R T TO THE CONGRESS 3 BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL _= OF THE UNITED STATES ~~lllllnlll~lllnllllllllnl~llllllll ~M101782 - Why Urban System Funds Were L Seldom Used For Mass Transit Federal Highway and Urban Mass Transportation Administrations Department of Transportation In 1973 the Congress opened the Highway Trust Fund for urban mass transit projects, such as purchasing buses and rail passenger cars. Three years later, local governments had used only about $74 million, or 3 percent, of the funds available for mass transit projects, while they used about $1 billion for highway projects. More funds were not used for mass transit for several reasons, including --the large amount of work urban high- ways needed, --less matching shares required for Fed- eral mass transit than for highway pro- grams, --more Federal money was obtained by using Trust Fund money for highways and other Federal money for mass transit, --unissued Federal regulations for imple menting mass transit projects, and --confusion or delays experienced by some smaller communities in obtaining project approval. CED-77-49 ~O~PTRCJL,LER GENERAL OF THE UiUlTED STATES WASI~INCION. DC. 20548 B-164497(3) 0 / To the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives This report discusses the reasons local communities seldom used Urban System highway funds for mass transit projects as authorized by the 1973 Highway Actp and contains several options which the Congress could take to provide additional incentives for using highway funds for mass transit projects. During hearings on the Highway Act of 1976, the Congress expressed concern over the States' slow prog- ress in implementing the Urban System program and required the Secretary of Transportation to study the program. Our review supplements the Secretary's Urban System study issued on January 13, 1977, and provides more detailed information on why few highway funds have been used for mass transit projects. We made our review pursuant to the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53), and the Account- ing and Auditing Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 67). We are sending copies of this report to the Direc- tarp Office of Management and retary of Transportation, Comptroller General of the United States COMPTROLLERGENERAL'S WHY URBAN SYSTEM FUNDS WEFE REPORT TO THE CONGRESS SELDOMUSED FOR MASS TRANSIT i,.!Federal Highway and Urban Mass - t -0 Transportation Administrations 5,Department of Transportation / / DIGEST ---e-e Since 1973, few communities have used Highway Trust Fund moneys made available by the Congress for mass transit under the Urban System program. Only 13 urban areas in 8 States had used the program for mass transit projects such as buying buses and rail passenger cars. (See pe 3.) The Federal Urban System consists of about 125,000 miles of heavily traveled roads in urban areas, exclusive of the Interstate highways and major rural route extensions. As of June 30, 1976, about $73.7 million (3 per- cent of the $2.3 billion authorized) was obligated for mass transit, XKabout $1 billion (45 per- cent) was obligated for urban highways. The bal- ance was either transferred to other highway programs or remained unobligated. Why weren't more of these funds used for mass tran- sit in California, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York? Most communities continued using Urban System funds for local roads because Urban Mass Trans- portation Administration grants were available for mass transit projects and because highways needed a lot of work. During fiscal years 1974-76, the five States used over 20 times as much Urban Mass Transportation Administration money for mass transit projects as they did Urban System funds. (See pp. 5 to 9.) Local decisions to use Urban System funds for highway projects were influenced by other factors: --Urban System funds were allotted to communi- ties; grants were given to individual appli- cants. Therefore, communities got the most Federal money by using Urban System funds for highways and other Federal funds for mass transit. Tear Sheej. Upon removal, the report i cover date should be noted hereon. CED-77-49 --Federal cost-sharing ratios were greater for 42 of the 52 States (including Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia) under the Urban Mass Transportation Administration program than under the Urban System program. Therefore, more local money was required for a mass transit project funded through the Urban System program. In addition, several States had sharing programs which often favored highway projects. --Some communities preferred highway projects be- cause they contributed to local employment. (See ppO 9 and 10.) --Some communities did not have apparent transit needs or were concerned about the additional losses that could result from expanding exist- ing transit systems. (See p. 10.) November 1973 interim guidelines for approving Urban System mass transit projects, however, helped deter the use of funds for such projects. The guidelines required that each project be approved by State, Federal Highway Administration, and Urban Mass Transportation Administration officials. This in effect created two additional reviews--by the State and by the Federal Highway Administration-- not required in the grants program. Smaller communities applying for funds experienced delays in obtaining project approval. For example, of the 15 mass transit projects approved, 10 were for municipalities of over 200,000 population, such as San Francisco and Chicago, and project approval took about 8 months. Howeverp project approval for the 5 smaller communities averaged over 20 months. Therefore, some communities turned to the Urban Mass Transportation Administration for mass tran- sit projects because their procedures were already established and the additional approvals were not required. (See p. 12.) As of February 1977, 3-l/2 years after the Con- gress authorized Urban System funds for mass transit projects, the final regulations were still not issued. This was too long a time for interim guidelines to remain in effect. (See pa 14.) ii The Secretary of Transportation should (1) estab- lish procedures for setting target dates for issuing regulations which implement Department of Transportation programs, especially those re- quiring coordination by Department agencies and (2) require the agencies to report periodically to the Secretary on their progress. To improve the administration of the Urban System program, the Secretary should direct the Federal Highway and Urban Mass Transportation Adminis- trators to issue, as soon as possible, final regulations on the use of highway funds for mass transit projects. (See p. 17.) If the Congress wants more Urban System funds to be used for mass transitr it should provide fur- ther incentives to local communities by --equalizing the Federal share of mass transit project costs under the highway and mass tran- sit programsI except in States where the Fed- eral share under the highway program exceeds that under the mass transit program; --increasing the Federal share of mass transit project costs under the highway program so that it exceeds the sharing provision of the mass transit grants program; or --requiring that a specific percent of the Urban System highway funds be spent on mass transit projects, (See p0 17.) The Department of Transportation agreed with GAO’s recommendation to establish and monitor target dates for issuing program regulations. It dis- agreed with B or would not endorsep two of the options presented to the Congress. The Depart- ment did not comment on the option to equalize the Federal share for mass transit project costs under the highway and mass transit programs. (See pm 18.) Tear Sheet iii Contents -------- Page --- DIGEST i CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Slow implementation of transit