Public Transportation: Requirements for Smaller Capital Projects Generally Seen as Less Burdensome
Published: 2011-08-02T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Capital Investment Grant program funds, among other things, projects for fixed-guideway systems--often called New Starts projects. In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act-A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) established a category of lower-cost projects--Small Starts--which expands project eligibility and offers streamlined requirements. FTA subsequently created the Very Small Starts category with a further streamlined process for very low-cost projects. Exempt projects, those receiving under $25 million and typically designated by Congress, also have a simplified process. As part of GAO's annual mandate to review New Starts, this report describes (1) the history of Small Starts and Very Small Starts and the type of projects FTA recommended for funding; (2) the project development requirements for Small Starts and Very Small Starts and what stakeholders identify as the advantages and disadvantages of the requirements; and (3) the project development requirements for exempt projects, the projects selected to receive funding, and what stakeholders identify as the advantages and disadvantages of this category. Among other things, GAO analyzed laws, regulations, and agency guidance, and interviewed FTA headquarters staff and stakeholders from 7 FTA regional offices, 15 projects, and 2 industry groups. DOT officials reviewed a draft of this report and provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: When SAFETEA-LU established the Small Starts program, it streamlined project development requirements and project evaluation and rating criteria, and authorized certain corridor-based bus projects--like bus rapid transit systems-- to receive transit capital funding. Furthermore, FTA created Very Small Starts within Small Starts to further streamline requirements for projects that are simple and low-risk, based on cost and other features. FTA has mostly recommended bus projects for funding but has also recommended light rail, commuter rail, and streetcar projects. Overall, FTA has recommended 10 Small Starts and 19 Very Small Starts projects for funding. These projects' total costs vary from about $5 million to about $232 million, and FTA has recommended capital investment program funds ranging from nearly $3 million to $75 million for these projects. FTA's project development requirements for Small Starts and Very Small Starts include costs and financial summaries. While all sponsors submit similar information in some respects, such as financial summaries, FTA only requires sponsors of Small Starts projects to submit information on a project's expected benefits, like travel forecasts. Some stakeholders GAO spoke with said an advantage of FTA's requirements for Very Small Starts is that they are appropriately scaled and not overly burdensome for smaller projects. For example, about half of the stakeholders experienced with Very Small Starts told GAO that the requirements were straightforward and that project sponsors were able to meet them quickly without many problems. Four project sponsors and an industry group said that a disadvantage of the Small Starts requirements is that they are too similar to those for New Starts, even though Small Starts projects have a lower total cost and are less complex. Generally, stakeholders said that the requirements for both Small Starts and Very Small Starts help project sponsors fully develop and plan projects by helping identify potential problems. Stakeholders' perspectives depend, in part, on their degree of experience with these programs, which ranged from none to several previous New Starts or Small Starts projects. Exempt projects, typically congressionally designated and below the $25 million threshold, are not evaluated and rated. Exempt projects are subject to fewer FTA requirements that mainly focus on the sponsor's ability to carry out its project. Nine exempt projects have entered the New Starts pipeline since the last reauthorization of the New Starts program in 2005. These projects vary in terms of mode and scope. For example, one project extends a bus transitway with dedicated vehicle lanes; and another project builds a new station on an existing rail line. The total costs for these projects vary from about $10 million to about $493 million, and the federal contributions range from about $1 million to nearly $25 million in capital investment program funds. Four project sponsors GAO spoke with said that the exempt category provides a useful source of capital funding for atypical transit projects that solve local transportation problems. In its 2012 budget request, FTA proposes to continue the exempt category, which is set to expire under current law, in the next surface transportation reauthorization.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Capital Investment Grant  program provides federal capital funds to help many states, cities, and  localities plan and build new fixed-guideway systems or extensions to  existing fixed-guideway systems, often called New Starts projects. FTA  evaluates and recommends New Starts projects to Congress for grants,  and then provides grants to project sponsors, typically transit agencies  and other local governments. Over the last decade, FTA has provided  more than $10 billion in New Starts funding to help design and construct  transit projects that annually provide billions of passenger trips  nationwide.
In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity  Act–A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) created a new category of lower- cost projects—the Small Starts program—primarily to streamline the  project development process and evaluation and rating criteria that apply  to larger-dollar New Starts projects. At the time Small Starts was  established, FTA created an even more streamlined evaluation process  for very low-cost projects called Very Small Starts within the Small Starts  program. An additional category—the exempt category—which dates  back to 1991, provides funding for projects identified primarily by  Congress. These projects are exempt altogether from the evaluation and  rating process. Table 1 provides information on these categories of  projects by total cost and federal New Starts contribution, although  projects must meet other requirements to qualify for funding.
As part of our annual mandate to review the New Starts program, we  reviewed FTA’s project development requirements for Small Starts, Very  Small Starts, and exempt projects.  We define project development  requirements to include the information FTA requires from project  sponsors when they apply for and proceed through each statutorily  required project development phase, based on its guidance and  regulations. These project development requirements help FTA manage  the risks associated with a project to protect the federal investment in  capital transit projects recommended for funding. This report describes  (1) the legislative and program history for the creation of Small Starts and  Very Small Starts, respectively, and the types of Small Starts and Very  Small Starts projects that have been recommended for funding, by mode  of transit and size; (2) the project development requirements for Small  Starts and Very Small Starts and what stakeholders identify as the  advantages and disadvantages of these requirements; and (3) the project  development requirements for exempt projects, the projects that have  been selected to receive funding, and what stakeholders identify as the  advantages and disadvantages of this category. In addition, appendix I  summarizes recommendations from recent GAO reports on the New  Starts program and updates FTA’s progress in implementing these  recommendations.
The focus of this review is on FTA’s project development requirements for  Small Starts, Very Small Starts, and exempt projects. We only refer to  FTA’s evaluation and rating process—including both project justification  and local financial commitment criteria—as it affects simplification of  project requirements. We did not review the project justification and local  financial commitment criteria that help inform administration and  congressional decisions about which projects should receive federal  funding. However, FTA has an ongoing rulemaking in this area.
