsors, and a 

majority (7) said that FTA’s technical assistance, which includes 

reviewing ridership forecasts, was generally helpful. For example, an 

official from the Metropolitan Council (Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN) told 

us that he has found it useful that FTA reviews its ridership forecasts for 

different projects. In particular, it can be very insightful to have FTA ask 

probing questions regarding forecasts, a process that gives project 
Page 31 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

sponsors a quality check on the veracity of their ridership-forecast 

numbers. In another example, officials from Valley Metro (Phoenix, AZ) 

told us that FTA provided them assistance for 9 months as the ridership 

forecasting was being developed, assistance that helped them deliver a 

credible document for evaluation and rating. Furthermore, another project 

sponsor said that the FTA team that reviewed its ridership projections 

was both thorough and timely with its reviews.

Requirement for testing of travel models. In 2007, FTA required that local 

travel models used to forecast transit ridership for New Starts and Small 

Starts project be tested for accuracy against current data describing 

actual transit ridership. According to FTA, the requirement ensures that 

local methods used to prepare ridership forecasts submitted to FTA have 

been demonstrated to have a basic grasp of current local transit ridership.

FTA officials said that the 2013 policy guidance on the Capital Investment 

Grant program continues this requirement.45

We provided DOT with a draft of this report for review and comment. DOT 

provided technical comments, which we incorporated as 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 web site 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 

wised@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

Individuals making key contributions to this report are listed in appendix 

IV.

David J. Wise

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

 4578 Fed. Reg. 2019 (Jan. 9, 2013)

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

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

mandated GAO to biennially review FTA’s processes and procedures for 

evaluating, rating, and recommending new fixed-guideway capital 

projects and core capacity improvement projects and the Department of 

Transportation’s (DOT) implementation of such processes and 

procedures.1

To address all of these objectives, we reviewed and summarized relevant 

laws, such as The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

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

guidance, as well as our body of work on the Capital Investment Grant 

Program. To determine the extent to which the length of the development 

process varies across New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts 

projects and the extent to which capital cost estimates for these projects 

change throughout this process, we collected and analyzed project 

milestone data and cost estimate data (see apps. II and III) from FTA staff 

and analysis of FTA Annual Reports on Funding Recommendations for 

fiscal years 2008 through 2014. We included all 32 New Starts, Small 

Starts, and Very Small Starts projects that had been: 1) approved to enter 

preliminary engineering following SAFETEA-LU (October 2005) and (2) 

awarded a grant agreement prior to the implementation of MAP-21 

(March 2013). To verify and assess the reliability of the data compiled by 

FTA, we compared it to project data we received from project sponsors 

we interviewed. We resolved any discrepancies with the data with FTA 

headquarters staff, and we determined that the data were sufficiently 

reliable for the purposes of this report.

In this report, we identify (1) the extent to which the length of 

the development process varies across New Starts, Small Starts and 

Very Small Starts projects and what factors affect the length of this 

process, (2) the extent to which capital cost estimates for New Starts, 

Small Starts, and Very Small Starts projects change throughout the 

development process, and what factors contribute to the changes, and (3) 

how project sponsors forecast ridership, including any support that FTA 

provides in helping them develop these forecasts.

To provide insight on the factors contributing to project’s timeline trends 

and challenges and project cost-estimate changes and to obtain 

information on how ridership forecasts are developed, we interviewed 23 

 1

Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 656, 674 (July 6, 2012).

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

project sponsors representing 30 of the 32 projects.2

Table 2: New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts Project Sponsors Interviewed

Table 2 lists the 

New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts project sponsors we 

interviewed for our review. The information obtained from these 

interviews is not generalizable to all New Starts, Small Starts, and Very 

Small Starts projects. We also interviewed FTA officials to determine the 

support that FTA provides to help project sponsors develop ridership 

forecasts.

Name of project sponsor Location Modea Project type

Capital Metro Austin, TX BRT Very Small Starts

City of Charlotte Charlotte, NC LRT New Starts

City of Ft. Collins Fort Collins, CO BRT Small Starts

City of Honolulu Honolulu, HA HR New Starts

Florida Department of Transportation Orlando, FL CR New Starts

Kansas City Area Transportation Authority Kansas City, MO BRT Very Small Starts

King County Seattle, WA BRT Very Small Starts

Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority Livermore, CA BRT Very Small Starts

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Los Angeles, CA BRT Very Small Starts

Minneapolis Metropolitan Council Minneapolis, MN LRT New Starts

Montachusetts Regional Transit Authority Fitchburg, MA CR Small Starts

Monterey Salinas Transit San Diego, CA BRT Very Small Starts

Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Flagstaff, AZ BRT Very Small Starts

