United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Committees April 1999 MASS TRANSIT FTA’s Progress in Developing and Implementing a New Starts Evaluation Process GAO/RCED-99-113 United States GAO General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-280884 April 26, 1999 The Honorable Phil Gramm Chairman The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes Ranking Minority Member Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs United States Senate The Honorable Bud Shuster Chairman The Honorable James Oberstar Ranking Democratic Member Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure House of Representatives Since the early 1970s, the federal government has provided a large share of the nation’s capital investment in urban mass transportation. Much of this investment has come through the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) “new starts” program, which funds major new rail, bus, and trolley transit projects that use separate and exclusive rights-of-way. In the last 5 years, this program has provided state and local transit agencies with about $3.8 billion to help design and construct such projects throughout the country. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21),1 enacted in June 1998, authorizes $8.2 billion for new starts transit projects through fiscal year 2003.2 However, FTA has already entered into full funding grant agreements totaling $3.73 billion for 14 projects under construction.3 The remaining $4.47 billion falls far short of the $12.1 billion FTA estimates will be needed to construct 42 additional projects currently in the preliminary engineering and final design phases. FTA also expects that over $40 billion in federal funding will be requested to fund approximately 100 projects currently in the early planning stages. To prioritize funding, TEA-21 directs FTA to evaluate, rate, and recommend potential new starts projects on the 1 P. L. 105-178. 2 $6.1 million of these funds is “guaranteed,” that is, subject to a procedural mechanism designed to ensure that minimum amounts of funding are provided each year. 3 A full funding grant agreement establishes the terms and conditions of federal financial participation in the project and the maximum amounts of federal new starts financial assistance for the project. FTA considers projects for full funding grant agreements after they have progressed from the initial planning and preliminary engineering phases to the final design and construction phases. Page 1 GAO/RCED-99-113 Mass Transit B-280884 basis of specific financial and project justification criteria. TEA-21 also requires FTA to issue regulations for the evaluation and rating process. TEA-21 also requires GAO to report by April 30, 1999, and annually thereafter, on FTA’s processes and procedures for evaluating, rating, and recommending new starts transit projects for federal funding and on FTA’s implementation of these processes and procedures. As agreed with your offices, this report discusses (1) the status of FTA’s efforts to develop and implement the evaluation and rating processes and procedures, (2) how FTA implemented the TEA-21 requirements for evaluating, rating, and recommending projects, and (3) open issues that FTA needs to resolve to fully satisfy TEA-21 requirements. FTA has made substantial progress in developing and implementing a new Results in Brief starts evaluation and rating process, as required by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). FTA had already revised its new starts evaluation process, since the criteria and most of the factors that TEA-21 requires FTA to consider while applying the criteria were also contained in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). In 1997, FTA first applied these criteria for its fiscal year 1999 project evaluations. In 1998, FTA expanded its evaluation process to include the TEA-21 requirement to rate projects as either highly recommended, recommended, or not recommended and to provide individual ratings on each criterion. The evaluation process FTA followed to prepare its fiscal year 2000 new starts report, issued on March 23, 1999, uses ratings based upon specific financial and project justification criteria to build toward an overall project rating. FTA uses this rating information in deciding which projects will receive full funding grant agreements and to make funding recommendations to the Congress in its annual new starts report. While FTA has implemented a new starts evaluation and rating process for fiscal year 2000 that addressed TEA-21 requirements, it has not issued final regulations on the evaluation and rating process, as required by the legislation. FTA issued a proposed rule on April 7, 1999, and plans to issue final regulations in the summer of 1999. requires that before FTA may approve a grant or loan for a proposed TEA-21 Background new starts project, it must determine that the proposed project is based Page 2 GAO/RCED-99-113 Mass Transit B-280884 upon the results of an alternatives analysis4 and preliminary engineering and justified by a comprehensive review of the proposed project’s mobility improvements, environmental benefits, cost-effectiveness, and operating efficiencies.5 Under TEA-21, in applying these justification criteria, FTA must consider a number of factors, including land-use policies and congestion relief. In addition, a project must be supported by an acceptable degree of local financial commitment, including evidence of stable and dependable financing sources to construct, maintain, and operate the system or extension. In evaluating this commitment, FTA is required to determine whether (1) the proposed project plan provides for contingencies in order to cover unanticipated cost increases; (2) each proposed local source of capital and operating funds is stable, reliable, and available within the timetable for the proposed project; and (3) local resources are available to operate the overall proposed mass transportation system without requiring a reduction in existing mass transportation services. FTA is also required to consider a number of additional factors when evaluating a project’s local financial commitment. While these evaluation requirements existed prior to the enactment of TEA-21, TEA-21 