Rail Transit: FTA Programs Are Helping Address Transit Agencies' Safety Challenges, but Improved Performance Goals and Measures Could Better Focus Efforts
Published: 2011-01-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Although transit service is generally safe, recent high-profile accidents on several large rail transit systems--notably the June 2009 collision in Washington, D.C., that resulted in nine fatalities and 52 injuries--have raised concerns. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) oversees state agencies that directly oversee rail transit agencies' safety practices. FTA also provides assistance to transit agencies, such as funding and training, to enhance safety. GAO was asked to determine (1) the challenges the largest rail transit systems face in ensuring safety and (2) the extent to which assistance provided by FTA addresses these challenges. GAO visited eight large rail transit systems and their respective state oversight agencies, reviewed pertinent documents, and interviewed rail transit safety experts and officials from FTA and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The largest rail transit agencies face several challenges in trying to ensure safety on their systems. First, according to some experts we interviewed, the level of safety culture--awareness of and organizational commitment to the importance of safety--varies across the transit industry and is low in some agencies. NTSB found that the lack of a safety culture contributed to the June 2009 fatal transit accident in Washington, D.C. Second, with many employees nearing retirement age, large transit agencies have found it difficult to recruit and hire qualified staff. It is also challenging for them to ensure that employees receive needed safety training because of financial constraints and the limited availability of technical training. Training helps ensure safe operations; NTSB has identified employee errors, such as not following procedures, as a probable cause in some significant rail transit accidents. Third, more than a third of the largest agencies' assets are in poor or marginal condition. While agencies have prioritized investments to ensure safety, delays in repairing some assets, such as signal systems, can pose safety risks. The transit industry has been slow to adopt asset management practices that can help agencies set investment priorities and better ensure safety. FTA has provided various types of assistance to transit agencies to help them address these challenges, including researching how to instill a strong safety culture at transit agencies, supporting a variety of safety-related training classes for transit agency staff, and providing funding to help agencies achieve a state of good repair. The Department of Transportation (DOT) has proposed legislation that would give FTA the authority to set and enforce rail transit safety standards, which could help improve safety culture in the industry. FTA is also planning improvements to its training program and the development of asset management guidance for transit agencies, among other things. Some legislative proposals, studies, experts, and agency officials have identified further steps that FTA could take to address transit agencies' safety challenges, such as requiring transit agencies to implement asset management practices. Some of these suggested further steps may have the potential, if implemented, to enhance rail transit safety. DOT is currently developing a legislative proposal for reauthorizing surface transportation programs and may include new rail transit safety initiatives in this proposal. In addition, clear and specific performance goals and measures could help FTA target its efforts to improve transit safety and track results. GAO has identified leading practices to establish such performance goals and measures, but FTA has not fully adopted these practices. For example, FTA has not identified specific performance goals that make clear the direct results its safety activities are trying to achieve and related measures that would enable the agency to track and demonstrate its progress in achieving those results. Without such specific goals and measures, it is not clear how FTA's safety activities contribute toward DOT's strategic goal of reducing transportation-related injuries and fatalities, including rail transit injuries and fatalities. Furthermore, problems with FTA's rail transit safety data could hamper the agency's ability to track its performance.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is making recommendations for improving these data in a separate report (GAO-11-217R). To guide and track the performance of FTA's rail transit safety efforts, DOT should direct FTA to use leading practices to set clear and specific goals and measures for these efforts. DOT and NTSB reviewed a draft of this report and provided technical comments and clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate. DOT agreed to consider the recommendation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Although rail transit is a relatively safe mode of transportation, recent  high-profile accidents at several of the nation’s largest rail transit systems  have raised concerns. The most serious of these accidents was the  collision of two metrorail trains in Washington, D.C., on June 22, 2009,  resulting in nine fatalities and 52 injuries. Over the last several years,  collisions and derailments resulting in injuries and, in some cases,  fatalities, have occurred on other large transit systems, including those in  Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco. Moreover, according to the Federal  Transit Administration (FTA), from January 2004 through November 2010,  16 transit right-of-way workers and inspectors were struck and killed by  trains or other vehicles while working along tracks on five rail transit  systems.
FTA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), is  responsible for monitoring and promoting safety on rail transit systems  operated by 47 rail transit agencies that receive federal funding through  FTA’s State Safety Oversight Program and ongoing assistance programs.  FTA requires states with one or more of these rail systems to designate a  state safety oversight agency, which is responsible for establishing  standards for rail safety practices and procedures to be used by rail transit  agencies within its purview and for directly overseeing their compliance  with these standards. While FTA does not directly oversee transit  agencies, it does oversee these state safety oversight agencies. FTA also  provides assistance to transit agencies to help them maintain and enhance  safety, including funding for capital improvements, safety-related training,  technical assistance, and guidance. FTA has less authority to oversee  safety than some other DOT agencies, such as the Federal Railroad  Administration (FRA) that oversees freight, intercity passenger, and  commuter railroads by setting and enforcing safety regulations. DOT is  seeking legislative authority to directly regulate and enforce rail transit  safety. There were several legislative proposals introduced during the  111th Congress to give FTA authority to establish safety regulations for  rail transit agencies and, in cooperation with the states, oversee and  enforce compliance by these agencies with these regulations.
Concerned about recent high-profile accidents, the former Chairman of  the Committee and Senator Shelby asked us to identify and review the  challenges associated with enhancing safety on major rail transit systems.  In response, this report discusses (1) the challenges the largest rail transit  systems face in ensuring safety and (2) the extent to which assistance  provided by FTA addresses these challenges. Based on investigations  completed by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), we are  also reporting on factors that have contributed to significant rail transit  accidents. This topic is discussed in appendix I. We originally intended to  also report on safety trends based on data collected by FTA, but we  determined that these data were not sufficiently reliable for this purpose.  We are reporting separately on the reliability of FTA’s safety data. For the  purpose of this study, we are focusing on heavy and light rail systems, as  they represent more than 90 percent of all rail fixed guideway systems.
To determine the challenges that the largest rail transit systems face in  ensuring safety, we selected and visited five large heavy rail transit  systems and three large light rail transit systems operated by seven rail  transit agencies, using criteria such as annual ridership (measured by  unlinked passenger trips and passenger miles), the number of rail transit  vehicles in revenue service operation, and total track mileage. The five  heavy rail systems we selected were the Massachusetts Bay  Transportation Authority (MBTA), the Metropolitan Transportation  Authority New York City Transit (NYCT), the Washington Metropolitan  Area Transit Authority (WMATA), the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA),  and the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). The three light rail systems we  selected were MBTA, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency  (SF Muni), and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation  Authority (LA Metro). For each of these systems, we visited the transit  agency, obtaining agency budget documents, accident and audit reports,  corrective action plans, and staffing and training information, among other  information and documentation. In addition, we interviewed  representatives from these transit agencies and their respective state  safety oversight agencies.
To determine the extent to which FTA’s assistance addresses the safety  challenges faced by the largest transit agencies, we reviewed FTA  documents on funding, state of good repair initiatives, technical assistance  programs, transit safety training, and guidance and outreach related to rail  transit safety. We also obtained information on transit safety training from  the National Transit Institute and the Transportation Safety Institute. We  interviewed officials from FTA and NTSB, representatives of the American  Public Transportation Association (APTA), and 12 rail transit safety  experts on the challenges that large rail transit agencies face in ensuring  safety and the potential ways that FTA could improve its safety assistance  efforts. The rail transit safety experts we interviewed were identified for  us by the National Academies’ Transportation Research Board and  included representatives from the transit industry, academia, labor unions,  and the rail consulting community. We also asked officials from the transit  systems we visited and their respective state safety oversight agencies for  their assessment of FTA’s assistance efforts. We reviewed applicable  federal regulations, laws, and legislative proposals. In addition, we  consulted our prior work on performance management and rail transit  issues. A more detailed description of our scope and methodology appears  in appendix II, including a list of the rail transit safety experts we  interviewed.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2009 to January  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Rail transit is an important component of the nation’s transportation  network, particularly in large metropolitan areas. Rail transit systems  provide around 4.3 billion passenger trips annually. The five largest heavy  rail systems carried 3.2 billion passengers in 2008, 90 percent of all heavy  rail trips. The NYCT system surpassed all the other heavy rail systems by  carrying almost 2.4 billion passengers—2.1 billion more than the next  largest heavy rail system. Conversely, the five largest light rail systems are  much smaller, collectively carrying 244 million passengers in 2008. The  largest light rail system, operated by MBTA, carried 74 million passengers.  Public transit is seen as an affordable mode of transportation and a means  to alleviate roadway congestion and emissions. Increases in gasoline  prices over the past decade also have resulted in higher ridership, which  peaked in fall 2008. Although ridership declined in 2009 by about 4  percent, following the 2008 economic recession and a decrease in gasoline  prices, transit ridership is expected to grow in years to come.