Ride UTA Salt Lake City, UT LRT New Starts

Roaring Fork Transportation Authority Roaring Fork, CO BRT Very Small Starts

RTD Fast Tracks Denver, CO CR New Starts

San Diego Association of Governments San Diego, CA BRT Very Small Starts

San Joaquin Regional Transit District Stockton, CA BRT Very Small Starts

Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA) San Jose, CA HR New Starts

Sound Transit Seattle, WA LRT New Starts

The Rapid Grand Rapids, MI BRT Very Small Starts

TriMet Portland, OR Streetcar, LRT Small Starts

Valley Metro Phoenix, AZ LRT Small Starts

 2

One project sponsor declined to be interviewed; and we were unable to contact one other 

after several attempts.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 34 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

Source: GAO.

a

BRT = bus rapid transit; HR = heavy rail; CR = commuter rail; LRT = light rail transit.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2013 to May 2014 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: Key Milestone Dates and Cost 

Estimates for Selected New Starts Projects 

Reviewed by GAO (Dollars in Millions)

Page 35 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

Project Mode Location

Date locally 

preferred 

alternative 

selected

Date and cost 

estimate when 

accepted into 

preliminary 

engineering 

Date and cost 

estimate when 

accepted into 

final design

Date and cost 

estimate when

full funding 

grant 

agreement 

awarded

Central Corridor Light rail St. Paul -

Minneapolis, 

Minnesota

June 2006 December 2006 May 2010 April 2011

$932 $957 $957

Central Florida 

Commuter Rail 

Transit – initial 

operating 

segment

Commuter rail Orlando, Florida May 2004 March 2007 August 2008 July 2011

$602 $357 $357

Draper Transit 

Corridor 

Light rail Salt Lake City, 

Utah

August 2008 December 2009 April 2011 December 2011

$212 $194 $194

Eagle 

Commuter Rail 

Line 

Commuter rail Denver, Colorado July 1997/January 

2005a April 2009 April 2010 August 2011

$2,904 $2,137 $2,043

High Capacity 

Transit Corridor 

Heavy rail Honolulu, Hawaii January 2007 October 2009 December 2011 December 2012

$5,348 $5,126 $5,122

LYNX Blue Line 

Extension 

Light rail Charlotte, North 

Carolina

November 2002 November 2007 July 2012 October 2012

$749 $1,160 $1,160

Mid Jordan Light rail Salt Lake City, 

Utah

October 2005 May 2007 April 2008 January 2009

$522 $535 $535

PortlandMilwaukie Light 

Rail 

Light rail Portland, Oregon July 2008 March 2009 March 2011 May 2012

$1,472 $1,490 $1,490

Silicon Valley 

Berryessa

Extension 

Heavy rail San Jose, 

California

November 2001b December 2009 April 2011 March 2012

$2,509 $2,623 $2,330

University Link Light rail Seattle, 

Washington

July 2005 December 2005 December 2006 January 2009

$1,720 $1,646 $1,948

Source: GAO analysis of FTA and project sponsor data.

Note: Dollars are rounded to the nearest million.

Appendix II: Key Milestone Dates and Cost 

Estimates for Selected New Starts Projects 

Reviewed by GAO (Dollars in Millions)
Appendix II: Key Milestone Dates and Cost 

Estimates for Selected New Starts Projects 

Reviewed by GAO (Dollars in Millions)

Page 36 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

a

The Eagle Commuter Rail project was originally two separate projects—the East Corridor and the 

Gold Line—that eventually were combined into a single FFGA. The East Corridor locally preferred 

alternative (LPA) was selected in July 1997, while the Gold Line LPA was selected in January 2005.

According to project sponsor officials, the LPA was identified in July 1997, but final adoption by all 

parties did not occur until September 1998.

b

The Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension was originally approved into preliminary engineering in 2002 

as a 16-mile project, but withdrew from the New Starts program in 2005. The project was re-admitted 

into preliminary engineering in December 2009.
Appendix III: Key Milestone Dates and Cost 

Estimates for Selected Small and Very Small 

Starts Projects Reviewed by GAO (Dollars in 

Millions)

