TRANSIT ASSET 

MANAGEMENT

Additional Research 

on Capital Investment 

Effects Could Help 

Transit Agencies 

Optimize Funding

Report to the Committee on Banking, 

Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate

July 2013

GAO-13-571

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-571, a report to the 

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 

Affairs, U.S. Senate

July 2013 

TRANSIT ASSET MANAGEMENT 

Additional Research on Capital Investment Effects 

Could Help Transit Agencies Optimize Funding

Why GAO Did This Study

Many of the nearly 700 public transit 

agencies in the United States 

struggle to maintain their bus and rail 

assets in good repair. Assets that are 

not in an acceptable condition and 

not rehabilitated or replaced can 

reduce safety, on-time service, and 

ridership. Asset management 

practices can help agencies prioritize 

their capital investments to help 

optimize limited funding. 

This report examines (1) the extent 

to which selected transit agencies 

follow leading asset management 

practices to prioritize capital 

investments, and challenges in using 

these practices; (2) the extent to 

which these agencies measure the 

effects of capital investments; and 

(3) FTA initiatives to support transit

agencies’ use of leading practices. 

GAO reviewed federal legislation and 

analyzed reports on leading asset 

management practices; reviewed the 

asset management practices of 18 

transit agencies through a site visit or 

literature search; and interviewed 

federal officials and others. Site visit 

agencies were selected to represent 

a range of sizes based on annual 

ridership and the number of vehicles 

available. The findings from the 18 

agencies cannot be generalized. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that FTA conduct 

additional research to help transit 

agencies measure the effects of 

capital investments, including future 

ridership effects, to help agencies

optimize limited funding. DOT did not 

agree or disagree with the 

recommendation.

What GAO Found

To prioritize capital investments, selected transit agencies we reviewed follow 

some leading practices in the areas of planning, information and data systems, 

and ranking capital projects. For example, several agencies have developed 

asset inventories that provide accessible, consistent, and comprehensive 

information about their assets. One agency also incorporated asset condition 

data into its asset replacement models, resulting in more accurate and costeffective replacement investments. However, transit agencies face challenges in 

implementing these leading practices. For example, several agencies we visited 

reported challenges collecting data or monitoring or analyzing assets’ condition

and performance. 

As part of efforts to prioritize investments, some of the transit agencies we 

reviewed can estimate the effect capital investment decisions have on their stateof-good-repair backlog and on-time service to customers. In particular, the 

Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Transit Economic Requirements Model 

(TERM) and TERM Lite models—tools to estimate capital investment needs—

recently helped some agencies determine effects on their state-of-good-repair

backlog. However, of transit agencies we visited, only two measured the effects 

on the condition of certain assets. Further, none of the agencies measured

effects on future ridership, in part because they lacked tools to determine these 

effects. Not understanding the effects of capital investment decisions on future 

ridership may limit transit agencies’ ability to effectively prioritize their capital 

investments. 

Extent to Which Selected Transit Agencies Measure Effects of Capital Investments 

on State-of-Good-Repair Backlog, On-Time Service, Asset Condition, and Future 

Ridership

FTA has supported transit agencies’ use of leading asset management practices 

through several initiatives. For example, FTA developed a guide to help transit 

agencies implement these leading practices. Also, FTA is modifying its TERM 

Lite model to help transit agencies better estimate capital investment needs and 

prioritize investments. However, FTA could assist transit agencies by conducting 

further research that examines effects of capital investments, including those 

effects on future ridership. Understanding these effects would help transit 

agencies optimize their use of limited transit funding.

View GAO-13-571 or key components. For 

more information, contact David J. Wise at 

(202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management 

Letter 1 

Background 5

Agencies Follow Several Leading Practices but Face Challenges 

Related to Planning, Information and Data Systems, and Ranking 

Capital Projects 11

Agencies’ Efforts to Measure Effects of Capital Investment 

Decisions Vary 19

FTA Initiatives Support Transit Agencies’ Use of Asset 

Management Practices, but Additional Research Could Improve 

Agencies’ Ability to Measure Effects of Capital Investment 27

Conclusions 32

Recommendation for Executive Action 33

Agency Comments 33

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 35

Appendix II FTA’s Transit Program Funding for Capital Reinvestment 

Projects 40

Appendix III Description of Transit Assets 45

Appendix IV Do Selected Transit Agency Capital Programs Contain 

Capital Investment Project-Scoring Criteria? 46

Appendix V FTA Reports on Transit Assets, 2008 through 2011 50

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 51

Related GAO Products 52

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management 

Tables

Table 1: Leading Practices for Prioritizing Transit Capital 

Investment Decisions, by Category, Based on 

Administrative, Industry, and Legislative Sources 37

Table 2: FTA Apportionments between Fiscal Year 2005 and 2012 

that Could Be Used for Capital Reinvestment 

(Dollars in Millions) 40

Table 3: Transit Asset Categories and Types 45

Table 4: Do Selected Transit Agency Capital Programs Contain 

Capital Investment Project-Scoring Criteria? 46

Table 5: Federal Transit Administration’s Reports on Transit Asset 

Conditions and the State of Transit Asset Management 

Practices, 2008 to 2011 50

Figures

Figure 1: FTA Estimate of the Backlog of State-of-Good-Repair 

 Needs, 2010 (shown in billions of 2009 dollars) 9

Figure 2: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation 

 Authority Rail and Gwinnett County Transit Bus Assets 

 under Repair 10

Figure 3: Extent to Which Selected Transit Agencies Measure the 

 Effects of Capital Investment Decisions on State-of-Good- 

 Repair Backlog, On-Time Service, the Condition of 

 Assets, and Future Ridership 20
Page iii GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management 

List of Abbreviations 

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and 

 Transportation Officials

APTA American Public Transportation Association

CTAA Community Transportation Association of America 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

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

MARAD Maritime Administration 

PRIIA Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

 Equity Act – A Legacy for Users 

TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program

TERM Transit Economic Requirements Model 

TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic 

 Recovery 

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-13-571 Transit Asset Management

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

July 11, 2013

The Honorable Tim Johnson 

Chairman

The Honorable Mike Crapo

Ranking Member

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

United States Senate

Transit agencies in the United States face an enormous task as they seek 

to preserve their existing transit assets. Many of the 694 public transit 

agencies have a wide variety of assets to maintain—such as buses, rail 

cars, escalators, and elevators—and many of these assets have reached 

or exceeded their recommended useful lives. The Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) estimates that roughly $78 billion (in 2009 dollars) 

would be necessary to cover the costs of rehabilitating or replacing the 

nation’s transit assets and bring them to a “state of good repair.” Aging 

assets in less than acceptable condition that are not rehabilitated or 

replaced can lead to increased operating costs, declines in safety and ontime service, and, ultimately, reduced ridership. However, in an age of 

declining resources and fiscal uncertainties, transit agencies face 

challenges allocating sufficient resources to maintain these assets. 

Asset management is an approach that can help transit agencies decide 

how best to prioritize their capital investments to strategically allocate 

their limited resources to manage their existing assets and plan 

appropriately for rehabilitation and replacement. Moreover, asset 

management can ultimately help transit agencies optimize limited funding 

so that they receive the “biggest bang for their buck” when rehabilitating 

and replacing their assets. Such practices can include assessing the 

effects of capital investment decisions, including effects on their state-ofgood-repair backlog and ridership, to help set spending priorities. For 

example, certain capital investments may yield increased ridership and 

better return on investment. New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority invested an estimated $74 billion from the early 1980s to the 

end of 2008 into its transit assets, an investment that helped increase 

ridership 58 percent from 1982 to 2007. Ensuring that transit 

infrastructure is in a state of good repair is essential for sustaining and 

increasing transit ridership. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

Century (MAP-21) Act1 reauthorizes surface transportation programs 

through 2014 and contains provisions and requirements that are designed 

to help transit agencies bring systems to a state of good repair by 

implementing asset management practices.2

You asked us to examine how transit agencies invest federal and other 

funding sources in aging assets—i.e., make capital investment 

decisions—as well as how these investments affect the quality of transit 

services and the likelihood that people will use them.3

 This report 

provides information on (1) the extent selected transit agencies follow 

leading practices in asset management to prioritize capital investment 

decisions, and related challenges agencies face; (2) the extent selected

transit agencies measure the effects of capital investment decisions on 

their state-of-good-repair backlog, condition of assets, on-time service, 

and ridership; and (3) FTA’s initiatives to support transit agencies’ use of 

leading practices, and what additional actions, if any, could be taken. 

To address these objectives, we defined “capital investment decisions” to 

refer only to those decisions related to rehabilitating or replacing a transit 

agency’s existing assets, even though agencies can use capital funding 

 

1

On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century (MAP-21) Act, Pub. L. No. 112-141,126 Stat. 405 (July 6, 2012), reauthorizing 

surface transportation programs through fiscal year 2014. Surface Transportation 

reauthorizations generally authorize funding from the Highway Trust Fund and authorize 

new or amend existing federal transit and highway provisions codified at titles 49 and 23 

of the United States Code. 

2

MAP-21 requires transit agencies that receive federal funding to develop transit asset 

management plans. These plans must include, at a minimum, capital asset inventories, 

condition assessments, and investment prioritization. Each transit agency that receives 

funding will be required to report on the condition of its system, any change in condition 

since the last report, targets set through performance measures, and progress toward 

meeting those targets. This requirement will not be a condition for receiving FTA grant 

funds until FTA issues a rulemaking. Through a rulemaking, FTA will establish 

requirements for a capital asset inventory, condition assessments, decision support tools, 

and prioritization of capital investments, all of which must be included in an asset 

management plan. Once the asset management rulemaking is issued, grantees 

apportioned funds under the new State of Good Repair Formula Program will be required 

to include all FTA State of Good Repair formula program-funded projects in their own 

asset management plan. Pub. L. No. 112-141 § 20019,126 Stat. 405, 707 (July 6, 2012); 

77 Fed. Reg. 63677 (October 16, 2012).

3

We have previously reported on the effect of capital investment decisions on safety.

GAO, RAIL TRANSIT: FTA Programs Are Helping Address Transit Agencies’ Safety 

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

GAO-11-199 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2011). 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

for new transit infrastructure or expansion projects such as a transit line 

extension. We reviewed pertinent federal legislation and FTA notices 

pertaining to state-of-good-repair requirements and funding including: 

MAP-21; the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); and the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act).4 We also interviewed 

officials from nine multimodal and bus-only transit agencies5 that we 

visited, as follows: 

• Detroit Department of Transportation (Detroit, Michigan); 

• Gwinnett County Department of Transportation (greater Atlanta, 

Georgia area); 

• Long Beach Transit (Long Beach, California); 

• Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Los 

Angeles, California); 

• Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (Boston, 

Massachusetts); 

• Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (Atlanta, Georgia); 

• Southern California Regional Rail Authority, operator of Metrolink 

Commuter Rail Service (Metrolink) (greater Los Angeles, 

California area); 

• Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (Detroit, 

Michigan); and

• Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Washington, 

District of Columbia) 

We used data on annual ridership and the number of bus and/or rail 

vehicles available at each agency to select this range of various transit 

agencies. While the information obtained from these transit agencies 

cannot be generalized to all transit agencies, it provides insights into a 

range of experiences related to how agencies make capital investment 

decisions, the practices they follow, and the challenges they face. 

Throughout this report, we refer to these nine transit agencies as 

agencies we “visited.”

 

4

Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (Aug. 10, 2005); Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 

(Feb. 17, 2009).

5

While some agencies we visited operate secondary modes of transit, such as water taxis, 

we did not address asset management for those other modes of transit, and so for the 

purposes of this report, we refer to these agencies as “bus-only.” 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

We also conducted a literature review to select, review, and analyze 

reports containing current examples of transit agencies and other entities 

that use asset management practices and measure the effects of capital 

investment decisions. Our literature review identified two key reports that 

we deemed sufficiently reliable to use as criteria for our report: 

• FTA’s Asset Management Guide: Focusing on the Management of 

Our Transit Investments,6 and 

• Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 157, State 

of Good Repair: Prioritizing the Rehabilitation and Replacement of 

Existing Capital Assets and Evaluating the Implications for Transit 

(Sponsored by FTA). 

