Public Transit: Observations on Recent Changes to the Capital Investment Grant Program
Released: 2016-04-28T00:00:00

Letter

Background

FTA’s primary source of funding for new fixed-guideway projects or extensions to existing fixed-guideway systems is the Capital Investment Grant program, which is a discretionary program funded from annual appropriations rather than the Highway Trust Fund. Over the past 10 fiscal years, FTA has provided states, cities, and other localities with almost $18 billion in federal funding to plan and build new projects through this program. Projects eligible to compete for federal funding under the Capital Investment Grant program include:

Commuter rail—systems that operate along electric or diesel- propelled railways and provide train service for local, short distance trips between a central city and adjacent suburbs.

Heavy rail—systems that operate on electric railways with high- volume traffic capacity and are characterized by separated right-of- way, sophisticated signaling, high platform loading, and high-speed, rapid-acceleration rail cars operating singly or in multi-car trains on fixed rails.

Light rail—systems that operate on electric railways with light-volume traffic capacity and are characterized by shared or exclusive rights-of- way, or low or high-platform-loading, single or double-car trains, and overhead electric lines that power rail vehicles.

Streetcars—systems that are similar to light rail, but distinguishable because they are usually smaller and designed for shorter routes, more frequent stops, and lower travel speeds.

Bus rapid transit—systems in which the majority operates in a separated right-of-way during peak periods and includes features that emulate the services provided by rail transit, such as defined stations, traffic signal priority, short headway bidirectional services for a substantial part of weekdays and weekend days, pre-board ticketing, platform-level boarding, and separate branding. Fixed-guideway bus rapid transit systems may include portions of service that are non- fixed guideway. In addition, bus rapid transit can also include corridor- based bus rapid transit projects, which have similar characteristics as fixed-guideway systems, but the majority of the project does not operate in a separated right-of-way dedicated for public transportation use during peak periods.

Ferries—systems comprised of vessels that operate over a body of water and are generally steam or diesel powered.

These projects are designed and implemented by project sponsors, which are usually local transit agencies, often in coordination with local metropolitan-planning organizations. Within the Capital Investment Grant program, project sponsors have typically applied for funding as either a New Starts or a Small Starts project. Under MAP-21, New Starts projects include new fixed-guideway projects, extensions to fixed- guideway projects, and fixed-guideway bus rapid transit projects that have a total capital cost of $250 million or greater or a Capital Investment Grant program contribution of $75 million or greater. Small Starts projects include new fixed-guideway projects, extensions to fixed-guideway projects, and both fixed-guideway and corridor-based bus rapid transit projects that have a total net capital cost less than $250 million and a Capital Investment Grant program contribution less than $75 million.

Prior to the enactment of MAP-21, the Capital Investment Grant program was governed by statutory provisions put in place under SAFETEA-LU. MAP-21, which was enacted in July 2012, made numerous changes to the program. For example, MAP-21 reduced the number of phases in the process that projects must follow to be eligible for and receive federal funding. Under SAFETEA-LU, project sponsors were required to identify the transportation needs of a specific corridor and evaluate a range of alternatives to address locally identified problems in that corridor during what was called the alternatives analysis phase. To complete this phase, project sponsors selected a locally preferred alternative to be advanced for further development after costs, benefits, and impacts of each alternative were analyzed. However, under MAP-21 the process relies on the review of alternatives performed during the metropolitan transportation planning and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) environmental review processes. In addition, MAP-21 created a new category of eligible projects called Core Capacity Improvement projects, which are substantial corridor-based capital investments in existing fixed-guideway systems that increase the capacity of a corridor by at least 10 percent in a corridor that is at or above capacity today or is expected to be within 5 years. Core Capacity Improvement projects can include expanding system platforms, the acquisition of real property, rights-of-way, and rolling stock associated with increasing capacity, among other things, and cannot include elements to improve general station facilities, parking, or elements designed to maintain a state of good repair.

Under MAP-21, any project that fits the definition of a new fixed-guideway project or an extension to an existing fixed-guideway system is eligible to compete for federal funding under the Capital Investment Grant program. Once a project sponsor decides to seek Capital Investment Grant program funding it submits an application to FTA consisting of information on the proposed project, such as a description of the transportation problem the project is seeking to address, among other requirements. If accepted into the program, the process that project sponsors must follow varies depending on whether the project is a New Starts, Small Starts, or Core Capacity Improvement project (see fig. 1).