To address the first objective, we analyzed SAFETEA-LU congressional  reports, testimonies presented before Congress, and member floor  statements to describe the legislative history for the Small Starts program.  We also analyzed program guidance and Federal Register notices to  describe program history for the Very Small Starts category. To provide  information on Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects, including cost,  mode of transit, and other characteristics, we analyzed and summarized  project data compiled by FTA, as well as data from FTA’s Annual Reports  on Funding Recommendations for fiscal years 2007 through 2012. We  included data on Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects that FTA  had recommended to Congress for funding since the enactment of  SAFETEA-LU. We assessed the reliability of the data compiled by FTA by  comparing it to data from the Annual Reports on Funding  Recommendations and information from project sponsors we interviewed.  We also interviewed FTA officials. We determined that the data were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
To address the second and third objectives, we reviewed relevant  legislation including SAFETEA-LU; FTA guidance and regulations related  to Small Starts, Very Small Starts, and exempt projects; and other  relevant FTA documents. We interviewed stakeholders of Small Starts,  Very Small Starts, and exempt projects to learn what they identify as  advantages and disadvantages of FTA’s project development  requirements. These stakeholders included 15 judgmentally selected  project sponsors (4 Small Starts, 6 Very Small Starts, and 5 exempt  projects), officials at the 7 corresponding FTA regional offices, officials at  FTA headquarters, and representatives of industry groups. While not  representative, we selected the project sponsors to include variety in  project characteristics including (1) mode of transit (e.g., light rail,  commuter rail); (2) total project cost; (3) geographic location; and (4) year  recommended for funding in the President’s budget by FTA or year  entering the program. Additionally, we used stakeholder observations and  experiences to obtain information on these requirements, since there is  not a reliable quantitative way to evaluate the impact of changes in FTA’s  requirements for Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects on project  development time frames compared to New Starts projects for two  reasons. First, less than half of the Small Starts and Very Small Starts  projects recommended for funding to date have completed the project  development phase and received a construction grant. Appendix II  contains more information on these 11 projects. Second, we do not have  reliable data on time frames for New Starts projects available for  comparison. However, FTA officials said they do not agree with GAO’s  assessment of its data. See appendix I for more details. To provide  information on exempt projects, we verified, analyzed, and summarized  project data compiled by FTA and the Annual Reports on Funding  Recommendations for fiscal years 2007 through 2012, as described  above. As FTA does not recommend exempt projects to Congress for  funding in the President’s budget to Congress, we focused on exempt  projects that FTA has approved to enter preliminary engineering since the  passage of SAFETEA-LU in August 2005.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2010 through  August 2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives. See appendix III for more  information about our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: FTA’s New Starts program supports new or extensions to existing fixed- guideway transit capital projects, such as light rail, commuter rail, ferry,  and bus rapid transit (BRT) projects. Sponsors of New Starts projects— those with a total cost of $250 million or more or a capital investment  program contribution of $75 million or more—must take a number of steps  to select a project and apply for New Starts funding. Sponsors of New  Starts projects are required by law to go through a planning and project  development process, which is divided into three phases: alternatives  analysis, preliminary engineering, and final design. This is followed by the  construction phase. (See fig. 1.) In the alternatives analysis phase,  project sponsors identify the transportation needs in a specific corridor  and evaluate a range of modal and alignment alternatives to address the  locally identified problems in that corridor. Project sponsors complete the  alternatives analysis phase by selecting a locally preferred alternative.  During the preliminary engineering phase, project sponsors refine the  design of the locally preferred alternative and its estimated costs,  benefits, and impacts. When the preliminary engineering phase is  completed and federal environmental requirements are satisfied, FTA  may approve the project’s advancement into final design, after which FTA  may recommend the New Starts project for a full funding grant agreement  (FFGA). An FFGA establishes the terms and conditions for federal  participation in a transit project.
SAFETEA-LU established the Small Starts program within the capital  investment program; the Small Starts program simplifies the evaluation  and rating criteria and steps in the project development process for lower- cost projects. According to FTA’s guidance, projects must (1) meet the  definition of a fixed-guideway for at least 50 percent of the project length  in the peak period or (2) be a corridor-based bus project with certain  elements to qualify as a Small Starts project.
FTA subsequently introduced a further streamlined evaluation and rating  process for very low-cost projects within the Small Starts program, which  it calls Very Small Starts. Very Small Starts are projects that must contain  the same elements as Small Starts projects and also contain the following  three features:    be located in corridors with more than 3,000 existing riders per  average weekday who will benefit from the proposed project,   have a total capital cost of less than $50 million (for all project    have a per-mile cost of less than $3 million, excluding rolling stock  (e.g., train cars).
The project development process for Small Starts and Very Small Starts  is a condensed version of the process for larger New Starts projects. For  Small Starts, SAFETEA-LU set up a condensed process in which the  preliminary engineering and final design phases are combined into one  “project development” phase; see figure 2 below for a comparison to the  New Starts project development process. When projects apply to enter  project development, FTA evaluates and rates Small Starts projects on  both project justification and local financial commitment criteria, but  compared to New Starts projects, there are fewer statutorily prescribed  project justification criteria for these projects. Very Small Starts projects  also progress through a single project development phase and are  evaluated and rated on the simplified project justification criteria. FTA  may recommend Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects to Congress  for funding once the projects have been approved to enter into project  development and meet FTA’s “readiness” requirements. Congress makes  final appropriations decisions on projects. FTA provides funding for Small  Starts and Very Small Starts projects in one of two ways: through project  construction grant agreements (PCGA) or single-year construction grants  when the New Starts funding request is less than $25 million and can be  met with either a single-year appropriation or existing FTA appropriations  that remain available for this purpose.
Exempt projects follow the same project development process as New  Starts projects, including alternatives analysis, preliminary engineering,  final design, and construction. (See fig. 2.) Since these projects receive  less than $25 million in federal funds, they are statutorily exempt from  FTA’s evaluation and rating process. However, exempt projects must still  meet other FTA federal grant requirements before receiving federal  funds. Currently, the exempt category of funding will expire when a final  regulation implementing the Small Starts provisions of SAFETEA-LU is  complete. However, FTA has not yet issued this final regulation.
For the next reauthorization of federal transit programs, FTA proposes in  its fiscal year 2012 budget request to transform the Capital Investment  Grant program to further streamline the process for new fixed-guideway  and corridor-based bus projects. FTA proposes to discontinue the  separate categories of New Starts and Small Starts (which includes Very  Small Starts) projects in law and instead evaluate and rate projects under  a single set of streamlined criteria. Further, FTA proposes to reduce the  steps in the project development process. FTA also proposes that  projects that require less than 10 percent of the project’s total anticipated  cost and no more than $100 million in major capital investment funds be  exempt from the evaluation and rating process.
section_title: Small Starts and Very Small Starts History and Types of Projects
subsections: section_title: Small Starts Was Established to Streamline New Starts and Allowed Funding for Certain Types of Bus Projects
paragraphs: The Small Starts program was created to provide a more streamlined  evaluation and rating process for lower-cost and less complex projects.  SAFETEA-LU expanded the types of projects eligible under the new  Small Starts program to include corridor-based bus projects, which  includes projects such as BRT. Thus, any new major capital project fitting  the broader definition is eligible, whether it is a BRT, streetcar, or rail  project. Although certain bus projects are now eligible for Small Starts  funding, the law does not express a preference for any particular mode of  transit and the legislative history indicates that the program was to remain  mode-neutral.