We analyzed leading practices from these two reports and synthesized 

the practices into three broad categories based on previous GAO work:7

(1) “Planning,” which relates to how agencies plan capital investments: (2) 

“Information and Data Systems,” which relates to how agencies collect 

asset condition and performance data; and (3) “Ranking Capital Projects 

Based on Established Criteria,” which relates to how agencies prioritize 

capital investment projects for funding (see app. I for a more detailed 

explanation of this synthesis).

We also reviewed the two reports for examples of transit agencies and 

other entities cited for using leading asset management practices in the 

three categories above and selected examples to include in our report. 

We did not visit these agencies or interview officials from them. The nine 

agencies whose practices we reviewed were: 

• Amtrak,8

• Bay Area Rapid Transit, 

 

6

Federal Transit Administration, Asset Management Guide: Focusing on the Management 

of Our Transit Investments (Washington, D.C.: October 2012).

7

GAO, Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-Making, GAO/AIMD-99-32

(Washington, D.C.: December 1998). 

8

Amtrak, although federally established and unable to operate without substantial federal 

subsidies to remain solvent, is not a government agency, but rather a private, for-profit 

corporation. GAO, Amtrak Management: Systemic Problems Require Actions to Improve 

Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Accountability, GAO-06-145 (Washington, D.C.: October 

2005). 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

• Chicago Transit Authority, 

• King County Metro Transit, 

• London Underground, 

• New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 

• San Francisco Bay Area’s Metropolitan Transportation 

Commission, 

• Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, and 

• Regional Transportation Authority of Northeastern Illinois.

 

Throughout this report, we refer to these nine agencies, plus the agencies 

we visited, as agencies we “reviewed.” 

In addition, we interviewed officials from FTA and other U.S. Department 

of Transportation (DOT) modal administrations, including Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), 

and Maritime Administration (MARAD). We also interviewed industry 

stakeholders, including representatives from the American Public 

Transportation Association (APTA), the Community Transportation 

Association of America (CTAA), the Transportation Research Board 

(TRB), the Transportation Asset Management Expert Task Group, and 

asset management consultants. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to July 2013 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 the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Federal, state, and local investment in transit has grown over the years, 

resulting in the expansion of the nation’s public transit systems. FTA 

works in partnership with states and local grant recipients, such as transit 

agencies, to administer federal transit programs, and provide financial, 

technical, and other assistance. FTA administers federal grant programs 

that transit agencies can use to rehabilitate and replace assets to help 

meet ridership demand by, for example, modernizing rail systems and 

purchasing buses. (For a description of FTA’s transit program funding for 

capital reinvestment projects, see app. II.) State and local governments 

are ultimately responsible for executing most federal transit programs by 

matching and distributing federal funding and by planning, selecting, and 

supervising infrastructure projects in accordance with federal 

Background 
 

Page 6 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

requirements. Transit agencies also rely on a variety of other funding 

sources to help provide service, including assistance from state and local 

entities, and other sources such as passenger fares. Using these different 

revenue streams, transit agencies make investment decisions for 

operating and capital projects, including rehabilitation and replacement 

projects. 

Congress has directed FTA to undertake increasing responsibilities for 

transit asset management. In 2007, a conference report accompanying 

an appropriations bill directed FTA to assess the condition of the nation’s 

commuter rail infrastructure and the estimated cost of bringing it up to a 

state of good repair.

9 The Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 

2010 made $5 million of research funding available to develop standards 

for asset management plans, provide technical assistance, improve data 

collection, and conduct a pilot program designed to identify the best 

practices of asset management.10 Using these funds, FTA, for example, 

awarded funding to six transit agencies for transit asset management pilot 

projects intended to demonstrate effective transit asset management 

systems and practices to improve asset management. In 2012, MAP-21

required FTA to develop a decision support tool for transit agencies to 

estimate their capital needs and to develop additional asset management 

requirements and technical assistance. 

As demand for public transit continues to grow, transit agencies face a 

range of financial challenges in maintaining their assets in a state of good 

repair. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of people who 

commute to work using public transit grew by about 1 million from 2005 to 

2008 to reach approximately 7.21 million persons. Annual federal, state, 

and local investment in transit grew nearly 97 percent between 1999 and 

2008 to total almost $39 billion. With demand for transit service 

increasing, the federal investment in transit needs to be accompanied by 

strong performance accountability to ensure that funds are being used 

efficiently and effectively. As transit agencies attempt to manage their 

aging assets, a variety of factors make the current financial environment

challenging: 

 

9

H. R. Rep. No. 110-446, at 130 (2007). The bill was ultimately enacted in the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161 (2007). 

10Pub. L. No. 111-117, div. A, title I, 123 Stat. 3034, 3062.
 

Page 7 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

• Ridership is increasing, but fiscal uncertainties and costs are rising. 

Population growth and other factors are likely to increase future 

ridership demand, but cost increases and fiscal uncertainties could

limit transit agencies’ ability to meet this demand. Future costs for 

transit agencies will increase because agencies must continue to 

support system expansions and add capacity to accommodate 

increases in ridership demand, as well as address expenses 

associated with maintaining a state of good repair for aging 

infrastructure. In addition, transit agencies’ finances have been 

strained since 2008, as fuel prices have risen while state and local 

funding has decreased with the economic downturn. Furthermore, 

many local governments are facing financial pressure from the 

lingering effects of the financial crisis and economic downturn.11

According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), 

a leading industry organization, these economic pressures have 

contributed to flat or reduced funding for many transit agencies, as 

well as service cuts and higher fares.12

• Funding shortfalls typically lead to maintenance backlogs. According 

to a National Transportation Policy Project’s report, transit agencies 

faced with funding shortfalls typically delay capital investments—even 

those investments designed to maintain the system in a state of good 

repair—because delaying such investments is easier than cutting 

service or raising fares. However, the report found such delays have 

hidden costs: they not only increase the cost of future maintenance, 

they are also likely to create operating problems as equipment 

breakdowns begin to increase. Furthermore, over time, the authors 

noted that the practice of deferring maintenance could lead to higher 

breakdown rates and lower service levels.13 

Transit agencies in the U.S. and abroad have established a number of 

definitions for “state of good repair.” While no consensus on a universal 

definition exists, a state of good repair generally refers to the point at 

which all of a transit agency’s assets are in good condition. However, as 

 

11GAO, Public Transit: Funding for New Starts and Small Starts Projects, October 2004 

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

12American Public Transportation Association, Impacts of the Recession on Public 

Transportation Agencies, 2011 Update: Survey Results (Washington, D.C.: August 2011).

13National Transportation Policy Project, The Consequences of Reduced Federal 

Transportation Investment (Washington, D.C.: September 2012). 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

assets age and deteriorate, a transit agency will always have some 

assets in need of rehabilitation and replacement. (For a description of the 

types of transit assets and equipment, see app. III). In reports to 

Congress on transit investment needs, FTA defines state of good repair

based on a numeric system for evaluating transit asset conditions: 5 

(excellent), 4 (good), 3 (adequate), 2 (marginal), 1 (poor). According to 

this definition, an asset is in good repair if its condition rating is 2.5 or 

greater.14

The “state-of-good-repair backlog” is a measure to indicate the amount 

required to rehabilitate and replace all assets with estimated condition 

ratings that are less than 2.5. FTA has estimated this backlog to be about 

$78 billion (in 2009 dollars). In other words, an investment of this amount 

would be required for the immediate replacement of all of the nation’s 

transit assets that currently exceed their useful lives and to complete all 

outstanding station rehabilitations. The largest category of the backlog is 

for heavy rail, which according to FTA, reflects high investment levels in 

heavy rail combined with a large proportion of over-age assets (see fig. 

1).

Conceptually, replacement at condition 2.5 implies that assets 

remain in service for a short time period after they have exceeded their 

useful life. For example, under this assumption, a bus with an expected 

minimum useful life of 12 years would be replaced at an average age of 

roughly 14 years. 

15 Once the backlog has been addressed, FTA found an annual 

average of $14.4 billion would be required to keep that backlog from 

getting larger. By comparison, MAP-21 authorized approximately $8.5 

billion in FTA formula grants for fiscal year 2013 that support transit 

agencies’ reinvestment needs and other purposes.16

 

14Federal Transit Administration, National State of Good Repair Assessment (June 2010).

Moreover, according 

to the State of Good Repair Initiative Report to Congress, transit agencies 

that received Recovery Act funding used roughly $3.9 billion in funds to 

repair, rehabilitate, and replace existing transit vehicles (mostly buses), 

stations, maintenance facilities, control systems, track, and structures 

15Transit rail is composed of heavy and light rail systems. Heavy rail is an electric railway 

that can carry a heavy volume of traffic, and is characterized by high speed and rapid 

acceleration, passenger rail cars operating singly or in multi-car trains on fixed rails, 

separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic is excluded, 

sophisticated signaling, and high-platform loading. Most subway systems are considered 

heavy rail. GAO, Passenger Rail Security: Consistent Incident Reporting and Analysis 

Needed to Achieve Program Objectives, GAO-13-20 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19, 2012). 

16Other purposes include operating expenses, capital projects other than for reinvestment, 

and planning.
 

Page 9 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

with deferred investment needs.17 According to FTA estimates, the $3.9 

billion in Recovery Act funding applied to rehabilitate and replace existing 

transit assets yielded a roughly equal reduction in the existing backlog.18 

Figure 1: FTA Estimate of the Backlog of State-of-Good-Repair Needs, 2010 

(shown in billions of 2009 dollars) 

 

17Transit agencies that were recipients of Recovery Act funding were required to obligate 

the funds by September 30, 2010. 

18According to FTA’s State of Good Repair Initiative Report to Congress, most of the 

reduction in the nation’s backlog is estimated to be concentrated in non-rail modes 

yielding a roughly $2.5 billion reduction in the state-of-good-repair backlog. The remaining 

funds yield a $1.4 billion reduction in the rail state-of-good-repair backlog, with the largest 

share of these funds going to heavy rail (which also has the largest share of the total 

transit capital investment backlog). 
 

Page 10 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

Transit agencies can use capital funding either for new transit 

infrastructure or expansion projects—such as a transit line extension—or 

for rehabilitation and replacement investments for existing assets.19

(Figure 2 provides illustrative images of rail and bus assets being repaired 

at two agencies we visited). As transit agencies attempt to meet their 

systems’ service demand, they aim for a state of good repair for their 

assets by using available resources to make sound capital investment 

decisions that optimize limited transit funding, including rehabilitation and 

replacement actions. Capital investment decisions that maintain or 

improve the condition of a transit asset can improve the performance of 

the asset, which can then improve the performance of an overall transit 

system. 

Figure 2: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Rail and Gwinnett County Transit Bus Assets under 

Repair 

FTA and transit research organizations recommend leading asset

management practices that transit agencies can use to manage 

investments. We used previous GAO work on capital project decisionmaking to synthesize these practices into three broad categories: (1) 

 

19For this report, capital investment decisions include only those decisions related to 

rehabilitating or replacing a transit agency’s existing assets.
 

Page 11 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

Planning, (2) Information and Data Systems, and (3) Ranking Projects 

Based on Established Criteria.

FTA’s Transit Economic Requirements Model (TERM) is an analysis tool 

designed to estimate transit capital investment needs by examining an 

asset’s age and projected condition over time. TERM can also estimate 

the level of capital investment required to attain a state of good repair (or 

other investment objectives) and can also assess how variations in capital 

funding availability will likely affect the future condition and performance 

of transit infrastructure. FTA uses TERM to support its preparation of 

DOT’s biennial Report to Congress on the Condition and Performance of 

the Nation’s Highways, Bridges and Transit. FTA has developed a version 

of TERM called TERM Lite for local transit agency capital planning staff to 

use. TERM Lite can also calculate the state-of-good-repair backlog and 

normal replacement needs. According to FTA officials, four transit 

agencies have used TERM Lite and several others have received TERM 

Lite training from FTA.