New Starts and Core Capacity Improvement projects. New Starts and Core Capacity Improvement projects must complete two phases in the development process to be eligible for a Construction grant agreement—Project Development and Engineering. During the Project Development phase, among other requirements, the Secretary must determine that the project has been selected as the locally preferred alternative at the end of the environmental review process. Under MAP-21 changes to the Capital Investment Grant program, New Starts and Core Capacity Improvement projects have 2 years after the day in which they enter into Project Development to complete the activities required to obtain a project rating by FTA, a process that is discussed further below. If approved to advance into the second phase of the development process—Engineering—project sponsors must, among other things, develop a firm and reliable cost, scope, and schedule for the project and obtain all non-Capital Investment Grant program funding commitments.

Small Starts projects. Small Starts projects complete a similar but more streamlined process that requires project sponsors to complete only one phase—Project Development—to be eligible for a Construction grant agreement. During this phase, the Secretary must also determine that the project has been adopted as the locally preferred alternative and the project sponsor must complete the environmental review process. To complete Project Development, project sponsors must develop a firm and reliable cost, scope, and schedule for the project and obtain all non-Capital Investment Grant program funding commitments, among other things.

Before FTA can recommend a project to Congress for funding, it is required by law to rate the project by using a number of criteria designed to provide important information about project merit. While New Starts and Small Starts project justification criteria have changed over time, there are currently six criteria: mobility improvements, environmental benefits, cost-effectiveness, economic development, land use, and congestion relief. In contrast, the project justification criteria for Core Capacity Improvement projects are: mobility improvements, environmental benefits, cost-effectiveness, economic development, congestion relief, and existing capacity needs of a corridor. FTA is also required to evaluate and rate the local financial commitment to the project and the project sponsor’s ability to operate the project and continue to operate the existing transit system.

FTA is also required to rate each individual criterion on a five point scale, from low, medium-low, medium, medium-high, and high. As we have previously reported, FTA prepares and combines a summary project justification, which is based on the ratings of the six criteria, and a summary local financial commitment rating to arrive at a project’s overall rating, as shown in figure 2. To advance through the development process and be eligible for funding, proposed projects must score at least a medium overall project rating (which requires at least a medium rating for both the summary project justification and the summary local financial commitment). In order to recommend a project for a grant agreement in the President’s budget, FTA considers the evaluation and rating of the project under the specified criteria, availability of Capital Investment Grant program funds, and the readiness of the proposed project.

Projects that compete for Capital Investment Grant program funding are formally overseen by FTA with the help of contractors, who provide assistance to FTA with oversight of planning, construction, and financing of projects throughout the development process. FTA and its contractors evaluate each project’s risk, scope, cost, schedule, financial plan, and project management plan, as well as the project sponsor’s technical capacity and capability—before recommending a project for funding. Throughout the development process, project sponsors submit periodic updates to FTA on different aspects of their projects, such as on project cost, schedule, projected ridership, and the financing of the projects. FTA maintains its headquarters in Washington, D.C., with 10 regional offices throughout the continental United States, to assist with project oversight.

As mentioned previously, this report focuses on the statutory, regulatory, and other FTA requirements applicable to the Capital Investment Grant program under MAP-21. In December 2015, the FAST Act was enacted. In addition to significantly altering or repealing some of the MAP-21 requirements, the FAST Act also made other changes to the Capital Investment Grant program’s processes. According to FTA officials, some of those key changes include: (1) raising the dollar threshold for eligibility for New Starts and Small Starts projects, (2) increasing the number of projects eligible for funding by allowing joint public transportation and intercity passenger rail service and commuter rail projects to be eligible for funding, and (3) eliminating a requirement that corridor-based bus rapid transit projects must provide weekend service to be eligible for funding. We plan to examine FTA’s implementation of the FAST Act in future work on the Capital Investment Grant program.

FTA Has Made Progress Implementing Most of the Key Required Changes in the Capital Investment Grant Program

FTA has made progress implementing most of the key changes MAP-21 made to the Capital Investment Grant program. As shown in table 1, FTA has issued policy guidance outlining the new review and evaluation process and criteria for New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity Improvement projects and also provided project sponsors with instructions on how they can request to pre-qualify for a satisfactory rating based on the characteristics of their project, otherwise known as warrants. However, FTA has not completed the rulemaking required to fully implement the MAP-21 changes or fully addressed all requirements, such as the requirement to establish an evaluation and rating process for programs of interrelated projects, all of which we discuss below. FTA officials told us they are working toward addressing the remaining requirements.