projects 2 Urban System funds used for transit 3 Scope of review 4 REASONSURBAN SYSTEM FUNDS ARE SELDOM USED FOR MASS TRANSIT 5 Other funds available for transit , 5 Funds needed for highways 6 Advantages of using Urban System funds for highways 8 Other reasons for not using Urban System funds 10 NEED FOR TIMELY PUBLICATION OF REGULA- TIONS IMPLEMENTING URBAN SYSTEM PROGRAM 12 Delayed issuance of regulations 12 Interim procedures 14 Delayed issuance of other regulations 15 CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS,AND AGENCY COMMENTS 16 Conclusions 16 Recommendations to Secretary of Transportation 17 Recommendation to the Congress 17 Agency comments and our evaluation 18 APPENDIX I Status of Federal-aid Urban System funds apportioned to States for fiscal years 1974-1976 as of June 30, 1976 20 II Sliding scale rates of Federal-aid participation in public land States, effective July 1, 1976 21 Page -- 111 Letter dated January 17, 1977, from the Assistant Secretary for Admin- istration, Department of Transportation 22 IV Principal officials responsible for administering activities discussed in this report 27 ABBREVIATIONS -1 GAO General Accounting Office UMTA Urban Mass Transportation Administration CHARTER 1 -------- INTRODUCTION __--e-----w The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1713) created the Federal-aid Urban System which increased the number of roads eligible for Federal funds. Subsequent increases in Federal funds encouraged highway construc- tion in urban areas. The system consists of 125,000 miles of high volume arterial and collector routes and access roads to major activity centers in urban areas. Under this program the Federal Government shares road construction costs with the States and local communities. To increase the capacity of federally funded roads for moving people, Section 121 of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973 (23 U.S.C. 142) encouraged the development, improvement, and use of mass transportation systems in urban areas. The Congress thus authorized for the first time the use of Highway Trust Fund moneys for Urban System mass transit projects. For fiscal years 1974-76, about $2.3 billion of Urban System funds were available for mass transit and highway projects; To insure local involvement in the program and to emphasize that urban- ized areas have the capacity and desire to plan their own affairs, the 1973 act required local officials to select projects and obtain concurrence of State highway departments. Mass transit has long suffered from insufficient capital needed to maintain and increase the effective- ness of the industry. The Congress recognized this as a national problem in passing the Urban Mass Transpor- tation Act of 1964 (49 U.S.C. 1601) and subsequent amendments to increase the funding authority and scope of Federal assistance. In 1968 the Urban Mass Transpor- tation (UMTA), Department of Transportation, was given the responsibility of providing Federal assistance (grants) for developing efficient and coordinated mass transportation systems in urban areas. UMTA awards several types of grants to qualified State and local public authorities for: capital improvements, oper- ating assistance, planning, and research and training. As of June 30, 1976, UMTA had awarded more than $5.4 billion in capital grants for communities to impro?e-xkeir urban transportation systems. 1 All Urban System funds are managed by the Federal Highway Administration. It is responsible for the highway-related projects funded by the program, such as highway construction, highway traffic control de- vices, and preferential bus lanes. UMTA is responsible for nonhighway-related proj- ects, such as bus purchases, and the construction, reconstruction, and improvement of fixed rail facili- ties, including the purchase of rolling stock. Mass transit projects referred to in this report are these nonhighway-related transit prolects. Projects such as bus passenger loading areas and facilities and fringe and transportation corridor parking facilities can be classified as either highway-related or nonhighway- related projects. SLOW IMPLEMENTATION OF TRANSIT PROJECTS At the request of the Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Senate Committee on Public Works, we reported in June 1974 on the slow progress in imple- menting the mass transit provisions of the 1973 Highway Act (B-180617, June 13, 1974). Ten States reviewed favored the transit provisions but said that insuffi- cient time had elapsed since the 1973 act and that the delays in submitting mass transit project applications were due to the absence of final Federal implementing guidelines. While developing the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 425), the Congress expressed concern that the States had been slow in spending their Urban System funds for either mass transit or urban highways. Testimony indicated several reasons for the slow implementation, including Federal procedures, differ- ences between State and local officials on project selections, and charges that States gave the Urban System program low priority. As a result, the Congress required the Secretary of Transportation to study the Urban System program. The studye submitted to the Congress on January 13, 1977, addresses the reasons it is taking so long for the . urban areas to obligate Urban System funds. The study concentrates on how the program is being implemented, including an analysis of the representation of various governmental units within the urbanized areas; the organizational structure, size, and caliber of staff; and the relationship and authority of State and local governmental entities. 2 in addition to concerns over the Urban System pro- gram's slow startp the Congress was concerned about why so few of the projects were for public mass transpor- tation. Testimony provided different reasons on why more funds were not used for mass transit. Some said a slow start is normal for a new program; others charged that States were ignoring local needs and priorities. While the Secretary's study examined the slow implemen- tation of the Urban System program, our review focused on determining why a larger share of these funds had not been used for mass transit. This report should assist the Congress in considering future improvements for the urban System program and should supplement the Secretary's report. URBAN SYSTEMFUNDS USED FOR TRANSIT For fiscal years 1974-76, about $2.3 billion in Urban System funds were apportioned to the States. As of June 30, 1976, about $73.7 million, or 3 percent, had been obligated for mass transit projects and about $1 billion, or 45 per- cent, had been obligated for highway projects. The balance, or 52 percent, had been either transferred to other highway programs or remained unobligated. However, as of June 30, 1976, the Highway Administra- tion had reserved about $5.2 million, or .5 percent, of the unobligated balance for mass transit projects needing UMTA approval. The following table shows by fiscal year and State the amounts of Urban System funds obligated and reserved for mass transit projects as of June 30, 1976. Obligations -- Stat& F Y 1974 F Y 1975 F_ Y 1976 Total Reserved New York $33,019,000 $9,660,700 $19,584,586 $62,264,286 $1,686,094 Illinois 1,547,597 1,874,600 3,422,197 Californi a 1,713,374 649,770 2,363,144 485,507 Ohio 700,000 700,000 Oregon 1,727,700 567,560 2,295,260 Minnesota 1,511,639 1,511,639 North Dakota 30,800 30,800 5,228 Texas 1,093,400 1,093,400 Puerto Rico 3,000,000 Total $34,566,597 $15,676,374. --- $23,437,755 $73,680,726 $5,176,829, The status, as of June 30, 1976, of Urban System funds authorized by the 1973 Highway Act and apportioned to the States is shown in appendix I. 3 SCOPE OF REVIEW ’ We reviewed the Urban System program’s mass transit projects, approved and in process, to determine why more mass transit projects have not been