At the time Small Starts was established, FTA created the category of  Very Small Starts to further streamline the program for simple, low-risk  projects that are, based on their features, expected to be cost-effective  and with sufficient land use to warrant funding. FTA officials stated that  the features were developed and determined based on data that FTA had  on existing projects. According to FTA, it also created Very Small Starts  to be mode-neutral.
section_title: FTA Has Mostly Recommended Bus Rapid Transit Projects for Small Starts and Very Small Starts Funding
paragraphs: Since fiscal year 2007, FTA has approved 29 Small Starts and Very Small  Starts projects into project development, and has recommended for  funding to Congress all 29 of them, which are mostly BRT projects and a  handful of other transit modes. As Table 2 shows, 25 of the 29 projects  FTA recommended for funding are BRT projects. Six of the 10 Small  Starts projects are BRT projects; all 19 Very Small Starts projects are  BRT projects.
The number of successful applicants does not necessarily represent the  interest of all potential project sponsors in Small Starts and Very Small  Starts. It is difficult to establish the total number of projects that sponsors  might be interested in developing because, according to FTA officials in  one regional office, FTA encourages sponsors not to formally apply for  entry into project development until their project is ready for approval. The  regional FTA officials cited two sponsors of potential Small Starts and  Very Small Starts projects that have expressed interest in the program  and met with their office, but have not been able to submit a thorough and  complete application for entry. In 2007, we also reported that FTA’s  increased scrutiny of applications into New Starts was one of the likely  reasons that the number of projects in the “pipeline” of potential projects  had decreased over the past several years. It is also difficult to establish  the number of project sponsors that might have considered applying to  the program but decided against it, in part, because these sponsors may  not have notified FTA of their intentions. Further, FTA officials we spoke  with in headquarters and the regional offices are not aware of any project  sponsors that withdrew from or were removed from Small Starts after  being approved into project development. Therefore, because the types  of projects (with respect to transit modes) that FTA can consider for  funding are limited to those from sponsors that formally apply to the  program, we do not have adequate information to determine whether  FTA’s funding recommendations are mode-neutral.
It is difficult to establish the number of “potential” project sponsors, but we  identified one sponsor of a streetcar project which initially sought federal  funding through the Small Starts program before switching to other  sources of federal funding, including the exempt category in the New  Starts program and the Transportation Investment Generating Economic  Recovery (TIGER) grant program. According to the project sponsor, it  spent 2 years trying to gain entry into project development as a Small  Starts project but had difficulty meeting the cost-effectiveness criterion.  FTA evaluates Small Starts and New Starts projects using the same cost- effectiveness criterion, which measures effectiveness primarily in terms of  travel time savings for transit riders. As we have previously reported,  this measurement may not favor certain projects, such as streetcars, that  are not designed to create travel time savings, but instead to create other  benefits, such as providing enhanced access to an urban center.  According to the project sponsor, in early 2008, FTA advised the sponsor  to seek funding as an exempt project and to see if a final regulation on  the Small Starts program, as previously mentioned, would result in a  change to how cost-effectiveness was formulated that would change the  situation. In 2010, the sponsor received a TIGER grant and decided to  remain in the exempt category. Several other streetcar projects have also  received funding through TIGER grants. According to FTA officials,  difficulty with the cost-effectiveness criterion was not the only issue which  kept the streetcar project from entering the Small Starts program. In  particular, the project sponsor was also unable to obtain high enough  ratings on other criteria to offset the lower cost-effectiveness rating. Thus,  the project was not able to obtain an overall rating that was high enough  to advance in the Small Starts program as required by statute. Further,  FTA officials told us that FTA has taken steps to address the problems  that streetcar projects face in attempting to become Small Starts and New  Starts projects. For example, FTA established the Urban Circulator  Program in 2009 (which we will discuss later in our report) to provide  funds to projects that aim to connect urban destinations and foster  redevelopment. However, we have not assessed the actions that FTA has  taken.
Within Small Starts and Very Small Starts, the projects FTA  recommended to Congress for funding vary in terms of the total project  costs and capital investment program contribution. For the 10 Small  Starts projects, the total project cost ranges from nearly $40 million to  about $232 million, and the median cost is about $143 million. As shown  in table 3, for half of the Small Starts projects, the total project costs are  between $100 and $200 million. The capital investment program  contribution to the projects’ costs ranges from about $28 million to $75  million, and the median capital investment program contribution is $75  million, as is the maximum capital investment program contribution.  Seven of the 10 Small Starts projects were recommended for the  maximum allowable capital investment program contribution.
For the 19 Very Small Starts projects, the total project cost ranges from  about $5 million to about $48 million and the median cost is about $29  million. The capital investment program contribution to the projects’ costs  ranges from nearly $3 million to about $39 million and the median capital  investment program contribution is about $20 million. As shown in table 4,  nearly half of these projects were recommended for $20 to $30 million in  capital investment program funds.
section_title: FTA’s Project Development Requirements for Small Starts and Very Small Starts and Stakeholder Views
subsections: section_title: FTA’s Project Development Requirements
paragraphs: FTA’s project development requirements for Small and Very Small Starts  are similar in some respects, but FTA’s submission requirements for  Small Starts’ project justification criteria are more extensive. For  application into the project development phase, FTA requires sponsors of  Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects to submit comparable  information in some respects, such as project description and local  financial commitment. As outlined in FTA’s Reporting Instructions for  Small Starts and other guidance, both the number and type of  requirements in these areas are similar for Small Starts and Very Small  Starts projects. As shown in table 5, FTA has a similar number of  requirements for Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects with regard  to project description and maps and local financial commitment. Sponsors  of Small Starts projects are also subject to submission requirements for  project justification criteria, such as user benefit forecasts to meet the  cost-effectiveness requirement. On the other hand, FTA does not require  this information from sponsors of Very Small Starts projects. FTA officials  told us they consider Very Small Starts projects to be inherently cost- effective because they do not exceed certain total and per-mile costs and  meet minimum ridership thresholds (at least 3,000 per weekday). We and  others have reported that the Small Starts project justification  requirements can be complicated and require substantial resources to  complete. However, FTA officials said they do not agree with this  assessment of the work required to meet the project justification  requirements. Table 5 also lists the requirements for New Starts projects,  for comparison.