requires FTA, for the first time, to (1) develop a rating for each criterion as well as an overall rating of highly recommended, recommended, or not recommended for each project and to include this information in its annual new starts report due to the Congress each February, and (2) issue regulations on the manner in which it will evaluate and rate potential new starts projects. TEA-21’s deadline for the regulations was October 7, 1998. TEA-21 also directs FTA to use these evaluations and ratings in approving projects’ advancement to the preliminary engineering and final design phases and in deciding which projects will be recommended to the Congress for funding or receive full funding grant agreements. In addition, TEA-21 requires FTA to issue a supplemental report to its annual report to the Congress each August that updates information on projects that have advanced to the preliminary engineering or final design phases since the annual report. 4 An alternatives analysis is a study performed by local transportation planning officials that evaluates all reasonable alternatives for addressing a transportation problem in a given corridor and identifies a locally preferred solution. 5 Significant provisions regarding new starts projects, including criteria and factors for FTA’s consideration, are found at 49 U.S.C. 5309. Page 3 GAO/RCED-99-113 Mass Transit B-280884 FTA has made substantial progress in developing and implementing an FTA Has Made evaluation process that includes the individual criterion ratings and overall Substantial Progress project ratings required by TEA-21. Before TEA-21 was enacted in June 1998, in Developing and FTA had already taken significant steps to revise its new starts evaluation process, since most of the evaluation requirements contained in TEA-21 Implementing a New were introduced by ISTEA.6 In March 1999, FTA issued its fiscal year 2000 Starts Evaluation new starts report, which included project evaluations and ratings based upon the revised process. Process That Reflects TEA-21 Requirements Table 1 highlights key dates in the chronology of FTA’s development of its new starts evaluation process. Table 1: Chronology of FTA’s Revised New Starts Evaluation Process Date Action 12/91 ISTEA expanded the criteria for assessing new starts projects. 09/94 FTA proposed revised measures for assessing projects in policy paper. 12/96 FTA issued a notice describing measures to be used for the fiscal year 1999 assessments. 09/97 FTA used technical guidance and outreach sessions to describe how the criteria would be reported and applied for the fiscal year 1999 new starts report. 05/98 FTA issued the fiscal year 1999 new starts report based upon the revised criteria. 06/98 TEA-21required ratings on each criterion and overall project ratings. 09/98 FTA used technical guidance and outreach sessions to describe how projects would be rated for the fiscal year 2000 new starts report. 01/99 FTA issued the fiscal year 1999 new starts supplemental report. 03/99 FTA rated projects as required by TEA-21 in the fiscal year 2000 report. In response to ISTEA’s expansion of the evaluation criteria, FTA issued a policy paper in September 1994 proposing its overall assessment strategy and criteria measures. FTA circulated this paper among interested parties, including state and local governments, transit agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, and consultants. In December 1996, after 6 ISTEA expanded the statutory requirement that a new starts project be cost-effective and supported by an adequate degree of local financial commitment by requiring, among other things, that a project be “justified” on the basis of a “comprehensive review of its mobility improvements, environmental benefits, cost-effectiveness, and operating efficiencies.” ISTEA also identified specific considerations such as local land-use policies and patterns to be taken into account when evaluating candidate projects. Page 4 GAO/RCED-99-113 Mass Transit B-280884 reviewing the comments received, FTA issued a notice describing the revised criteria it would use in 1997 to evaluate candidate new starts projects for fiscal year 1999. The notice also introduced measures for mobility improvements, environmental benefits, operating efficiencies, cost-effectiveness, and transit-supportive land use.7 FTA’s existing process for assessing and rating a project’s local financial commitment did not change. In September 1997, FTA issued technical guidance on the ISTEA new starts criteria to assist project sponsors in submitting the information and documentation that the agency needed to prepare the fiscal year 1999 evaluations. The guidance identified the new starts criteria, documented the reporting procedures for the criteria, and outlined how FTA would apply each of the criteria in evaluating candidate projects. For example, in evaluating mobility improvements, FTA said it would look at the expected savings in travel time. FTA also conducted workshops at which the new criteria and reporting requirements were discussed in detail with grantees. FTA’s fiscal year 1999 new starts report, submitted to the Congress in May 1998, included evaluations that were based upon these criteria. The supplemental report to the fiscal year 1999 annual report, required by TEA-21,was issued in January 1999. That report did not include the individual ratings on each criterion and overall project ratings required by TEA-21 because FTA had not yet incorporated these requirements at the time the report was prepared. According to FTA officials, the fiscal year 2000 supplemental report will include these ratings. Noting that TEA-21 made no changes to the existing new starts criteria and added relatively few factors for consideration in applying the criteria, FTA completed the fiscal year 2000 project evaluations using its existing new starts criteria. However, as described in more detail in the next section of this report, FTA revised its evaluation process to provide for the individual criterion ratings and overall ratings required by TEA-21. In September 1998, at the start of the fiscal year 2000 process, FTA used letters and a series of outreach sessions to explain to its grantees how it planned to rate projects for the fiscal year 2000 