Public Transportation: New Starts Program Challenges and Preliminary Observations on Expediting Project Development
Published: 2009-06-03T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The New Starts program is an important source of new capital investment in mass transportation. As required by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) must prioritize transit projects for funding by evaluating, rating, and recommending projects on the basis of specific financial commitment and project justification criteria, such as cost-effectiveness, economic development effects, land use, and environmental benefits. To be eligible for federal funding, a project must advance through the different project development phases of the New Starts program, including alternatives analysis, preliminary engineering, and final design. Using the statutorily identified criteria, FTA evaluates projects as a condition for advancement into each project development phase of the program. This testimony discusses the (1) key challenges associated with the New Starts program and (2) options that could help expedite project development in the New Starts program. This testimony is based on GAO's extensive body of work on the New Starts program and ongoing work--as directed by Congress. For this work, GAO reviewed FTA documents and interviewed FTA officials, sponsors of New Starts projects, and representatives from industry associations. The FTA reviewed the information in this testimony and provided technical comments.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Previous GAO work has identified three key challenges associated with the New Starts program. First, frequent changes to the New Starts program have sometimes led to confusion and delays. Numerous changes have been made to the New Starts Program over the last decade, such as revising and adding new evaluation criteria and requiring project sponsors to collect new data and complete new analyses. Although FTA officials told GAO that changes were generally intended to make the process more rigorous, systematic, and transparent, project sponsors said the frequent changes sometimes caused confusion and rework, resulting in delays in advancing projects. Second, the current New Starts evaluation process measures do not capture all project benefits. For example, FTA's cost-effectiveness measure does not account for highway travel time savings and may not capture all economic development benefits. FTA officials have acknowledged these limitations, but noted that improvements in local travel models are needed to resolve some of these issues. FTA is also conducting research on ways to improve certain evaluation measures. Third, striking the appropriate balance between maintaining a robust evaluation and minimizing a complex process is challenging. Experts and some project sponsors GAO spoke with generally support FTA's quantitatively rigorous process for evaluating proposed transit projects but are concerned that the process has become too burdensome and complex. In response to such concerns, FTA has tried to simplify the evaluation process in several ways, including hiring a consulting firm to identify opportunities to streamline or simplify the process. As part of ongoing work, GAO has preliminarily identified options to help expedite project development within the New Starts program. These options include tailoring the New Starts evaluation process to risks posed by the projects, using letters of intent more frequently, and applying regulatory and administrative changes only to future projects. While each option could help expedite project development in the New Starts process, each option has advantages and disadvantages to consider. For example, by signaling early federal support of projects, letters of intent and early systems work agreements could help project sponsors use potentially less costly and time-consuming alternative project delivery methods, such as design-build. However, such early support poses some risk, as projects may stumble in later project development phases. Furthermore, some options, like combining one or more statutorily required project development phases, would require legislative action.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on the Federal Transit  Administration’s (FTA) New Starts program. As you know, since the early  1970s, a significant portion of the federal government’s share of new  capital investment in mass transportation has come through the New  Starts program. Through this program, FTA identifies and recommends  new fixed-guideway transit projects—including heavy, light, and  commuter rail; ferry; and certain bus projects—for full-funding grant  agreements (FFGA). Over the last decade, the New Starts program has  provided state and local agencies with over $10 billion to help design and  construct transit projects throughout the country.
As required by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation  Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),  FTA must prioritize  transit projects for funding by evaluating, rating, and recommending  potential projects on the basis of specific financial commitment and  project justification criteria—including mobility improvements, cost- effectiveness, economic development effects, land use, environmental  benefits, and operating efficiencies. Using these statutorily identified  criteria, FTA evaluates potential transit projects annually and as a  condition for advancement into each phase of the process, including  preliminary engineering, final design, and construction. FTA refers to  projects in the preliminary engineering or final design phases as the  “pipeline” through which successful projects advance to receive funding.
FTA’s New Starts program is often cited as a model for other federal  transportation programs because of its use of a rigorous and systematic  evaluation process to distinguish among proposed New Starts  investments. However, we and others have also identified challenges  facing the New Starts program. For example, our past reviews found that  many program stakeholders thought that FTA’s process for evaluating  New Starts projects was too complex and costly and did not effectively  use all of the criteria outlined in SAFETEA-LU and previous legislation to  account for different project benefits, such as economic development.
