In 2000, mass transit systems provided over 9 billion passenger trips and employed about 350,000 people in the United States. The nation’s transit systems include all multiple-occupancy-vehicle services designed to transport customers on local and regional routes, such as bus, trolley bus, commuter rail, vanpool, ferry boat, and light rail services, and are valued at a trillion dollars. As figure 1 shows, buses are the most widely used form of transit, providing almost two-thirds of all passenger trips. A number of organizations are involved in the delivery of transit services in the United States, including federal, state, and local governments and the private sector: FTA provides financial assistance to transit agencies to plan and develop new transit systems and operate, maintain, and improve existing systems. FTA is responsible for ensuring that the recipients of federal transit funds follow federal mandates and administrative requirements. FTA’s Office of Safety and Security is the agency’s focal point for transit safety (freedom from unintentional danger) and security (freedom from intentional danger). State and local governments also provide a significant amount of funding for transit services. As figure 2 shows, state and local governments provide funding for over 40 percent of transit agencies’ operating expenses and about a quarter of their capital expenses. According to statute, states are also responsible for establishing State Safety Oversight Agencies to oversee the safety of transit agencies’ rail systems. Transit agencies, which can be public or private entities, are responsible for administering and managing transit activities and services. Transit agencies can directly operate transit service or contract for all or part of the total transit service provided. About 6,000 agencies provide transit services in the United States, and the majority of these agencies provide more than one mode of service. Although all levels of government are involved in transit security, the primary responsibility for securing transit systems has rested with the transit agencies. FTA administers a number of programs, both discretionary and formula based, that provide federal funding support to transit agencies. The largest of these programs is the urbanized area formula grant program, which provides federal funds to urbanized areas (jurisdictions with populations of 50,000 or more) for transit capital investments, operating expenses, and transportation-related planning. As figure 3 shows, the urbanized area formula grant program accounts for almost one-half of the total authorized funds for all transit programs under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Recipients of urbanized area formula funds are required to spend at least 1 percent of these funds to improve the security of existing or planned mass transportation systems unless the transit agencies certify that such expenditures are unnecessary. Restrictions on the use of urbanized area formula funds for operating expenses have changed over the years. When the urbanized area formula program was created in 1982, funds could be used by transit agencies, regardless of an area’s population, for operating expenses with certain limitations. However, during fiscal years 1995 to 1997, an overall cap was placed on the total amount of these formula grants that could be used for operating expenses. In fiscal year 1995, the cap was $710 million, and in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 it was $400 million. With the passage of TEA-21 in 1998, the restrictions on urbanized area formula funds were again changed. Specifically, TEA-21 prohibits transit agencies that serve urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more from using urbanized area formula funding for operating expenses. According to FTA officials, the prohibition was instituted because policymakers believed the federal government should only pay for the construction of mass transit systems, not their operations. The legislative history of TEA-21 indicates that the Congress allowed transit agencies serving urban areas with populations of less than 200,000 to continue to use urbanized area formula funds for operating expenses so that they would have sufficient funding flexibilities. Throughout the world, public surface transportation systems have been targets of terrorist attacks. For example, the first large-scale terrorist use of a chemical weapon occurred in 1995 in the Tokyo subway system. In this attack, a terrorist group released sarin gas on a subway train, killing 11 people and injuring about 5,500. In addition, according to the Mineta Transportation Institute, surface transportation systems were the target of more than 195 terrorist attacks from 1997 through 2000. As figure 4 illustrates, buses were the most common target during this period. Transit agencies face significant challenges in making their systems secure. Certain characteristics of transit systems, such as their high ridership and open access, make them both vulnerable to attack and difficult to secure. The high cost of transit security improvements, coupled with tight budgets, competing needs, and a restriction on using federal funds for operating expenses (including security-related operating expenses such as additional security patrols) in large urban areas creates an even greater challenge for transit agencies. Moreover, because of the numerous stakeholders involved in transit security, coordination can become a problem. According to transit officials and transit security experts, certain characteristics of mass transit systems make them inherently vulnerable to terrorist attacks and difficult to secure. By design, mass transit