Heavy and light rail transit systems have developed throughout the nation  over the past 100 years. The oldest systems in cities such as Boston, New  York, and Chicago, among others, were generally built by private  companies which eventually went out of business, requiring the systems’  respective local governments to provide financial help to keep the systems  operating. During the 1960s, Congress established a federal capital  assistance program for mass transportation. With federal capital  assistance, many other cities constructed rail transit systems, including  heavy rail systems in Atlanta, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. Heavy  rail systems tend to be larger and carry many more passengers than light  rail systems. While there are currently more than twice as many light rail  systems as there are heavy rail systems, the heavy rail systems carry about  seven times as many passengers and cover more than 50 percent more  miles of track than light rail systems (see fig.1). The types of safety risks  associated with each rail mode differ somewhat. For example, the higher  volume of passengers, the higher speed of the trains, and the third rail on  the track pose safety risks for heavy rail systems; the numerous interfaces  between rail cars and vehicular traffic and pedestrians pose safety risks  for light rail systems. Since the 1980s, newly constructed systems have  been predominantly light rail systems.
Rail transit systems are managed by public transit agencies accountable to  their local government. However, rail transit agencies rely on a  combination of local, state, and federal funds, in addition to system- generated revenues such as fares, to operate and maintain their systems.  Some states and local governments provide a dedicated revenue source  for transit, such as a percentage of the state or local sales tax, or issue  bonds for public transportation. In 2008, about 57 percent of all funds for  both operating expenses and capital investments were from local and state  government. Other sources, such as farebox revenues, provided 26  percent. The federal government’s share was about 17 percent. Even  though federal funding has predominantly been for capital investments, by  2008 local government replaced the federal government as the largest  source of capital investment funds. However, in the past few years there  have been decreases in the amounts of state and local funding available to  transit agencies, especially for those agencies that depend on tax  revenues, which have experienced decreases as a result of the general  economic slowdown faced by the nation. As a result, many transit  agencies have faced budget cutbacks.
FTA uses many funding programs to support transit agencies. In  particular, two FTA programs—the Urbanized Area Formula Program and  the Fixed Guideway Modernization Program—provide funding that can be  used by existing transit agencies in urbanized areas to modernize or  improve their systems. Specifically, these funds can be used for  purchasing and rehabilitating rail cars and preventive maintenance, among  other things. In 2009, additional funds were made available through the  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act). Recovery Act  funds are used primarily for capital projects, although some funds were  made available for and have been used for operating expenses.
In comparison with other modes of transportation, rail transit is relatively  safe. For example, occupants of motor vehicles are more than 70 times  more likely to die in accidents while traveling as are passengers of rail  transit systems. However, several large rail transit agencies in recent  years have had major accidents that resulted in fatalities, injuries, and  significant property damage. NTSB has investigated a number of these  accidents and has issued reports identifying the probable causes of and  factors that contributed to them. Since 2004, NTSB has reported on eight  rail transit accidents that, collectively, resulted in 13 fatalities, 297 injuries,  and about $29 million in property damages. In five of these accident  investigations, NTSB found the probable cause to involve employee errors,  such as the failure of the train operator to comply with operating rules and  of track inspectors to maintain an effective lookout for oncoming trains  while working on the tracks. Of the remaining three accidents, NTSB  found that problems with equipment were a probable cause of two  accidents and that weaknesses in management of safety by the transit  agency were a probable cause in all three accidents. In six of these  investigations, NTSB reported that contributing factors involved  deficiencies in safety management or oversight, such as weaknesses in  transit agencies’ safety rules and procedures, lack of a safety culture  within the transit agency, and lack of adequate oversight by the transit  agency’s state safety oversight agency and FTA. See appendix I for  further information on these accident investigations.
Transit agencies are responsible for the operation, maintenance, and  safety and security of their rail systems but are subject to a tiered state  and federal safety oversight program. The Intermodal Surface  Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 mandated FTA to establish a State  Safety Oversight Program for rail fixed guideway public transportation  systems that are not subject to FRA regulation. Through this program, FTA  monitors 27 state safety oversight agencies that oversee the safety of rail  transit operations in 25 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.  While FTA has discretionary authority to investigate safety hazards at  transit systems it funds, it does not have authority to directly oversee  safety programs of rail transit agencies. FTA, however, does have the  authority and responsibility for overseeing transit agencies’ workplace  drug and alcohol testing programs. FTA also collects safety data,  including data on types of accidents and causes, from the state safety  oversight agencies and the transit agencies they oversee. Transit agencies  provide safety data for FTA’s National Transit Database while the state  safety oversight agencies provide safety data through annual reports to  FTA.
Under FTA regulations, state safety oversight agencies must develop a  program standard that outlines transit agencies’ safety responsibilities. In  particular, transit agencies are required to develop and implement safety  programs that include, among other things,    standards and processes for identifying safety concerns and hazards, and  ensuring that they are addressed;   a process to develop and ensure compliance with rules and procedures  that have a safety impact; and   a safety training and certification program for employees.
Moreover, FTA requires state safety oversight agencies to perform safety  audits of their transit agencies at least once every 3 years, investigate  transit accidents, and ensure that deficiencies are corrected. FTA,  however, does not fund state safety oversight agencies to carry out this  work. Our earlier work found that many state safety oversight agencies  lacked adequate staffing, employed varying practices, and applied FTA’s  regulations differently. As noted earlier, FTA’s role in overseeing safety  on rail transit systems is relatively limited, which is reflected in the  number of staff that it employs to fill that role. FTA’s Office of Safety and  Security has 15 to 17 staff members managing safety, security, and  emergency management programs. They are supported by contractor staff.
In December 2009, DOT proposed to Congress major changes in FTA’s role  that would shift the balance of federal and state responsibilities for  oversight of rail transit safety. DOT proposed the following:    FTA, through legislation, would receive authority to establish and enforce  minimum safety standards for rail transit systems not already regulated by  FRA.
A state may continue to have a state safety oversight program to oversee  public transportation safety—by “opting in”—given that its program  complies with the federal laws, regulations, and policies that FTA would  implement if it receives expanded authority proposed in the legislation.  DOT would provide federal assistance to states with FTA-approved state  safety programs to enforce the federal minimum safety standards.  Participating states could set more stringent safety standards if they chose  to do so.
In states that decided to “opt out” of participation or where FTA has found  the program proposals inadequate, FTA would oversee compliance with  and enforce federal safety regulations.
Subsequently, during the 111th Congress, several bills including these  changes were proposed.
section_title: Transit Agencies Face Challenges in Ensuring the Safety of Their Rail Systems
subsections: section_title: Instilling Safety Culture Is a Challenge for the Largest Transit Agencies
paragraphs: Instilling a safety culture agencywide is a challenge the largest transit  agencies face that can impact their ability to ensure safe operations. The  concept of safety culture can be defined in different ways and the level of  safety culture in an organization can be difficult to measure. As we have  previously reported, safety culture can include:    organizational awareness of and commitment to the importance of safety,  individual dedication and accountability for those engaged in any activity  that has a bearing on safety in the workplace, and   an environment in which employees can report safety events without fear  of punishment.
According to NTSB officials, in organizations with effective safety  cultures, senior management demonstrates a commitment to safety and a  concern for hazards that are shared by employees at all levels within the  organization. Furthermore, such organizations have effective safety  management systems that include appropriate safety rules and  procedures, employee adherence to these rules and procedures, well- defined processes for identifying and addressing safety-related problems,  and adequate safety training available for employees and management.
FTA officials told us that it is difficult to define safety culture but noted  that attributes of a strong safety culture include open communication  about safety throughout the agency, nonpunitive safety reporting by  employees, and the identification of safety trends based on agency- collected data. In addition, APTA officials told us that another attribute of  safety culture is the accountability of individuals for how their actions and  the actions of others affect safety. According to FTA, a strong safety  culture can energize and motivate transit employees to improve safety  performance. As we subsequently discuss, FTA currently has efforts  underway that may more clearly communicate what a strong safety culture  entails. All 12 of the rail transit experts we interviewed agreed that safety  culture was important in helping transit agencies lower their accident  rates.