Page 37 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

Project Mode Category Location

Date locally 

preferred 

alternative 

selected

Date and cost 

estimate when 

accepted into 

project 

development

Date and cost 

estimate when 

funding 

awarded

Bellevue-Redmond 

Bus Rapid Transit 

Bus rapid 

transit

Very Small 

Starts

King County, 

Washington

November 2001 December 2007 April 2011

$27 $27 

Central Mesa Light 

Rail Transit 

Extension 

Light rail Small Starts Mesa, Arizona September 

2009

August 2010 October 2012

$199 $199 

E Street Corridor 

sbX Bus Rapid 

Transit 

Bus rapid 

transit

Small Starts San Bernadino, 

California

December 2005 December 2007 September 

2011

$163 $192 

Fitchburg Commuter 

Rail Improvements 

Commuter rail Small Starts Fitchburg, 

Massachusetts

March 2007 December 2007 September 

2011

$150 $159 

King County, 

RapidRide E Line 

Bus Rapid Transit

Bus rapid 

transit

Very Small 

Starts

King County, 

Washington

November 2001 December 2010 June 2012

$48 $48 

King County, 

RapidRide F Line 

Bus Rapid Transit 

Bus rapid 

transit

Very Small 

Starts

King County, 

Washington

November 2009 December 2010 June 2012

$37 $48 

Livermore-Amador 

Route 10 Bus Rapid 

Transit 

Bus rapid 

transit

Very Small 

Starts

Livermore, California February 2007 December 2007 August 2009

$22 $22 

Mason Corridor Bus 

Rapid Transit 

Bus rapid 

transit

Small Starts Fort Collins, Colorado October 2000 November 2007 May 2012

$74 $87 

Metro ExpressAirport Way Corridor 

Bus Rapid Transit 

Project 

Bus rapid 

transit

Very Small 

Starts

San Joaquin, 

California 

September 

2006

December 2008 September 

2010

$10 $10 

Metro Rapid Bus 

System Gap Closure 

Project 

Bus rapid 

transit

Very Small 

Starts

Los Angeles, 

California

June 2006 December 2006 September 

2010

$29 $29

MetroRapid Bus 

Rapid Transit 

Bus rapid 

transit

Very Small 

Starts

Austin, Texas June 2005 February 2009 April 2012

Appendix III: Key Milestone Dates and Cost 

Estimates for Selected Small and Very Small 

Starts Projects Reviewed by GAO (Dollars in 

Millions)
Appendix III: Key Milestone Dates and Cost 

Estimates for Selected Small and Very Small 

Starts Projects Reviewed by GAO (Dollars in 

Millions)

Page 38 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

Project Mode Category Location

Date locally 

preferred 

alternative 

selected

Date and cost 

estimate when 

accepted into 

project 

development

Date and cost 

estimate when 

funding 

awarded

$47 $48

Mid-City Rapid Bus rapid 

transit

Very Small 

Starts

San Diego, California a December 2007 August 2010

$43 $45

Monterey Bay Rapid 

Transit 

Bus rapid 

transit

Very Small 

Starts

Monterey, California September 

2008

December 2008 September 

2010

$4 $4 

Mountain Links Bus 

Rapid Transit 

Bus rapid 

transit

Very Small 

Starts

Flagstaff, Arizona December 2005 December 2007 May 2011

$10 $10 

Pacific Highway 

South Bus Rapid 

Transit 

Bus rapid 

transit

Very Small 

Starts

King County, 

Washington

November 2001 December 2006 May 2009

$25 $25 

Pioneer Parkway 

EmX Bus Rapid 

Transit 

Bus rapid 

transit

Small Starts Springfield, Oregon May 2006 December 2006 November 2008

$37 $41 

Silver Line Bus 

Rapid Transit 

Bus rapid 

transit

Very Small 

Starts

Grand Rapids, 

Michigan

January 2007 December 2007 October 2012

$37 $35 

Streetcar Loop Streetcar Small Starts Portland, Oregon July 2006 April 2007 October 2009

$127 $128 

Troost Corridor Bus 

Rapid Transit 

Bus rapid 

transit

Very Small 

Starts

Kansas City, Missouri September 

2006

December 2006 July 2010

$31 $31 

VelociRFTA Bus 

Rapid Transit 

Bus rapid 

transit

Very Small 

Starts

Roaring Fork Valley, 

Colorado

May 2003 December 2008 August 2011

$46 $46

West Seattle Bus 

Rapid Transit

Bus rapid 

transit

Very Small 

Starts

King County, 

Washington

November 2004 December 2009 September 

2011

$28 $28 

Wilshire Boulevard 

Bus-Only Lane 

Bus rapid 

transit

Very Small 

Starts

Los Angeles, 

California

August 2007 December 2007 May 2012

$32 $32 

Source: GAO analysis of FTA and project sponsor data.

Note: Dollars are rounded to the nearest in million.

a

We could not determine the date when the locally preferred alternative was selected for this project.
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and 

Acknowledgments

Page 39 GAO-14-472 Capital Investment Grant Projects 

David J. Wise, (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Brandon Haller (Assistant 

Director), Antoine Clark, Catherine Colwell, Dwayne Curry, Geoffrey 

Hamilton, Terence Lam, Jason Lee, Karen Richey, Amy Rosewarne, 

Kelly Rubin, and Matt Voit made key contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(542223)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

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

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

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TDD (202) 512-2537.

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

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

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

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

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

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.