Issuing Rules for Evaluating and Rating Projects

FTA has promulgated new rules for the Capital Investment Grant program but plans to initiate the rulemaking necessary to fully implement the changes MAP-21 made to the program in the future. Specifically, MAP-21 required FTA to issue rules establishing an evaluation and rating process for new fixed-guideway capital projects as well as Core Capacity Improvement projects. In January 2013, FTA issued a final rule establishing a new regulatory framework for the evaluation and rating of New Starts and Small Starts projects. FTA initiated this rulemaking—by issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking—prior to the enactment of MAP-21, and FTA’s final rule covers portions of the evaluation and rating requirements for New Starts and Small Starts projects that MAP-21 did not significantly change. According to FTA, future rulemaking will cover new items included in MAP-21 that have not yet been the subject of the rulemaking process, such as the evaluation and rating process for Core Capacity Improvement projects and the revised processes for New Starts and Small Starts projects. FTA officials told us they plan to address the remaining requirements of MAP-21 and now the Fast Act in future rulemaking. They noted that they still have to review the changes the FAST Act made to the Capital Investment Grant program and that factors outside of their control could delay their efforts.

Issuing Guidance for Evaluating and Rating Projects

FTA provided project sponsors with updated policy guidance for the Capital Investment Grant program in both 2013 and 2015 and plans to update its policy guidance again in 2017. MAP-21 required FTA to issue policy guidance specifying the review and evaluation process and criteria for new fixed-guideway capital projects and Core Capacity Improvement projects and issue updated guidance each time FTA makes significant changes to the rating process and criteria, but not less frequently than once every 2 years. Concurrent with the January 2013 issuance of the final rule, FTA solicited public comment on its proposed policy guidance for New Starts and Small Starts projects and, in August 2013, issued policy guidance covering the evaluation and rating process for New Starts and Small Starts projects. In April 2015, FTA again solicited public comment on its proposed policy guidance for the evaluation and rating process for Core Capacity Improvement projects along with other topics not included in FTA’s August 2013 guidance, such as the new congestion relief criterion and the ways in which projects can qualify for warrants. Subsequently, FTA issued updated policy guidance for the program in August 2015. FTA has stated its August 2015 guidance will serve as a guide for running the Capital Investment Grant program until it completes the rulemaking to fully implement the MAP-21 changes and now the requirements of the FAST Act.

In addition to covering the evaluation and rating process for Core Capacity Improvement projects, FTA’s August 2015 policy guidance also:

Set a deadline for project development: MAP-21 specified that New Starts and Core Capacity Improvement projects have 2 years after the day in which they enter into Project Development to complete the activities required to obtain a project rating by FTA. In addressing this requirement, FTA’s policy guidance encourages project sponsors to begin planning early, noting that project sponsors may wish to conduct early work, such as initiating the environmental review process, prior to requesting entry into Project Development.

Implemented a new congestion relief criterion: MAP-21 added congestion relief as a project justification criterion for projects while removing operating efficiencies as a criterion, and under FTA’s policy guidance, congestion relief is calculated based on the number of new weekday linked transit trips that are projected to result from a project’s implementation.

Utilized the new definition of bus rapid transit as set out in MAP-21: According to an FTA official, the new definition of bus rapid transit represented a significant change because it impacts funding eligibility. For example, the new definition required eligible bus rapid transit projects to have short headway bi-directional service for a substantial part of weekdays and weekend days, which was not the case under SAFETEA-LU. FTA, in turn, defined the interval of time required for service during peak periods and during other times of the day and made other related determinations.

FTA officials told us they anticipated soliciting public comment on FTA’s policy guidance again later this year or in 2017 in order to meet the MAP- 21 requirement that FTA issue new guidance no less than every 2 years.