The experts we consulted offered several views about safety culture at  large transit agencies. Seven experts noted that the extent of safety culture  varies at large transit agencies across the country. Four experts stated that  the extent of safety culture was generally low throughout the rail transit  industry and needed to be improved. Some experts also noted that despite  system differences, a major reason why certain systems have more or  fewer incidents is the extent of safety culture present at the transit agency.  One expert in particular said that all the other safety challenges transit  agencies faced flow from safety culture issues. Some experts we  interviewed identified the importance of training to help instill a safety  culture at all levels of a transit agency. We have reported that training  should support an agency’s goal of changing workplace culture to increase  staff awareness of, commitment to, and involvement in safety. Thus, the  challenge faced by the largest transit agencies in providing sufficient  training for staff—discussed below—can increase the challenge of  instilling a safety culture at those same agencies.
FTA officials have identified the need to improve safety culture as a  continuing problem for the transit industry as a whole, which requires  changing behaviors and processes that have become engrained over  decades of service. FTA has reported that, to get to the root of safety  culture, transit agency management and employees need to understand the  current state of their safety programs, how employees perceive  management’s commitment to safety, how employees actively follow  established safety rules and procedures and how they are held  accountable for doing so, and how management monitors employees’  safety performance. FTA officials noted that limitations in transit  agencies’ collection and analysis of safety data impede their ability to  improve their safety culture, because these limitations affect their ability  to identify and address safety hazards.
Safety culture can have a significant impact on safety performance. In two  of its reports on accidents since 2004, NTSB has noted that an inadequate  safety culture contributed to the accidents. Probable causes in the  accidents that the NTSB investigated included employee errors, such as  failure to comply with operating rules, and inadequate safety management  and oversight by transit agencies. Problems such as these may reflect a  poor safety culture, as employees may not be motivated to follow  operating rules and management may not be properly managing safety  programs to ensure that hazards are identified and addressed. In its report  on the 2008 accident on MBTA’s system that resulted in one fatality and  eight injuries, NTSB found that the probable cause was the failure of the  train operator to comply with a controlling signal resulting from an  episode of micro-sleep, and noted an MBTA report of an internal audit  that stated the success of any new safety plan was largely dependent on  the safety culture that MBTA fostered within each agency department and  work group. Additionally, NTSB cited this report as stating that MBTA  management needed to define, understand, and integrate effective  practices into day-to-day work activities to ensure that the safety of  employees and passengers remained a top priority. In its report on CTA’s  2006 derailment that resulted in 152 injuries, NTSB found that ineffective  management and oversight of its track inspection and maintenance  program was a probable cause. Specific problems included ineffective  supervisory oversight of track inspections, lack of complete inspection  records and follow-up to ensure defects were corrected, and insufficient  training and qualification requirements for track inspectors. NTSB found  that these identified problems were all part of a deficient safety culture  that allowed the agency’s track infrastructure to deteriorate to an unsafe  condition.
In its report on WMATA’s June 2009 collision that resulted in nine fatalities  and 52 injuries, NTSB identified the lack of an effective safety culture as a  contributing factor to the accident. According to NTSB, shortcomings in  WMATA’s internal communications, recognition of hazards, assessment of  risk from those hazards, and implementation of corrective actions were all  evidence of an ineffective safety culture and were symptomatic of a  general lack of importance assigned to safety management functions  across the WMATA organization. NTSB made recommendations to  WMATA to improve its safety culture. In response to NTSB’s  recommendations to improve its safety culture, WMATA is taking a  number of actions, including:  the development of procedures to ensure clear communication and  distribution of safety-related information and the monthly review of data  and trend analyses, the establishment of a safety hotline and email for employees to report  safety concerns,   an updated whistleblower policy to encourage employee participation and  upper management review of identified safety concerns,   an amended mission statement to reflect the agency’s commitment to    a newly formed committee of WMATA’s Board of Directors to make  recommendations monthly on assuring safety at WMATA.
Some other transit agencies have also made efforts to increase the extent  of safety culture present in their agencies. For example, officials from  three transit agencies we spoke with stated that their transit agencies  created and supported nonpunitive safety reporting programs such as  whistleblower policies and anonymous tip hotlines to encourage  employees to keep management aware of safety problems. One agency  told us they have a close call reporting program. These programs can  encourage employees to voluntarily and confidentially report close call  incidents without fear of reprisal. We have previously reported that it is  unlikely that employees would report safety events in organizations with  punishment-oriented cultures in which employees are distrustful of  management and each other. Blaming individuals for accidents not only  fails to prevent accidents but also limits workers’ willingness to provide  information about systemic problems. To promote reporting in such  environments, systems can be designed with nonpunitive features to help  alleviate employee concerns and encourage participation. In addition,  some transit agencies we visited are reaching outside of the organization  for support to further instill safety culture at their agencies. For example,  officials at three transit agencies told us they had hired or planned to hire  consultants to audit the system and make recommendations for  improvements to increase the safety culture at all levels of the  organization. According to APTA officials, the transit industry recognizes  that labor organizations must be engaged in a visible partnership at all  stages of safety culture development.
section_title: Multiple Factors Have Made Staffing and Training a Challenge for Large Transit Agencies
paragraphs: In addition to instilling safety culture at transit agencies, maintaining an  adequate level of skilled staff and ensuring that they receive needed safety  training are also challenges the largest transit agencies face in ensuring  safety. Staffing challenges involve recruiting and hiring qualified  employees to fill positions with safety responsibilities—such as safety  department staff, maintenance staff, track workers, and operation  managers—and adequately planning for the loss of such staff through  vacancies and retirements. For example, several transit agencies told us it  has been difficult to hire maintenance employees with the necessary  expertise and knowledge of both aging and new technology systems.  Officials from two transit agencies noted the difficulty in hiring  maintenance employees who have experience working with older  electronic technology—some of which dates from the 1960s—and who are  also knowledgeable of current computer technology. In addition, many  transit agencies face an aging workforce and the potential for large  numbers of upcoming retirements. For example, one transit agency we  visited identified more than 50 percent of its staff as eligible for retirement  within the next 5 years. FTA officials told us that staffing is a challenge  facing transit agencies nationwide due to the large number of employees  nearing retirement eligibility and the difficulty in retaining and replacing  qualified employees. In addition, a recent APTA report identified that the  transit industry has an experienced but aging workforce, with a significant  number of potential retirements expected in the next 10 years.
The staffing challenge has been further exacerbated for transit agencies by  recent budget cutbacks as a result of flat or decreased funding from state  and local governments. Officials at six of the seven transit agencies we  visited stated that their staffing levels have been or will be cut, including  some safety staff at three of these agencies. For example, at one transit  agency we visited officials stated that, due to their current budget  shortfall, staffing levels would be reduced, including in the safety  department where 3 positions from the overall 93 positions were cut. In  addition, at another transit agency we visited, one official cited staffing  levels being stretched to the point where it is difficult to conduct the  necessary rail car maintenance to keep the system running.
Training challenges for large transit agencies have included difficulties in  ensuring that staff receive needed safety-related training—such as training  in track safety, fire and evacuation, risk assessment, and the inspection  and maintenance of track and equipment—due to financial constraints as  well as the limited availability of technical training. Some experts  identified ensuring adequate levels and frequency of training as key  challenges for large transit agencies. Some cited training cuts as being  commonplace when budget cutbacks occur despite its importance and  link to safety. All the transit agencies we visited identified a challenge in  having employees participate in safety training either due to the inability  of their agencies to pay for training or to cover employees’ positions while  they attend training, or a combination of both. For example, some officials  explained that if a train operator attends safety training another train  operator must work an extra shift to cover for the operator attending  training. The transit agency pays for overtime hours for the extra shift  worked by the train operator. Officials at some of the transit agencies we  visited told us that these additional costs for training can be prohibitive. A  recent APTA report identified safety training as well as supervisory and  leadership training as top training needs for the industry.
The large transit agencies we visited have different types of training  programs available for their staff. For example, one transit agency has a  large in-house training program that provides safety training and  certification for their staff. Each department within the agency tracks  employee training schedules, participation, and goals. At another transit  agency, officials explained that, while they do some of their training in- house, they rely to a great extent on on-the-job training. Officials from  three transit agencies noted that the availability of apprenticeship  programs and external technical training, such as training in how to  inspect rail and signals, is limited. One transit agency official and one state  safety oversight agency official mentioned that the transit industry often  relies on on-the-job training. According to APTA officials, on-the-job  training is a vital part of transit agencies’ training programs and can  mitigate institutional knowledge loss as attrition occurs. However, they  also noted that transit agencies often have not formalized their on-the-job  training by documenting key elements to be covered and that this type of  training is not carried out consistently among transit agencies. The transit  agencies we visited also sent staff to training courses offered by DOT’s  Transportation Safety Institute and FTA’s National Transit Institute.  However, due to the high costs of traveling for training—including lodging  and transportation costs—most of the transit agencies we visited cited  difficulty in participating in such training opportunities. Transit agencies  have attempted to find more cost effective ways of addressing this  problem. For example, officials from three transit agencies told us they  have offered to host DOT and FTA training at their agencies to reduce the  travel costs associated with staff attending safety training courses.