My testimony discusses the (1) key challenges associated with the New  Starts program and (2) options that could help expedite project  development in the New Starts program. My comments are based on our  extensive body of work on the New Starts program as well as our ongoing  work for the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs  and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We will  complete our ongoing work and report to the committees this summer.  For our ongoing work—as directed by Congress—we reviewed SAFETEA-  LU and other New Starts statutory requirements, FTA guidance and  regulations governing the New Starts program and other FTA documents,  including the annual New Starts report, and interviewed experts,  consultants, project sponsors, industry associations, and FTA officials  about the time it takes for a New Starts project to move through the New  Starts process, as well as options to address the elements that cause  delays. We conducted our ongoing work from January 2009 through May  2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives. The FTA reviewed the  information in this testimony and provided technical comments, which we  incorporated.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: FTA generally funds New Starts projects through FFGAs, which are  required by statute to establish the terms and conditions for federal  participation in a New Starts project. FFGAs also define a project’s scope,  including the length of the system and the number of stations; its schedule,  including the date when the system is expected to open for service; and its  cost. For projects to obtain FFGAs, New Starts projects must emerge from  a regional, multimodal transportation planning process. The first two  phases of the New Starts process—systems planning and alternatives  analysis—address this requirement. The systems planning phase identifies  the transportation needs of a region, while the alternatives analysis phase  provides information on the benefits, costs, and impacts of different  options, such as rail lines or bus routes, in a specific corridor versus a  region. The alternatives analysis phase results in the selection of a locally  preferred alternative, which is the New Starts project that FTA evaluates  for funding. After a locally preferred alternative is selected, the project  sponsor submits an application to FTA for the project to enter the  preliminary engineering phase. When this phase is completed and federal  environmental requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act  are satisfied, FTA may approve the project’s advancement into final  design, after which FTA may recommend the project for an FFGA and  advance the project into construction. FTA oversees grantees’  management of projects from the preliminary engineering phase through  the construction phase.
To help inform administration and congressional decision makers about  which projects should receive federal funds, FTA currently distinguishes  among proposed projects by evaluating and assigning ratings to various  statutory evaluation criteria—including both local financial commitment  and project justification criteria—and then assigning an overall project  rating. (See fig. 1.) These evaluation criteria reflect a range of benefits and  effects of the proposed project, such as cost-effectiveness, as well as the  ability of the project sponsor to fund the project and finance the continued  operation of its transit system. FTA has developed specific measures for  each of the criteria outlined in the statute. On the basis of these measures,  FTA assigns the proposed project a rating for each criterion and then  assigns a summary rating for local financial commitment and project  justification. These two ratings are averaged together to create an overall  rating, which is used in conjunction with a determination of the project’s  “readiness” for construction to determine what projects are recommended  for funding. Projects are rated at several points during the New Starts  process—as part of the evaluation for entry into the preliminary  engineering and the final design phases, and yearly for inclusion in the  New Starts Annual Report. As required by statute, the administration uses  the FTA evaluation and rating process, along with the development phases  of New Starts projects, to decide which projects to recommend to  Congress for funding.
section_title: Previous GAO Work Has Identified Key Challenges in Managing New Starts Program
subsections: section_title: Frequent Changes to the New Starts Program Have Sometimes Led to Confusion and Delays
paragraphs: Numerous changes have been made to the New Starts program over the  last decade. These changes include statutory, regulatory, and  administrative changes to the program. For example, we reported in 2005  that FTA had implemented 16 changes to the New Starts application,  evaluation, rating, and project development oversight process since the  fiscal year 2001 evaluation cycle. Additional changes have been made to  the program since 2005. Examples of these changes made to the program  over the last 10 years, in chronological order, include the following.
New data collection requirements: Starting with the fiscal year 2004  evaluation cycle, FTA required project sponsors seeking an FFGA to  submit a plan for the collection and analysis of information to determine  the impacts of the project and the accuracy of the forecasts that were  prepared during project planning and development. SAFETEA-LU  subsequently codified this “before and after” study requirement.
Evaluation measures revised: FTA revised its cost-effectiveness and  mobility improvements criteria by adopting the Transportation System  User Benefits (TSUB) measure that includes benefits for both new and  existing transit system riders. Although project sponsors generally view  the new cost-effectiveness measure of cost per hour of TSUB as an  improvement over the previous measure of cost per new rider, we have  reported that some project sponsors have had difficulties correctly  calculating the TSUB value for their projects, resulting in delays and  additional costs as they conduct multiple iterations of the TSUB measure.