systems are open (i.e., have multiple access points and, in some cases, no barriers) so that they can move large numbers of people quickly. In contrast, the aviation system is housed in closed and controlled locations with few entry points. The openness of mass transit systems can leave them vulnerable because transit officials cannot monitor or control who enters or leaves the systems. In addition, other characteristics of some transit systems—high ridership, expensive infrastructure, economic importance, and location (e.g., large metropolitan areas or tourist destinations)—also make them attractive targets because of the potential for mass casualties and economic damage. Moreover, some of these same characteristics make transit agencies difficult to secure. For example, the number of riders that pass through a mass transit system—especially during peak hours—make some security measures, such as metal detectors, impractical. In addition, the multiple access points along extended routes make the costs of securing each location prohibitive. Further complicating transit security is the need for transit agencies to balance security concerns with accessibility, convenience, and affordability. Because transit riders often could choose another means of transportation, such as a personal automobile, transit agencies must compete for riders. To remain competitive, transit agencies must offer convenient, inexpensive, and quality service. Therefore, security measures that limit accessibility, cause delays, increase fares, or otherwise cause inconvenience could push people away from transit and back into their cars. Our discussions with transit agency officials and our survey results indicate that striking the right balance between security and these other needs is difficult. For example, as shown in figure 5, 9 percent of survey respondents reported that the most significant barrier to making their transit systems as safe and secure as possible is balancing riders’ need for accessibility with security measures. Funding security improvements is a key challenge for transit agencies. Our survey results and our interviews with transit agency officials indicate that insufficient funding is the most significant challenge in making transit systems as safe and secure as possible. Moreover, our survey results indicate that the most common reason for not addressing items identified as needing attention through safety and security assessments is insufficient funding. Factors contributing to funding challenges include high security costs, tight budgets, competing budget priorities, and a provision prohibiting transit agencies in large urbanized areas from using federal urbanized area formula funds for operating expenses, such as security training. Transit security investments can be quite expensive. While some security improvements are inexpensive, such as removing trash cans from subway platforms, most require substantial funding. For example, one transit agency estimated that an intrusion alarm and closed circuit television system for only one of its portals would cost approximately $250,000—an amount equal to at least a quarter of the capital budgets of more than half the transit agencies we surveyed. According to our survey results, the top three safety and security funding priorities of transit agencies regardless of size are enhanced communication systems, surveillance equipment, and additional training. The transit agencies we visited have identified or are identifying needed security improvements, such as upgraded communication systems, additional fencing, surveillance equipment, and redundant or mobile command centers. Of the 10 transit agencies we visited, 8 had developed cost estimates of their identified improvements. The total estimated cost of the identified security improvements at the 8 agencies is about $711 million. The total cost of all needed transit security improvements throughout the country is unknown; however, given the scope of the nation’s transit systems and the cost estimate for 8 agencies, it could amount to billions of dollars. Transit agency officials told us that they are facing tight budgets, which make it more difficult for their agencies to pay for expensive security improvements. According to most of the agencies we visited, the weakened economy has negatively affected their revenue base by lowering ridership, tax revenues dedicated to transit, or both. In particular, 8 of the 10 agencies we visited reported that ridership has dropped this year, primarily because of the slow economy. The decreased ridership levels have lowered fare box revenue. In addition, state and local sales taxes, which provide revenue for many transit agencies, have declined with the weakened economy and reduced the transit agencies’ revenue, according to a number of transit agency officials. Other competing funding needs also present a challenge for transit agencies. Given the tight budget environment, transit agencies must make difficult trade-offs between security investments and other needs, such as service expansion and equipment upgrades. For example, an official at one transit agency stated that budget shortfalls and expenditures for security improvements have delayed some needed capital projects and reduced the budgets for all departments—except the safety and security budget. Similarly, an official at another agency reported that his agency is funding security improvements with money that was budgeted for nonsecurity projects. According to our analysis, 16 percent of the agencies we surveyed view balancing safety and security priorities against other priorities as the most significant challenge to making their systems as safe and secure as possible.