Employees who have not had adequate safety-related training may be  more likely to commit errors that can cause accidents. For example, in a  2009 investigation on how NYCT inspectors identified and reported  defects in subway platform edges—which caused three transit riders  within 3 years to fall onto the tracks after defective boards broke under  their weight—the transit system’s Office of the Inspector General  identified the lack of training on accurately and consistently identifying  safety hazards at platform edges as contributing to the accidents. The  office recommended that NYCT provide intensive and continuing training  for platform inspectors. In response, NYCT developed and implemented a  training program in May 2009 on identifying platform edge defects for all  station managers and supervisors. In addition, in five of the eight rail  transit accident investigations conducted by the NTSB since 2004,  employee errors, such as not following procedures, were identified as a  probable cause of the accidents. According to one expert we interviewed,  training can help prevent accidents by preventing employee complacency  and inattention in regards to safety rules and procedures. Some experts  noted that attention to safety becomes more, not less, important as  employees gain experience, as system familiarization leads some workers  to drop their focus on safety. NTSB officials cited the importance of  periodic refresher training for employees to ensure that staff maintain the  skill set needed to identify and resolve safety issues. Another benefit of  adequate training is helping to prepare the transit workforce to handle  pending retirements.
Currently, no industry standards exist for what an adequate level of safety- related training should be for transit agency staff. According to APTA, the  transit industry lacks a standard training curriculum for transit employees  and, as a result, transit safety-related training at transit agencies lacks  consistency and is not always of high quality. FTA officials have also  identified a lack of consistent training throughout the transit industry.  According to one expert we interviewed, because of the lack of consistent  training standards, the management of individual transit agencies has to  determine on its own what safety training is needed for agency employees.  According to NTSB officials, without minimum training requirements, the  level of training available at each transit agency will vary, which can result  in differing safety outcomes for each agency.
section_title: Achieving a State of Good Repair Is a Challenge for the Largest Transit Agencies
paragraphs: Achieving a state of good repair is a challenge the largest transit agencies  face that can impact their ability to ensure the safety of their heavy and  light rail systems. In general, state of good repair is a term that transit  officials use to refer to the condition of transit assets—for example, rail  tracks, elevated and underground structures, rail cars, signals, ties, and  cables (see fig. 2). In a study of the seven largest rail transit systems  completed in 2009, FTA determined that more than a third of these  agencies’ assets were in poor or marginal condition, indicating that they  were near or had already surpassed their expected useful life. At six of  the large transit agencies we visited, according to FTA estimates, the  proportion of rail transit assets considered to be in poor or marginal  condition ranged from zero percent, at LA Metro’s relatively new system,  to 41 percent, at the much older and larger NYCT system.
Efforts to achieve a state of good repair include maintaining, improving,  rehabilitating, and replacing assets. The delay of some of these efforts can  affect safety. Officials at one transit agency identified potential safety risks  that could arise from delayed repairs, including worn tracks that could  contribute to derailments, failures with the signal system that could allow  for collisions, and failures with the traction power cable that could cause  fires in subway tunnels. However, according to FTA and transit agency  officials, transit agencies prioritize funding for state of good repair efforts  to ensure that repairs important for safety are not delayed. All the transit  systems we visited reported taking measures to ensure that their systems  are safe in planning their state of good repair efforts. For example, one  transit agency has reduced cleaning and other maintenance not critical for  system safety as it continues to fund safety improvements. According to  officials from this transit agency, less critical system safety items, such as  escalator and elevator maintenance, have been put on a prolonged  maintenance schedule. However, officials at this transit agency also stated  that the agency had reached a point where further budget cuts would  cause deterioration in system safety. In another example, one transit  agency we visited has delayed the approximately $500 million replacement  of subway fans which would provide for better ventilation because the  agency determined that this was not a high safety priority. Agencies have  made efforts to maintain safe operation of their system despite delays in  addressing identified state of good repair maintenance or replacement  needs. For example, officials at one transit agency we visited told us that  they have implemented “slow zones” where trains run at lower speeds to  help ensure safe operating conditions on aging track.
In some cases, unaddressed poor asset conditions have contributed to  accidents. For example, in its investigation of a 2006 derailment on the  CTA system that injured 152 people, NTSB found that rail track problems  that should have placed the tracks out of service were not identified and  repaired. NTSB found that the track problems were readily observable and  should have been identified and corrected.
According to FTA officials, the transit industry has been slow to adopt  asset management practices that would allow transit agencies to  efficiently manage state of good repair needs. Officials noted that reasons  for this slowness include the cost of development and implementation of  asset management practices as well as the diversity of assets across and  within transit systems. Transit asset management is a strategic approach  for transit agencies to manage their transit assets and plan appropriately  for rehabilitation and replacement. Asset management practices can help  agencies decide how best to prioritize their investments, which can help  ensure that safety needs are addressed. Such practices include tracking  assets and their conditions and using this information to conduct long- term capital planning. However, no common standards for asset  management practices exist and transit agencies use varying methods for  determining the condition of their assets. A recent FTA study found that  the use of these asset management practices at large transit agencies  varied widely.
Another component of asset management is the compilation of asset  inventories by transit agencies. FTA defines an asset inventory as a current  and comprehensive listing of all major assets used in the delivery of transit  services, compiling the attributes of asset type, location, condition, age,  and history, among other things. According to FTA, while some of the  nation’s larger transit systems, among others, have developed asset  inventories specifically to assist with capital planning purposes, not all  have done so and currently no industry standard or preferred method for  retaining asset inventory data exists. Furthermore, not all large transit  agencies conduct comprehensive assessments of their asset conditions on  a regular basis.
Investments that transit agencies have made in previous years on state of  good repair efforts have not kept pace with asset deterioration. According  to FTA’s 2009 study, an estimated $50 billion is needed to bring the seven  largest rail transit systems into a state of good repair. FTA found that  these agencies were investing $500 million less than the annual investment  needed to prevent this state of good repair backlog from increasing.  Based on FTA’s estimates, the proportion of these agencies’ assets  exceeding their useful life would increase from 16 percent to more than 30  percent by 2028 if funding levels remain unchanged.
The state of good repair backlog for six of the seven transit agencies that  we visited varies, in part due to system characteristics such as age, size,  and use of the system (see fig. 3). According to NTSB and FTA officials,  having a large state of good repair backlog does not necessarily mean that  a transit system is unsafe. NYCT has a considerably higher backlog in  comparison with the other transit agencies we visited. For example, its  backlog is more than five times that of CTA, the next largest backlog of the  agencies we visited. The backlog for the five remaining transit agencies  ranges from $5 million to about $5 billion. LA Metro’s state of good repair  backlog is much smaller in comparison to the other transit agencies we  visited in part due to the young age of its heavy and light rail systems.  These backlogs can be much larger than these agencies’ capital budgets.  For example, the state of good repair backlog for NYCT is $27.31 billion  while its 5-year capital budget is $12.32 billion. According to a 2010 FTA  study of the transit industry as a whole, state of good repair investment  backlogs are higher for heavy rail than light rail, reflecting the relatively  young age of light rail assets in comparison to heavy rail assets. Recent  budget cutbacks and budgetary shortfalls have negatively impacted transit  agencies’ ability to sufficiently invest to prevent the worsening of their  state of good repair backlogs and asset conditions. All of the rail transit  agencies we visited cited financial constraints as affecting their ability to  achieve a state of good repair.
section_title: FTA Programs Have Assisted Transit Agencies in Addressing Safety Challenges, but Use of Leading Practices Could Help Target Efforts and Track Results
subsections: section_title: FTA Programs Have Assisted Transit Agencies in Addressing Safety Challenges, Although Some Have Suggested Changes or Additional Efforts
subsections: section_title: Safety Culture
paragraphs: FTA has various efforts underway that may help instill a more robust  safety culture at transit agencies. Through the Transit Cooperative  Research Program, FTA has recently begun a study on safety culture at  transit agencies. Given the difficulty of defining safety culture, this effort  has the potential to more clearly communicate what a strong safety  culture at transit agencies entails. The project will look at the culture of  the working environment in which serious accidents occur, elements of an  effective safety culture in a transit agency, and best practices for transit  organizations to implement an effective safety culture. DOT’s draft  Strategic Plan also notes the importance of encouraging DOT, government  partners, safety advocates, and industry leaders to adopt a strong and  consistent safety culture that does not accept the inevitability of fatalities  on the nation’s transportation systems.