Some of the selected agencies we reviewed follow several leading 

practices across the three leading practice categories—Planning, 

Information and Data Systems, and Ranking Capital Projects Based on 

Established Criteria. 

Some agencies are developing systems and reports that follow the 

planning leading practice, which links capital investments to strategic 

objectives to help plan and prioritize replacement and rehabilitation 

projects, for example: 

Agencies Follow 

Several Leading 

Practices but Face 

Challenges Related to 

Planning, Information 

and Data Systems, 

and Ranking Capital 

Projects 

Selected Agencies We 

Reviewed Follow Several

Asset Management 

Leading Practices

Leading Practice: Planning 
 

Page 12 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

• London Underground has developed a system for measuring 

asset performance that helps to prioritize investments by directing 

capital and operating funds to the assets and associated projects 

that have the greatest impact on its strategic objectives, such as 

customer service. Every 4 weeks the agency reviews asset 

performance and measures how assets are contributing to key 

system performance measures, such as in-service failures and 

lost customer hours. 

• Seattle’s King County Metro Transit uses an asset management 

plan to plan and communicate the agency’s asset management 

goals, how they are measured, and how asset data feed into the 

capital program. The plan specifies actions that are necessary, 

within a 6-year window, for the agency to maintain its fixed assets 

in a state of good repair. For example, the plan calls for assets it 

contains to be inspected annually at the component and 

subcomponent levels. 

• Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, in California, uses a 

commercial software package that helps the agency better 

prioritize its asset management projects considering agency goals 

and objectives, in a documented, repeatable process. This 

“decision-making” software uses flexible models that can produce 

new outputs as agency project priorities and budgets change, and 

the agency is using the software to develop its capital plan for 

fiscal year 2014-15. 

Some agencies have developed information and data systems that can 

help prioritize capital investments. 

Asset Inventories can provide accessible, consistent, and comprehensive 

information about each asset class and more broadly across all asset 

classes to support business processes, including capital programming 

and operations and maintenance budgeting. A strong data collection 

system and an accurate asset inventory are critical to asset management. 

The following agencies follow leading practices to collect data and 

develop inventories to help manage assets: 

• Long Beach Transit is concluding work on an asset inventory and 

expects to obtain data on condition and develop a measure of

“criticality” for each of its vehicles and fixed assets. Officials said 

the asset criticality measure is determined based on an asset’s 

estimated likelihood of failure (using data on percentage of useful 

life consumed) and the severity of failure (measured in terms of 

Leading Practice: Information 

and Data Systems 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

impact to people, environment, costs, and operations). The 

agency uses the asset criticality measure to help prioritize capital 

investments. 

• Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority has established an 

agency-wide asset management program that includes an 

inventory that staff updates through routine inspection and 

maintenance procedures. The inventory contains detailed 

information on more than 53,000 assets across 16 categories, 

which is stored in an electronic information system that the agency 

intends to use to integrate all relevant data electronically into its 

capital improvement planning process. 

• Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority has developed a 

state-of-good-repair database with an inventory that department 

managers can use to prioritize rehabilitation and replacement 

projects for the agency’s Capital Investment Program. Agency

officials reported that they use the database to analyze individual 

capital asset records and, based on projected useful life 

information, estimate the overall replacement or renewal costs for 

its backlog. 

Condition Assessment and Performance Monitoring takes into account 

requirements for asset condition inspection and monitoring across 

different asset classes and improves asset reliability by improving an 

agency’s ability to predict failure, address the root causes of failure, and 

plan for the capital investments required to maintain good performance.

As agencies improve their asset data collection systems, they can use 

condition tracking information to improve maintenance timing and costeffectiveness, as well as capital planning. The following agencies monitor 

asset condition and performance in ways that align with leading practices: 

• Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority uses “condition based 

monitoring” to determine the optimum time to replace assets. For 

example, officials said that by maintaining and routinely testing 

generator performance, they have been able to defer replacing 

some generators, which they said has allowed them to reprioritize 

“several million dollars” of capital funds—originally intended for 

such replacements—to other, more urgent needs. 

• While Amtrak is not a transit agency, its railroad condition

assessment program was cited by the TCRP for its 

comprehensive treatment of rail tracks. The program includes a 

variety of data collection methods, such as periodic 
 

Page 14 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

measurements using railcars that measure track surface 

conditions, ground-penetrating radar to identify subgrade 

conditions, and remote-sensing equipment to identify the condition 

of drainage ditches. 

Life-cycle Management Planning documents the costs, performance, and 

risks associated with an asset class throughout its life. This information 

can be used to ensure an asset’s performance expectations match an 

agency’s broader goals and performance objectives. FTA’s asset 

management guide includes a 100-page supplement dedicated to

providing information and guidance on the principles of life-cycle 

management for each asset class, including leading practice examples 

that FTA believes will help transit agencies develop life-cycle 

management plans. These agencies follow leading practices in life-cycle 

management planning: 

• Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority has developed the 

Lifecycle Asset Reliability Enhancement program, which details 

the maintenance actions to be performed over the entire lifecycle 

of a rail car for each of its 11 different car systems. This leading 

practice separates rail car assets into their component parts, 

allowing for more accurate repair and replacement decisions.20 

• Long Beach Transit has begun incorporating life-cycle cost 

analysis into its procurement process for capital investment 

decisions, allowing the agency to follow the leading practice of 

reviewing a vehicle’s design to improve its maintainability and 

reduce total life-cycle cost. For example, as the agency began 

considering bids from two vendors for 10 new all-electric buses, 

officials said they contracted with a university to perform a lifecycle cost analysis to compare the different long-term operating 

costs resulting from the two different charging systems proposed 

by the vendors. The analysis allowed Long Beach Transit to 

estimate cost differences resulting from the two different charging 

systems over the 12-year life of the buses. 

 

20For complex assets, it is important that the asset be represented at the element or 

component level, both to accurately characterize asset life and to more realistically reflect 

what rehabilitation or replacement actions are needed at any given time. However, this 

practice can entail substantial added effort expended on data acquisition and 

maintenance. 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

To help rank projects, some agencies use project-scoring criteria that can 

help them achieve a variety of objectives including reducing costs, 

reducing asset breakdowns or failures, improving safety, increasing 

mobility, and reducing travel time. TCRP Report 157 describes a leading 

practice to rank capital projects for funding by using scoring criteria that 

weight a small set of key factors and apply a formula to calculate scores 

for a set of projects to program from a list of viable candidates.21 The 

report found transit agencies use a variety of ranking methods, primarily 

to prioritize potential expansion projects rather than for rehabilitation and 

replacement investments. In addition, FTA’s guide states that generally, 

transit agencies’ capital planning and programming processes should 

include simple, quantifiable, agreed-upon prioritization criteria that link 

capital investments to agency outcomes. However, FTA officials told us 

FTA does not specifically prescribe how transit agencies should use 

weighted scoring criteria, nor does it offer detailed guidance to agencies 

on how to do so. Officials from several agencies reported using a variety 

of such project-scoring criteria, including the following: 

• Long Beach Transit prioritizes projects using its asset criticality 

measure. Officials assign projects a “criticality code” based on an 

asset’s likelihood and severity of failure. Managers then rank and 

prioritize funding for all capital projects based on the code. 

• Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority uses 

eight categories, with the most important category—“Is project 

mission critical?”—counting for 20 percent. 

• Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s top four categories 

are all worth 20 percent each, and include “Cost/benefit,” “Legal 

commitment,” “Operations impact,” and “state of good repair.” 

(For a detailed breakdown of whether and how each of the transit 

agencies we visited use scoring criteria to prioritize investments, see 

app. IV.)

 

21Transit Cooperative Research Program, State of Good Repair: Prioritizing the 

Rehabilitation and Replacement of Existing Capital Assets and Evaluating the Implications 

for Transit, Report 157 (Washington, D.C.: August 2012). The FTA sponsored this report. 

For more on our use of this and other reports, see appendix I.

Leading Practice: Ranking 

Capital Projects Based on 

Established Criteria
 

Page 16 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

Officials at transit agencies we visited told us they face challenges 

following leading practices across all three leading practice categories—

Planning, Information and Data Systems, and Ranking Capital Projects 

Based on Established Criteria. Some of the agencies have taken, or are 

taking, steps to overcome these challenges. 

• Lack of funding and inconsistent funding. All nine of the transit

agencies identified a lack of sufficient funding to meet their stateof-good-repair needs as a challenge. For example, according to 

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority officials, the 

agency has a sizable state-of-good-repair backlog because a 

history of insufficient funding, combined with constraints on 

system design, has severely limited the agency’s ability to conduct 

delayed and ongoing needed repairs and maintenance while still 

delivering service. In addition, two agencies named inconsistent

funding as a challenge. 

• Staff resources or managing change. Seven of the nine agencies 

named either human capital shortages or organizational or cultural 

change as a challenge. For example, one transit agency’s General 

Manager told us the agency’s lack of funding for state-of-goodrepair needs is compounded by staff shortages due to the 

declining financial situation at his agency. Another agency 

reported that as senior mechanics retire, the agency’s capability to 

perform maintenance has been diminished by a lack of 

institutional knowledge. In addition, FTA found that improving 

current agency asset management practices requires 

considerable organizational and cultural change, and officials from 

three transit agencies said achieving such organizational change 

is challenging. For example, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit 

Authority officials told us the agency had to invest considerable 

time and effort to change the way it conducts its operations when 

implementing its Lifecycle Asset Reliability Enhancement system. 

They said it was a major challenge for the agency to convince its 

accounting department to expend the resources necessary to 

implement a new financial system that tracks assets at the 

component level. 

• Gathering and using reliable condition and performance data. We 

found that the transit agencies we visited use a range of methods 

to collect data on the condition of their assets and that they 

Agencies We Visited Face 

Challenges Implementing 

Leading Practices across 

All Categories 

Challenges: Planning 

Challenges: Information and 

Data Systems 
 

Page 17 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

generally face gaps between their current and desired data 

capabilities. Further, it can be costly for agencies to improve their 

data collection systems.22 For example, Massachusetts Bay 

Transportation Authority officials said different departments have 

in the past submitted asset condition data to a centralized 

collection point for manual entry into a state-of-good-repair 

database, which has resulted in disparities in the quality and 

reliability of the data. However, agency officials told us they are 

using about half of a $950,000 FTA asset management pilot 

program grant to update the existing data, improve the level of 

detail of the data collected in the future, and link one of the new 

data fields more closely to the capital program prioritization 

process. They also said that, while the quality of the data still 

varies by department, a new, more automated process will allow 

individual departments to enter their own asset data, eliminating 

the need for a centralized collection and manual entry process. In 

addition, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority officials 

said that while they currently rely mainly on asset age and 

expected useful life, they are implementing a new asset 

management program to better collect and analyze asset 

condition data, including a pilot program using handheld mobile 

devices to capture and transmit asset condition data. 

• General technology challenges. Officials at five of the nine 

agencies reported general technological challenges related to 

asset management, and at three of those, officials reported 

specific challenges collecting asset condition and performance 

data or monitoring or analyzing asset condition and performance. 

For example, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

officials told us it is challenging when an asset’s expected useful 

life differs from its condition in the field. They added that it is 

especially challenging to create a comprehensive asset score 

when monitoring condition, because no algorithm exists that 

incorporates data on an asset’s unique characteristics; usage 

under real-world conditions; or life-cycle management status. In 

addition, they said having incomplete performance information 

makes it difficult to understand system-wide service reliability.