Establishing an Evaluation and Rating Process for Programs of Interrelated Projects

FTA plans to address the programs of interrelated project provisions of MAP-21 through future rulemaking and policy guidance updates. FTA officials told us that before they could begin working to address these provisions, they first needed to establish the evaluation and rating process for Core Capacity Improvement projects because a Core Capacity Improvement project could be one of the interrelated projects. FTA’s August 2015 policy guidance covers the evaluation and rating process for Core Capacity Improvement projects; however, officials also said that some aspects of the law related to programs of interrelated projects were unclear and made it difficult to implement. For example, MAP-21 did not specify which evaluation criteria FTA should use to rate programs of interrelated projects that include more than one type of project. At the time of our review, FTA was working with Congress to address these issues and, in December 2015, the FAST Act was enacted, which officials told us provided the clarification they sought. FTA officials told us they plan to address these provisions in future rulemaking and policy guidance updates; however, they had no firm date for when these provisions would be implemented and noted it would take time. Figure 3 shows an illustrative example of a proposed program of interrelated projects consisting of two Core Capacity Improvement projects and one Small Starts project in Dallas, Texas.

Using an Expedited Technical-Capacity Review Process

FTA is finalizing the development of a tool that will help officials determine the level of review required of project sponsors based on a number of risk factors, such as the total cost and complexity of a proposed project and the project sponsor’s in-house technical capacity and capability. According to FTA officials, this tool, once complete, will address the MAP- 21 requirement that FTA use an expedited technical-capacity review process for project sponsors under certain circumstances. Specifically, the expedited review would be used for project sponsors that have recently and successfully completed a project that achieved budget, cost, and ridership outcomes consistent with or better than projections and that has demonstrated continued staff expertise and other resources necessary to implement a new project. FTA officials estimated that the development of this tool would be completed over the next few months.

Making Greater Use of Warrants

At the time of our review, FTA had provided project sponsors with instructions on how to request the use of warrants; however, it was too early to tell the extent to which FTA will be able to make greater use of warrants. Warrants are ways that proposed projects can pre-qualify for a satisfactory rating on a given criterion based on the characteristics of a project or the project corridor as long as the Capital Investment Grant program’s share of the project does not exceed $100 million or 50 percent of the project’s cost and the applicant certifies that its existing public- transportation system is in a state of good repair. For example, New Starts projects can qualify for an automatic rating of medium for some criteria as long as the total capital cost of the proposed project and the number of existing weekday transit trips in the corridor meet certain eligibility criteria, among other things. FTA’s August 2015 policy guidance specified the parameters that FTA will use to determine if projects are eligible for warrants and provided project sponsors with instructions on how to request the use of warrants. FTA officials told us that for the most recent rating cycle—which is also the first rating cycle in which FTA allowed the use of expanded warrants—three project sponsors requested warrants and FTA determined two were eligible. According to FTA officials, it will take several rating cycles and feedback from project sponsors before the officials will have enough information to assess the effect of expanded warrants.

Selected Project Sponsors Expressed Support for MAP-21 Changes to the Capital Investment Grant Program and FTA’s Implementation of Those Changes

The selected project sponsors we contacted were generally supportive of the changes MAP-21 made to the Capital Investment Grant program and of FTA’s implementation of the changes. However, the project sponsors also told us they were concerned about the potential impact some of the changes—such as locking in funding at entry into Engineering and requiring New Starts and Core Capacity Improvement projects to complete Project Development within 2 years—might have on project sponsors. In addition, while the number of projects in the Capital Investment Grant program has increased by about 70 percent since 2012, project sponsors also told us it was too early to tell the extent to which the MAP-21 changes will help expedite projects through the program.

Project Sponsors Generally Support the MAP-21 Changes but Are Concerned about Some Changes’ Potential Effects

A prevalent theme from our discussions with representatives from 13 project sponsors was that they generally support changes—such as: (1) streamlining the project development process, (2) establishing Core Capacity Improvement projects as a new category of eligible projects, (3) instituting a 2-year requirement for New Starts and Core Capacity Improvement projects to complete Project Development, and (4) revising the evaluation and rating process, that MAP-21 made to the Capital Investment Grant program. Representatives from 9 of the 13 project sponsors we interviewed told us that the changes streamlined the project development process by decreasing the number of time-consuming reviews FTA undertakes or by eliminating what these representatives considered to be burdensome requirements, such as the alternatives analysis requirement under SAFETEA-LU. According to the representatives we interviewed, streamlining should help expedite projects through the program because fewer FTA reviews decrease the amount of work project sponsors need to perform prior to submitting information to FTA for review. According to APTA representatives, the elimination of the alternatives analysis requirement was a particularly positive development for project sponsors because project sponsors devoted significant resources to analyzing alternatives prior to requesting entry into the Capital Investment Grant program.