In addition, the type of information required for project description and  maps and local financial commitment is comparable for Small Starts and  Very Small Starts projects beyond having a similar number of  requirements. For local financial commitment, for example, Small Starts  and Very Small Starts project sponsors are required by FTA to submit the  same information to FTA for a simplified financial evaluation. Specifically,  project sponsors submit a financial plan summary, 3 years of audited  financial statements to demonstrate financial health, evidence that  operations and maintenance costs for the proposed project are no greater  than 5 percent of the sponsor’s systemwide operations and maintenance  costs (to qualify for a simplified financial evaluation as opposed to the 20- year plans required for New Starts projects), and supporting financial  documents.
Besides the requirements listed in table 5, FTA also requires a project  management plan for all Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects. FTA  regulations and guidance outline the general requirements for a project  management plan for all FTA-funded capital projects. The requirements  include, for example, information on staff reporting relationships and  responsibilities, recordkeeping processes, and the budget for managing  the project. FTA does not have specific guidance on project management  plans for Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects. According to  officials from FTA headquarters, FTA regional office staff scale the  general requirements and level of detail needed for each project, based  on its complexity and the sponsor’s level of experience managing capital  improvement projects. For example, officials from one regional office we  spoke to said that while all project management plans must include  information on the scope, schedule, and cost of a project, less detail  would be required for a less expensive project.
Further, sponsors of both Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects  may have additional requirements related to FTA regulations on project  management oversight. FTA may assign project management oversight  contractors (PMOC) to Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects that  have a total cost over $100 million, are technically complex, or have less  experienced sponsors, among other reasons. To support its oversight of  a project, FTA can direct a PMOC to conduct various reviews of a project.  For example, FTA can direct a PMOC to review a sponsor’s project  management plan or assess a project’s readiness to enter the project  development phase. For such reviews, the PMOC would typically review  information that project sponsors are already required to submit for  project development. For other PMOC reviews, such as a review of  whether a project sponsor has the technical capacity and capability to  complete its project, a project sponsor may be required to complete  additional work, like participating in interviews with the PMOC and  providing information on staffing levels and qualifications.
While requirements are similar in several ways, FTA requires the  sponsors of Small Starts projects to submit more information on a  project’s justification than the sponsors of Very Small Starts projects. FTA  evaluates and rates Small Starts projects on three project justification  criteria prescribed in statute: cost-effectiveness, land use, and economic  development. Therefore, FTA requires travel forecasts for the project’s  opening year, estimates of user benefits like travel time savings, and land  use plans, among other items. For Small Starts, travel forecasts are often  generated by regional travel models but can be provided, in some  circumstances, through a more straightforward spreadsheet analysis of  data that, according to FTA, makes these calculations easier for Small  Starts project sponsors. In our previous work, we reported that these  requirements can require substantial resources and can create  disincentives for sponsors to apply for funding. By contrast, FTA does not  require such project justification information for Very Small Starts  projects. According to FTA guidance, by containing certain FTA-defined  features, such as having a total cost under $50 million and demonstrating  that the project corridor already serves more than 3,000 riders per  weekday, projects are “warranted” as being inherently cost-effective at  producing significant mobility benefits and supporting land use and  economic development.
section_title: Stakeholders’ Views on Project Development Requirements
paragraphs: Several project sponsors and industry groups we spoke with told us that  the project development requirements for Very Small Starts projects were  streamlined and not overly burdensome. However, they also felt that such  requirements for Small Starts projects were too similar to the  requirements for New Starts projects and required a comparable amount  of time and resources. As stated earlier, Congress established the Small  Starts program to create a streamlined process for smaller, less complex  capital transit projects, and FTA also created the Very Small Starts  category with a similar desire. However, as described in our methodology,  there is not a reliable quantitative way to evaluate the effect of changes in  requirements on project development time frames. FTA officials said they  do not agree with GAO’s assessment of its data. (See app. III.)
FTA headquarters and regional officials, as well as three project sponsors  we spoke with, indicated that local issues, such as delays in finalizing  funding or lack of agreement on a project’s route, often affect how long a  project spends in development. Of the 29 Small Starts and Very Small  Starts projects FTA has recommended for funding, 11 projects have  received construction grants. These projects took from about 9 months to  almost 4 years to complete the project development phase and receive a  construction grant from FTA. While the amount of time it takes for a  project to complete project development can be influenced by several  factors, FTA officials and project sponsors told us that local issues can  delay the progress of a Small Starts or Very Small Starts project. Of the  10 project sponsors we interviewed, half told us that they experienced  delays during project development. Three of the five project sponsors that  experienced delays said that local issues caused the delays. One project  sponsor, for example, said that the lack of committed funds for the project  from the state government caused a 6-month delay in the project’s  development, while one other project sponsor said that its project was  delayed while it addressed the public’s concerns on the project route.  Another project sponsor faced delays due to local and federal issues;  specifically, the project had to wait for passage of a local referendum  providing operating funds for the project and had to do additional work  because it received conflicting information from FTA on the work it  needed to complete to fulfill federal environmental requirements.
To examine the project development process, we discussed the  advantages and disadvantages of the requirements with a variety of  stakeholders, including 10 project sponsors, officials from FTA  headquarters and 7 regional offices, and 2 industry groups. The  perspectives of the stakeholders we spoke to depend, in part, on their  experience with Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects, as well as  any experience with New Starts projects. For example, 6 of the 10 project  sponsors we spoke with had experience planning and implementing New  Starts projects, while the other 4 sponsors had no such organizational  experience. FTA officials in some regions told us that since the sponsors  of many Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects were unfamiliar with  the requirements for New Starts projects, these sponsors may not be  aware of the difference in requirements or the degree to which some  requirements had been scaled for their projects. FTA regional officials  also had varying experience overseeing Small Starts and Very Small  starts projects. Five regional offices had overseen only 1 Small Starts or  Very Small Starts project while one regional office had overseen 13  projects.