According to FTA officials, their safety guidance, outreach, and training  provided by the National Transit Institute and Transportation Safety  Institute, have helped encourage transit agencies to discuss and examine  institutional safety culture. An example of these efforts cited by FTA  officials is a FTA-produced video, “A Knock at Your Door.” The video re- enacts fatal rail transit accidents to underscore the importance of safety  procedures. FTA officials also mentioned that they have encouraged  discussions about the importance of safety culture at roundtable meetings  with transit agency management and other officials, teleconferences, and  training classes. In addition, FTA has also sent letters to transit agencies  following incidents to, among other things, bring incidents and safety  culture trends to the attention of transit agency management. FTA officials  were uncertain how much transit agencies use such guidance and  outreach, as well as what impact these efforts have on safety. FTA has  distributed nearly 500 copies of its safety video to rail transit agencies,  state safety oversight agencies, and others. More information on current  and planned efforts by FTA to address safety culture challenges at transit  agencies is available in appendix III.
Proposed legislation would give FTA the authority to set and enforce  safety standards, which could also strengthen transit agencies’ safety  culture through increased oversight, in addition to assistance. If passed,  this legislation would result in FTA receiving authority to directly regulate  rail transit safety and, in cooperation with the states, to oversee and  enforce rail transit systems’ compliance with these regulations. We  testified in December 2009 that these changes in oversight would bring  FTA’s authority more in line with that of some other modal  administrations within DOT, such as FRA. Additionally, the DOT  Secretary has testified that with such authority, FTA would become more  proactive in setting safety thresholds that would result in greater  consistency and uniformity across transit systems in the United States. In  our testimony, we noted that providing FTA and participating states with  such authority could help ensure compliance with standards and improved  safety practices, and might prevent some accidents as a result. However,  we also noted that Congress may need to consider a number of issues in  deciding whether and how to implement such legislation. These include  how best to balance federal versus state responsibilities, how to ensure  that FTA has adequate qualified staff to carry out such a program, and  what level of resources to devote to the program.
In addition to these efforts, FTA has recently formed the Transit Rail  Advisory Committee for Safety. The committee is expected to provide  information, advice, and recommendations—including recommendations  for instilling a safety culture at transit agencies—to the Secretary of  Transportation and the FTA Administrator on all matters relating to the  safety of U.S. public transportation systems and activities. Members of the  committee include representatives with expertise in safety, transit  operations, or maintenance; representatives of stakeholder interests that  would be affected by transit safety requirements; persons with policy  experience, leadership, or organizational skills; and regional  representatives. The committee held its first meeting on September 9–10,  2010, and established two workgroups, one tasked with researching safety  planning models for transit agencies and the other with identifying the  best model for organizing a state safety oversight agency organization.  Both of these workgroups were tasked to produce recommendations  based on their work in May 2011. The safety planning model workgroup  could help strengthen safety culture through its work to determine the  best safety management system principles for transit agencies of any size  to enhance rail transit safety, including policy practices, stakeholder  relationships, and any desired changes to current law or regulations.
NTSB officials, transit agency officials, experts we met with, and others  have proposed that FTA take additional steps to help transit agencies  address safety culture challenges. These have included:    Develop nonpunitive safety reporting programs. As previously discussed,  nonpunitive systems can alleviate employee concerns and encourage  participation in safety reporting. Nonpunitive systems can include  voluntary, anonymous reports by employees that are reviewed by an  independent, external entity. NTSB has recommended that FTA facilitate  the development of nonpunitive safety reporting programs at all transit  agencies that would collect safety reports and operations data from  employees in all divisions. Safety department representatives from their  operations, maintenance, and engineering departments and  representatives from labor organizations would regularly review these  reports and share the results of those reviews across all divisions of their  agencies. FRA is piloting a voluntary confidential reporting program for  workers in the railroad industry consistent with NTSB’s recommendation  and the Federal Aviation Administration has established such a program  for air carrier employees, air traffic controllers, and others. FTA officials  told us that identifying operating errors in a nonpunitive way is important  and that they have begun research through the Transit Cooperative  Research Program to examine ways to improve compliance with safety  rules at transit agencies, including the use of nonpunitive reporting  models. FTA plans to report on the results of this work by late 2011.
Increase efforts to encourage a strong safety culture. In addition, APTA  and some transit agency officials have called on FTA to do more to  develop and share information on establishing a strong safety culture at  transit agencies. One expert we met with noted that establishing and  enforcing regulations will not necessarily bring about an improvement in  safety culture in the rail transit industry. APTA officials and officials at one  large transit agency noted that FRA pilot projects aimed at addressing  accidents caused by human error and identifying ways to better manage  safety have helped encourage a strong safety culture in the freight railroad  industry and that FTA could foster positive changes in safety culture in the  rail transit industry through such methods. While FTA has various efforts  underway to instill safety culture at transit agencies, these do not include  pilot projects to evaluate or test safety culture concepts and ideas.
section_title: Staffing and Training
paragraphs: FTA has provided some assistance to help transit agencies address staffing  challenges, but its safety-related assistance has focused primarily on  providing training. FTA has reported that it has a compelling interest in  transit workforce development given its large investment in and oversight  of transit. FTA has supported research on transit workforce challenges— including recruitment and retirement issues—through its Transit  Cooperative Research Program. FTA’s Southern California Regional  Transit Training Consortium has worked to establish a model  mentor/internship program that can be used by transit agencies of any  size. These programs run in conjunction with local community colleges,  where a primary objective is to introduce students to transit work,  particularly maintenance and other support. Ultimately, this program  allows transit agencies to hire from a greater pool of transit-trained  interns. FTA’s fiscal year 2011 budget request also described a proposed  effort to design programs to help transit agencies build and develop a  workforce with sufficient skills to fill transit jobs of the future. These  efforts can help transit agencies recruit and hire qualified employees and  address staffing challenges involving an aging workforce.
To help address transit agency safety training challenges, FTA has  provided funding to support a variety of training classes. Through  programs managed by the National Transit Institute and the  Transportation Safety Institute, FTA has supported training for transit  agency employees. Both of these organizations offer safety classes  attended by transit agency employees, as well as by state safety oversight  agency staff. To avoid duplication, the National Transit Institute focuses  on training for frontline employees, such as track workers and operators,  while the Transportation Safety Institute provides classes for supervisory  and management personnel. Classes have included current rail system  safety principles and online fatigue awareness. In fiscal year 2010, the  National Transit Institute and the Transportation Safety Institute held 220  training sessions related to safety and more than 6,700 transit agency staff  took part in this training. FTA has also provided specialized training  aimed at transit agencies that have experienced recent safety incidents.  For example, FTA recently concluded training on rail incident  investigation and system safety for WMATA staff. In all, FTA has delivered  seven courses to assist WMATA staff in receiving critical safety training.  In another example, through the Transit Technology Career Ladder  Partnership Program, FTA has funded partnerships in four states aimed at  training transit employees to become proficient in safety practices and  procedures.
Currently, FTA is drafting a 5-year safety and security strategic plan for  training. The plan will cover safety technical training for staff working at  FTA, state safety oversight agencies, and transit agencies. While one aim  of the plan will be to prepare FTA and state staff to handle new  responsibilities should legislation be enacted that would change their  oversight role for rail transit safety, FTA also intends to use the plan to  identify improvements needed in the training it provides to transit  agencies. Potential improvements include re-evaluating the levels and  types of training that FTA supports. FTA officials estimated the training  plan would be completed in May 2011. Officials also told us that they are  collaborating with officials at APTA, state safety oversight agencies, and  FRA to obtain their views on how to better provide training to transit  agencies. In its fiscal year 2011 budget request, FTA has proposed  additional resources to provide training for transit agencies, state safety  oversight agencies, and FTA officials. More information on current and  planned efforts by FTA to address staffing and training challenges at  transit agencies is available in appendix III.
A legislative proposal, as well as some APTA officials and others,  identified additional efforts that, if adopted, might improve transit  agencies’ abilities to address their staffing and training challenges. These  include:    Formulate a national approach to staffing and training. In 2009, the  House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure  issued draft legislation to reauthorize surface transportation programs that  would require FTA to form a national council to identify skill gaps in  transit agency maintenance departments, develop programs to address the  recruitment and retention of transit employees, and make  recommendations to FTA and transit agencies on how to increase  apprenticeship programs, among other things. Furthermore, this  proposed legislation as well as APTA and the Transportation Learning  Center called for a national curriculum or certification program that would  establish some level of training standardization for transit agency  employees. APTA and transit agency officials have noted that potential  benefits include achieving a level of consistency in safety training across  the country as well as minimum thresholds for transit agency staff. FTA  has created curriculum development guidelines to help transit agencies  establish their own training curricula. Due in part to differences in transit  agencies’ operating environments and system technologies, FTA officials  reported that in developing their upcoming safety and security strategic  plan for training, they may examine whether setting standards for a  national training curriculum would be appropriate.