 

22In its guide, FTA reported that the International Infrastructure Management Manual

states that data collection is the largest workload component of an asset management 

program, often constituting 80 to 95 percent of the setup costs. 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

According to officials at agencies we visited, transit researchers we spoke 

to, and information from key reports, ranking capital projects can have 

beneficial results, but the process can be challenging. TCRP Report 157

states that the process of ranking capital projects for funding is not at all 

straightforward, despite the fact that it is well understood and appears 

deceptively simple to the casual observer. According to the report, given 

the many complicating factors, transit agencies that use systematic 

approaches tend to make simplifications and approximations to keep the 

process manageable. For example, as previously mentioned, Los 

Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Massachusetts 

Bay Transportation Authority use such simplified ranking criteria. In 

addition, officials at three of the agencies we visited reported challenges 

related to either their capital investment prioritization process or their 

method of ranking projects for funding using criteria. Challenges using 

criteria to rank projects include: 

• Project-Scoring Formulas Are Subjective and Not Absolute. 

Establishing project-scoring formulas or a set of weights on 

evaluation factors can be challenging, because applying weights 

to the various factors is highly subjective. For example, 

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority officials told us the 

agency’s project-scoring criteria contain subjective elements. In 

addition, they said regardless of a project’s score, other factors 

may result in projects with the highest-ranking scores not 

receiving funding. For example, the officials said that projects 

enhancing safety are always funded, and certain policy concerns 

or funding constraints can result in projects with lower scores 

receiving funding over projects with higher scores. 

• System-Wide Objectivity Is Difficult to Maintain. An official at one 

transit agency we visited said the biggest challenge in the project 

prioritization process is attempting to maintain objectivity amid 

competing departmental priorities. The official said that as 

managers self-rate projects, they can try to “game the system” by 

inflating scores used for ranking projects. To counter that, the 

official said an executive committee composed of senior staff 

could adjust a project’s ratings downward as they try to attain a 

fair balance of projects across the agency. 

• Scoring Formulas Can Emphasize New Infrastructure over 

Maintenance. Weighted project prioritization criteria are designed 

to emphasize projects that attain certain agency strategic goals 

over others that do so to a lesser extent. However, because it is 

challenging to design project-scoring methods that accurately rank 

Challenges: Ranking Capital 

Projects Based on Established 

Criteria
 

Page 19 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

projects based on how well they align with agency strategic goals, 

transit agencies’ ranking methodologies can shift funding away 

from projects that align with strategic goals. For example, 

Metrolink officials told us using the “Growth” prioritization criteria 

category, worth 21 percent of the overall score, elevated new 

capital projects over state-of-good-repair projects, even though 

“Service Reliability,” at 28 percent, was the most heavily weighted 

of five criteria categories. As a result, new capital projects were 

often ranked higher than asset rehabilitation projects. In an 

attempt to counter this outcome, Metrolink stopped using scoring 

criteria and now separates capital investment projects submitted 

for funding into Rehabilitation and New Capital categories so they 

can be ranked separately. 

In prioritizing investments, the extent to which agencies we reviewed

measure the effects of capital investment decisions varies (see fig. 3). 

Both the TCRP Report 157 and FTA’s asset management guide state that 

transit agencies should identify the effects and consequences of their 

capital investments to help make more informed decisions and to prove 

the value of their investments. Some of the agencies measure how their 

capital investment decisions affect their state-of-good-repair backlog and 

on-time service to customers. However, the nine transit agencies we 

visited generally did not measure how capital investment decisions affect 

the condition of their assets. Further, none of them measured the effects 

of capital investment decisions on future ridership, in part because they 

lacked tools that can assess the sophisticated and indirect relationship 

between capital investments and future ridership. 

Agencies’ Efforts to 

Measure Effects of 

Capital Investment 

Decisions Vary
 

Page 20 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

Figure 3: Extent to Which Selected Transit Agencies Measure the Effects of Capital 

Investment Decisions on State-of-Good-Repair Backlog, On-Time Service, the 

Condition of Assets, and Future Ridership

As part of efforts to prioritize investments, some of the transit agencies 

we reviewed can estimate the effect capital investment decisions have on 

their state-of-good-repair backlog. In particular, FTA’s TERM and TERM 

Lite models have recently helped some transit agencies estimate the 

effect different levels of capital investment have on their state-of-goodrepair backlog. As previously mentioned, the TERM Lite model can 

measure and predict how variations in capital funding availability will likely 

affect their state-of-good-repair backlog.

• Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, for example, has 

used the TERM Lite model to predict consequences of certain 

funding levels on their state-of-good-repair backlog. According to 

agency officials, TERM Lite has helped them assess how much 

state-of-good-repair backlog is remaining or unaddressed over 

certain periods of time (for example, a 10-year or 20-year period). 

With a current state-of-good-repair backlog equaling $3.3 billion, 

TERM Lite calculated effects on the backlog and determined that 

investing the budget-constrained amount of $245 million per year 

would increase the backlog to $6.6 billion after 10 years and $13 

billion after 20 years. 

Some of the Agencies We 

Reviewed Measure How 

Capital Investment 

Decisions Affect State-ofGood-Repair Backlog and 

On-Time Service 
 

Page 21 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

• San Francisco Bay Area’s Metropolitan Transportation 

Commission—the transportation planning, coordinating, and 

financing agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay area—

has also used FTA’s TERM model to evaluate the effects of 

different funding levels on its state-of-good-repair backlog. With a 

current backlog of $6.3 billion, Metropolitan Transportation 

Commission applied its asset data to the TERM model and 

determined that it would need to invest $1.3 billion annually until 

2040 to maintain its current state-of-good-repair scenario. The 

Commission also determined that it would need to invest $1.8 

billion annually for the next 10 years to attain a state-of-goodrepair and get rid of its backlog. 

Besides TERM Lite, transit agencies use in-house assessment tools to 

estimate the effect of capital investment decisions on their state-of-goodrepair backlogs. According to the agencies, these tools have allowed 

them to more accurately articulate state-of-good-repair needs and also to 

make a stronger case for additional funding from state and local decisionmakers. 

• According to officials, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 

uses its state-of-good-repair database to forecast asset renewal 

and replacement needs over time and determine state-of-goodrepair backlog implications based on different funding scenarios. 

According to the 2006 Massachusetts Bay Transportation 

Authority State of Good Repair Report, the state-of-good-repair 

backlog was estimated at $2.7 billion. The agency used its stateof-good-repair database to determine that investing $410 million 

per year would increase the backlog to $4 billion in 2024; investing 

$470 million annually would maintain the backlog at $2.7 billion; 

and investing $620 million per year would eliminate the backlog by 

2024. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority officials noted 

that assessing the effects of various funding scenarios on their 

state-of-good-repair backlog has helped the agency convey its 

funding needs to the Massachusetts legislature and has led to 

favorable funding outcomes. For example, it has helped the 

agency to focus its capital spending almost exclusively on 

achieving a state of good repair as opposed to expansion projects, 

which are now funded by the state. 

• In addition to TERM Lite, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit 

Authority uses Expert Choice—a decision-support software tool 

that prioritizes rehabilitation and replacement projects based on 

various factors and priorities—to determine state-of-good-repair
 

Page 22 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

backlog “benefit scores” for various investment scenarios. 

According to officials, estimating the effects of various funding 

levels on their state-of-good-repair backlog has allowed the 

agency to more accurately articulate state-of-good-repair needs to 

state policymakers and make a stronger case for additional 

funding. Agency officials also noted that they have provided their 

board and executive management team anticipated asset backlog 

estimates over the next 10 years and the investment level 

required to keep the system viable. As a result, Metropolitan 

Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority officials told us they currently 

allocate approximately 85 to 90 percent of capital expenditures to 

address state-of-good-repair needs. 

• Using a number of in-house assessment tools, including its 

Capital Asset Condition Assessment, Chicago’s Regional 

Transportation Authority of Northeastern Illinois recently projected 

that $24.6 billion dollars would be required over a 10-year period 

to address its state-of-good-repair backlog and fulfill normal 

rehabilitation and replacement needs. Based on these 

calculations, the authority also estimated that there was a $19.9 

billion dollar discrepancy over a 10-year period between projected 

available funding and the funding that would be required to bring 

all assets to a state of good repair. Estimating the effects of 

various funding levels on its state-of-good-repair backlog has also 

allowed Chicago’s Regional Transportation Authority of 

Northeastern Illinois to make a more compelling case for state-ofgood-repair capital investments. 

Similarly, some of the transit agencies we reviewed measure how capital 

investment decisions affect on-time service to customers. For example, 

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Washington Metropolitan 

Area Transit Authority, Bay Area Rapid Transit, and Detroit’s Suburban 

Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation use performance measures 

that help determine and track how capital investment decisions affect ontime service, including delays.

• Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority employs key 

performance indicators to determine how its capital investment 

decisions affect customers, such as on-time service, according to 

officials. The agency’s key performance indicators that measure 

effects on customers include: on-time performance, mean 

distance between failures, and mean distance between service 

interruptions. Agency officials said mean distance between service 

interruptions, in particular, is a good metric in that it focuses on 
 

Page 23 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

service to the customer and helps ascertain whether the capital 

investment improved service. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit 

Authority specifically measured mean distance between service 

interruptions before and after rail-car rehabilitation investments to 

determine the effects of the capital investment on on-time service 

to customers. 

• Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority evaluates the 

effect of capital investment decisions on a monthly basis by 

analyzing ten key performance indicators such as bus service 

delivery. For example, the agency has examined how a capital 

investment affects the mean distance between failures of its bus 

fleet. Specifically, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

assesses how the mean distance between failures of buses that 

were rehabilitated at their mid-life overhaul (and the service they 

provide) has stabilized and or improved reliability of their bus fleet 

and lowered operating costs as a result of that investment. 

Officials also told us that the agency has measured the effects of 

capital investments on escalators’ and elevators’ availability to see 

whether their availability has increased or decreased as a result of 

a capital investment. 

• Bay Area Rapid Transit has also developed an advanced transit 

system performance review process that reports on key 

performance indicators such as on-time service, service speeds, 

crowdedness, and delay time per passenger. The agency not only 

tracks and reports on these key performance indicators but also 

forecasts how different levels of capital investment will affect ontime service to passengers. For example, Bay Area Rapid Transit 

examined the effects of investing only 30 percent of the amount 

needed to maintain a state of good repair and concluded that by 

2032, the resulting deterioration would cause the percentage of 

customers who are not on time to increase from 4 to 9 percent. As 

the effects of underinvestment compound, by 2042, one-third of 

the agency’s customers would be delayed. 

• Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation, a busonly transit provider, tracked and measured the number of road 

calls and service failures of its buses to determine the effects of a 

bus engine repowering project. The agency saw a 37 percent 

decrease in the number of road calls and service failures from

2002 to 2009 after the capital investment project. 
 

Page 24 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

When a transit agency makes a capital investment decision that allocates 

funding to rehabilitate or replace a transit asset, the rehabilitation or 

replacement generally maintains or improves the condition of that asset. 

In general, transit agencies that measure the condition of their assets 

before and after a capital investment can estimate the effects the capital 

investment decision had on the condition of the asset. Two of the 

agencies we visited provided examples of how they measured the effects 

of capital investment decisions on the condition of their assets for certain 

transit assets, as follows:23 

• Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority used 

capital dollars to replace and rehabilitate hydraulic bus lifts—which 

hoist buses above ground—that were leaking hydraulic fluid and 

affecting bus operations performance, according to officials. Upon 

completion of the capital project, the agency pressure-tested the 

hydraulic lines to ensure they worked properly and performed in a 

more efficient manner. 

• Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority also made a capital 

investment to rehabilitate its station and tunnel lighting. According 

to an agency official, the agency compared power consumption 

and light levels before and after the capital investment. The result 

was lower power consumption and increased light levels, which 

improved customer satisfaction. 

Other transit agencies monitor condition, but do not link capital 

investment decisions to the condition of their assets for various reasons. 

• Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority examines the 

condition of its rail and bus assets and collects asset condition 

information. Agency officials told us that they use “track walkers” 

that inspect the track twice on a weekly basis. However, the 

 

23Only two of the nine transit agencies we visited estimate how capital investment 

decisions affect the condition of their assets as part of their efforts to prioritize 

investments. Some transit agencies we reviewed—such as San Francisco’s Bay area’s 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission and New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority—use certain asset age-based measures like “average age of assets as percent 

of their useful life” or “percent of vehicles with functioning climate control systems” as 

proxy measures to quantify changes in the condition of assets that can result from 

rehabilitation and replacement investments. However, changes in these age-based 

measures do not necessarily mean the actual condition of the asset changed or improved 

as a result of a capital investment.