funded under the program. Since highway-related transit projects are administered as highway projects, our review concen- trated on selected nonhighway transit projects. Our review was conducted at the headquarters offices of the Federal Highway and Urban Mass Transpor- tation Administrations and at the Federal field offices, State transportation and highway agencies, and selected local organizations in California, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York 0 We obtained the views of Federal, State, and local officials about the factors influencing the selection of projects and about problems in obtaining approval of locally initiated transit projects. We also received comments from State, city, and county officials and con- sidered their views in preparing this report. CHAPTER2 REASONSURBAN SYSTEMFUNDS ARE -- SELDOMUSED FOR MASS w-c---- ---TRA?GIT To increase the capacity of urban highways for moving people, the Congress encouraged urban areas to use some of their highway funds for public mass transnortation projects. This program, however, has met with only limited success, and since 1973 only 13 urban areas in 8 States have obligated highway funds for mass transpor- tation projects as of June 30, 1976. In deciding how to use Urban System funds, a com- munity must consider its total transportation needs in relation to the resources available. Many communities chose to use Urban System funds for highways and UMTA money for their mass transit needs. Their decisions were influenced by the availability and advantages of the UMTA capital grants program. OTHER FUNDS AVAILABLE - FOR --I__-TRANSIT Because other funds are available for mass transit projects, communities can use Urban System funds for highways and still satisfy their mass transit needs. During fiscal years 1974-76, UllTA provided the five States we reviewed over 20 times as much money for mass transit projects as did the Urban System funds. The following schedule shows the breakdown by State. UMTA capital grants Urban System mass State -- &t projects transit a-- projects w-1, (milli.~Z) California $ 245.4 $ 2.4 Illinois 283.9 3.4 Nevada 0 0 New Jersey 178.8 0 New York -- 758.8 62.3 Total $1,466.9 -- $68.1 5 The 1973 and’1974 amendments to the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, authorized UMTA $11.8 billion in funds through fiscal year 1980, of which $7.8 billion were for communities which individu- ally applied for funds. Approximately $5.6 billion of the $7.8 billion were uncommitted as of June 30, 1976. Another source of mass transit funds is the State government. For example, seven California counties have elected to use portions of State sales and highway user taxes for transit. During fiscal year 1976, about $141 million of State sales tax revenues were allocated for mass transit capital and operating needs. In addi- tion, about $1.1 million of the State highway user taxes were available for fixed guideway transit systems in fiscal year 1976 and up to $20.1 million are available for these systems in fiscal year 1977. Because of the availability of other transit funds, communities in four of the five States reviewed gave priority to highway needs in using Urban System funds and obtained UMTA capital grants for mass transit projects. For example, Rochester, New York, did not submit any mass transit projects for Urban System fund- ing, but the community received $8.8 million in capital grants from UMTA in fiscal years 1974 and 1975. Offi- cials in California and New Jersey also indicated that transit needs generally have been met through UMTA grants. Illinois officials stated that UMTA grants generally were sufficient to meet transit objectives, except in large urban areas with transit systems such as St. Louis and Chicago. FUNDS NEEDED FOR HIGHWAYS The 1973 Highway Act increased funding for the Urban System program from $100 million in fiscal year 1973 to $780 million in fiscal year 1974 and to $800 million in each of fiscal years 1975 and 1976, making it the primary source of Federal financial assistance for urban highway needs. However, the act also expanded the program# making additional roads eligible or the funds. As a result, States use Urban System funds for many of the Nation’s urban highways that require improve- ments before they can meet today’s safety and capacity standards. In 1972 the Secretary of Transportation reported that the 10,193-mile Urban System needed about $12.2 billion in improvements. The Secretary’s report stated that nearly 85,000 miles of urban arterial and collector roads were below minimum safety and capacity standards and estimated that by 1976 an additional 35,860 miles would be deficient. In 1974 the Secretary estimated that it would cost $95.2 billion to bring deficient Federal-aid urban highways up to standards. This backlog in highway improvements is one of the reasons that as of June 30, 1976, only eight States had used their Urban System funds for mass transit projects. For example, sufficient funds were not available to construct or rehabilitate many urban roads in New Jersey until the Urban System funds became available. Local officials have directed these funds toward local road projects. But State officials expect that $13 million in Urban System money will be used for mass transit projects during fiscal year 1977. Other communities, although considering mass transit projects, gave higher priority to their highway and highway-related projects when deciding which of the competing projects should be funded. Alameda County, California, for example, established a point system for selecting projects-- including mass transit proj- ects-- to be funded with Urban System funds. One of the selection criteria, however, favored highway and high- way-related projects to the exclusion of mass transit because points were given to projects involving severe accident histories, and mass transit projects did not meet this criterion. Contra Costa County, California, evaluated projects with similar criteria but did not award points. Local officials in these counties said that they considered their project selection procedures to be fair. In November 1976 Alameda and Contra Costa county officials stated that about $7 million of Urban System funds had been used for highway-related projects such as fringe parking and improving access and traffic conditions around mass transit stations, The officials also said that special evaluation procedures for selecting mass transit projects had been developed during fiscal year 1977. Eight mass transit applicants for Urban System funds that we contacted acknowledged the need for urban highway improvements, and four,doubted that significant amounts of moneys would be diverted from urban highways. 7 ADVANTAGESOF USING URBAN SYSTEM FUNDS FOR HIGHWAG Communities generally try to use available funds in a manner that will provide them the most benefits, because seldom are enough funds available to meet their overall transportation needs. Communities use Urban System funds for highways and other sources of funds for mass transit because they can --maximize Federal assistance, --minimize their matching fund requirements, and --increase local employment. Maximizing Federal assistance Urban System funds are virtually guaranteed to a State and its communities because specific amounts are apportioned to the State and allocated to urbanized areas. UMTA discretionary grant funds, on the other hand, are not allocated to States or urban areas but are awarded to individual applicants. Therefore, a community can maximize its Federal assistance by using Urban Systm funds for highways and UMTA discretionary grants for mass transit. California Department of Transportation officials encouraged local planners and transit operators to maximize the State’s Federal assistance by funding qualified transit projects with UMTA grants. They pointed out that UMTA grants are the main source of mass transit funding because the use of Urban System funds for mass transit does not represent the best use of financial resources. The same rationale was also used by officials in Illinois and New York, except for their larger metropolitan areas where the opportunities for providing public transportation and the related costs are so much greater. California’s current policy is to maximize the use of all available funding sources without specific reference to the type of project to be financed. One local official said that as long as additional funds were available for transit, the funding of mass transit projects with Urban System funds to the detriment of badly needed highway projects would be foolish. 