Increase technical training. NTSB officials and some of the experts and  transit agency officials we met with stated that FTA should increase the  technical components of the training for transit agency employees that it  supports. Transit agency officials reported that training provided by the  National Transit Institute and Transportation Safety Institute includes  valuable safety information, but overall the training provided is  introductory and does not cover enough technical aspects of safety.  According to NTSB officials, transit agency safety staff need periodic,  refresher training to continue to learn and more technical training to  adequately understand and perform their job. Technical aspects could  include the overall mechanics and engineering involved in rail transit  operations, as well as how problems with equipment can lead to unsafe  conditions. Some state safety oversight and transit agency officials we met  with said that available technical training is limited and that FTA could  create a training curriculum that other organizations, such as local  community colleges, could use to teach safety-related classes. Similarly,  APTA has reported the need to develop core curricula to be used at  universities and community colleges and to enhance partnerships between  transit agencies and higher education in order to provide additional  training and educational opportunities for current and future transit  workers.
Increase federal support for training. In a past report, the Transportation  Learning Center has noted that, of the billions of dollars the federal  government provides to transit agencies annually, little is invested in  human capital—that is, the people, knowledge, and skills necessary to  provide reliable and safe service. In response, the center has  recommended that federal funding provide support for transit agencies’  workforce training. In addition, officials at APTA and transit agencies, as  well as some experts we met with, favored increasing federal support to  cover training and related travel costs for transit agency employees. FTA  has provided funding to state safety oversight agency staff to cover such  costs to attend training offered by the National Transit Institute and the  Transportation Safety Institute, but this support generally has not been  extended to transit agency staff. FTA officials reported that they support  training offered around the country and that demand is high. Transit  agencies also have the option of hosting training to reduce travel and other  costs.
section_title: State of Good Repair
paragraphs: FTA’s assistance to transit agencies to help achieve a state of good  repair—and therefore help ensure safe operations—has primarily  consisted of providing grant funding, although FTA has also conducted  studies and is taking steps to provide more guidance to agencies on asset  management. The two major FTA grant programs transit agencies have  used to help achieve a state of good repair are the Fixed Guideway  Modernization Program and the Urbanized Area Formula Program. In  fiscal year 2010, these FTA grants provided nearly $6 billion for transit  agencies’ capital projects and related planning activities. This support has  helped transit agencies maintain system facilities such as stations and  other equipment. Funding also has assisted transit agencies in  rehabilitating or purchasing rail vehicles and modernizing track and other  infrastructure to improve operations. Besides supporting achieving a state  of good repair, FTA’s grant funding programs can support other safety- related improvements, such as upgrading signal and communications  systems. In its fiscal year 2011 budget request, FTA has proposed  increasing assistance to transit agencies through a new $2.9 billion state of  good repair program for bus and rail systems. This program would, for  the first time, provide funding to transit agencies that exclusively focus on  achieving a state of good repair.
Besides providing funds, another activity FTA has recently engaged in  involves helping transit agencies improve their asset management  practices in order to enhance their ability to achieve a state of good repair  and ensure safety. As previously discussed, FTA officials reported that the  transit industry has been slow to adopt asset management practices that  would allow efficient management of state of good repair and some  related safety needs. As a result, transit agencies may have limited  knowledge of asset conditions and how to best use scarce resources to  ensure an efficient and safe operation. In DOT’s fiscal year 2010  appropriation, $5 million was made available to FTA to develop standards  for asset management plans, provide assistance to grant recipients  engaged in the development or implementation of an asset management  system, improve data collection, and conduct a pilot program designed to  identify best practices for asset management. FTA has begun to  undertake these efforts. It has reviewed national and international asset  management practices and concluded that major opportunities for  improvements exist in the United States. FTA is also currently soliciting  for projects with transit agencies of various modes and sizes to  demonstrate different aspects of good asset management practices.  According to FTA officials, improved asset management by transit  agencies will include better approaches for prioritizing rehabilitation and  replacement projects and will therefore allow agencies to better ensure  safety. Other FTA technical assistance in this area includes the  development of capital planning tools and asset inventory guidelines,  research on integrating maintenance management with capital planning,  training and guidance to educate transit agency staff on asset  management, and enhanced asset data collection.
As previously discussed, while no common standards exist for asset  management, it can include tracking asset condition and use, as well as  planning appropriately for rehabilitation and replacement. The National  Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission has  reported that, to achieve a state of good repair, local governments, states,  and other entities must develop, fund, and implement an asset  management system to ensure the maximum effectiveness of federal  capital support. We have previously reported that in some surface  transportation programs, including transit programs, agencies often do not  employ the best tools and approaches to ensure effective investment  decisions, an area where asset management can help. See appendix III for  other current and planned efforts by FTA to help transit agencies address  state of good repair challenges.
Legislative proposals, one FTA study, and several organizations we met  with have identified additional efforts that, if adopted, might hold transit  agencies accountable for improving the management of their assets and  therefore better ensure safety. These included:    Linking grant funding to the establishment of asset management  systems. Congress has considered legislation that would direct DOT to  establish and implement a national transit asset management system.  This legislation would direct FTA to define a state of good repair and for  the first time require transit agencies that receive federal funding to  establish asset management systems. This would help transit agencies to  prioritize which assets to maintain, rehabilitate, and replace to help ensure  safe operating conditions. Separately, a report by the Senate Committee  on Appropriations directs FTA to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking by  September 30, 2011, to implement asset management standards requiring  transit agencies that receive FTA funds to develop capital asset inventories  and condition assessments. FTA officials told us that they have no plans  to develop such a rulemaking at this time, but would do so if required by  statute. FTA is to report to Congress in June 2011 on its investigations into  asset management. We have previously identified principles that could  help drive re-examination of federal surface transportation programs,  including ensuring accountability for results by entities receiving federal  funds and using the best tools and approaches, such as grant eligibility  requirements, to emphasize return on targeted federal investment.
Increasing available transit agency asset data. Another option that FTA  has reported on for it and Congress to consider involves establishing a  system that ensures regular reporting of transit agencies’ capital assets  and a consistent structure and level for this reporting. FTA officials noted  that they already collect transit vehicle data from agencies, but that they  need more information to effectively report on transit agency assets. FTA  is considering expanding transit agency reporting requirements to include  data on local agency asset inventory, holdings, and conditions. FTA has  reported that these data would support better national needs assessments  and transit asset condition monitoring than is currently possible. Also, this  would encourage transit agencies to develop and maintain their own asset  inventory and condition monitoring systems.
Besides the additional efforts outlined above, there are other proposals  that would make more grant funding available to large transit agencies.  FTA and transit agency officials reported that transit agencies maintaining  older systems have received a smaller percentage of available federal  funding as the number of transit systems competing for the same amount  of funding has increased. For example, in its 2009 study on the state of  good repair in the transit industry, FTA reported that the seven largest rail  transit systems, which carry 80 percent of the nation’s rail transit riders  and maintain 50 to 75 percent of the nation’s rail transit infrastructure,  have received 23 percent of the total federal funding eligible for rail state  of good repair investment. These agencies’ percentage share of total  federal funding for achieving a state of good repair has declined. In short,  while total federal support for transit infrastructure has increased, the  share allocated to the nation’s oldest and largest systems has shrunk. To  address this, FTA included an option in its 2009 study for it and Congress  to consider modifying existing funding formulas to factor in system age,  among other things. Congress is also considering new ways to potentially  fund transit and other surface transportation projects, including the  formation of a National Infrastructure Bank.