Agencies We Visited 

Generally Do Not Estimate 

the Effects of Capital 

Investment Decisions on 

Asset Condition
 

Page 25 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

agency currently is not able to determine the effect of capital 

investment decisions on the condition of its assets because the

agency does not link changes or differences that occur as a result 

of capital investments. 

• Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority inspects the 

condition of some of its assets on a regular basis but does not 

measure specifically how its capital investment decisions affect 

the condition of its assets. For example, the agency conducts 

inspections of its assets regularly but does not compare the 

condition of the asset before and after the investment to see what 

changes or effects occurred as a result of that capital investment. 

However, agency officials told us that they intend to better assess 

the effects of capital investment decisions on the condition of 

assets over time. 

• Officials from Metrolink told us they conduct routine inspections of 

rail assets. However, they do not specifically monitor how capital 

investments affect the condition of their assets because they lack 

the data, tools, and resources to do so. 

Of the nine transit agencies that we visited, none measure or quantify the 

effect of capital investment decisions on future ridership. Researchers 

have acknowledged that understanding the effect of capital investment 

decisions on future ridership, in particular, is very difficult to measure 

because ridership depends on a number of factors other than capital 

investment decisions. For example, besides capital investment decisions, 

other factors like fares, low funding, public image of the transit system, 

safety, and the economy may affect ridership. FTA officials also added 

that assessing the impact of capital investment decisions is very difficult 

and requires additional research because of the number of variables 

involved that could also affect future ridership besides capital investment 

decisions. Various transit agency officials along with officials we spoke to 

from TRB, the Transportation Asset Management Expert Task Group, 

and APTA also agreed that measuring larger effects, such as future 

ridership, and quantifying the results of these investments is difficult for 

transit agencies. This is, in part, because transit agencies lack the 

analytical capability and necessary tools to assess the sophisticated and

indirect relationship between capital investments and future ridership. 

Furthermore, existing tools—such as FTA’s TERM Lite model—do not 

predict how capital investment decisions affect future ridership. According 

to FTA officials, the model has an analytical feature that allows transit 

Agencies We Visited Do 

Not Measure How Capital 

Investment Decisions 

Affect Future Ridership 
 

Page 26 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

agencies to assess the level of funding that would be needed to reach an 

estimate of future ridership.24

not knowing these effects limits transit agencies’ ability to effectively 

prioritize capital investments in a way that optimizes limited transit 

funding.

For example, TERM Lite will tell a transit 

agency to add or grow the number of new vehicles by a certain number in 

order to meet that assigned ridership estimate. Although this feature of 

TERM Lite can provide transit agencies a helpful assessment of the level 

of investment needed to reach a ridership goal, it does not predict how 

capital investment decisions affect future ridership. Asset management

consultants we interviewed also agreed that the TERM Lite model cannot 

determine the effects or consequences—positive or negative—that capital 

investment decisions may have on future ridership; they also noted that 

Although transit agencies lack tools to measure effects on future 

ridership, several transit agency officials told us that capital investment 

decisions can affect ridership. Detroit Department of Transportation 

officials told us that one consequence of delaying capital investment 

projects that rehabilitate and replace projects is poor service reliability. 

The more bus breakdowns they experience the more it discourages 

Detroit transit users because riders do not reach their transfer point or 

destination on time. According to Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional 

Transportation officials, older assets that are beyond their useful life and 

are not rehabilitated or replaced require more maintenance and are prone 

to more frequent breakdowns despite a stringent maintenance program. 

Moreover, these buses are less attractive to customers, a perception that 

can lower ridership. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority officials 

also told us that failure to rehabilitate or replace transit assets has a direct 

impact on service delivery and may decrease ridership.

The inability to quantify the effects of capital investment decisions, 

including those on future ridership, can limit transit agencies’ efforts to 

prioritize among competing state-of-good-repair needs and optimize 

limited transit funding. More importantly, not knowing the effects of capital 

 

24According to FTA officials, none of the transit agencies that have beta-tested TERM Lite 

have used this ridership feature, in part, because it was not a real interest to them. To do 

this, a transit agency assigns a ridership estimate in the future based on expected 

population growth. TERM Lite will determine the amount of investment the transit agency 

will have to make in order to fulfill or meet that future ridership estimate. FTA used this 

type of ridership modeling for the 2010 Conditions and Performance report and it will be 

included in the 2012 version. 
 

Page 27 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

investment decisions on the condition of agencies’ assets, on-time 

service, and future ridership has serious disadvantages. For example, 

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority officials told us that not 

knowing the effects of capital investment decisions would limit their 

understanding of their financing needs and their ability to accurately 

prepare for the future; this in turn could prevent them from running a top

quality transit service, thus potentially creating a decline in ridership as 

well as causing more pollution and congestion. 

Beginning in 2008, FTA began to highlight the need to bring the nation’s

aging transit assets into a state of good repair and to hold transit 

agencies accountable for implementing a strategic approach to managing 

the lifecycle of their assets, according to the FTA administrator. FTA 

made transit asset management a strategic focus based on four 

concepts: 

• enhancing communication and technical assistance,

• increasing the number of transit agencies that invest in asset 

management systems,

• assisting transit agencies in developing asset management 

programs, and

• enhancing asset management techniques, data collection and 

analysis. 

FTA Initiatives 

Support Transit 

Agencies’ Use of 

Asset Management 

Practices, but 

Additional Research 

Could Improve 

Agencies’ Ability to 

Measure Effects of 

Capital Investment

FTA Initiatives Support 

Leading Practices in 

Transit Asset Management 
 

Page 28 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

To enhance communication and technical assistance, FTA issued reports 

from 2008 through 2011 that described leading practices in transit asset 

management, reported the limited extent to which transit agencies had 

implemented leading asset management practices, and focused on the 

need for asset management by highlighting the state-of-good-repair 

backlog—roughly $78 billion (in 2009 dollars). (For more information on 

FTA’s transit asset management reports, see app. V.) In addition, 

beginning in 2008, FTA supported annual meetings for transit industry 

experts to share approaches and solutions to state-of-good-repair 

problems. As previously mentioned, FTA developed an asset 

management guide which it completed in 2012. This report provides 

guidance on how transit agencies can implement leading practices in 

asset management. FTA also created an asset management course 

available through the National Transit Institute. Following the enactment 

of MAP-21, FTA reached out to transit agencies and others for comments 

on how it might best implement the asset management requirements 

introduced in MAP-21. According to FTA officials, more than 700 users 

registered on FTA’s website where they posted ideas and comments, and 

FTA used results of this online dialogue to inform its preparation of 

forthcoming rules to implement the transit asset management 

requirements of MAP-21. 

To increase the number of transit agencies investing in asset 

management systems, starting in fiscal year 2010, FTA awarded funds 

from the Bus and Bus Facilities Program on a discretionary basis under a 

new State of Good Repair Bus Initiative. For example, in fiscal year 2010, 

it awarded $36.2 million in grants to 17 agencies specifically for asset 

management systems. Three agencies we visited received fiscal year 

2010 grants for asset management systems: Long Beach Transit ($1.1 

million), Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ($2.4 million), 

and Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority ($1.4 million). The 

agencies used these grants to help improve their long-term planning and 

prioritization processes through investments that included upgrading 

asset management software and hardware, improving asset condition 

monitoring practices and data collection, and using maintenance data to 

inform their long-term asset decisions.

To assist transit agencies in developing asset management programs, 

FTA awarded $4 million in 2011 to six transit agencies for transit asset 

management pilot projects intended to demonstrate effective asset 

management systems and practices to improve asset management. (See 

appendix II for the pilot project recipients and the funding each received.) 

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority received $950,000 for a pilot 

project. Objectives of the pilot included improving the agency’s state-of-
 

Page 29 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

good-repair database, using asset data to project asset conditions over 

time for alternative-funding scenarios, improving the agency’s current 

project prioritization process, and using asset management system 

outputs to articulate a compelling argument for funding more state-ofgood-repair infrastructure projects. Results of these pilot projects are 

expected to be available in 2013, according to FTA officials.

To enhance transit asset management techniques, data collection, and 

analysis, FTA developed a decision support tool, TERM Lite, for use by 

transit agencies. TERM Lite can help transit agencies better estimate 

capital investment needs and prioritize investments. FTA is modifying the 

model to meet agency planning needs by having two transit agencies—

Chicago’s Regional Transportation Authority of Northeastern Illinois and 

the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority—test the 

software. FTA also engaged the Transportation Research Board to review 

FTA’s transit asset model; this review was completed in 2013.

Other DOT modal administrations have recognized the importance of 

implementing leading practices in asset management. We contacted the 

FRA, MARAD, and FHWA and officials at each agency indicated that they 

require asset management approaches for certain programs. For 

example, AMTRAK, as an FRA grantee, is required to develop a 

comprehensive asset management process, according to an FRA official. 

MARAD uses an automated commercial program to manage the 

maintenance of its Ready Reserve Force vessels that are used to support 

rapid federal responses to national emergencies. FHWA has been a longtime proponent of leading asset management practices, according to 

agency officials. FHWA supports state and local agency use of American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO)

2011 asset management guide for transportation agencies. Furthermore, 

FHWA created a suite of economic analysis tools to help highway 

agencies rank and select projects based on established criteria. FHWA 

also provides technical assistance on asset management to highway 

agencies by providing studies, training, a task group of outside experts 

that promotes the use of leading asset management practices and a 

series of asset management webinars for interested stakeholders. FTA 

officials said they looked to FHWA as an agency with experience 

promoting asset management. For example, FTA officials said they got 

the idea of developing TERM Lite from a similar tool developed at FHWA. 

FTA’s asset management guide also cites the asset management guide 

developed for highway agencies by AASHTO as a significant source of 

asset management knowledge.
 

Page 30 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

While TERM Lite projects asset investment backlogs and funding needed 

for a transit system to reach a state of good repair, it does not measure 

some important effects of capital investment. An asset management

consultant specializing in highway and transit modeling told us that 

measuring the effects of capital investment decisions on ridership would 

be difficult, but not impossible. A limited number of case studies have 

been conducted in the past and more recently that examine the difficultto-estimate effect of capital investment decisions on on-time service and 

ridership. 

• In 2009, several researchers studied how capital investment 

decisions to rehabilitate New York City’s transit aging assets led to 

an improvement in ridership. From the early 1980s through the 

end of 2008, New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority invested an estimated $74 billion in New York City 

Transit and other Metropolitan Transportation Authority properties. 

For New York City Transit, this translated into the rehabilitation or 

replacement of approximately 6,000 rail cars, 700 miles of track, 

and 200 stations. Among other positive effects from these capital 

investments, Metropolitan Transportation Authority increased its 

ridership 58 percent from 1982 to 2007 for all properties, in 

contrast to a 17 percent reduction in the 1970s. 

Researchers have also examined the effects of capital investment 

decisions on ridership in the Chicago area. 

• In 2005, researchers examined the negative effects of deferring 

investments in aging assets. For example, Chicago Transit 

Authority experienced a decline in ridership when it decided to 

defer rehabilitation and replacement investments to the Douglas 

Branch of its Blue Line (now the Pink Line). This branch was 

originally built in 1896, but by the late 1990s, the physical 

conditions of the branch had deteriorated, causing trip times to 

increase from 25 to 45 minutes and ridership to drop by 50 

percent. 

• Some academics at the Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan 

Development have suggested that minimal capital investment in a 

transit agency’s backlog decreases reliability of service, which 

should result in ridership losses of at least 15 to 20 percent 

relative to today’s levels. Moreover, these researchers determined 

that every $1 invested to help bring the Chicago area transit 

system into a state of good repair generated a return of between 

$1.30 and $1.90. 