One of the MAP-21 changes that some project sponsors indicated they were supportive of is the addition of Core Capacity Improvement projects. Representatives from one project sponsor said the addition of these projects is a positive development because these projects give project sponsors options to increase the capacity of a system as ridership increases, while two others noted that the addition of Core Capacity Improvement projects expands project eligibility for projects that would likely not have rated favorably under New Starts criteria. According to representatives from one of these project sponsors, these projects expand eligibility because Core Capacity Improvement projects are designed to increase the capacity of existing corridors, not add extensions to an existing system. Figures 4 and 5 provide information on the two Core Capacity Improvement projects we visited for this review— Dallas Area Rapid Transit’s (DART) platform extensions project and Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) power improvements project in New York City.

Representatives from 6 of 13 project sponsors also indicated that they were generally supportive of the MAP-21 requirement that New Starts and Core Capacity Improvement projects complete Project Development within 2 years. Representatives from two project sponsors told us that requiring project sponsors to complete more work, such as initiating the environmental review process, prior to entering Project Development should help expedite a project’s progress through the program because completing this work decreases the amount of work project sponsors need to complete while in Project Development. Further, representatives from one project sponsor indicated that this change should also deter project sponsors that do not yet have defined projects from entering the program. However, as discussed below, most of the project sponsors also raised some concerns about the 2-year completion deadline.

In addition, representatives from 12 of the 13 project sponsors told us that they were generally supportive of the changes MAP-21 made to the evaluation and rating process. Representatives from one project sponsor noted, for example, that the MAP-21 changes have greatly simplified and streamlined the review process and made it more transparent. Representatives from another project sponsor also noted that the changes required FTA to implement more evaluative measures that take into account improvements that benefit existing riders, such as measures designed to reduce travel time, rather than focusing solely on the addition of new riders.

However, project sponsors also raised some concerns regarding certain aspects of the MAP-21 changes.

Representatives from 11 of the 13 project sponsors told us that requiring New Starts and Core Capacity Improvement projects to complete Project Development activities within 2 years could pose a challenge for projects sponsors—for example, increasing project sponsors’ costs because project sponsors may have to perform more work prior to entering Project Development. These representatives noted that such work is not eligible for pre-award authority under MAP-21. In FTA’s August 2015 policy guidance, FTA acknowledged that it may be challenging for certain proposed projects to complete Project Development within 2 years. However, FTA also acknowledged that the intent of the MAP-21 changes was to help projects make quick progress and not linger in the program, and FTA encouraged project sponsors to perform whatever work they feel necessary prior to requesting entry into Project Development.

Representatives from 5 of the 13 project sponsors indicated that locking in Capital Investment Grant program funding at entry into the Engineering phase could be too early in the development process and could pose a challenge because some projects may have yet to develop realistic cost and schedule estimates. According to these representatives, locking in funding at entry into Engineering increases the risk of escalating costs to project sponsors—costs which project sponsors would be responsible for—and is a change compared to under SAFETEA-LU where funding was locked in prior to a project being recommended for a grant agreement. APTA representatives told us that some projects may spend more time in Project Development as a result of this change, in order to help ensure that project sponsors develop more mature cost estimates before locking- in funding. According to FTA, project sponsors, not the federal government, should bear the risk of cost overruns once a project enters Engineering. FTA officials noted that the project sponsor determines when to proceed to Engineering and thus is responsible for ensuring that a project’s cost estimates are supported by sufficient engineering and design work.

Representatives from 10 of the 13 project sponsors voiced various concerns regarding some of the changes MAP-21 made to the evaluation and rating process. For example, representatives from 4 project sponsors told us that they thought the ridership measure of the new congestion relief criterion appeared biased toward more mature regions with legacy transit ridership compared to fast-growing regions with emerging transit ridership, or, according to representatives from one of these project sponsors, modes that transport a greater number of passengers, such as light rail projects. FTA has acknowledged limitations with the ridership measure and noted it intends to continue to refine the congestion relief measure over time with input from the transit industry and experience gained through its implementation of the MAP-21 changes.