The various proposals suggesting additional steps that FTA could take to  provide safety-related assistance to transit agencies or strengthen their  accountability for effectively managing their assets have the potential, if  implemented, to enhance rail transit safety. Past reauthorizations of  surface transportation programs have provided an avenue for Congress to  identify programs to address problems, including those involving  transportation safety. DOT is currently developing a surface transportation  reauthorization proposal. As part of its effort to develop a surface  transportation reauthorization proposal, DOT officials have conducted  outreach events to collect input from experts on possible surface  transportation initiatives to include in the proposal and have held internal  discussions to develop the proposal. Additionally, DOT is considering  options for improving transportation safety, including rail transit safety.  Therefore, the proposal that DOT eventually puts forward may address  some or all of the safety challenges that we cite. Furthermore, FTA’s 5- year safety and security training plan, when it is completed, may include  improvements that help address the training challenges that transit  agencies face.
section_title: Leading Practices Could Help FTA Target and Track the Results of Its Safety Efforts
paragraphs: As FTA undertakes efforts to help transit agencies address their safety  culture, staffing and training, and state of good repair challenges, setting  performance goals and measures can help it target these efforts and track  results. Performance goals can help organizations clearly identify the  results they expect to achieve, prioritize their efforts, and make the best  use of available resources. Performance measures can help organizations  track the extent to which they are achieving intended results. In the case  of FTA, such prioritization is essential, given the relatively small number  of staff it has devoted to safety and state of good repair efforts. For  example, while FTA has requested 30 additional staff in fiscal year 2011 in  anticipation of receiving authority to strengthen its safety oversight role, it  currently has 15 to 17 full-time employees working in its Office of Safety  and Security, as well as staff from other FTA offices working on state of  good repair efforts. The ability to prioritize efforts and track progress will  become even more important in the event that Congress enacts legislation  that would give FTA greater oversight authority of transit agencies and  expand its transit safety responsibilities. Furthermore, as FTA is faced  with proposals to assume even more responsibility for transit safety in the  future—through, for example, setting asset management or training  curriculum standards for transit agencies—it is even more essential that it  clearly identify the specific results it is trying to achieve, target its efforts,  and track progress toward achieving those results.
We have identified a number of leading practices agencies can implement  to help set or enhance performance goals and measures. While FTA has  created plans and other tools to help guide and manage its safety efforts, it  has not fully adopted these practices. The next sections discuss these  leading practices and the extent to which FTA has followed them.
subsections: section_title: Focusing on Results
paragraphs: We have found that successful organizations try to link performance goals  and measures to strategic goals and that, in developing these goals and  measures, such organizations generally focus on the results that they  expect their programs to achieve. DOT has identified an overall strategic  safety goal of reducing transportation-related injuries and fatalities,  including rail transit injuries and fatalities, and FTA has identified  measures in its fiscal year 2011 budget request related to that goal. In its  Annual Performance Plan for fiscal year 2011, FTA identified a general  safety goal of further defining its leadership role in the area of surface  transportation safety as well as some desired outcomes of its safety  efforts, such as increased public confidence in the safety of public  transportation and improved safety culture at transit agencies nationwide.  It also identified some strategies for achieving this goal and these  outcomes, such as establishing the Transit Rail Advisory Committee for  Safety and assessing safety and security training. However, FTA has not  identified specific performance goals that make clear the direct results its  safety activities are trying to achieve and related measures that would  enable the agency to track and demonstrate its progress in achieving those  results. Without such specific goals and measures, it is not clear how  FTA’s safety activities contribute toward DOT’s overall strategic goal of  reducing transportation-related injuries and fatalities, including rail transit  injuries and fatalities.
In addition, in its fiscal year 2011 budget request FTA included the goal of  improving the rail transit industry’s focus on safety vulnerabilities. FTA  also identified some activities associated with this safety goal, such as  submitting legislation to Congress. However, FTA did not clearly articulate  the expected results associated with this goal and activities. Nor did FTA  explain how such results would be measured and how they relate to DOT’s  strategic goals.
Linking FTA’s performance goals to departmental goals can provide a  clear, direct understanding of how the achievement of annual goals will  lead to the achievement of the agency’s strategic goals. We have  previously reported that a clear relationship should exist between an  agency’s annual performance goals and long-term strategic goals and  mission. FTA officials told us that it can be difficult to set performance  goals and measures for the agency’s safety efforts due to its limited  authority over safety in the transit industry. In past work, we have  reported that developing goals and measures for outcomes that are the  result of phenomena outside of federal government control is a common  challenge faced by many federal agencies. However, despite this  challenge, measuring program results and reinforcing their connection to  achieving long-term strategic goals can create a greater focus on results,  help hold agencies and their staff accountable for the performance of their  programs, and assist Congress in its oversight of agencies and their  budgets.
section_title: Addressing Important Dimensions of Program Performance
paragraphs: Performance goals and measures that successfully address important and  varied aspects of program performance are key aspects of a results  orientation. While FTA has identified various activities aimed at improving  rail transit safety, it has not established clear results-oriented goals and  measures that address key dimensions of the performance of its various  efforts related to safety, such as its training and state of good repair  programs. FTA could address important dimensions of program  performance in different ways. For example, the agency could set goals  and measures to address identified safety challenges, such as those  identified in this report, or to capture results of its various safety-related  efforts, such as its training programs or asset management initiatives.  Alternatively, performance goals and measures could relate to the causes  behind certain types of transit accidents, such as setting a goal of reducing  the number of accidents where human error is a probable cause in a given  year.
Without goals related to various dimensions of program performance, FTA  has not identified the intended results of its various safety-related efforts.  Limited use of performance measures by FTA makes it difficult to  determine the impact of these efforts on safety. While FTA has identified  overall measures of transit safety—the number of transit injuries and  fatalities per 100 million passenger-miles traveled—its annual performance  plan lacks quantifiable, numerical targets related to specific goals, against  which to measure the performance of its efforts. FTA’s fiscal year 2011  budget request did include a performance measure to track the percentage  of federal formula funding that transit agencies used for replacement  versus new capital purchases by the end of fiscal year 2011 and related  this measure to its goal of improving the rail industry’s focus on safety  vulnerabilities. However, this measure captures only one of the types of  results FTA might expect to achieve from its various safety efforts.
In the past, FTA safety planning documents have linked specific FTA  performance goals and measures with DOT’s overall strategic safety goals;  however, FTA is no longer using these documents. For example, FTA’s  2006 Rail Transit Safety Action Plan included safety goals and measures,  such as reducing total derailments per 100 million passenger miles, major  collisions per 100 million passenger trips, and total safety incidents per 10  million passenger trips. These goals and measures are clearly linked to  DOT’s overall strategic goal of working toward the elimination of  transportation-related injuries and fatalities, including rail transit injuries  and fatalities. The plan also included a number of supporting priorities,  such as reducing the impact of fatigue on transit workers, and how the  agency planned to achieve them. The plan also included performance  measures and target goals for FTA’s state safety oversight program, such  as the number of dedicated state personnel and necessary levels of  training and certification. FTA officials reported that the goals and  measures captured in this and other past planning documents were no  longer in use because of changes in safety environments. At present, FTA  has no active strategic plan, and FTA officials estimated the new strategic  plan would be completed in late 2011.
Other agencies are presently making use of practices to enhance  performance goals and measures for safety activities. For example, FRA  has created a set of performance goals and measures that address  important dimensions of program performance. In its proposed fiscal year  2011 budget, FRA included specific safety goals to reduce the rate of train  accidents caused by various factors, including human errors and track  defects. These goals are numeric, with a targeted accident rate per every  million train miles. Collecting such accident data equips FRA with a clear  way to measure whether or not those safety goals are met. FRA’s budget  request has also linked FRA’s performance goals and measures with DOT’s  strategic goals. Another DOT agency, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety  Administration, has a broad range of goals and related performance  measures that it uses to provide direction to—and track the progress of— its enforcement programs, including measures of the impact of its  enforcement programs on the level of compliance with safety regulations  and on the frequency of crashes, injuries, and fatalities. The agency’s end  goal—to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities through its reviews—aligns  with and contributes to DOT’s overall strategic safety goals.
While these leading practices are useful, problems with FTA’s rail transit  safety data could hamper the agency’s ability to measure its safety  performance. We have found that data contained in FTA’s State Safety  Oversight Rail Accident Database—which is compiled from data provided  by state safety oversight agencies and transit agencies—are unreliable.  Specifically, we found unverified entries, duplicative entries, data  discrepancies, and insufficient internal controls. Without reliable data, it  is difficult for FTA to measure performance based on goals to be captured  in annual performance plans or agency strategic plans. Baseline and trend  data also provide context for drawing conclusions about whether  performance goals are reasonable and appropriate. Establishing  procedures that ensure reliable data is an important internal control  necessary to validly measure performance based on numerical targets.  Additionally, decision makers can use such data to gauge how a program’s  anticipated performance level compares with past performance. FTA  officials have acknowledged the important role that data play in making  decisions regarding how to address challenges to rail transit safety. FTA  has implemented changes to the data collection process to address some  of the data problems we identified and plans to take additional actions to  validate and correct discrepancies contained in its State Safety Oversight  Rail Accident Database, but these plans do not identify specific efforts to  establish procedures that would improve data reporting in the future. To  ensure the accuracy and reliability of the State Safety Oversight Rail  Accident Database, we have recommended that FTA develop and  implement appropriate internal controls to ensure that data entered are  accurate and incorporate an appropriate method for reviewing and  reconciling data from state safety oversight agencies and other sources.