Additional Research Could 

Help Transit Agencies 

Better Measure the Effects 

of Capital Investments
 

Page 31 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

• A 2011 study conducted by the University of Illinois-Chicago 

explored the effects of “slow zones” on the Chicago Transit 

Authority rail lines. The study concluded that delays have a 

significant effect on ridership. Moreover, the study concluded that 

the deterioration of the transit system will impose costs on existing 

highway and transit users of more than $500 million annually, 

primarily as a result of higher travel times and congestion. This 

equates to at least $175 per household within the region annually.

TCRP has taken important steps to support transit agencies in their 

efforts to determine the effect of capital investment decisions. As 

previously mentioned, TCRP has developed an initial framework for 

prioritizing capital investment decisions and models that transit agencies 

can use to determine the effect of capital investment decisions on on-time 

service, such as delays.25 For example, the TCRP Report 157 describes 

a vehicle model for buses and rail cars that links accumulated vehicle 

mileage to breakdowns and failures to predict passenger delay.26 This 

model assumes a certain passenger volume plus passengers’ waiting at 

upcoming stops and then asks how much delay these passengers would 

face if a vehicle failure occurred. According to two asset management 

consultants whom we interviewed, TCRP Report 157 models that 

determine some effects of capital investment decisions on on-time 

service, such as passenger delays, could be incorporated into TERM Lite 

model for buses and rail cars. However, the consultants also indicated 

that the models in the report would require further testing. Thus, further 

research and testing could be helpful.

FTA has also recognized the importance of determining the effects of 

capital investment decisions and has undertaken various initiatives to 

help transit agencies assess these effects. For example, according to 

FTA’s asset management guide, predicting the effects of capital 

 

25According to TCRP Report 157, these models provide guidance on when to perform 

rehabilitation and replacement actions, calculate the economic benefits of rehabilitation 

and replacement, and calculate a prioritization index that is used to select the set of 

capital investment decisions that maximize benefits. 

26The vehicle model uses information on a bus or rail vehicle fleet to estimate the costminimizing point at which to replace a vehicle, as well as to predict the priority for 

replacing the vehicles in a fleet as a function of age. The model considers transit agency 

rehabilitation costs, energy or fuel costs, user costs of delay resulting from road calls for 

buses or failures for rail, and potential savings a transit agency may obtain from new 

vehicles. 
 

Page 32 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

investment decisions through modeling tools would allow transit agencies 

to prioritize their capital investment projects more effectively. The guide 

also delineates initial steps and key implementation principles a transit 

agency can take. Further, the asset management guide also promotes 

developing criteria that demonstrate the link between capital investments 

and overall transit system outcomes and asserts that doing so provides 

internal and external stakeholders clear justification for capital investment 

decisions. Further, FTA officials told us that they will require transit 

agencies that have completed a state-of-good-repair project to report 

some of the effects of the federal grants they have received, including 

ridership effects. In addition, FTA officials said they are open to further 

developing ways to assess the effects of capital investment decisions, 

including ridership effects.

While FTA has acknowledged the importance of examining effects of 

capital investment decisions and has delineated some key steps to take, 

additional research would help agencies understand more thoroughly the 

effects of investment decisions. For example, a potential analysis that 

measures the effect on ridership would incorporate various factors 

including: fares, average travel times, and average travel time variability. 

Although predicting the effects of capital investments may take some time 

for FTA to develop, understanding these effects is an important part of 

helping transit agencies prioritize capital investment decisions. Without 

fully understanding the effects of capital investments, including those on 

ridership, transit agencies may limit their ability to prioritize capital 

investment decisions in a way that ensures they ultimately optimize 

limited transit funding.

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

backlog of transit assets that are already beyond their useful lives, 2) 

increasing demand for transit services, and 3) financial strains due to 

rising fuel prices and decreased state and local funding. Moreover, transit 

agencies that measure and quantify the effects of their capital investment 

decisions are likely to make a stronger case for additional state-of-goodrepair funding from state and local decision-makers. However, transit 

agencies vary regarding the extent to which they have implemented 

leading practices in asset management. Some transit agencies use 

scoring criteria to help rank capital projects and prioritize funding, while 

others face challenges collecting asset condition and performance data or 

monitoring or analyzing asset condition and performance. Others have 

developed sophisticated data systems and analysis techniques to monitor 

their current asset conditions and estimate future capital investment 

needs. Transit agencies also vary in the extent to which they measure the 

Conclusions 
 

Page 33 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

effects of investment on state-of-good-repair backlog, on-time service, 

and asset conditions. However, according to various transit officials, 

transit agencies do not measure the effects of investments on ridership 

because of the lack of tools that address the complicated relationship 

between investment decisions and ridership.

MAP-21 directed FTA to develop certain asset management requirements 

for all recipients of federal transit program funds. These requirements 

include a transit asset management plan, minimum transit inventory data, 

and annual condition assessments. FTA has been developing guidance 

to help transit agencies implement leading practices in asset 

management and a decision support tool to project investment needs and 

prioritize investments. As FTA completes these endeavors, transit 

agencies may be better equipped to implement current leading practices 

in asset management and comply with future transit asset management 

requirements envisioned by MAP-21.

Ensuring that transit infrastructure is in a state of good repair is essential 

for sustaining and increasing transit ridership. While tools exist that help 

some transit agencies identify their asset investment backlog, transit 

agencies could better prioritize their capital investment decisions knowing 

how their investments relate to future ridership. This capability would 

require new research to account for other variables besides capital 

investment decisions that also affect future ridership. This research, if 

successful, could support the development of a tool that would help 

transit agencies better prioritize their capital investment decisions and 

optimize their use of limited transit funding.

To equip transit agencies with the ability to make more effective capital 

investment decisions that optimize the use of limited transit funding, we 

recommend that that the Secretary of the Department of Transportation 

direct the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration to conduct 

additional research to help transit agencies measure the effects of capital 

investments, including future ridership effects.

We provided copies of a draft of this report to U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) for its review and comment. DOT did not agree or 

disagree with the recommendation. 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 
 

Page 34 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees and the Secretary of the Department of Transportation. In 

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

http://www.gao.gov. 

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

please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or 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 VI. 

Dave J. Wise 

Director 

Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

This report provides information on (1) the extent selected transit 

agencies follow leading practices in asset management to prioritize 

capital investment decisions, and related challenges they face; (2) the 

extent selected transit agencies measure the effects of capital investment 

decisions on their state-of-good-repair backlog, condition of assets, ontime service, and ridership; and (3) Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

initiatives to support transit agencies’ use of leading practices, and what 

additional actions, if any, could be taken. To address these objectives, we 

defined “capital investment decisions” to refer only to those decisions 

related to rehabilitating or replacing a transit agency’s existing assets 

even though agencies can use capital funding for new transit 

infrastructure or expansion projects such as a transit line extension.

To determine the extent selected transit agencies follow leading practices 

in asset management to prioritize capital investment decisions, and the

challenges they face, we reviewed agencies by conducting site visits and 

interviews, examining documents, and consulting relevant literature. We 

selected agencies for review in two ways: 1) using a selection process 

described below for transit- agency site visits, and 2) reviewing transit 

agency case studies included in two key reports we identified through a 

comprehensive literature review. In our report, we refer to both types of 

agencies we selected for review as agencies we “reviewed.”

The site selection process we used was intended to yield a range of 

transit agencies of various sizes managing a variety of transit modes. We 

selected nine transit agencies using FTA data, including the transit 

mode(s) offered by the agencies and their size, based on annual ridership 

and the number of bus and/or rail vehicles available at each agency. We 

also considered the transit agencies’ experience with asset management

practices as reflected in a literature review and interviews with industry 

stakeholders, and—because the extent of each agency’s state-of-goodrepair backlog is not reported by FTA—the average age of vehicle fleets 

as reflected by FTA data. While the information obtained from these 

transit agencies cannot be generalized to all transit agencies, it provides 

insights into a range of experiences related to how agencies make capital 

investment decisions, the practices they follow, and the challenges they 

face. Throughout this report, we refer to these nine transit agencies as 

agencies we “visited.” For each site visit, we conducted, summarized, and 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 36 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

analyzed in-depth interviews with officials from the nine multimodal and 

bus-only transit agencies1 that we visited, as follows: 

• Detroit Department of Transportation (Detroit, Michigan); 

• Gwinnett County Department of Transportation (greater Atlanta, 

Georgia area); 

• Long Beach Transit (Long Beach, California); 

• Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Los 

Angeles, California); 

• Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (Boston, 

Massachusetts); 

• Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (Atlanta, Georgia); 

• Southern California Regional Rail Authority, operator of Metrolink 

Commuter Rail Service (Metrolink) (greater Los Angeles, 

California area); 

• Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (Detroit, 

Michigan); and

• Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Washington, 

District of Columbia) 

We also conducted a literature review and to select, review, and analyze 

reports that contained current examples of transit agencies and other 

entities that use asset management leading practices and measure the 

effects of capital investment decisions. Our literature review identified two 

key reports that we deemed sufficiently reliable to use as criteria for our 

report: 

• FTA’s Asset Management Guide: Focusing on the Management of 

Our Transit Investments. The guide combines knowledge and 

standards of practice from existing asset management guides, 

leading practices at transit agencies, and ideas from the transit 

industry on addressing common asset management challenges.

• Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 157, State 

of Good Repair: Prioritizing the Rehabilitation and Replacement of 

Existing Capital Assets and Evaluating the Implications for Transit 

(Sponsored by FTA). The report combines a review of state-of-

 

1

While some agencies we visited operate secondary modes of transit, such as water taxis, 

we did not address asset management for those other modes of transit, and so for the 

purposes of this report, we refer to these agencies as “bus-only.” 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 37 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

good-repair practices, a framework containing a set of steps for 

transit agencies to follow, and an analytical approach and set of 

spreadsheet tools designed to support the framework. 

We analyzed leading practices from these two reports and synthesized the 

practices into three broad categories based on previous GAO work:2 (1) 

Planning, (2) Information and Data Systems, and (3) Ranking Capital 

Projects Based on Established Criteria. (See table 1, below, for a chart of 

this synthesis.) For comparison, we also summarized the key requirements 

related to these leading practices from the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 

21st Century (MAP-21) legislation. In addition, we conducted a high-level 

content analysis of the interviews we conducted to categorize the 

challenges, faced by transit agencies we visited, in following asset

management leading practices and quantified their frequency. 

Table 1: Leading Practices for Prioritizing Transit Capital Investment Decisions, by Category, Based on Administrative, 

Industry, and Legislative Sources 

Leading practice 

category Planning Information and data systems

Ranking capital projects based on 

established criteria

Administrative

FTA Asset 

Management Guide 

Framework: Necessary 

Business Processes

Establish:

• Policy

• Strategy

• Planning

• Manage asset data in an 

inventory

• Monitor asset condition and 

performance

• Develop life-cycle 

management plans

Establish a capital planning and 

programming process that includes 

simple, quantifiable, agreed-upon 

prioritization criteria that link capital 

investments to agency outcomes

Industry

TCRP Report 157: 

Process for Evaluating 

and Prioritizing Transit 

Asset Rehabilitation 

and Replacement

Develop capital investment plan 

reflecting transit agency priorities

• Collect data

• Analyze asset condition and 

performance

• Generate rehabilitation and 

replacement alternatives

• Define investment scenarios 

• Prioritize projects

Legislative

MAP-21 Requirements 

in Public Law 112-141 

(Sec. 20019. Transit 

Asset Management)

As part of a national transit asset 

management system, FTA will 

require recipients and 

subrecipients of federal financial 

assistance to develop transit 

asset management plans for 

their public transportation 

systems

As part of a national transit asset 

management system, FTA will 

require designated recipients of 

federal financial assistance to 

report on the condition of their 

public transportation systems and 

describe any changes in those 

conditions

As part of a national transit asset 

management system, FTA will 

develop an analytical process or 

decision support tool for use by public 

transportation systems that allows for 

the estimation of capital investment 

needs over time and assists with 

asset investment prioritization

Source: GAO analysis. 