New analysis requirement added: Starting with the fiscal year 2005  evaluation cycle, FTA required project sponsors to complete risk  assessments. Since implementation, the form and timing of the risk  assessments have evolved since 2003, but the intent of the assessments  remains to identify the issues that could affect the project’s schedule or  cost.
Policy on funding recommendations changed: In 2005, the  administration informed the transit community that it would target its  funding recommendations to projects that achieve a cost-effectiveness  rating of medium or higher. Previously, the administration had  recommended projects for funding that had lower cost-effectiveness  ratings, if they met all other criteria.
New programs established: SAFETEA-LU established the Small Starts  program, a new capital investment grant program, simplifying the  requirements imposed for those seeking funding for lower-cost projects.  This program is intended to advance smaller-scale projects through an  expedited and streamlined evaluation and rating process. FTA  subsequently introduced a separate eligibility category within the Small  Starts program for Very Small Starts projects. Very Small Starts projects  qualify for an even simpler evaluation and rating process.
New evaluation criteria introduced: Given past concerns that the  evaluation process did not account for a project’s impact on economic  development, SAFETEA-LU added economic development to the list of  project justification criteria that FTA must use to evaluate and rate New  Starts projects.
Although the impetus for each change varied, FTA officials stated that, in  general, all of the changes the agency has initiated were intended to make  the process more rigorous, systematic, and transparent. This increased  rigor, in turn, helps FTA and project sponsors deliver more New Starts  projects within budget and on time, according to FTA.
However, frequent changes to the New Starts program create challenges  for project sponsors. For example, we have previously reported that some  project sponsors told us that FTA did not create clear expectations or  provide sufficient guidance about certain changes. In addition, we  reported that project sponsors said some changes made the application  process more expensive and required them to spend significantly more  time to complete the application. We have heard similar concerns from  project sponsors during our ongoing review. Specifically, some project  sponsors we interviewed told us that they have had to redo completed  analyses because FTA applies regulatory and administrative changes to  projects in the pipeline.  In general, according to project sponsors and  other stakeholders we have spoken to, this rework adds time and costs to  completing the New Starts project development process.
section_title: FTA’s Project Evaluation Process Does Not Currently Capture All Project Benefits
paragraphs: FTA currently assigns a 50 percent weight to both the cost-effectiveness  and the land use criteria when developing the project justification  summary rating. The other project justification criteria are not weighted,  although the mobility improvements criterion is used as a “tiebreaker.”  FTA officials have told us that they do not currently use the environmental  benefits and operating efficiencies criteria in determining the project  justification summary rating because the measures do not, as currently  structured, provide meaningful distinctions among competing New Starts  projects. FTA does not use the economic development criterion because  of difficultly developing a measure that is separate and distinct from the  land use criterion. We have found in the past that many project sponsors  had similar views, noting that individual projects are too small to have  much impact, in terms of, for example, air quality, on the whole region or  the whole transit system. In contrast, FTA officials have told us that the  cost-effectiveness and land use measures help to make meaningful  distinctions among projects. For example, according to FTA, existing  transit supportive land use plans and policies demonstrate an area’s  commitment to transit and are a strong indicator of a project’s future  success. Furthermore, according to many FTA officials, experts, and the  literature we have consulted, FTA’s cost-effectiveness measure accounts  for most secondary project benefits, including economic development,  because these benefits are typically derived from mobility improvements  that reduce users’ travel times. Therefore, developing new measures for  these other criteria may result in the double-counting of certain project  benefits.
However, in 2008, we reported that FTA’s evaluation measures could be  underestimating total project benefits. FTA’s measure of cost- effectiveness, for instance, considers how the mobility improvements from  a proposed project will reduce users’ travel times. Although this measure  can capture most secondary project benefits, it does not account for  benefits for non-transit users (e.g., highway travel time savings) or capture  any economic development benefits that are not directly correlated to  mobility improvements. The omission of these benefits means proposed  projects that convey significant travel time savings for motorists, for  example, are not recognized in the selection process. Beyond the cost- effectiveness measure, we reported that project sponsors and experts  expressed frustration that FTA does not include certain criteria in the  calculation of project ratings, such as economic development and  environmental benefits. They noted that this practice limits the  information captured on projects, particularly since these are important  benefits of transit projects at the local level. As a result, FTA may be  underestimating projects’ total benefits, particularly in areas looking to  use these projects as a way to relieve congestion or promote more high- density development. In these cases, however, the extent to which FTA’s  current approach to estimating benefits affects how projects are ranked in  FTA’s evaluation and ratings process is unclear.