Selected Project Sponsors Generally Support FTA’s Efforts in Implementing the MAP-21 Changes

Representatives from 11 of 13 project sponsors indicated that they were generally satisfied with FTA’s implementation of the MAP-21 changes. For example, representatives from four project sponsors said that FTA has made a good effort to listen to and incorporate many of the recommendations offered by project sponsors. APTA representatives similarly told us that FTA has done an excellent job engaging the transit industry in trying to streamline the Capital Investment Grant program. In addition, representatives from 11 of 13 project sponsors said that they were generally supportive of the policy guidance FTA has issued since the enactment of MAP-21. For example, representatives from five project sponsors said FTA’s policy guidance has been comprehensive and useful in explaining how FTA will implement the MAP-21 changes and describing what FTA expects of project sponsors. Furthermore, representatives from all 13 project sponsors said that FTA has continued to provide support to project sponsors prior to entry into Project Development, such as during the application process, as well as throughout the program, as it has worked to implement the MAP-21 changes. For example, project sponsors noted that FTA continues to provide checklists, roadmaps, and technical assistance, in addition to its policy guidance updates and reporting instructions. FTA officials noted that they provide ongoing technical assistance on a routine basis during each of their conversations with project sponsors.

Although project sponsors were generally satisfied with FTA’s efforts thus far, they pointed out that not all MAP-21 changes, such as the programs of interrelated projects provisions, have been implemented yet. In addition, representatives from 9 of the 13 project sponsors told us they thought it took a long time for FTA to issue some of its policy guidance. FTA officials noted that by law they are required to issue new policy guidance for the Capital Investment Grant program no less than every 2 years and emphasized that by law they are also required to invite and respond to public comment on their guidance via the Federal Register— requirements that are time-consuming to comply with. Representatives from 11 of the 13 project sponsors also offered various suggestions regarding how FTA could enhance the support it provides project sponsors, such as by providing checklists for different types of projects, such as design-build, operate-maintain, or public-private partnerships or by increasing the number of training opportunities it provides project sponsors.

Substantially More Projects Have Entered the Program since MAP-21, but Whether They Will Progress More Expeditiously Is Not Yet Known

Since 2012, the total number of projects in the Capital Investment Grant program has increased by 70 percent, from 37 projects as of February 2012 to 63 projects as of February 2016, as shown in figure 6. FTA officials, selected project sponsors, and representatives from APTA largely attributed this growth to the fact that under MAP-21, FTA is no longer required to rate proposed projects prior to their entry into the Capital Investment Grant program. While FTA officials told us they view increased participation in the program as an opportunity to help improve public transit in communities across the country, they also said such growth presents challenges, noting that FTA’s resources to review and evaluate projects have largely remained flat over the last several years. Further, they noted that participation in the program by Small Starts projects is increasing—since 2012, Small Starts projects, as a percentage of the total number of projects, increased from about 24 percent to more than 50 percent—and that Small Starts project sponsors typically have little experience constructing major capital projects. Consequently, FTA often provides those project sponsors with greater levels of technical assistance and support. FTA officials told us they have requested additional funding from Congress to address these challenges. They also noted that absent being given additional resources, they cannot spend as much time providing technical assistance or evaluating projects.

While the number of projects in the Capital Investment Grant program has increased since the enactment of MAP-21, we found that limited data were available to assess whether projects were progressing through the program more quickly compared to under SAFETEA-LU. For example, at the time of our review only 4 projects had approached the 2-year deadline to complete Project Development. According to FTA officials, 3 of these projects completed the activities required to obtain a project rating from FTA before their 2-year deadlines passed while the third requested to postpone entry into Engineering to complete additional design work and address local funding issues.

Representatives from 8 of the 13 project sponsors we spoke with and representatives from APTA also felt that it was is too early to tell the extent to which the MAP-21 changes will help expedite projects through the program. For example, among other things, representatives from these project sponsors told us that while MAP-21 consolidated the number of phases in the development process it was not yet apparent to them how this might affect their projects since they perceived they would still have to complete the same amount of work. In discussing this issue with FTA, officials emphasized that projects were not far enough along for FTA to determine whether the MAP-21 changes are expediting projects through the program.

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. In its comments, which we have reproduced in appendix II, DOT noted that it is committed to continuing its efforts to improve the Capital Investment Grant program while ensuring that project evaluations provide important information to decision makers. DOT also provided technical comments that we incorporated where appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees and the Secretary of the Department of Transportation. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions or would like to discuss this work, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or GoldsteinM@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 key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report discusses: (1) the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) progress in implementing changes the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) made to the Capital Investment Grant program and (2) how selected project sponsors view the MAP-21 changes and FTA’s implementation of those changes. We focused our work on selected statutory requirements contained in MAP-21 that were not significantly altered or repealed by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act).