Stakeholders we spoke with cited advantages related to FTA’s project  development requirements for both Small Starts and Very Small Starts  projects.    Several stakeholders we interviewed—five project sponsors, one  industry group, and FTA headquarters and officials from two  regions—said that the project development requirements for Very  Small Starts projects were straightforward and not overly burdensome  and, as a result, that Very Small Starts projects have a streamlined  process. Specifically, three project sponsors told us that an advantage  of Very Small Starts was the minimal data analysis requirements,  specifically travel forecasting. One of these sponsors said that its Very  Small Starts project required less travel analysis and had a faster  application process compared to New Starts projects that it had  previously completed. Another project sponsor told us that FTA’s use  of a single-year construction grant instead of a multiyear PCGA  helped to expedite the project development process. For this grant,  the project sponsor was able to apply for the grant through FTA’s  electronic grant system rather than negotiate the terms of a PCGA  with FTA. FTA may use a single-year construction grant, rather than a  PCGA, for projects with sponsors that request less than $25 million  and whose request can be met with a single-year appropriation or  existing FTA appropriations that remain available for that purpose.   Seven stakeholders we spoke with, including officials from three FTA  regional offices and four project sponsors, told us that the project  development requirements help contribute to the success of a project  through the development of detailed plans and examination of long- term costs. As a result, project sponsors are able to identify potential  challenges and better communicate project details to the public. For  example, one project sponsor and officials from one regional office  told us that they were better prepared to respond to public questions  on the project’s design and funding after completing the project  development requirements.   Officials from two FTA regional offices and five project sponsors told  us that the project management plan, in particular, is a valuable tool to  help organize a project’s implementation, particularly for project  sponsors that have not previously implemented capital projects.  Moreover, two project sponsors we spoke with said that they would  use a project management plan even if it were not required by FTA.  However, three project sponsors told us that project management  plan requirements were not scaled to fit their smaller, less complex  projects. As described above, FTA does not have specific project  management plan guidance for Small Starts and Very Small Starts  projects but scales the requirements in the general guidance to fit  each project’s size and complexity. For example, officials from one  regional office said that a project management plan may not include a  section on real estate acquisition if the project sponsor did not have to  purchase property to carry out the project. In September 2009, FTA  issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on project  management oversight regulations, which included the guidelines for  project management plans. The current regulations predate the  creation of the Small Starts program and Very Small Starts category.  In the notice, FTA specifically seeks comment on whether sponsors of  Small Starts projects should establish less detailed project  management plans than New Starts projects.   Two Small Starts project sponsors said that the single project  development phase in the Small Starts program was an advantage.  According to one project sponsor, the single phase eliminated the  need to stop design work on the project while applying for and  receiving approval from FTA to enter another phase, as can be the  case with the two-stage process for New Starts projects. According to  FTA officials, FTA allows project sponsors to continue design on a  project while waiting for approval, as outlined in FTA’s 2006 program  guidance. In past studies of the New Starts program, GAO and  Deloitte presented the use of a single project development phase for  all New Starts projects as one option to help expedite the New Starts  process. In its reauthorization proposal, as identified in the fiscal  year 2012 budget request, FTA proposed that all projects use this  single-phase approach as one way to transform the New Starts  program, balancing the need to advance projects in a reasonable time  frame with being a steward for federal transit dollars.
Some stakeholders we spoke with also reported disadvantages of FTA’s  project development requirements. As described below, stakeholders that  have experience with New Starts projects said that the Small Starts  project development requirements, which were to be streamlined, are too  similar to those for New Starts projects. These comments suggest that,  from some stakeholders’ perspective, Small Starts could be further  differentiated from New Starts. However, as stated in our previous work  on the New Starts program, FTA’s oversight of projects must strike an  appropriate balance between expediting project development and  maintaining the use of a rigorous and systematic process to distinguish  among projects.    Sponsors from three Small Starts projects we spoke with were  assigned PMOCs, and all three project sponsors felt that the PMOCs’  oversight should have been better scaled to their Small Starts  projects. All three project sponsors said that their PMOCs provided  constructive comments and assistance during project development.  However, all three felt that the PMOCs’ reviews should have been  better scaled to the size and complexity of their projects. Based on  their experience developing both a New Starts and Small Starts  project, two of the project sponsors told us that the PMOC reviewed  their Small Starts project as though it were a New Starts project. As  mentioned above, FTA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed  Rulemaking on project management oversight regulations in  September 2009, which, upon completion of the rulemaking process,  could affect PMOC oversight of Small Starts projects. In the notice,  FTA seeks comments on how it should best use PMOCs in  overseeing projects and the circumstances, such as the complexity of  a project, under which the agency may assign a PMOC to a project.   Two Small Starts project sponsors said that the length of the review  process for PCGAs was a disadvantage. After FTA and a project  sponsor negotiate a PCGA, it must go through multiple levels of  review, including the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, the  Office of Management and Budget, and Congress. By statute, a  PCGA is subject to a 60-day congressional review period. According  to one project sponsor, a reduction in the PCGA review time would be  beneficial and help them implement their projects more quickly. In a  recent congressional hearing, the FTA administrator said that the  agency would ask Congress to consider shortening this review period  to 30 days when the New Starts program is reauthorized.    According to an industry group and one project sponsor we spoke  with, New Starts and Small Starts projects entail comparable levels of  work. Officials from the industry group told us that some of its  members therefore feel it is better to apply as a New Starts project  and seek more funding rather than apply as a Small Starts project and  face constraints on the project’s total cost and capital investment  program share. We have previously reviewed FTA’s Small Starts  program and reported on options that exist to expedite the New Starts  project development process. In 2007, for example, we reported that  FTA could take additional action to further streamline the Small Starts  program. FTA officials acknowledged that the requirements could be  further streamlined and took steps to do so, such as reducing  duplicative requirements and developing Small Starts-specific  reporting templates.
section_title: FTA’s Project Development Requirements for Exempt Projects and Stakeholder Views
subsections: section_title: Exempt Projects Are Subject to Fewer Requirements Than Small Starts or Very Small Starts Projects
paragraphs: Exempt projects are not evaluated and rated or recommended for funding  by FTA; exempt projects receive under $25 million in federal assistance  and are typically congressionally designated. Since FTA does not  evaluate and rate these projects, they are subject to fewer FTA  requirements. However, FTA requires exempt projects to submit  information similar to some requirements for Small Starts and Very Small  Starts projects. This consists of information on a project’s background,  which includes a description of the project as well as site and vicinity  maps; costs, such as worksheets that organize the project’s capital costs  by year of expenditure and type of expenditure, like vehicles and stations,  stops, and terminals; and local financial commitment, which includes a  financial plan summary and supporting financial documentation.
According to its guidance, FTA does not have to evaluate and rate  exempt projects. However, the projects still have to be approved by FTA  into preliminary engineering and final design. FTA’s approval for  advancing exempt projects is based on compliance with planning,  environmental, and project management requirements which apply to all  federal-aid transit projects. FTA officials said that, as it relates to exempt  projects, they mainly determine whether project sponsors possess a level  of technical and financial capacity that is appropriate for the scope of the  project before advancing an exempt project into the next stage of  development. For example, FTA must determine whether a project has  secured at least half of its local funding prior to advancing to the final  design phase of project development.
In terms of other requirements, FTA requires the sponsor of an exempt  project to create and submit a project management plan to describe its  budget, processes, procedures, and schedule for managing the project.  FTA may also assign a PMOC to an exempt project with a total project  cost over $100 million, technical complexity, or a sponsor with no  previous experience implementing capital transit projects.
section_title: Nine New Exempt Projects Since 2005
paragraphs: As table 6 shows, a total of nine exempt projects of various modes and  total costs have entered the New Starts pipeline since SAFETEA-LU was  enacted.