FTA officials have acknowledged these limitations, but noted that  improvements in local travel models are needed to resolve some of these  issues. In particular, many local models used to estimate future travel  demand for New Starts are incapable of reliably estimating highway travel  time savings as a result of the proposed project, according to FTA officials.
There is great variation in the models local transportation planning  agencies use to develop travel forecasts (which underlie many of the New  Starts measures), producing significant variation in forecast quality and  limiting the ability to assess quality against the general state of practice. In  2008, we made a series of recommendations designed to address the  limitations of FTA’s current evaluation process, including recommending  that (1) the Secretary of Transportation seek additional resources to  improve local travel models in the next authorizing legislation to improve  the New Starts evaluation process and the measures of project benefits;  (2) FTA establish a timeline for issuing, awarding, and implementing the  result of its request for proposals on short- and long-term approaches to  measuring highway user benefits from transit improvements; (3) the  Administrators of FTA and Federal Highway Administration collaborate in  efforts to improve the consistency and reliability of local travel models;  and (4) the Administrator of FTA establish a timeline for initiating and  completing its longer-term effort to develop more robust measures of  transit projects’ environmental benefits. FTA is working to address these  recommendations. For instance, FTA conducted a colloquium on  environmental benefits of transit projects in October 2008, which resulted  in a discussion paper on the evaluation of economic development. Further,  in a Federal Register Notice published on January 26, 2009, FTA issued  and sought comments on a discussion paper on new ways of evaluating  economic development effects. FTA is now reviewing comments on that  paper.
In May 2009, FTA also took steps to address concerns about the exclusion  of some project justification criteria from the evaluation process. In a  Notice of Availability for New Starts and Small Starts Policies and  Procedures and Requests for Comments in the Federal Register, FTA  proposed changing the weights assigned for the project justification  criteria for New Starts projects. Specifically, FTA proposes to set the  weights at 20 percent each for the mobility, cost-effectiveness, land use,  and economic development criteria, and 10 percent each for operating  efficiencies and environmental benefits. According to FTA, these changes  reflect statutory direction that project justification criteria should be given  “comparable, but not necessarily equal, numerical weight” in calculating  the overall project rating. FTA is currently soliciting public comments on  these proposed changes.
section_title: Striking Appropriate Balance between Maintaining a Robust Evaluation Process and Minimizing Complexity Is Challenging
paragraphs: We reported in 2008 that experts and some project sponsors we spoke  with generally support FTA’s quantitatively rigorous process for evaluating  proposed transit projects but are concerned that the process has become  too burdensome and complex, and as noted earlier, may underestimate  certain project benefits. For example, several experts and transportation  consultants told us that although it is appropriate to measure the extent to  which transit projects create primary and secondary benefits, such as  mobility improvements and economic development, it is difficult to  quantify all of these projected benefits. Additionally, several project  sponsors noted that the complexity of the evaluation process can  necessitate hiring consultants to handle the data requests and navigate the  application process—which could increase the project’s costs. Our  previous reviews of the New Starts program have noted similar concerns  from project sponsors. For example, in 2007, we reported that a majority  of project sponsors told us that the complexity of the requirements—such  as the analysis and modeling required for travel forecasts—creates  disincentives for entering the New Starts pipeline. Sponsors also said  that the expense involved in fulfilling the application requirements,  including the costs of hiring additional staff and consultants, discourages  agencies with less resources from applying for this funding.