8 Minimizing matching requirements In funding transportation projects, communities tend to seek programs which require the least local matching funds. The Federal share of Urban System highway and mass transit projects ranges from 70 to 95 percent (see app. II for details by State), depending on the amount of public lands in each State, but remains a flat 80 percent for UMTA capital' grants. Differences in the proportion of local matching funds required under the various Federal programs and between highway and mass transit projects by some States provide communities incentives to use Urban System funds for highways and UMTA capital grants for mass transit. In Illinois, for example, the Federal share of Urban System projects was about 70 percent during fiscal year 1976. The State normally funds two-thirds and local organizations one-third of the matching requirements for all federally- funded mass transit projects. As a result, communities had to provide 10 percent of Urban System project costs and about 7 percent of the project costs funded with UMTA capital grants. This cost difference to the communities is one reason transit officials in Chicago preferred to use UMTA grants for their projects. Nevada provided communities an incentive to use Urban System funds for highways by providing all the matching funds for highway projects but none fo r mass transit projects. Nevada law requires highway funds to be used exclusively for highways; consequently, communities are required to provide all the matching funds required for Urban System mass transit projects. In 42 States (including Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia) during fiscal year 1976, the State and local share was greater for Urban System funded projects than for UMTA capital grant projects. As a result, the differences in the Federal shares under the various programs and the differences in State matching policies have provided many communities incentives to use Urban System funds for highways. Highway construction contracts increase_employment - New York and California officials stated their prefer- ence for Urban System funds f.or highway projects because highway construction generally creates more local employment than mass transit projects. According to Highway Adminis- tration estimates, each $1 million of Federal-aid construc- tion funds creates about 48 jobs and induces another 67 jobs; while the U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 9 estimates that local transit projects generate 56 jobs and induce an additional 27 per $1 million. Mass transit proj- ects under the Urban System program usually require equipment to be purchased from other geographical areas so the money spent does not have as great an impact on local employment. In Syracuse, New York, for example, transportation planning officials gave a bus purchase project high priority on its Urban System projects list, but the transit authority did not have local matching funds available for the project. A highway project, however, with a lower priority than the bus project had already been funded. Public transit author- ity officials said obtaining the matching funds was difficult since local officials preferred to fund high- ways because of the many highway needs and the employment that highway construction contracts generated. OTHER REASONSFOR NOT -USING URBAN SYSTEMFUNDS Some of the smaller communities in the five States reviewed had no existing public transit systems and did not consider mass transit projects in selecting Urban System projects. For example, no community in Nevada has used either Urban System or UMTA capital grants for mass transit. Las Vegas has the only urban area bus system in the State. While some communities have no transit systems, others face the perennial problem of operating deficits commonly associated with mass transit. Some California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York officials cited the increased operating losses that may result from expanding mass transit systems as one of the reasons for communi- ties' reluctance to use Urban System funds for mass transit. Since 1963 the transit industry has been experienc- ing operating costs in excess of revenues. Insufficient revenues to cover rising fuel and labor costs have caused transit operating deficits to soar in recent years. To keep mass transit running, transit authorities are divert- ing local funds from ordinary capital purchases to pay for operations and maintenance. In California, officials of local Urban System project selection committees, metropolitan planning organizations, and the State Transportation Board cited transit operating losses as a problem. One official of an Urban System project selection committee said that mass transit projects had not been favorably considered 10 by the committee because if funds were spent to purchase buses, additional funds would be required to operate and maintain them. He also pointed out that the buses would need good roads to operate effectively. An official in New Jersey said the present financial condition of the State and its localities precluded expanding existing transit systems and incurring addi- tional operating costs. He added that UMTA capital grants had been obtained for bus replacements and the rehabilitation of existing transit systems. 11 -CHAPTER 3 -NEED FOR TIMELY --- PUBLICATIONS OF---- REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE URBAN - SYSTEMPROGRAM The option of using highway funds for mass transpor- tation projects has been available to local communities for over 3 years. During that time, communities have been processing their applications in accordance‘with interim guidelines issued by the Federal Highway Admin- istration and UMTA. The guidelines were a patchwork of existing regulations from the two agencies and required reviews and documentation by officials of the State government and both Federal administrations. In addition, Federal officials in the local offices were unfamiliar with the requirements and, consequently, the few com- munities that did apply for these funds were not able to obtain help or experienced confusion and delays in obtaining approval for their projects. As a result, communities turned to UMTA for their mass transit proj- ects because its procedures were clearly established and the process did not involve either the State or the Highway Administration. .