Within each mode, the exempt projects vary in characteristics, such as  scope. For example:    For the bus projects, one extends a transitway with dedicated bus- priority/high-occupancy-vehicle lanes, bikeways, and sidewalks;  another establishes initial components and infrastructure for a BRT  system that includes dedicated bus lanes, transit stations, and a real- time passenger information system.   For rail projects, one project constructs a new driverless, automated  rail system between an existing transit station and an airport; another  project builds a new transit station along an existing heavy rail line.  See appendix IV for additional information on each of these exempt  projects.
In addition to the nine exempt projects listed in table 6, on March 4, 2011,  FTA selected five exempt projects to receive capital investment program  discretionary grants under FTA’s newly created Urban Circulator  Program. The grants are to help state and local governments finance  new fixed-guideway capital projects, including the acquisition of property,  the initial acquisition of rolling stock, the acquisition of rights-of-way, and  relocation. The projects fall within the exempt category because the  maximum grant for each selected project must be less than $25 million  and make up no more than 80 percent of the project’s total capital cost.  These are projects such as streetcars that provide a transportation option  to connect urban destinations and foster the redevelopment of urban  spaces into walkable mixed-use, high-density environments. Table 7 lists  the five Urban Circulator projects FTA selected to receive funds.
According to FTA, a total of 65 applicants requested $1.1 billion, resulting  in high competition for the $130 million made available. FTA ran a  competition for these funds and evaluated project proposals based on  criteria such as livability, sustainability, economic development, and  leveraging of public and private investments, in line with the Department  of Transportation’s livability initiative that began in 2009. According to  FTA, the projects selected will provide mobility choices, improve  economic competitiveness, support existing communities, create  partnerships, and enhance the value of communities and neighborhoods.
section_title: Continuing Demand for the Exempt Category
paragraphs: Although stakeholders cite a need for the exempt category, projects  considered “exempt” from the statutory evaluation and rating process  were eliminated in SAFETEA-LU, pending the publication by FTA of a  final regulation implementing Small Starts, which has not yet occurred.  However, until that happens, FTA officials said that it will still have an  exempt category. The stakeholders with whom we spoke want to continue  this category of funding because they said that a key advantage of the  exempt category is that it serves as a useful source of funding for  “unique” or atypical transit projects. For example, four project sponsors  that we spoke with indicated that their projects may not have competed  well with other projects if evaluated against the New Starts criteria and in  competition with more typical New Starts transit projects, like light rail  lines. Yet, they believe their projects fill a transportation gap for the  communities they serve. Compared to a new commuter or light rail line,  such exempt projects are not well suited to the New Starts evaluation and  rating criteria—such as cost-effectiveness measured by travel time  savings to user. However, we do not have enough information to  determine how these exempt projects would have fared against the New  Starts criteria.
In its 2012 budget request, FTA proposes to continue the exempt  category in the next surface transportation reauthorization. According to  its fiscal year 2012 budget request, FTA is proposing to raise the amount  of federal funding available to exempt projects, in conjunction with other  changes to the New Starts program.    Specifically, projects could be “exempt” from the evaluation and rating  process if the project sponsor is seeking less than $100 million in §  5309 Capital Investment Grant program funds and the request  represents less than 10 percent of the project’s anticipated total  capital cost. According to FTA, the main reason for continuing an  exempt category is the awareness that if FTA provides only a small  percentage of a project’s total cost, there is a corresponding lower  amount of risk to the federal government; at the same time, other  entities, like state and local governments, provide a greater amount of  funding and assume a higher amount of risk. Because of the lowered  risk to the federal government, a project would be exempt from the  more stringent federal oversight (i.e., evaluated and rated against  criteria) that apply to other projects, while the other funding partners  would likely conduct more due diligence to protect their increased  investment. Just as they are now, these projects would only be  subject to basic federal grant requirements and would not be  evaluated and rated by FTA.   Given that these projects are not rated and evaluated, the project  sponsors we talked with considered this as one of the major benefits  to this category, because it potentially decreases the amount of time  spent in project development and project costs.
SAFETEA-LU requires project sponsors to conduct a before-and-after  study for all New Starts projects. Additionally, FTA requires before-and- after studies to be conducted for all Small Starts projects, in accordance  with FTA guidance. Although FTA and the project sponsors we spoke  with generally view the exempt category as beneficial, these projects are  not validated with studies, as are other New Starts and Small Starts  projects. For New Starts and Small Starts projects, the before-and-after  study describes the impact of the project on transit services and ridership  and compares the predicted and actual project performance. Additionally,  Very Small Starts project sponsors must complete a simplified before- and-after study on the project’s actual scope, costs, and ridership.  However, according to FTA officials, exempt project sponsors do not  submit such information on completed projects. As we’ve previously  reported, information about the outcomes of completed transit projects  can be used to better determine what a particular project accomplished  and improve decisions on other projects.
Our interviews with stakeholders resulted in a few reported  disadvantages.    Most notably, FTA has limited guidance on exempt projects. For  example, FTA has a checklist that shows what is required for exempt  projects, as opposed to New Starts and Small Starts. However, one  project sponsor said they felt there was a lack of guidance for exempt  projects and that their consultant helped to navigate the requirements  in lieu of more thorough guidance.    Stakeholders, including officials from FTA and project sponsors, also  said that the exempt projects can face funding uncertainties. Some  stakeholders said that exempt projects have no guarantee of funding  beyond what has been appropriated by Congress, and a project’s  exempt funding may not be appropriated all at once. One project  sponsor told us that since only a portion of its exempt funding has  been appropriated, they have had to leverage local funds to advance  the project until more exempt funds become available.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Transportation for  review and comment. DOT officials provided us with clarifying and  technical comments, which we incorporated throughout the report as  appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Transportation,  the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration, and appropriate  congressional committees. This report is also available at no charge on  the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)  512-2834 or stjamesl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Recommendation Follow-up
paragraphs: Two recent GAO reports on the New Starts program contained  recommendations that were open when we began our work on this review  in December 2010. This appendix lists those reports and updates the  Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) progress in implementing these  recommendations.
Public Transportation: Improvements Are Needed to More Fully Assess  Predicted Impacts of New Starts Projects, GAO-08-844 (Washington,  D.C.: July 25, 2008).
This report made five recommendations to the Department of  Transportation (DOT) to improve the New Starts evaluation process and  the measures of project benefits, which could change the relative ranking  of projects. Table 8 lists the five recommendations with information on the  status of each recommendation, as of July 2011.
