The BART rail system covers over 70 miles and serves more than 70 million annual riders throughout four counties in the San Francisco Bay area. Dating back to the opening of the BART system in 1972, transportation planners envisioned a system that would bring travelers and airport employees into the San Francisco International Airport. These plans began to take shape in 1991, when the Congress authorized an extension of the BART system to the airport as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). In the act, the Congress authorized $568,500,000 for two BART projects and one light rail project in Santa Clara county. The act directed the Secretary of Transportation to fully fund the BART airport extension project, and if necessary, use the unobligated balance in the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. In 1992, the Bay Area’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) completed the first of three draft EISs for the project. As a result, local transit agencies selected an alternative that proposed to link together BART’s and Caltrain’s (the commuter rail operator’s) systems and the airport, at one intermodal location west of the airport. The estimated cost of this alternative was $960 million. However, local opposition to environmental impacts and concerns over ridership forecasts required a study of new alternatives. Subsequently, BART took the lead in preparing a new draft EIS and in April 1995 selected an alternative that would bring the BART system directly into the airport via a subway. The estimated cost of this alternative was $1.27 billion. While this alternative mitigated some of the concerns about environmental impacts and ridership, there was continued opposition to the project. The airport objected to the impacts that the proposed subway’s construction would have on the airport, and the House and Senate Conference Committee report accompanying DOT’s fiscal year 1996 appropriations expressed concerns about the project’s cost. As a result, BART developed new alternatives and studied them in a third draft EIS. In September 1995, BART selected a new preferred alternative, which changed the project’s entrance into the airport from a subway to an aerial (elevated track) approach. The current project consists of about 8 miles of straight mainline track running south from the existing end of the BART line at the city of Colma to the city of Millbrae, with an incorporated “Y-stub” aerial line diverging from the mainline track and running southeast into the airport, then southwest out of the airport to Millbrae (see fig. 1). The aerial line would include a transit station adjacent to a planned international air terminal and would be linked to the airport’s light rail system to circulate passengers through the airport. Besides the airport and Millbrae stations, the project would include the Hickey and the Tanforan station north of the airport. Under this option, BART has reduced the estimated cost to $1.167 billion, primarily from savings associated with eliminating the more costly subway option. The overall purpose of the BART airport extension is to help relieve existing and anticipated highway congestion and improve air quality in the region. The traffic on local highways, including Interstate 280, Interstate 380, and Highway 101 regularly exceeds the existing capacity. For 1990 to 2010, MTC forecasts a 16-percent increase in traffic between San Francisco and counties in the South Bay area, including a 52-percent increase in traffic to and from the airport. San Francisco International Airport is proceeding with a $2.3 billion expansion and projects its annual passengers will increase by 21 million between 1990 and 2006. In addition, the San Francisco Bay area has been unable to meet federal air quality standards. The BART extension to the airport is one of the key transportation related antipollution measures. Recognizing growth in the region, the governor of California, on April 29, 1996, designated the BART airport extension project as one of the state’s top three transportation priorities. While DOT has announced its support for a full funding grant agreement, key activities remain before FTA can sign one. The agreement will establish the terms and conditions for federal participation, including the total amount of federal transit funds for the project. However, before signing the agreement, FTA must ensure that BART has met all environmental requirements and developed an adequate finance plan. In addition, a Conference Committee report has requested that FTA certify to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees that BART’s environmental and finance plans are reasonable and determine if various transit alternatives have been considered to meet the Bay area’s future transportation needs. On March 13, 1996, DOT announced its intention for FTA to sign a full funding grant agreement with BART for the proposed extension to the airport. This announcement was supported in the administration’s fiscal year 1997 budget request, which included $51 million for BART. FTA’s Circular C5200 on full funding grant agreements states that the agency generally expects to enter into such an agreement within 120 days after the conclusion of the environmental process, which is marked by the issuance of the final EIS and a record of decision. The application for a full funding grant agreement includes certain key features, including a description of the project and its scope, a finance plan, an estimate of baseline costs and the schedule for completing the project, the schedule for receiving federal funds, and a description of environmental mitigation measures. The finance plan must demonstrate that BART and other local entities have the financial capacity to build, operate, and maintain the project. Before signing the full funding grant agreement, FTA must first approve the final EIS. Second, BART and FTA must complete negotiations on the project’s finance plan—based on BART’s April 1996 draft plan. To assist it, FTA is employing outside consultants to assess BART’s construction costs and the viability of the finance plan. Under its planned construction schedule, BART expects to have the finance plan approved and to receive a full funding grant agreement from FTA by October 1996. Finally, the Conference Committee report accompanying DOT’s fiscal year 1996 appropriations act requests FTA to certify in writing to the Congressional Appropriations Committees that the project has resolved a number of significant issues. The report requests that this certification be delivered 60 days before the administration signs a full funding grant agreement with BART. To answer the concerns cited in the Conference Committee report, FTA must certify that a final cost analysis and finance plan have been completed and reviewed and that the federal share for the project has been reduced,the final EIS has been completed and approved, a study to consider a direct commuter rail (Caltrain’s) link to the airport has been considered in conjunction with the BART project, and the share of cost to be borne by the airport and its users is consistent with federal transportation policy and regulations. BART and FTA are working to resolve the Appropriations Committees’ concerns. However, it is unclear if all of the issues will be resolved by August 1996—60 days before the date BART expects FTA to sign a full funding grant agreement. As discussed in the following two sections, FTA and BART have many issues to resolve before FTA can provide the Appropriations Committees with the requested certifications. In its April 1996 draft finance plan, BART estimated that the project would cost $1.167 billion, construction would begin by October 1996, and revenue operations would begin in October 2000. Three issues remain that may affect BART’s ability to begin the project as scheduled and complete construction within the estimated cost: (1) whether environmental reviews, including the final EIS and a wetlands permit, will be complete before October 1996; (2) whether the use of innovative contracting procedures will produce the expected savings; and (3) whether BART has adequately included contingencies and cost escalations in estimating the project’s total cost. BART has obtained approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) and must complete two additional environmental reviews before FTA can approve the project. The two issues must be resolved before construction can begin. BART must (1) resolve concerns expressed about the draft EIS and complete the final EIS and (2) obtain a wetlands permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps). Delays in finalizing the EIS or obtaining the permit could delay the October 1996 startup. Federal law required BART to obtain the Service’s approval of measures to mitigate the project’s impacts on endangered species. The project will directly impact the habitat of the San Francisco Garter Snake (a federally listed endangered species) and the California Red Legged Frog (a federally listed threatened species), both which live on the airport’s property that will be used for part of the project’s construction. Since March 1995, BART has been coordinating with the Service to develop and finalize plans for mitigating impacts to the snakes’ and frogs’ habitat and in January 1996 submitted a mitigation proposal to the Service. On May 20, 1996, the Service issued an opinion of “no jeopardy” on the project’s impact to both species. The Service found that BART’s mitigation plan, which included enhancing the snakes’ and frogs’ habitat at a location several miles from the construction area, was acceptable for ensuring the continued existence of the species. In September 1995, BART issued a second supplemental draft EIS. In the draft statement, BART changed the project’s entry into the airport from a subway to an aerial approach, thereby responding to a congressional request to reduce the project’s cost and the impacts that construction would have on the airport. In November 1995, the boards of directors of BART and the San Mateo County Transit District (SAMTRANS) adopted this approach as the locally preferred alternative. BART held public hearings on the new alternative and received 800 comments on the draft statement.