-DELAYED ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS The Highway Administraticn and UMTA established a task force responsible for issuing regulations to imple- ment the Urban System's provision of the 1973 act. Neither the Department of Transportation nor the two agencies have guidelines specifying how soon after leg- islation is passed the implementing regulations should be issued. However, the task force planned to issue regu- lations to implement Urban System-funded mass transit projects by March 30, 1374. It issued preliminary guidance in November 1973. These guidelines set forth the legislative requirements and instructed applicants for mass transit projects to process their applications sequentially through the Federal Highway Administration and UMTA. Because of delays in developing the regulations, the Highway Administration and UMTA did not publish or request comments on proposed regulations for using Urban System funds for mass transit projects until September 5, 1974. The proposed regulations described eligible projects, project application submissions, and the Highway Administration and UMTA review process; but 12 numerous comments on the proposed regulations sought clarification on the definition of eligible projects, and several local governments objected to the predomi- nant role given to State highway departments. One transit group objected to the roles given to State and Federal highway agencies and suggested that UMTA assume a stronger role. 5. As a result of the comments and experience with the program, UMTA became concerned over several aspects of the proposed regulations. The resolution of the fol- lowing issues delayed the publication of the regulations. 1. UMTA objected to the review of applications for mass transit projects by the State highway depart- ments and the Highway Administration before UMTA's review. The Highway Administration believed it needed to be involved because the projects were to be financed from highway funds, which are its responsibility. The matter was resolved by having the State highway departments submit the applica- tions directly to UMTA and request the Highway Administration to reserve the funds for the projects. 2. UMTA wanted to be involved in approving Urban System highway projects. The Highway Administration ob- jected and UMTA was not given a role in approving such projects. 3. UMTA wanted the definition of a nonhighway project to be clarified. Clarification was provided in the preamble to the regulations. 4. UMTA wanted and was given a consultative role when highway rights-of-way were to be considered for transit use. The two agencies were nearing completion of the regulations in August 1975 when UMTA changed Administra- tors. This further delayed the regulations' issuance because I according to an UMTA official, the incoming Administrator considered other high priority matters before he reviewed the regulations. In February 1977, 3-l/2 years after the 1973 high- way act was passed, both agenoies still were reviewing the proposed regulations. 13 L . INTERIM _---1 PROCEDURES Interim guidance on Urban System projects required mass transit applications to be processed and approved sequen- tially by the State, the Federal Highway Administration, and UMTA. In contrast, UMTA capital grant applications are not processed through either the State or the Fed- eral Highway Administration. Both Urban Systems proj- ects and UMTA capital grant projects are processed in the same manner by UMTA. Because the interim procedures required approval of three separate organizations, Federal officials at the field offices had to be familiar with the require- ments of each organization before they could accurately guide communities requesting assistance. However, cor- respondence within the California Federal Highway Admin- istration office indicated that Highway Administration field officials’ unfamiliarity with UMTA’s process con- tributed to the applicants’ confusion and delays. Officials of the larger metropolitan areas, such as San Francisco, New York City, and Chicago, indicated that requirements by several agencies did not create any serious problems for them because they were already familiar with the procedures of the individual approval agencies. However, a San Francisco transit official said that while State officials provided oral guidance, written guidance would have been more helpful. He stated a preference for obtaining UMTA capital grants because of familiarity with the requirements for UMTA grants and because applications are processed quicker since approval is not needed from State and Federal highway officials e Of the 15 mass transit projects approved as of June 30, 1976, 10 were from municipalities of over 200,000 population, such as San Francisco, Chicago, and New York City. Projects from these communities were approved in about 8 months. However, project approval for the five smaller communities averaged over 20 months. One California transit operator was unable to initi- ate an Urban System-funded project for the purchase of 25 buses because he did not know how to prepare and process the application. The transit operator sought help in submitting his application from the Highway Administration’s and UMTA’ s field off ices but, according to the operator, was unable to obtain adequate guidance. 14 The transit operator finally got assistance from another community that had successfully processed a project appli- cation, but the transit operator was late in submitting the project application to a local selection committee and the application was not considered. DELAYED ISSUANCE OF OTHER REGULATIONS Previously we reported on delays by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in issuing regula- tions covering motor vehicle safety standards and tire grading systems. (Report to the Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, "Improvements Needed In Planning And Using Motor Vehicle Safety Research," Sept. 16, 1974, B-164497(3), and Report to Senator Gaylord Nelson, "Delay In Establishing A Uniform Quality Grading System For Motor Vehicle Tires," Mar. 28, 1975, RED-75-344.) In both instances we reported on the need for closer coordination among the agency's staff. In August 1976 we reported to the Highway Admin- istrator on the need to issue regulations implementing section 157 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973. The notice of proposed rulemaking was,not issued because of problems in obtaining a consensus within the Highway Administration and UMTA. 15 CHAPTER4 CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND AGENCY-COMMENTS CONCLUSIONS To increase the capacity of the Nation's urban roads for carrying people, the Congress 3 years ago authorized local communities to use their Urban System highway funds for mass transportation projects. Since that time few communities had taken advantage of the authorization, and only 15 projects had been approved as of June 30, 1976. Most communities have continued using their Urban System funds for local roads. In general, this decision has been the result of the avail- ability of other funds for mass transit projects and a large backlog of highway needs. The local decisions to use Urban System funds for highway projects were influenced by many other factors. --Urban System funds are allotted to the communi- ties, whereas UMTA capital grants are available to individual applicants. Therefore, communi- ties obtain the maximum amount of Federal money when they use Urban System funds for highway and UMTA funds for mass transit. --For 42 States Federal cost-sharing ratios are greater under the UMTA program than they are under the Urban System funds. Therefore, it takes less local money for a project funded through UMTA than one funded with Urban System money. In addition, several States have sharing programs of their own which often favor highway projects. --Some communities prefer highway projects because they contribute to local employment. The interim guidelines for approval of Urban System mass transit projects required that each project be approved by State, Federal Highway Administration, and UMTA officials, This in effect creates two review levels, the State and Federal Highway Administration, which are not included in the UMTA capital grants program. When a program requires the coordination of two or more agencies within the Department, interim guidelines understandably represent a patchwork of the processes 16 used by the agencies. However, we believe that 3-l/2 years is too long for such guidelines to remain in effect and that final regulations should be issued. This situa- tion may have discouraged some communities from divert- ing their Urban System funds from highway work to mass transit projects. If new grant programs are to get started effec- tively and benefit the intended recipients, implementing regulations must be issued expeditiously. We recognize the difficulty in establishing a standard governing the issuance of regulations implementing Federal laws. How- ever, we believe that after legislation has been passed, it should be reviewed and target dates should be estab- lished for issuing final regulations. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE SECRETARY m TRANSPORTATIOJ The Secretary of Transportation should (1) estab- lish procedures for setting target dates for issuing regulations which implement Department of Transportation programs, especially those requiring coordination by Department agencies and (2) require implementing agen- cies to report periodically to the Secretary on their progress. To improve the administration of the Urban System program, the Secretary should direct the Federal Highway and UMTA Administrators to issue, as soon as possible, final regulations on the use of highway funds for mass transit projects. RECOMMENDATION TO THE CONGRESS The Urban System provision of the Federal Highway Act does not provide local communities sufficient incen- tive to use Urban System money on mass transit projects. As a result, communities use this money for roads in preference to mass transit projects. If the Congress wants more Urban System funds to be used for mass tran- sit, we recommend that it amend Section 142 of Title 23 of the United States Code to provide further incentives to local communities. The following are several options, along with some advantages and disadvantages, from which the Congress could choose: 17 --Equalize the Federal share of mass transit project costs under the Urban System and UMTA proqrams, except in States where the Federal share under the Urban System program exceeds the Federal share under the UElTAprogram. States, however, could continue providing local officials financial incentives to use Urban System funds for highways by varying the proportion of State-provided matching funds. Other factors such as the maximization of Federal assistance and highway construction employment will continue to provide some communi- ties incentives to use the funds for highways. --Increase the Federal share of mass transit project costs under the Urban System program so that it exceeds the sharing provision of the UMTA capital grants program. This could offset those factors which would continue to provide communities incen- tives to use the funds for highways in the above alternative but would reduce local options and flexibility. --Require that a specific percent of the Urban System funds be spent on mass transit projects. This alternative would eliminate the local flexi- bility provided in the current legislation and in the two preceding alternatives; however, it would make sure that the funds are spent for mass transit projects. AGENCYCOMMENTSAND OUR EVALUATION - The Department of Transportation (see app. III) agreed with the substance of our recommendations, and stated that in the future it would approve agency target dates for developing and implementing the regulations necessary under new legislation. The Department also agreed to monitor agency progress to assure that the regulations are issued on a timely basis. The Department does not believe, however, that the lack of final regulations for the Urban System program was a major problem because a number of urban areas had funded mass transit projects. Nevertheless, the Depart- ment expressed a concern about the delays some smaller communities suffered in obtaining project approval and will investigate the causes of the delays., Further, the Department stated the final regulations, when issued, will make clear that UMTA procedures and format are to be used for Urban System transit projects and that the 18 State and the Highway Administration are to receive timely notification to permit a determination on avail- ability of funds. Our intent was not to single out the lack of final procedures as a major cause for the limited use of Urban System funds for mass transit projects. Rather, we in- tended to illustrate the need for a process to insure the timely issuance of regulations. We believe the Department's promised actions, when implemented, should result in more timely issuance of regulations in the future. The Department acknowledged that meeting transit operating costs was a problem, but stated that if it were prevalent nationwide, use of UMTA's capital assis- tance funds would have declined. California State offi- cials also believed that transit costs, while a problem, were not a serious deterrent to use of Urban System funds for mass transit projects. The Department's and California's comments, however, refer to the rehabilitation or replacement of transit facilities and equipment, which could result in some increased efficiencies. However, the issues addressed by local officials during our review related to system expansions which would add to operating costs. Further- more, in commenting on this report, New York and Illinois State officials advised us that they were becoming more concerned with transit expansions because of its rap- idly increasing operating costs. The following are the Department's reactions to the options presented to the Congress for providing further incentives to use Urban System funds for mass transit: --Disagreed that a specific percentage of urban System funds be set aside for mass transit be- cause this would create a new categorical pro- gram. --Could not endorse making the Federal share under the Urban System program greater than the UMTA. --Did not comment on making the Federal share of mass transit project cos.ts equal under the Urban System and UMTA programs. 19 I APPENDIX I APPENDIX I STATUS OF FEDERAL-AID URBAN SYSTEM FUNDS APPORTIONED To STATES FOR FISCAL TEARS 1974-1976 AS OF JUNE 30, 1976 State Fiscal yeara Net transfers Obligations Unobligated 1974-1976 to (from) other nonhighway highway- balance as apportionments highway programs mass transit related of 6130176 (note a) Alabama g 28.288.278 $3,024,095 $20,531,923 $ 4;732,260 Alaska 11,302,959 6,507,5oa 4,795,451 Arizona zoj451j309 16,133,323 4,317,986 Arkansas L2,989,538 1,750,000 .6,942,497 4,095,041 California 267,849,184 (3,273,OOO) $ 2,363,144 123.400.999 145,356,041 Colorado 25,219,752 1,341,lia 19;133;229 4;745;405 Connecticut 34,480,564 16,504,728 17,975,836 Delaware 11.302.959 10,617,325 685,634 Dist. of Col. 11;423;446 578,000 5.678.251 5.167,195 Florida 77,984,42a 4,134,517 92,925;087 924,824 Georgia 38,235,333 5,033,ooo 23,723,640 9,478,693 Hawaii 11,302,959 4,103,366 7,19Y,593 Idaho 11,302,959 1,381,254 9,502,540 419,165 Illinois 134,673,417 84.500,OOO 3,422,197 40,001,000 6.750.220 Indians 48,165,796 9,000,000 23,928,215 1712371561 Iowa 21,998,156 11,199,576 10,798,580 Kansas 29,209,238 8,841,330 11,367;908 Kentucky 23,539,449 15,095,629 a,443,c20 Louisiana 34,014,874 i.748,524 10,594,362 21,671,988 Maine 11,302,Y59 3,138,552 8,164,407 Maryland 44,920,366 29,000,000 !5,859,863 9,862,503 Wsssachusetts 70,624,367 7,313,382 49.023,255 14,287,730 Michigan 95,347,654 5,000,000 94,025,026 16,322,628 Ninnesota 35,878,147 461,337 L,511,639 1; 3;;: '386024 y9;;;$&7 I¶fesissippi 13,177,002 Hissouri 46,922.246 3,000,000 1413321686 29:589:560 Hontana 11,302,959 743,244 3,442,813 7,116,YO2 Nebraska 12,926,943 1,351,279 9,535.007 2,040,657 Nevada 11;302;959 91795,596 3,507;363 New Hampshire 11,302,959 900,000 5.148,268 5,254,6Yl New Jersey 94,835,079 18;276;788 76,558.289 New Mexico 11,302,959 4,620,602 6,682,357 New York 230,359,388 5,000,000 62,264,286 51.873.663 B%1,221,439 North Carolina 31,443,553 24;061;581 7,381,972 North Dakota 11,302,959 300,8C0 8,676,424 2,595,735 Ohio 117.651,966 900,000 28,960,103 87,991,863 