Without clear, specific, and varied performance goals and related  measures linked to DOT’s strategic goal of reducing transportation-related  injuries and fatalities, including rail transit injuries and fatalities, the  intended results of FTA’s safety efforts are unclear. Furthermore, the  absence of clear goals and measures to guide and track progress limits  FTA’s ability to make informed decisions about its safety strategy and its  accountability for its safety performance. Finally, without reliable data,  FTA cannot establish useful performance measures, making it difficult to  determine whether safety programs are accomplishing their intended  purpose and whether the resources dedicated to program efforts should  be increased, used in other ways, or applied elsewhere.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Rail transit systems will remain vital components of the nation’s  transportation infrastructure and will need to continue to provide safe  service for the millions of commuters that rely on them daily. Through its  assistance efforts, FTA has worked with transit agencies to foster a safer  operating environment for these passengers. Planned, new assistance  efforts by FTA, as well as legislative proposals to enhance FTA’s  regulatory authority over transit safety, have the potential to further  enhance safety on rail transit systems. Some additional proposals  concerning new steps FTA could take to address safety challenges facing  transit agencies also have the potential to improve rail transit safety. For  example, while FTA is already working to instill safety culture at transit  agencies, creating pilot projects to examine new approaches for instilling a  strong safety culture at these transit agencies may have merit. Setting  standards for a national training curriculum for transit employees may also  ensure that a minimum threshold of training is achieved across the transit  industry, if such standards could account for differences in transit  agencies’ environments and technologies. Asset management shows  promise in both helping transit agencies and protecting federal  investment. Similarly, holding agencies that receive federal funds  accountable for using asset management practices could help ensure that  federal funds aimed at addressing this problem are effectively used. DOT  is uniquely positioned to examine various proposals to discern any  worthwhile options for implementation going forward, given available  resources and other competing priorities, and to propose in its draft  surface transportation reauthorization legislation any options deemed  worthwhile. We are not recommending at this time that DOT take actions  on proposals for improving rail transit safety, as the department is  considering various options for improving transportation safety, including  rail transit safety, in developing its reauthorization proposal.
As FTA helps transit agencies ensure safety, setting clear performance  goals and related measures for its safety efforts, based on leading  practices, will be vital to improve FTA’s ability to set priorities and  determine progress—both in overseeing transit agencies and in helping  them maintain safety on their systems. Setting clear performance goals  will help FTA to communicate a direction for its safety efforts and  establish benchmarks for performance. Tracking progress through  performance measures will help FTA in planning its future efforts and will  help hold the agency accountable for achieving results. However, FTA  must take further actions to improve the reliability of its safety data before  it can track its safety performance based on new measures and goals.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To ensure that FTA targets its resources effectively as it increases its  safety efforts and is able to track the results of these efforts, we  recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the FTA  Administrator to use leading practices as FTA develops its plans for fiscal  year 2011 and in the future. In particular, the Administrator should create  a set of clear and specific performance goals and measures that (1) are  aligned with the department’s strategic safety goals and identify the  intended results of FTA’s various safety efforts and (2) address important  dimensions of program performance.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOT and NTSB for their review and  comment. Both provided technical comments and clarifications, which we  incorporated into the report as appropriate. DOT agreed to consider our  recommendation.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Chair of the National  Transportation Safety Board. In addition, this report is available at no  charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-2834, or wised@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Results of NTSB’s Investigations of Rail Transit Accidents
paragraphs: Of the 48 rail accident investigations that the National Transportation  Safety Board (NTSB) has reported on since 2004, 7 were on heavy rail  transit systems operated by the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) and the  Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), and one was  on the light rail transit system operated by the Massachusetts Bay  Transportation Authority (MBTA). As shown in table 2, these accidents  collectively resulted in 13 fatalities, hundreds of injuries, and millions of  dollars in property damage.
In its reports, NTSB identified the probable causes of accidents as well as  factors that contributed to these accidents. In five of these eight accident  investigations, NTSB found the probable cause to involve employee errors,  such as the failure of the train operator to comply with operating rules and  of track inspectors to maintain an effective lookout for trains. Of the  remaining three accidents, NTSB found that problems with equipment  were a probable cause of two accidents and that weaknesses in  management of safety by the transit agency, such as its management of  maintenance and of equipment quality controls, were a probable cause of  all three accidents. For six of these eight accidents, contributing factors  identified involved deficiencies in safety management or oversight,  including weaknesses in transit agencies’ safety rules and procedures and  in their processes for ensuring employees’ adherence to these rules and  procedures, lack of a safety culture within the transit agency, and lack of  adequate oversight by the transit agency’s state safety oversight agency  and the Federal Transit Authority (FTA). In one accident report, NTSB  found as a contributing factor the lack of safety equipment or  technologies, such as a positive train control system that can prevent  trains from colliding.
In addition, as shown in table 2, NTSB has ongoing investigations on six  accidents that occurred on heavy and light rail transit systems.
section_title: Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine the challenges that the largest rail transit systems face in  ensuring safety, we conducted site visits, examined documents, conducted  interviews, and consulted relevant literature. We obtained documents  from and interviewed officials at five large heavy rail transit systems and  three large light rail transit systems operated by seven transit agencies.  The five heavy rail systems are those operated by the Metropolitan  Transportation Authority New York City Transit (NYCT), WMATA, CTA,  MBTA, and the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). The three light rail  systems are operated by MBTA, the San Francisco Municipal  Transportation Agency (SF Muni), and the Los Angeles County  Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro). We obtained budget  documents, accident and audit reports, corrective action plans, and  staffing and training information, among other information and  documentation, from each system. Also, we interviewed representatives  from these transit agencies and their respective state safety oversight  agencies about the transit agencies’ challenges. We also analyzed  published NTSB investigations of accidents on heavy and light rail transit  systems since 2004 to help us determine the causes of and factors  contributing to rail transit accidents in recent years.
We used data from Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) National  Transit Database (NTD) to select these eight transit systems. The NTD  data we used for our selection criteria were (1) annual ridership, as  measured by unlinked passenger trips and passenger miles, (2) the number  of rail transit vehicles in revenue service operations, and (3) total track  mileage. To determine whether these NTD data were reliable for our  purposes, we interviewed FTA officials who are knowledgeable about the  database and assessed the accuracy of these data elements. We  determined that these specific data elements were sufficiently reliable to  be used as selection criteria.
To determine the extent to which FTA’s assistance addresses the safety  challenges faced by the largest transit agencies, we reviewed FTA  documents on funding, state of good repair initiatives, technical assistance  programs, and guidance and outreach related to rail transit safety. We also  obtained information on transit safety training from the National Transit  Institute and the Transportation Safety Institute. We interviewed officials  from FTA and NTSB and representatives of the American Public  Transportation Association (APTA). We asked officials from the transit  systems we visited and their respective state safety oversight agencies for  their assessment of FTA’s assistance efforts. We reviewed applicable  federal regulations, laws, and legislative proposals. In addition, we  consulted our prior work on performance management and rail transit  issues.
We further contracted with the National Academies’ Transportation  Research Board to identify rail transit safety experts from the transit  industry, academia, labor unions, and the rail consulting community. We  interviewed 12 experts on the challenges that large rail transit agencies  face in ensuring safety, the factors that contribute to rail transit safety  accidents, and potential ways that FTA could improve its safety assistance  efforts (see table 3). We also interviewed officials from NTSB and  representatives of the APTA on these topics.
In addition, as part of this review, we assessed FTA’s safety data to  determine whether they were sufficiently reliable for us to use to report on  trends in rail transit accidents as well as causes of those accidents. During  that assessment, we identified inaccuracies, discrepancies, and duplicative  entries, and determined that these data were not sufficiently reliable for  these purposes and decided to conduct a separate review of the data’s  reliability. We are issuing a report on our findings and recommendations  based on this review.
section_title: Appendix III: DOT Safety-Related Assistance Efforts That Address Transit Agencies’ Safety Culture, Staffing, and Training Challenges
paragraphs: Appendix III: DOT Safety-Related Assistance  Efforts That Address Transit Agencies’ Safety  Culture, Staffing, and Training Challenges .4 billion to  fund public transportation throughout the country. Recovery Act funds have primarily supported  grants in capital projects at transit agencies, although some funds have been used for operating  expenses. As of August 25, 2010, approximately $190 million had been obligated for use as operating  expenses.
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgment
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Judy Guilliams-Tapia, Assistant  Director; Catherine Bombico; Matthew Cail; Martha Chow; Antoine Clark;  Colin Fallon; Kathleen Gilhooly; Brandon Haller; Hannah Laufe; Grant  Mallie; Anna Maria Ortiz; and Kelly Rubin made significant contributions  to this report.