Public Transportation: Better Data Needed to Assess Length of New  Starts Process, and Options Exist to Expedite Project Development,  GAO-09-784 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 6, 2009).
This report made two recommendations to DOT to improve the New  Starts program. Table 9 lists these recommendations with information on  the status of each recommendation, as of July 2011.
section_title: Appendix II: Small Starts and Very Small Starts Projects That Have Received Construction Grants
paragraphs: FTA has awarded construction grants to 11 of the 29 Small Starts and  Very Small Starts projects recommended for funding to Congress. Table  10 provides information on each project, including the date FTA approved  the project into the project development phase and the date FTA  obligated funds for construction.
According to FTA officials, the agency typically recommends a Small  Starts or Very Small Starts project for funding the first year it is in the  project development phase, which is sooner than when the agency  recommends New Starts projects for funding. After a project is  recommended for funding, FTA makes firm funding commitments, such  as those in a project construction grant agreement, when the project’s  development has reached a point where its scope, costs, benefits, and  impacts are considered firm and final.
section_title: Appendix III: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To describe the legislative and program history for the creation of Small  Starts and Very Small Starts, respectively, we analyzed the Safe,  Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act-A Legacy for  Users (SAFETEA-LU), congressional reports, testimonies before  Congress, and member floor statements on the program from 2004 to  2007, the years leading up to and after the passage of SAFETEA-LU. To  describe the program history behind the Very Small Starts category, we  similarly analyzed Federal Register notices and program guidance issued  by FTA. We also interviewed FTA officials on the creation of Very Small  Starts. To provide information on Small Starts and Very Small Starts  projects, including total project cost, mode of transit, and other  characteristics, we collected and analyzed project data, including grant  data, compiled by FTA to determine the cost, mode of transit, and other  characteristics of Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects. We  included projects that had been recommended for funding to Congress  since the passage of SAFETEA-LU (August 10, 2005). We also sought to  include projects that were (1) in the project development phase but not  yet recommended for funding or (2) in the process of applying to enter  this phase. Through discussions with FTA staff and analysis of FTA  Annual Reports on Funding Recommendations, we determined that no  projects met the above conditions at the time of our review. To verify and  assess the reliability of the data compiled by FTA, we compared it to  project data contained in FTA’s Annual Reports on Funding  Recommendations for fiscal years 2007 through 2012 and information  from project sponsors we interviewed. We resolved any discrepancies  with FTA headquarters staff, and we determined that the data were  sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
To describe the project development requirements for Small Starts and  Very Small Starts projects, we collected and summarized relevant laws,  such as SAFETEA-LU, as well as FTA circulars and policy guidance for  the Small Starts program, including the 2007 Updated Interim Guidance  and Instructions, 2010 Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 Small  Starts Criteria, and Side-by-Side of Required Information for New  Starts/Small Starts Evaluation and Rating. To determine the views of  stakeholders on the advantages and disadvantages of these  requirements, we conducted semistructured interviews with FTA officials  from headquarters and regional offices, sponsors of projects that have  been recommended for funding, and transit industry associations, such as  the American Public Transportation Association. We selected a  judgmental sample of 10 out of 29 projects to ensure variation in the  project’s geographic location, category of funding (i.e., Small Starts or  Very Small Starts), mode of transit, total project cost, and fiscal year  recommended for funding. We also interviewed FTA staff at the seven  regional offices that corresponded with the judgmental sample of project  sponsors. Table 11 lists the Small Starts and Very Small Starts project  sponsors we interviewed for our review.
We used stakeholder observations and experiences, as there is not a  reliable quantitative way to evaluate the impact of changes in the  requirements for Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects on project  development time frames compared to New Starts projects for two  reasons. First, only a small number of Small Starts (including Very Small  Starts) projects—11 of 29 recommended for funding—have completed  the project development phase and received a construction grant.  Second, in past work we found that FTA and project sponsor data on time  frames for New Starts projects (such as entry into preliminary engineering  and final design) are not reliable. However, FTA officials said they do not  agree with GAO’s assessment of its data. Given these reasons, we did  not include such a comparison in our methodology for this review.
To describe the project development requirements for exempt projects,  we summarized relevant laws, regulations, and FTA guidance for exempt  projects. We also interviewed officials from FTA headquarters and  regional offices. Our review of exempt projects included projects selected  to receive funding that entered the New Starts pipeline (i.e., approved into  the preliminary engineering phase) since SAFETEA-LU was enacted. To  describe the types of exempt projects that have entered the New Starts  pipeline since the passage of SAFETEA-LU, we collected, verified, and  analyzed data from FTA. We compared the data from FTA to project data  available in FTA’s Annual Reports on Funding Recommendations for  fiscal years 2007 through 2012 to assess its reliability. There were a total  of nine exempt projects that entered the New Starts pipeline since 2005.  We worked with FTA to resolve any discrepancies and found the data  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. To determine the views  of stakeholders on the advantages and disadvantages of the exempt  category, we conducted semistructured interviews with FTA officials  (headquarters and regional office staff), sponsors of exempt projects that  received funding, and transit industry associations. We selected a  judgmental sample of five exempt project sponsors to ensure variety in  the projects’ geographic location, mode of transit, project cost, and the  fiscal year the projects were approved into the New Starts preliminary  engineering phase. Table 12 lists the exempt project sponsors we  interviewed for our review.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2010 through  August 2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix IV: Descriptions of Exempt Projects
paragraphs: The following provides detailed descriptions of the nine exempt projects  of various modes that have entered the New Starts pipeline and their total  costs since SAFETEA-LU was enacted. The descriptions are primarily  from FTA’s latest annual reports or as noted. There are four rail projects,  a ferry project, a street car project, and three bus projects. These projects  are listed in the order they entered the New Starts pipeline, beginning  with the earliest.
The City of Stamford, Connecticut, is proposing to extend Phase I of its  Urban Transitway, currently in operation, for an additional 0.6 miles along  Myrtle Avenue to U.S. Route 1. According to FTA’s Annual Report on  Funding Recommendations, the facility will accommodate new dedicated  bus-priority/high-occupancy-vehicle lanes in both directions, as well as  bike pathways and sidewalks. Signal priority treatments at intersections  will give local and commuter buses priority. Bus stops in the corridor will  include real-time passenger displays. The total capital cost for the  Stamford Urban Transitway Phase II project is estimated at $48.3 million,  with a proposed New Starts share of $24.7 million. FTA approved the  project into preliminary engineering in May 2006 and into final design in  November 2007.