Oklahoma 24;292;359 12,154,868 12,139,491 Oregon 19,626,839 2,202,800 2,295,260 8,582,842 4,818,235 Pennsylvania 121,394,382 8,065,965 39,546,418 73,782,199 Rhode Island 12.316.789 1,363,839 5,512,226 5.440.926 South’ Carolina 16;581;205 9,834,154 6;749;051 South Dakota 11,302,959 8,814,665 2,488.294 Tennessee 32.688,444 12.487,366 20;201;078 Texas 128,400,328 1,093,400 54;899;261 92.409.669 Utah 12,255,363 9.275.836 4,979,527 Vermont 11,302,959 70;901 li,232.058 Virginia 42,908,178 32,ia2,590 10,725,588 Washington 35,599.397 779,820 12,207,256 22,532,321 West Virginia 11,302,959 1,442,862 1,163,431 8,696,666 Wisconsin 41.485.136 27,930,630 13,554,506 Wyoming 11,302,959 9.554,726 1,748,233 Puerto Rico 21,596.509 2,559,399 19,037,108 . $ 93,680,926ti $1,022.774,489 Totals $2,260,591,802 $173,841,834 $ 990.294*953 (note b) a/Excludes l# percent highway planning and research funds b/ -Hey not add due to rounding @ccludes about $3.9 million in passenger facility and fringe parking prefects which sre clessified as highway prefects under 23 U.S.C. 142(e) LU APPENDIX II APPENDIX II IL”- Feaeral Hlghway Administration Sliding Scale Rates of Federal-aid Partlcipetion in Public Lands States -- gates for Non-Interstate Programs Pursuant TV Title 23 U.S.C. 12O[al Clause B -ive July 1. 1976 Hatlo of deslgnatcd public land area 1/ Percentage of cost to total area of- payable by Federal state Covemme"t state Alabama 0.0197 Al aska .9394 Ar1 zc.na .7072 91.22 Arkansas .0743 72.23 California .4332 83.00 Colorado .3644 80.93 Co""ectlcut Delaware Florida .0743 72.23 Georgia .0235 70.71 Hawaii .0659 71.98 Idaho .6388 '89.16 Illinois .0070 70.21 lndlana .OD79 70.24 Iowa .OOOl 70.00‘ KP.“SSS .0031 70.09 Kentucky .0275 70.83 Louisiana .02DO 70.60 wane .0040 70.12 Maryland .0046 70.14 Massachusetts .OOSl 70.15 Hlchigan .0886 72.66 Hl"".SSOta .0693 72.08 Mlsslssippi .0410 71.23 Hlssourl .0344 71.03 Montana .3226 79.68 Nebraska .009D Nevada .a734 2:;: 11 New Hampshire .1148 73.44 New Jersey .0034 70.10 New MeXiCO .4078 82.23 New York .OOll 70.03 North Carolina .0459 71.38 North Dakota .0467 71.40 Ohio .0062 70.19 Oklahoma .0332 71.00 Oregon .5268 85.80 Pennsylvania .0179 70.54 Rhode Island South Carolina .0308 70.92 South Dakota .1483 74.45 Tennessee .0324 70.97 Texas .0096 70.29 Utah 6793 90.38 Vermont .0413 71.24 Virginia .0715 72.15 Washington .3188 79.56 West Virginia .0619 71.86 Wisconsin .0525 71.58 Wyoming .5047 85.14 Dist. of Cal. .1642 74.93 Puerto Rico .0128 70.38 i/ Area of non-taxable Indian Lands and reserved and unreserved public domain lands inclusive of national forests and national parks and monwnents. z/ Maxinun amount. NUTE: Based on latest available area data furnished by the Department of the Interior. 21 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C 20590 ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION January 17, 1977 Mr. Henry Eschwege Director Community and Economic Development Division U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548 Dear Mr. Eschwege: This is in response to your letter of October 26, 1976, requesting comments on the General Accounting Office (GAO) draft report entitled, "Why Federal-Aid Urban System Funds Were Seldom Used for Mass Transit." We have reviewed the report and prepared a Department of Transportation (DOT) reply, and two copies are enclosed herein. In addition to the enclosed reply, we offer the following comments on one recommendation contained in the report. We concur with the substance of the GAO recommendation that the Secretary establish procedures whereby all legislation will be reviewed for the purpose of establishing target dates for issuing implementing regulations. Thus we will henceforth review new legislation in order to approve target dates and schedules established by those DOT elements responsible for developing and implementing the regu- lations. Further, we will monitor the progress to assure that implementing regulations are issued on a timely basis. , Sincerely, p---L -(- @jfp-yy--k William S. Heffelfinger Enclosures 22 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III DEP~OFTRAMSpoHIlATIoN REPLY m - GAODRAFTREPORT ON WHYFEDERAL-AIDURBANSYSTEM FUNDSWERESELDOMUSEDFORMASSTRANSIT SUMMARYOF GAOFINDINGSANDRE~TIONS The GAOconducted a review of the use of Urban System funds to finance mass transit projects. Through the 1973 Federal-Aid Highway Act, the Congress gave local ccxmtnmities the flexibility of using their Urban System Highway EVnds for mass transportation projects. The GAOrepcrt states that since that time only 15 IMSS transit projects had been approved as of June 30, 1976, with most communities having elected to continue using their Urban System funds solely for local roads. The GM found that in general, this decision has been the result of the availability of alternate funds for mass transit projects andalarge backlogofhighwayneeds. mre specific reasons cited in the report for the local decisions to use Urban System funds for highway projects wxe: 1. Urban System funds are allocated to the axmunities and UMTAcapital grants are available to any arm which submits individual applications. Therefore, coranunities obtain the maxirrmmamount of Federal money when they use Urban System funds for highway and UMTAfunds for mass transit. 2. Federal cost-sharing ratios are greater for 42 of the States under the UMl!Aprogram than they are under the Urban System funds. There- fore, it takes less local n-oney for a project funded through UMTAthan one funded with Urban Systems monies. In addition, several States have sharing programs of their own which favor highway projects. 3. Sone conmunities prefer highway projects because they contribute to local erfplo~nt. The report also concluded that the interimguidelines for the approval of Urban System mass transit projects were a factor which discouraged sorw ccxnmmities from diverting their Urban System funds frcm highway work to mass transit projects. 23 APPENDIX IX% APPENDIX III This conclusion is based on the fact that the interim guidelines required that each project be approved by State, Federal Highway Administration, and WA officials. This in effect creates tm review levels, the State and Federal Highway Administration, whichare llotincluded in theUMl?A capital grant program. The GAOfurther states that while it is reason- able for the interim guidelines to be a patchmrk of the tm agencies' processes1 three years is too long for such guidelines to remain in effect, and that final regulations should be issued. Based on its review, GAOrecomends that the SecYetary of Transportation establish procedures which set target dates for the issuance of regulations to irf@emnt legislation in the Department's purview, especially those regulations requiringccmdinationwithin the Department. Affected Depart- mental agencies should be directed to report to the Secretary periodically on their programs. In the specific case of the Urban System program, the Secretary shxild direct the Federal Highway and. UMTAAdministrators to issuer as soon as possible, final regulations on the use of Highway funds for mass transit projects. The GAOalso found that the Urban System statutory provisions do not provide local communities sufficient incentive to use Urban System mney for mass transit projects. The GAOtherefore suggests that should the Congress desire that Urban System funds be used to a greater extent for mass transit, it should consider the following options: 1. Equalize the Federal share of mass transit project costs under the Urban Systemand UMCAprogram, except in States where the Federal share under the Urban Systemprogramexceeds tlz Federal share under the UMTApmgram. 2. Increase the Federal share of the cost of mass transit projects under,the Urban System program so that it exceeds the sharing provision of the WA capital grants program. 