 

2

GAO, Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-Making, GAO/AIMD-99-31

(Washington, D.C.,: December 1998). 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 38 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

After synthesizing the leading practices, we reviewed the two reports for 

examples of transit agencies and other entities cited for using leading 

asset management practices in the three categories above and selected 

examples to include in our report. We did not visit these agencies or 

interview officials from them. The nine agencies whose practices we 

reviewed were: 

• Amtrak,3

• Bay Area Rapid Transit, 

• Chicago Transit Authority, 

• King County Metro Transit, 

• London Underground, 

• New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 

• San Francisco Bay Area’s Metropolitan Transportation 

Commission, 

• Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, and 

• Regional Transportation Authority of Northeastern Illinois. 

Throughout this report we refer to these nine agencies, plus the agencies 

we visited, as agencies we “reviewed.” 

To determine the extent selected transit agencies measure the effects of 

capital investment decisions on their state-of-good-repair backlog, 

condition of their assets, on-time service, and ridership, we used the 

methods described above, and we reviewed other reports and 

presentations that we determined were sufficiently reliable for our 

purposes. We also interviewed officials from FTA and other U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) modal administrations including the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), and the Maritime Administration (MARAD). In 

addition, we interviewed industry stakeholders, including representatives 

from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), the 

Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA), the 

Transportation Research Board (TRB), the Transportation Asset 

Management Expert Task Group, and asset management consultants. 

 

3

Amtrak, although federally established and unable to operate without substantial federal 

subsidies to remain solvent, is not a government agency, but rather a private, for-profit 

corporation. GAO, Amtrak Management: Systemic Problems Require Actions to Improve 

Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Accountability, GAO-06-145 (Washington, D.C.: October 

2005). 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

To determine FTA initiatives to support transit agencies’ use of leading 

practices, and what additional actions, if any, could be taken, we 

interviewed officials at FTA, FHWA, FRA, and MARAD. We reviewed FTA 

reports, testimonies, and presentations regarding transit asset 

management. We also reviewed FTA’s guidance and regulations 

regarding transit asset management, and we reviewed pertinent federal 

legislation and notices pertaining to state of good repair and transit asset 

management requirements and funding including: MAP-21; the Safe, 

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

Users (SAFETEA-LU): and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(Recovery Act). 
Appendix II: FTA’s Transit Program Funding 

for Capital Reinvestment Projects

Page 40 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

Funding for transit capital reinvestment, such as repair, rehabilitation, and 

replacement of assets was authorized through surface transportation 

reauthorization acts, as well as made available through other sources. 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and subsequent extensions to 

SAFETEA-LU authorized funds for transit-related grant programs from 

fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2012, and the Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) authorized funds for transitrelated grant programs for fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014. In 

addition, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008

(PRIIA) authorized funds for transit capital investment, and the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) appropriated 

funds for discretionary multi-modal grants as well as funds that were 

distributed under rules governing existing transit-related formula grant 

programs. 

SAFETEA-LU and extensions to SAFETEA-LU authorized funds for 

transit-related formula grant programs from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal 

year 2012. The Recovery Act also appropriated funds that could be used 

for transit capital investment, which were distributed under rules 

governing existing grant programs. From fiscal year 2005 through fiscal 

year 2012, approximately $59.6 billion was apportioned from these two 

sources that could potentially be used for capital reinvestment. Table 2 

shows these FTA apportionments for transit formula grants that could be 

used for transit capital reinvestment projects.

Table 2: FTA Apportionments between Fiscal Year 2005 and 2012 that Could Be Used for Capital Reinvestment 

(Dollars in Millions)

FTA Grant Program FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Total

Urbanized Area Formula Grants

49 U.S.C. § 5307

$3,575 $3,414 $3,584 $3,891 $9,538 $4,126 a $4,530 $4,541 $37,199

Other than Urbanized Area 

Formula Program

49 U.S.C. § 5311

250 367 386 416 1,098 438 a 513 514 3,982

Growing States and High Density 

States Formula

49 U.S.C. § 5340

$384 $404 $438 $1,140 $464 a 2,830

Fixed Guideway Modernization $1,193 $1,317 $1,434 $1,555 $2,393 $1,647 a $1,650 $1,656 12,843

Appendix II: FTA’s Transit Program Funding 

for Capital Reinvestment Projects 

FTA Apportionments for 

Transit Formula Grant 

Programs
Appendix II: FTA’s Transit Program Funding 

for Capital Reinvestment Projects

Page 41 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

FTA Grant Program FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Total

Formula Grants for Special Needs 

of Elderly Individuals and 

Individuals with Disabilities

49 U.S.C. § 5310

95 110 117 127 136 134 133 133 986

Job Access and Reverse 

Commute Formula Grants

49 U.S.C. § 5316

b 137 144 156 183 175 175 176 1,146

New Freedom Program

49 U.S.C. § 5317

b 77 81 87 101 99 99 101 646

Total $5,112 $5,806 $6,149 $6,669 $14,588 $7,083 $7,101 $7,121 $59,630

Source: FTA.

 

a

This number includes 2009 Recovery Act apportionments.

b

This program repealed by MAP-21.

Urbanized Area Formula Grants and the Other Than Urbanized Area 

Formula Program: Two grant programs that transit agencies could use for 

capital projects, including recapitalization of existing assets, were the 

Urbanized Area and Other than Urbanized Area formula programs. These 

funds could be used for transit system expansion projects as well as

reinvestment in existing transit agency assets. From fiscal year 2005 

through fiscal year 2012, apportionments for these programs provided 

over $35.1 billion for transit programs ($31.8 billion from the Urbanized 

Area program plus $3.3 billion from the Other than Urbanized Area 

program). In addition, in 2009, Recovery Act apportionments provided 

$5.4 billion through the Urban Area Formula Program and $660 million 

through the Other than Urbanized Area Formula program to support 

transit projects. Both programs were also supplemented by the Growing 

States and High Density States Formula program. Apportionments for this 

program totaled $2.8 billion, including Recovery Act apportionments of 

$675 million.

Fixed Guideway Modernization: This program provided funds that transit 

agencies could use for capital projects to modernize or improve existing 

fixed guideway systems, including purchase and rehabilitation of rolling 

stock, track, line equipment, structures, signals and communications, 

power equipment and substations, passenger stations and terminals, 

security equipment and systems, and maintenance facilities and 

equipment. From fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2012, 

apportionments for this program totaled $12.8 billion (including Recovery 

Act apportionments of $743 million). 
Appendix II: FTA’s Transit Program Funding 

for Capital Reinvestment Projects

Page 42 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

Specialized Transit Programs: Three grant programs were designed to 

improve mobility and job access for welfare recipients and low income 

persons, and provide transportation options for senior citizens and 

individuals with disabilities. These were the Formula Grants for Special 

Needs of Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, the Job 

Access and Reverse Commute Formula Grants, and the New Freedom 

Program. Funds from these programs could be used for capital expenses. 

Altogether, apportionments for these three programs from fiscal year 

2005 through fiscal year 2012 totaled $2.8 billion. 

Bus and Bus Related Equipment and Facilities Program: The Bus and 

Bus Related Equipment and Facilities program provided capital 

assistance for new and replacement buses, related equipment, and 

facilities. It was a discretionary program to supplement formula funding in 

both urbanized and rural areas. From fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 

2012, a total of $7 billion was allocated for this program. 

Public Transportation on Indian Reservations: This program provided 

funding to federally recognized tribes for supporting tribal public 

transportation in rural areas. Tribes could use the funding for capital 

operating, planning and administrative expenses. From fiscal year 2006 

through fiscal year 2012, $108 million was made available for this 

program from the Formula Grants for Other Than Urbanized Areas

program. 

Transit Asset Management Pilot Program: The Consolidated 

Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010 made $5 million of research 

funding available to develop standards for asset management plans, 

provide technical assistance, improve data collection, and conduct a pilot 

program designed to identify the best practices of asset management.1

• Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain), $750,000;

 In 

2011, FTA awarded $4 million for six transit asset management pilot 

projects. Recipients of these funds were:

• Valley Regional Transit (Ada and Canyon counties, Idaho), 

$300,000;

 

1

Pub. L. No. 111-117, div. A, title I, 123 Stat. 3034, 3062. 

FTA’s Discretionary 

Funding for Transit 

between Fiscal Year 2005 

and Fiscal Year 2012 That 

Could Be Used for Capital 

Reinvestment
Appendix II: FTA’s Transit Program Funding 

for Capital Reinvestment Projects

Page 43 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

• Regional Transportation Authority of Northeastern Illinois 

(Chicago), $800,000;

• Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, $950,000;

• Utah Transit Authority, $500,000; and 

• Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, $700,000.2

PRIIA authorized funds for capital and preventive maintenance projects at 

the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority —$1.5 billion over 10 

years.3 The first appropriation for this program—$150 million—was 

provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010.4

The Recovery Act provided $1.5 billion for the DOT’s Transportation 

Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) discretionary grants. 

Projects eligible for TIGER grants included, but were not limited to, road, 

rail, transit and port projects. Each project was multi-modal, multijurisdictional or otherwise challenging to fund through existing programs, 

according to DOT. Beginning with fiscal year 2010, subsequent annual 

appropriations acts continued funding for the TIGER grant program, 

though at a reduced level. The appropriation acts for fiscal year 2010 

through 2012 provided $1.6 billion for TIGER grants. Among the 40 to 50 

TIGER grants that DOT awarded each year from fiscal year 2009 through 

fiscal year 2012 were projects that involved transit. For example, in 2012, 

the Chicago Transit Authority received a $20 million TIGER grant for 

infrastructure updates and repairs to a major rail and bus station. 

MAP-21 authorized $8.5 billion for fiscal year 2013 and $8.6 billion from 

the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund for transit-related 

formula grants. FTA apportionments for transit programs that were 

potentially available for transit capital reinvestment totaled $8.2 billion for 

 

2

Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation has yet to execute its grant. 

3

Pub. L. No. 110-432, div. B, title VI, §601(f), 122 Stat. 4848, 4970 (Oct. 16, 2008).

4

Pub. L. No. 111-117, div. A, title I, 123 Stat. 3034, 3063 (Dec. 16, 2009).

Grants to the Washington 

Metropolitan Area Transit 

Authority 

Department of 

Transportation (DOT) 

Discretionary Grants 

under the Recovery Act

Moving Ahead for Progress 

in the 21st Century Act 

(MAP-21)
Appendix II: FTA’s Transit Program Funding 

for Capital Reinvestment Projects

Page 44 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

fiscal year 2013. The fiscal year 2013 authorization total excludes the 

emergency relief for transit systems affected by Hurricane Sandy.

5

 

 

5

The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013, Pub. Law 113-2, div.A, 127 Stat. 4, 35 

(Jan. 29, 2013), provided $10.9 billion for FTA’s Public Transportation Emergency Relief 

Program for recovery and relief efforts in the areas most affected by Hurricane Sandy.

However, as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Pub. L. No. 112-25), 5 percent of 

the $10.9 billion made available under the Appropriations Act ($545,000,000) is subject to 

the significant spending cuts known as sequestration and is unavailable for Hurricane 

Sandy Disaster Relief. See 78 Fed. Reg. 19357 (Mar. 29, 2013). 
Appendix III: Description of Transit Assets

Page 45 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

Transit assets can refer to fixed long-life physical assets (including, for 

example, station structures, tunnels, and facilities) and equipment such 

as bus and rail vehicles (see table 3). 

Table 3: Transit Asset Categories and Types

Asset category Asset type Asset category Asset type

Vehicles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Buses

Cars

 Trucks

Vans

Heavy rail cars

Light rail vehicles

Locomotives

Commuter rail 

cars 

Cable cars

Ferries 

Facilities

 

 

 

Administration

Maintenance

Storage

Maintenance equipment

Systems

 

 

 

 

 

 

Train control 

Electrification

Communications

Revenue collection

Utilities

Drainage

Ventilation

Fixed Guideway Track Stations

 

 

 

 

 

 

Station structures

Bus shelters

Elevators/escalators

Parking garages/lots

Pedestrian walkways

Platforms

Signage and graphics

 

 

 

 

 

 

Special track 

work

Third rail

Catenary

Tunnels

Elevated 

structures 

Right-of-way

Source: Transit Cooperative Research Program’s Report 157. 