To address our objectives, we reviewed the relevant provisions of MAP- 21, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), and the FAST Act. We also reviewed FTA’s policy guidance; other pertinent FTA documents related to the program, such as FTA’s annual reports to Congress; and our body of work on FTA’s Capital Investment Grant program. In addition, we interviewed FTA officials, representatives of the American Public Transportation Association, and selected project sponsors. Specifically, we interviewed representatives from 13 project sponsors representing 17 of 52 projects participating in the program as of February 2015 and conducted a content analysis of the interviews with project sponsors to identify and summarize themes that emerged during our discussions. The information obtained from our interviews with project sponsors is not generalizable to all project sponsors but provides insight into project sponsors’ views of the MAP-21 changes thus far. We also visited New York City and Dallas, Texas, to tour the sites of two proposed Core Capacity Improvement projects. The project sponsors we contacted and the locations we visited were selected based on a number of factors, the primary being previous project experience in FTA’s Capital Investment Grant program under SAFETEA-LU, which provided a basis to compare changes made by MAP-21. These project sponsors represent 7 New Starts projects, 8 Small Starts projects, and 2 Core Capacity Improvement projects, as well as different rail modes (heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail) and both bus rapid transit and streetcar projects, as shown in table 2.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2015 through April 2016 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Transportation

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact above, key contributors to this report included Brandon Haller (Assistant Director), Andrew Burton, Geoffrey Hamilton, Wesley A. Johnson, Delwen Jones, Hannah Laufe, Malika Rice, and Andrew Stavisky.

Related GAO Products

Public Transportation: Multiple Factors Influence Extent of Transit- Oriented Development. GAO-15-70. Washington, D.C.: November 18, 2014.

Public Transit: Length of Development Process, Cost Estimates, and Ridership Forecasts for Capital-Investment Grant Projects. GAO-14-472. Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2014.

Public Transit: Funding for New Starts and Small Starts Projects, October 2004 through June 2012. GAO-13-40. Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2012.

Bus Rapid Transit: Projects Improve Transit Service and Can Contribute to Economic Development. GAO-12-811. Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2012.

Public Transportation: Requirements for Smaller Capital Projects Generally Seen as Less Burdensome. GAO-11-778. Washington, D.C.: August 2, 2011.

Public Transportation: Use of Contractors Is Generally Enhancing Transit Project Oversight, and FTA is Taking Actions to Address Some Stakeholder Concerns. GAO-10-909. Washington, D.C.: September 14, 2010.

Public Transportation: Federal Project Approval Process Remains a Barrier to Greater Private Sector Role and DOT Could Enhance Efforts to Assist Project Sponsors. GAO-10-19. Washington, D.C.: October 29, 2009.

Public Transportation: Better Data Needed to Assess Length of New Starts Process, and Options Exist to Expedite Project Development. GAO-09-784. Washington, D.C.: August 6, 2009.

Public Transportation: New Starts Program Challenges and Preliminary Observations on Expediting Project Development. GAO-09-763T. Washington, D.C.: June 3, 2009.

Public Transportation: Improvements Are Needed to More Fully Assess Predicted Impacts of New Starts Projects. GAO-08-844. Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2008.

Public Transportation: Future Demand Is Likely for New Starts and Small Starts Programs, but Improvements Needed to the Small Starts Application Process. GAO-07-917. Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2007.

Public Transportation: New Starts Program Is in a Period of Transition. GAO-06-819. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2006.

Public Transportation: Preliminary Information on FTA’s Implementation of SAFETEA-LU Changes. GAO-06-910T. Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2006.

Public Transportation: Opportunities Exist to Improve the Communication and Transparency of Changes Made to the New Starts Program. GAO-05-674. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2005.

Mass Transit: FTA Needs to Better Define and Assess Impact of Certain Policies on New Starts Program. GAO-04-748. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2004.

Mass Transit: FTA Needs to Provide Clear Information and Additional Guidance on the New Starts Ratings Process. GAO-03-701. Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2003.

Mass Transit: FTA’s New Starts Commitments for Fiscal Year 2003. GAO-02-603. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2002.

Mass Transit: FTA Could Relieve New Starts Program Funding Constraints. GAO-01-987. Washington, D.C.: August 15, 2001.

Mass Transit: Implementation of FTA’s New Starts Evaluation Process and FY 2001 Funding Proposals. GAO/RCED-00-149. Washington, D.C.: April 28, 2000.