In response to such concerns, FTA has tried to simplify the evaluation  process in several ways. For example, as previously mentioned, FTA  established the Very Small Starts eligibility category within the Small  Starts program for projects less than $50 million in total cost. This  program further simplifies the application requirements in place for the  Small Starts program, which funds lower-cost projects, such as bus rapid  transit and streetcar projects. Additionally, in its New Starts program, FTA  no longer rates projects on the operating efficiencies criterion because,  according to FTA, operating efficiencies are already sufficiently captured  in FTA’s cost-effectiveness measures, and the measure did not adequately  distinguish among projects. Thus, projects no longer have to submit  information on operating efficiencies. Likewise, FTA no longer requires  project sponsors to submit information on environmental benefits because  it found that the information gathered did not adequately distinguish  among projects and that EPA’s ambient air quality rating was sufficient.  FTA also commissioned a study by Deloitte in June 2006 to review the  project development process and identify opportunities for streamlining or  simplifying the process. This study identified a number of ways that  FTA’s project development process could be streamlined, including  revising the policy review and issuance cycle to minimize major policy and  guidance changes to every 2 years and conducting a human capital  assessment to identify skill gaps and opportunities for reallocating  resources in order to enhance FTA’s ability to review and assist New  Starts projects in a timely and efficient manner. According to FTA, the  agency has implemented 75 percent of Deloitte’s recommendations; some  of the other recommendations are on hold pending the upcoming  reauthorization of the surface transportation program, including the New  Starts program.
section_title: Potential Options to Expedite Project Development in the New Starts Program
paragraphs: As part of our ongoing work, we are reviewing existing research, including  past GAO reports, analyzing data on the length of time it takes for projects  to complete the New Starts process, and interviewing project sponsors,  industry stakeholders and consultants, and transportation experts to  identify options to expedite project development in the New Starts  program. Using these sources, we have preliminarily identified the  following options. While each option could help expedite project  development, each option has advantages and disadvantages to consider  and some options could require legislative changes. In addition, each  option would likely require certain trade-offs, namely reducing the level of  rigor in the evaluation process in exchange for a more streamlined  process. The discussion that follows is not intended to endorse any  potential option, but instead to describe some potential options for  expediting project development. We will continue to work with FTA and  other stakeholders to identify other options as well as examine the merits  and challenges of all identified options for inclusion in our report later this  summer.
Tailor the New Starts evaluation process to risks posed by the  projects: Project sponsors, consultants, and experts we interviewed  suggested that FTA adopt a more risk-based evaluation process for New  Starts projects based on the project’s costs or complexity, the federal  share of the project’s costs, or the project sponsor’s New Starts  experience. For example, FTA could align the level of oversight with the  proposed federal share of the project—that is, the greater the financial  exposure for the federal government, the greater the level of oversight.  Similarly, FTA could reduce or eliminate certain reviews for project  sponsors who have successfully developed New Starts projects in the past,  while applying greater oversight to project sponsors who have no  experience with the New Starts process. We have noted the value in using  risk-based approaches to oversight. For example, we have previously  reported that assessing risks can help agencies allocate finite resources  and help policy makers make informed decisions. By adopting a more  risk-based approach, FTA could allow select projects to move more  quickly through the New Starts process and more efficiently use its scarce  resources. However, the trade-off of not applying all evaluation measures  to every project is that FTA could miss the opportunity to detect problems  early in the project’s development.
Consider greater use of letters of intent and early systems work  agreements: The linear, phased evaluation process of the New Starts  program hampers project sponsors’ ability to utilize alternative project  delivery methods, such as design-build, according to project sponsors.  These alternative project delivery methods have the potential to develop a  project cheaper and quicker than traditional project delivery methods can.  However, project sponsors told us it is difficult to attract private sector  interest early enough in the process to use alternative project delivery  methods because there is no guarantee that the project will ultimately  receive federal funding through the New Starts program. The Deloitte  study also noted that New Starts project sponsors miss the opportunity to  use alternative project delivery methods because of the lack of early  commitment of federal funding for the projects. To encourage the private  sector involvement needed, project sponsors, consultants, and experts we  interviewed suggested that FTA use letters of intent or early systems work  agreements. Through a letter of intent, FTA announces its intention to  obligate an amount from future available budget authority to a project. A  challenge of using letters of intent is that they can be misinterpreted as an  obligation of federal funds, when in fact they only signal FTA’s intention to  obligate future funds should the project meet all New Starts criteria and  requirements. In contrast, an early systems work agreement obligates an  amount of available budget authority to a project. The challenge of using  an early systems work agreement is that FTA can only use these  agreements with projects that will be granted an FFGA, thus limiting FTA’s  ability to use these agreements for projects in the pipeline.