Appendix III: Description of Transit Assets 
Appendix IV: Do Selected Transit Agency 

Capital Programs Contain Capital Investment 

Project-Scoring Criteria?

Page 46 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

In each site visit to nine transit agencies, GAO gathered information on 

whether and how each agency uses project-scoring criteria to inform their 

capital investment decision processes. The following table summarizes 

which of the nine agencies use criteria, the criteria used, and further 

information on why other criteria are not used. Eight of the nine agencies 

we visited named safety as the most important project selection criteria, 

regardless of whether safety was included as a scoring category or not, 

and said projects deemed important to safety took immediate priority over 

all others. 

Table 4: Do Selected Transit Agency Capital Programs Contain Capital Investment Project-Scoring Criteria?

Transit agency capital 

program 

Does program 

contain projectscoring criteria for 

investment 

prioritization?

If yes, description of project scoring criteria

category and weight of score for each category 

If no, agency descriptions of capital program 

processes 

Category GAO determined is most directly related to 

“state of good repair” is in bold

Multimodal agencies

Los Angeles County Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority Capital 

Budget Process 

Yes • Is project mission critical? – 20%

• Is project a safety enhancement? – 15% 

• Does project fulfill a legal mandate or board 

resolution? – 15%

• Does project demonstrate readiness to utilize funds 

as scheduled? – 15%

• Does project support or further strategic plan? – 

15% 

• Does project provide a replacement of an 

existing asset? – 10%

• Is project justified by a cost benefit analysis? – 5% 

• Has scope of work been adequately understood? – 

5% 

Massachusetts Bay Transportation 

Authority Capital Investment Program 

Yes • Cost/Benefit – 20% 

• Legal commitment – 20%

• Operations impact – 20%

• State of good repair – 20%

• Health – 10%

• Environment – 10%

Appendix IV: Do Selected Transit Agency 

Capital Programs Contain Capital Investment 

Project-Scoring Criteria?
Appendix IV: Do Selected Transit Agency 

Capital Programs Contain Capital Investment 

Project-Scoring Criteria?

Page 47 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

Transit agency capital 

program 

Does program 

contain projectscoring criteria for 

investment 

prioritization?

If yes, description of project scoring criteria

category and weight of score for each category 

If no, agency descriptions of capital program 

processes 

Category GAO determined is most directly related to 

“state of good repair” is in bold

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority 

Capital Improvement Program Decision Model 

Yes Agency officials reported that they assign asset 

condition codes on a 5-point scale and asset priority 

codes on a 7-point scale, which they use to help them 

rank and prioritize projects for the annual capital budget 

process. In 2012, they acquired and began using a 

decision-making software tool that uses the following 

criteria:

• Sustaining assets – 35%

• Continuous improvement to customer service – 

20%

• Funding optimization – 15%

• Financial impact – 10%

• Project deliverability – 10%

• Environmental stewardship and sustainability – 5%

• Regional and other collaboration opportunities – 

5%

Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation 

Authority Capital Needs Inventory 

No Agency does not currently link its four agency strategic 

goals to project scoring criteria, but has plans to develop 

weighted scoring criteria for the following strategic 

goals: 

• Build and maintain a premier safety culture and 

system

• Meet or exceed customer expectations by 

consistently delivering quality service

• Improve regional mobility and connect 

communities

• Ensure financial stability and invest in our 

people and assets

Agency officials said that in the past they have used 

project-scoring criteria based on agency goals to 

prioritize capital needs and demonstrate potential 

impacts.
Appendix IV: Do Selected Transit Agency 

Capital Programs Contain Capital Investment 

Project-Scoring Criteria?

Page 48 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

Transit agency capital 

program 

Does program 

contain projectscoring criteria for 

investment 

prioritization?

If yes, description of project scoring criteria

category and weight of score for each category 

If no, agency descriptions of capital program 

processes 

Category GAO determined is most directly related to 

“state of good repair” is in bold

Bus agencies

Detroit Department of Transportation 

Transportation Improvement Plan

No Agency uses “Asset Works” software to help prioritize 

investment decisions. Officials said they would like to 

have a system where they can assign factors to help 

them weigh different potential capital projects against 

each other; however, they do not have that capability 

currently. Rather, management currently examines the 

trade-offs between different capital projects and makes 

prioritization decisions.

Gwinnett County Transit Annual 

Budget Process

No Agency considers itself relatively small and its 

maintenance needs fairly straightforward. In general, 

maintenance schedules dictate repair and replacement 

activities. 

Long Beach Transita Capital Yes

Call for Projects

Long Beach Transit uses project-scoring criteria, but the 

categories are not included in this chart for space 

reasons. The agency takes into account the potential 

impacts of an asset’s failure when prioritizing projects 

through the concept of “asset criticality.” The agency 

calculates asset criticality codes ranging from 1 to 25, 

with 25 being the most critical, and most in need of 

repair or replacement. Officials assign a value between 

1 and 5 for an asset’s likelihood of failure, with 5 being 

the most likely to fail, and multiply that number by a 

similar value between 1 and 5 for an asset’s severity of 

failure, with 5 being the most severe impact an asset’s 

failure would have on the agency’s operation, people, or 

finances, or on the environment in which the agency 

operates. Managers then rank and prioritize funding for 

all capital projects based on the code. 
Appendix IV: Do Selected Transit Agency 

Capital Programs Contain Capital Investment 

Project-Scoring Criteria?

Page 49 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

Transit agency capital 

program 

Does program 

contain projectscoring criteria for 

investment 

prioritization?

If yes, description of project scoring criteria

category and weight of score for each category 

If no, agency descriptions of capital program 

processes 

Category GAO determined is most directly related to 

“state of good repair” is in bold

Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional 

Transportation Capital Budget Program

No Agency coordinates capital project priorities when 

preparing for the agency’s State DOT application for 

upcoming federal projects and priorities, and prepares a 

capital budget program, which it presents to its Board for 

approval. 

Agency’s top factor for prioritizing the replacement of 

revenue vehicles is mileage, due to the sound 

correlation of that factor to maintenance costs and 

downtime. 

Commuter rail agencies 

Metrolink (operated by Southern California 

Regional Rail Authority)

Strategic Capital Planning Process 

No Individual Metrolink departments determine their annual 

rehabilitation and replacement needs, develop scope 

and budget for each project, and prioritize those 

projects. Metrolink’s Strategy and Capital Planning 

Group then creates a master priority list and matches 

available funds to the list. The final list of projects to be 

activated is then reviewed by Member Agencies and the 

Metrolink Board.

Note: Metrolink stopped using the following scoring 

criteria for its master priority list in 2012 (for an 

explanation of the reason, see the “Challenges” 

section of this report): 

• Service Reliability – 28%

• Efficiency – 27%

• Growth (Capacity) – 21%

• Safety – 17% 

• Environmental – 7%

Source: GAO analysis. 

a

Transit agency also provides other types of transit services, but our site visit focused on the type of 

transit service indicated. 
Appendix V: FTA Reports on Transit Assets, 

2008 through 2011

Page 50 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

FTA issued a series of reports on transit asset management from 2008 

through 2011. These reports identified leading transit asset management 

practices, including goal setting for strategic planning; collecting and 

analyzing good data on asset performance, conditions, and costs; and, 

ranking investment projects based on established criteria. These reports, 

as shown in table 5, showed significant backlogs of needed transit 

improvements and limited use of leading asset management practices by 

transit agencies.

Table 5: Federal Transit Administration’s Reports on Transit Asset Conditions and the State of Transit Asset Management 

Practices, 2008 to 2011

Report Asset backlog Transit agencies’ limited use of leading practices

Transit State of Good Repair: 

Beginning the Dialogue

(October 2008) 

Roughly one-quarter of the 

nation’s bus and rail assets 

are in marginal or poor 

condition.

Most U.S. transit agencies utilize a maintenance management system 

to track and schedule maintenance activities for transit assets. While 

these systems are designed for all asset types, most agencies only 

enter asset inventory data for their revenue vehicle fleets, repair 

equipment and maintenance facility components. Few agencies use 

these systems for other asset types such as stations, traction power 

and train control systems, or track work.

Rail Modernization Study: 

Report to Congress (April 

2009) 

Estimated $50 billion ($2008) 

state-of-good-repair backlog 

at the largest seven rail transit 

agencies.

Agencies tend to rely on prioritization processes that are both informal 

(i.e., the process is not well-defined) and implicit (the agencies’ 

investment goals and objectives are not explicitly stated or defined).

Decision support tools are not yet widely used by transit operators.

Transit Asset Management 

Practices-A National and 

International Review (June 

2010).

U.S transit agencies generally can improve asset management 

practice in terms of 

aligning policy goals and objectives with achieving a state of good 

repair, 

establishing condition and performance measures that communicate 

asset conditions, and 

developing the systems and processes that can best optimize scarce 

agency funds for preservation and improvement of transit assets.

National State of Good Repair 

Assessment (June 2010)

$77.7 billion national transit 

state-of-good-repair backlog

None of the 16 sampled agencies possesses fully developed capital 

planning asset inventories. 

Only 1 of the 23 agencies contacted for the Rail Modernization and 

National State of Good Repair Assessment studies currently 

maintains a decision support tool permitting these types of analyses.

State of Good Repair 

Initiative: Report to Congress

(December 2011) 

A significant portion of the 

nation’s public transportation 

assets are in need of capital 

reinvestment due to the 

historically inadequate level of 

financial resources from all 

sources available for 

maintenance and asset 

replacement

Many transit agencies lack the technical ability to set appropriate 

recapitalization priorities.

Most transit agencies also lack effective asset condition assessment 

tools and systems.

Source: FTA.

Appendix V: FTA Reports on Transit Assets, 

2008 through 2011
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 51 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

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

In addition to the contact named above, Cathy Colwell and Sara 

Vermillion (Assistant Directors), Richard Calhoon, Kathy Gilhooly, Gary 

Guggolz, DuEwa Kamara, Hannah Laufe, Amanda Miller, Tina Paek, and 

Amy Rosewarne made key contributions to this report. 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(542204)
Related GAO Products

Page 52 GAO-13-571 Transit Asset Management

Public Transportation: Washington Metro Could Benefit from Clarified 

Board Roles and Responsibilities, Improved Strategic Planning. 

GAO-11-660. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2011.

Rail Transit: FTA Programs Are Helping Address Transit Agencies’ Safety 

Challenges, but Improved Performance Goals and Measures Could 

Better Focus Efforts. GAO-11-199. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2011. 

Public Transportation: Transit Agencies’ Actions to Address Increased 

Ridership Demand and Options to Help Meet Future Demand, 

GAO-11-94. Washington, D.C.: November 30, 2010.

Federal Transit Programs: Federal Transit Administration Has 

Opportunities to Improve Performance Accountability. GAO-11-54. 

Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2010.

Transit Rail: Potential Rail Car Cost-Saving Strategies Exist. 

GAO-10-730. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2010

Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving Information on 

Projects’ Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for Results. 

GAO-05-172. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2005. 

Surface Transportation: Many Factors Affect Investment Decisions. 

GAO-04-744. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004. 

Highway Infrastructure: FHWA’s Model for Estimating Highway Needs 

Has Been Modified for State-Level Planning. GAO-01-299. Washington, 

D.C.: February 14, 2001. 

Highway Infrastructure: FHWA’s Model for Estimating Highway Needs Is 

Generally Reasonable, Despite Limitations. GAO/RCED-00-133. 

Washington, D.C.: June 5, 2000.

Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-Making. 

GAO/AIMD-99-32. Washington, D.C.: December 1998. 

Related GAO Products 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

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

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

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

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

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

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

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

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

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.