The Maine Marine Highway Project, sponsored by the Maine Department  of Transportation, is for the construction of a ferry boat—the Governor  Curtis. As proposed, this vessel will expand the capacity of the Maine  State Ferry Service to provide transportation between Rockland and the  off-shore islands in Penobscot Bay. It will also free up another vessel to  be retrofitted and serve as a backup vessel; currently, no vessel of this  size is available as a backup. The new vessel will hold 250 passengers  and approximately 20 cars. The New Starts share is $1.5 million of an  estimated total capital cost of $10.4 million. FTA concurrently approved  the project into preliminary engineering and final design in May 2006.
The Jacksonville Transit Authority is planning a regional bus rapid transit  system for the Jacksonville metropolitan area. The Downtown Transit  Service Enhancement Project is the first phase to be developed and will  serve as the center hub of the system. The 8.4-mile project includes  increased bus service, semi-exclusive reserved bus lanes, 22 stations  and stops, traffic signal priority, and real-time traveler information. The  project is estimated to cost $15.6 million which includes a New Starts  share of $9.4 million. FTA approved the project into preliminary  engineering in December 2006 and into final design in August 2010.
The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority proposes to build a new  Assembly Square Station on the existing Massachusetts Bay  Transportation Authority heavy rail Orange Line between the existing  Sullivan Square and Wellington Stations in the City of Somerville,  Massachusetts. No additional Massachusetts Bay Transportation  Authority rail cars are needed to provide service to this new station. The  total capital cost of the Assembly Square Station is estimated to be $47.7  million with a proposed New Starts share of $24.9 million. FTA approved  the project into preliminary engineering in September 2008 and into final  design in November 2010.
According to FTA’s latest description of this project, the Lackawanna  Cutoff project involves the restoration of commuter rail service from Port  Morris, New Jersey, to Andover, New Jersey—a distance of 7.3 miles.  The Lackawanna Minimum Operating Segment is a short rail line at the  outer end of New Jersey Transit’s existing Montclair/Boonton Line. The  alignment consists of the construction of a single track along the existing  right-of-way purchased by the state of New Jersey in 2001. One station  will be constructed at the terminus in Andover. The project will utilize the  existing Port Morris Yard for storage and maintenance services. New  Jersey Transit’s existing rolling stock will be used to operate the service.  The estimated capital cost is $36.6 million with a proposed New Starts  share of $18.2 million including primarily New Starts funds. New Jersey  Transit has already received the full amount of appropriations necessary  for this project.
The City of Tucson Department of Transportation proposes to build a  streetcar project in the downtown Tucson Urban Corridor. The project  includes the purchase of eight streetcar vehicles. The streetcars will  operate at grade on surface streets in mixed traffic in most locations, with  some reserved right-of-way where available. Track placement will  primarily be in the center of shared travel lanes with stations located  either in the median or on the outside of roadways. Station platforms will  be designed so that they can be used by buses as well as by streetcars,  where possible. The total capital cost of the project is estimated to be  $196.5 million; the current New Starts share is $5.8 million. FTA approved  the Tucson Modern Streetcar Project into preliminary engineering as an  exempt project in December 2008 and into final design in September  2009.
The Bay Area Rapid Transit’s Oakland Airport Connector is a 3.2-mile rail  project to connect the Oakland International Airport to the Bay Area Rapid  Transit’s Coliseum Station and the rest of the transit system. According to  the project sponsor, it will be a driverless, automated rail system to  replace bus service and provide more integrated service to the airport. To  construct the project, Bay Area Rapid Transit is using a design-build- operate-maintain project delivery approach. The estimated $492.7 million  project will be funded using several funding sources, including $24.9  million in federal New Starts funding. FTA concurrently approved the  project into preliminary engineering and final design in December 2009.
The Rhode Island Department of Transportation proposes to build a new  Pawtucket/Central Falls Commuter Rail Station on the existing  Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Providence-to-Boston  commuter rail route, which follows Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor. The  station would be constructed in Pawtucket near the site of a station that  was closed in 1959 between the existing South Attleboro and Providence  stations. The total capital cost of the Commuter Rail Station is estimated  to be $53.6 million with a proposed New Starts share of $24.9 million.  FTA approved the project into preliminary engineering as an exempt New  Starts project in August 2010. The Rhode Island Department of  Transportation expects to begin final design in 2013, construction in 2015,  and revenue operations in 2018.
According to FTA, the Crystal City-Potomac Yard project is a 3.1 mile bus  transitway project with eight stops. It includes 1.5 lane-miles of exclusive  transit right-of-way (which is an independent roadway for buses) and 1.3  miles of an on-street dedicated bus lane, and 0.3 lane-miles of mixed  traffic operation. Arlington County officials said this project is not a bus  rapid transit project, which has different features such as large distances  between stations. Instead, this bus transitway project provides limited  local bus service that will replace the current standard local bus service.  The purpose is to provide high-capacity and high-quality bus transit  services in the 5-mile corridor between the Pentagon (and Pentagon City)  in Arlington County and the Braddock Road Metrorail Station in the City of  Alexandria. The total capital cost of the bus transitway is estimated to be  $38.1 million with a proposed New Starts share of $980,000. FTA  approved the project into preliminary engineering as an exempt New  Starts project in August 2010.
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Catherine Colwell, Assistant  Director; Lauren Calhoun; Dwayne Curry; Robert Heilman; Terence Lam;  Joanie Lofgren; Sara Ann W. Moessbauer; and Amy Rosewarne made  key contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Public Transportation: Use of Contractors is Generally Enhancing Transit  Project Oversight, and FTA is Taking Actions to Address Some  Stakeholder Concerns. GAO-10-909. Washington, D.C.: September 14,  2010.
Public Transportation: Better Data Needed to Assess Length of New  Starts Process, and Options Exist to Expedite Project Development.  GAO-09-784. Washington, D.C.: August 6, 2009.
Public Transportation: New Starts Program Challenges and Preliminary  Observations on Expediting Project Development. GAO-09-763T.  Washington, D.C.: June 3, 2009.
Public Transportation: Improvements Are Needed to More Fully Assess  Predicted Impacts of New Starts Projects. GAO-08-844. Washington,  D.C.: July 25, 2008.
Public Transportation: Future Demand Is Likely for New Starts and Small  Starts Programs, but Improvements Needed to the Small Starts  Application Process. GAO-07-917. Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2007.
Public Transportation: Preliminary Analysis of Changes to and Trends in  FTA’s New Starts and Small Starts Programs. GAO-07-812T.  Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2007.
Public Transportation: New Starts Program Is in a Period of Transition.  GAO-06-819. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2006.
Public Transportation: Preliminary Information on FTA’s Implementation  of SAFETEA-LU Changes. GAO-06-910T. Washington, D.C.: June 27,  2006.
Public Transportation: Opportunities Exist to Improve the Communication  and Transparency of Changes Made to the New Starts Program.  GAO-05-674. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2005.