Consistently use road maps or similar project schedules: Project  sponsors said that FTA should more consistently use road maps or similar  tools to define the project sponsor’s and FTA’s expectations and  responsibilities for moving the project forward. Without establishing these  expectations, project sponsors have little information about how long it  will take FTA to review its request to move from alternatives analysis to  preliminary engineering, for example. This lack of information makes it  difficult for the project sponsor to effectively manage the project. Given  the benefits of clearly setting expectations, Deloitte recommended that  FTA use road maps for all projects. FTA has used road maps for select  projects, but the agency does not consistently use them for all projects. A  limitation of using road maps is that expected time frames are subject to  change—that is, project schedules often change as a project evolves  throughout the development process. Furthermore, every project is  unique, making it difficult to set a realistic time frame for each phase of  development. Consequently, the road maps can provide only rough  estimates of expected time frames.
Combine two or more project development phases: Project sponsors  and consultants told us that waiting for FTA’s approval to enter  preliminary engineering, final design, and construction can cause delays.  While FTA determines whether a project can advance to the next project  development phase, work on the project essentially stops. Project  sponsors can advance the project at their own risk, meaning they could  have to redo the work if FTA does not subsequently approve an aspect of  the project. The amount of time it takes for FTA to determine whether a  project can advance can be significant. For example, one project sponsor  told us that FTA’s review of its application to advance from alternatives  analysis to preliminary engineering took 8 months; about the same amount  of time it took the project sponsor to complete alternatives analysis. FTA  officials told us the length of time for reviews depends on a number of  factors, most importantly the completeness and accuracy of the project  sponsor’s submissions. To reduce the “start/stop” phenomena project  sponsors described, FTA could seek a legislative change to combine two  or more of the statutorily required project development phases—for  example, combining the preliminary engineering and final design phases.  The Deloitte study also recommended that FTA redefine or more clearly  define the project phases to more accurately reflect FTA’s current  requirements and to better accommodate alternative delivery methods.
Apply changes only to future projects: Project sponsors told us that  the frequent changes to the New Starts program can result in additional  costs and delays as project sponsors are required to redo analyses to  reflect the changes. In an attempt to create a process that provides more  stability for project sponsors, in May 2006, FTA modified its policy to  allow a project that has been approved for entry into final design not be  subject to changes in the New Starts policy and guidance. However, this  policy change does not apply to projects approved for entry into  preliminary engineering, which is the New Starts project development  phase that has the most requirements for project sponsors and the phase  where project sponsors told us that frequent changes to the project by  sponsors and to the New Starts process by FTA result in additional costs  and delays. Furthermore, another project sponsor noted that new  requirements cause delays because each element of a proposed project is  interrelated, so changing one requirement can stop momentum on a  project. To avoid this rework, some project sponsors, consultants, and  experts we interviewed suggested that FTA apply changes only to future  projects, not projects currently in preliminary engineering. However, by  not applying changes to projects in preliminary engineering, FTA could  miss the opportunity to enhance its oversight of these projects.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer  any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have at  this time.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information on this testimony, please contact A. Nicole  Clowers, Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, at (202) 512-2834,  or clowersa@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional  Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this  statement. Key contributors to this testimony were Kyle Browning, Gary  Guggolz, Raymond Sendejas, and Carrie Wilks.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: 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: 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.
Opportunities Exist to Improve the Communication and Transparency  of Changes Made to the New Starts Program. GAO-05-674. Washington,  D.C.: June 28, 2005.
Mass Transit: FTA Needs to Better Define and Assess Impact of Certain  Policies on New Starts Program. GAO-04-748. Washington, D.C.: June 25,  2004.
Mass Transit: FTA Needs to Provide Clear Information and Additional  Guidance on the New Starts Ratings Process. GAO-03-701. Washington,  D.C.: June 23, 2003.
Mass Transit: FTA’s New Starts Commitments for Fiscal Year 2003.   GAO-02-603. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2002.
Mass Transit: FTA Could Relieve New Starts Program Funding  Constraints. GAO-01-987. Washington, D.C.: August 15, 2001.
Mass Transit: Implementation of FTA’s New Starts Evaluation Process  and FY 2001 Funding Proposals. GAO/RCED-00-149. Washington, D.C.:  April 28, 2000.
Mass Transit: Status of New Starts Transit Projects With Full Funding  Grant Agreements. GAO/RCED-99-240. Washington, D.C.: August 19, 1999.
Mass Transit: FTA’s Progress in Developing and Implementing a New  Starts Evaluation Process. GAO/RCED-99-113. Washington, D.C.: April 26,  1999.
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.