3. Require that a specific percent of the Urban System funds be spent on mass transit projects. In general we found the draft report to be basically accurate. The findings, while somewhatrmxe detailed, are generally consistent with tlmse of the recently completed Urban System Study mandated by Section 149 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1976. Hcmever, there are two areas in which we have differing views. 24 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III 3 First,webelieve the lackof final FH@&QAregulationsgo~g the use of urban system funds for mass transit projects, is not a major problemas cited in Chapter 3 of the report. Interimguidelineswhich : were issued in b$xmber 1973, shortly after passage of the Act, pm- videdsufficientguidance tienableurbansyslx5nfundedmss transit projects tobepmgramsd in a number of ur&n areas. mefinalregula- tionsare in thelaststages of ~epartmolltalcoordinationandapprmml. Theremaybeamisaxceptioninthe reportabutthereviewofproposed transitprojects, as contained inthe interimprocedures. The procedures donotreguire FHWAtechnicalzeviewandapproval of transit projects; andtheycall foronly theadviceand ccmmltoftllestate. Thefinal regulations will not permit cizmmven i5ngboththestateandFrsminthe programning and approval cycles, because both those agencies ham a statutoryresponsibilityunderFederal highway legislation indetermin- ingwhether sufficient Urban Systems funds are available to support any project, be it a high-way or trausitproject. Weare~rkinginthefinalregulatians~~eitclearthat~u~ System transit project application is to use the UMIlAprt3Edums and format, while insuring that the state andI;wIJAreceive timlynotificationwhich will allow them to meet their statuixxy responsibilities. Thereare severalother, mre relevantdeterrents to theuseofUrba.nSystem funds formss transit projects. !Cheseinclude legitimate highway needs which local officials are atteqting to meet using Federal assistance thmugh the UrbanSystempmgram. !mediffmanceinlocalmawlingshaIesbetxS?rl the Urban Systempmgrsmand tha UMI!Acapitalgrantsprcgram (30%versus 20%) makes itmre attractive touse urban Systemfunds forh.igMays and UMI!A capital grants for transit. Ebecauseofthediscretionarynatureofthe~ program and the apportionment of Urban System funds, local officials can "maximise" Federal assistance by denting Urban !Sy.stemfunds ti highways andcmmentratingtransitassistance in the UMcAprogram. , ~secondareainwkich~disagreewiththe~findingsis~r~ mendation that a specificpercentof the urban system funds be required tibe spentonmss transitprojects. ThismiLduxateyetamthwcate- goricalpmgramcm&mry to cmrmtatm to reduce categoricalrestric- tions cmpmjectfunding. Also,wewouldnotendorse the reaxmw&tion th2LttheFederals~~the~sys~programexceedthatunder the LMTAcapita1grantpmgx-m. Thesepraposalsmuldonly serve to further constrain local options and reduce the desiredlocalflexibility. 25 I APPENDIX III APPENDIX III 4 In a matter not directly related to the GAO's reccxtmendations, U'MFA is concerned that the 5 communities surveyed with less than 200,000 popu- lation suffered a delay in Urban System project approval when ccmpared to larger cities. We will investigate the causes of the delay. We do know that one applicant from a smaller area has been delayed because the labor protective (13(c)) agreement required for both Urban System and UMI Act funded projects has notbeenmet. Wewouldlike to -t on scxre of the reasons for not using Urban Systems funds for transit which were given to the GAOby local officials. The GADstates in Chapter 'Iwop thatscme local governtwnts prefer to fund Urban Systems highway projects because they have a greater impact on local employment. This is, of course, true when you cqxkre a transit equipsrant purchase project (the usual Urban System transit project), to a construc- tionprojectt. Ec%ever, in the August 23, 1974 edition of "Science" magazine an article titled "Fnergy, Manpcxer and the Highway 'Trust Fund," states thatrailtransitconstruction generatedrtrxe employmentthanhighway constructicn. Research by UMIA staff showed that generally highway and transit construction projects appear to generate the same level of employ- ment. This research was based upon an Office of Technology Assessment report, "Energy, the Econcany,and Mass Transit (Dec. 1975)." Further, the report states that one of the factors influencing local decisions against Urban System funding of mass transit projects is the fear of operating losses which may result frcan expaMing existing transit systems. While problems exist in meeting transit operating costs, it does not follow that local officials should not consider using Federal capital assistance funds for the rehabilitation or replacement of transit facilities and equipxnant. Capital projects provide a m-oreefficient plant which requires less maintenance than the items replaced. Wewouldtend todiscountthis reasonbecause of the rather small sample of local officials contacted for this study. If this attitude werein fact, prevalent nationwide, it would have affected UMIA's capital assistance activities nationwide. However, UMTAhas made 1,016 grants valued at $5.8 billion since 1965 for more than of the nation's urbanized areas. > Administrator Urban Mass Transportation Administration 26 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS -RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTERING ACTIVITIES DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT Tenure of office From -To DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION SECRETARYOF TRANSPORTATION: Brock Adams Jan. 1977 Present William Coleman Mar. 1975 Jan. 1977 John W. Barnum (acting) Feb. 1975 Mar. 1975 Claude S. Brinegar Feb. 1973 Feb. 1975 ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAYADMINISTRATION: Lester P. Lamm (acting) Jan. 1977 Present Norbert T. Tiemann May 1973 Jan. 1977 ADMINISTRATOR, URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATIONADMIN- ISTRATION: Robert H. McManus (acting) Jan. 1977 Present Robert E. Patricelli Aug. 1975 Jan. 1977 Judith T. Connor (acting) July 1975 Aug. 1975 Frank C. Herringer Feb. 1973 July 1975 27 Copies of GAO reports are available to the general public at a cost of $1.00 a copy. There is no charge for reports furnished to Members of Congress and congressional committee staff members. Officials of Federal, State, and local governments may receive up to 10 copies free of charge. Members of the press; college libraries, faculty members, and stu- dents;and non-profrt organizations may receive up to 2 copies free of charge. Requests for larger quan- tities should be accompanied by payment. Requesters entitled to reports without charge should address their requests to: U.S. General Accounting Office Distribution Section, Room 4522 441 G Street, NW. Washington, D.C. 20548 Requesters who are required to pay for reports should send their requests with checks or money orders to: U.S. General Accounting Office Drstribution Section P.O. Box 1020 Washington, D.C. 20013 Checks or money orders should be made payable to the U.S. General Accounting Office. Stamps or Superintendent of Documents coupons WIII not be accepted. Please do not send cash. To expedite filling your order, use the report num- ber in the lower left corner and the date in the lower right corner of the front cover. GAO reports are now available on microfiche. If such copies will meet your needs, be sure to specify that you want microfiche copies. AN EQUALOPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER UNITED STATES POSTAGE AND FEES PAID GENERALACCOUNTINGOFFICE U. S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE WASHINGTON,D.C. 20548 OFFICIAL BUSINESS THIRD CLASS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE,$JOO
Why Urban System Funds Were Seldom Used for Mass Transit
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1977-03-18.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)