evaluations. It also issued an addendum to its technical guidance to assist grantees in submitting the required information for the fiscal year 2000 process. In its fiscal year 2000 new starts report submitted to the Congress on March 23, 1999, FTA provided evaluations, individual criterion ratings, and an overall project rating for 7 FTA included local land use among the project justification criteria because it believes that transit-supportive land-use policies reduce the risk of a project and therefore reflect whether the project will be successful or not. Page 5 GAO/RCED-99-113 Mass Transit B-280884 39 projects in the final design and preliminary engineering phases.8 FTA rated 8 projects as highly recommended, 11 projects as recommended, and 20 projects as not recommended. The report also included funding recommendations for 11 of the 39 projects that FTA rated. FTA’s current new starts evaluation process, which it followed to prepare FTA’s Evaluation and its fiscal year 2000 new starts report, assigns candidate projects individual Rating Process ratings for each TEA-21 criterion in order to assess each project’s Assigns Individual justification and local financial commitment. The process also assigns an overall rating for each project. FTA considers these overall ratings in Ratings on TEA-21 deciding which projects will be recommended for funding or receive full Criteria and Provides funding grant agreements. for Overall Project As figure 1 illustrates, FTA evaluates and rates projects in three stages. Ratings First, FTA evaluates and rates projects on each new starts criterion. Second, FTA uses these individual ratings on each criterion to assign summary project justification and local financial commitment ratings for each project. Finally, FTA then combines these two ratings to assign an overall project rating. 8 The report included information on three additional projects that FTA did not rate because of insufficient information. Page 6 GAO/RCED-99-113 Mass Transit B-280884 Figure 1: The FTA New Starts Evaluation and Rating Process Stage 3 Overall project rating Stage 2 Local financial Project commitment justification rating rating Other factorsb Stage 1 Local Capital Operating Mobility Environmental Operating Cost- Land- share finance plan finance plan improvements benefits efficiencies effectiveness use ratinga rating rating rating rating rating rating rating a The local share is the percentage of a project’s capital cost to be funded from sources other than new starts funding. b According to FTA, this optional criterion gives grantees the opportunity to provide additional information about a project that may contribute in determining the project’s overall success. Source: FTA. As figure 1 shows, FTA’s current process provides for individual ratings for the four project justification criteria identified by TEA-21 (mobility improvements, environmental benefits, operating efficiencies, and cost-effectiveness) as well as for transit-supportive land-use policies.9 Similarly, to evaluate a project’s financial commitment, the project is rated on its capital and operating finance plans and the local share of project costs. According to FTA, the process also takes into account the factors for consideration identified in TEA-21, such as congestion relief. For example, FTA considers this factor in evaluating and rating a project’s cost-effectiveness. To develop and assign individual ratings on each criterion, FTA holds a series of meetings to review and analyze information submitted by project sponsors. For the fiscal year 2000 process, participants in these meetings included officials and staff from FTA’s Offices of Planning, Budget and 9 In rating projects on this criterion, FTA considers such factors as existing land use, the containment of sprawl, and transit-supportive policies and zoning. Page 7 GAO/RCED-99-113 Mass Transit B-280884 Policy, and Program Management, and contractors who made the initial financial and land-use assessments. On the basis of an analysis of the documentation submitted by project sponsors, FTA assigns each project a descriptive rating of high, medium-high, medium, low-medium or low for each project justification and local financial commitment criterion. Appendix I summarizes the measures that FTA uses in applying the criteria to develop these ratings. Once the individual criterion ratings are completed, FTA assigns summary ratings of project justification and local financial commitment by combining the individual criterion ratings. In developing the summary project justification ratings, FTA gives the most weight to the criteria for transit-supportive land use, cost-effectiveness, and mobility improvements. For the summary local financial commitment rating, the project’s capital plan is given the most consideration. In assigning a summary financial commitment rating, FTA will not give a project a rating higher than low-medium if its capital finance plan received a low-medium or low rating. FTA combines these summary ratings to assign an overall project rating of highly recommended, recommended, or not recommended. To receive the highly recommended rating, a project must have summary ratings of at least medium-high for project justification and local financial commitment. To receive a rating of recommended, the project must have summary ratings of at least medium. A project is rated as not recommended when either summary rating is less than medium. In its fiscal year 2000 new starts report, as noted previously, FTA rated 8 projects as highly recommended, 11 projects as recommended, and 20 projects as not recommended. Of the 20 projects rated as not recommended, 18 received financial commitment ratings of less than medium. In assigning overall project ratings, however, FTA emphasized the continuous nature of project evaluation. Throughout the report, FTA underscored the fact that as candidate projects proceed through the project development process, information concerning costs, benefits, and impacts will be refined. Consequently, FTA will update its ratings and recommendations at least annually to reflect new information, changing conditions, and refined financing plans.10 Thus, a project that received a not recommended rating in the fiscal year 2000 report could receive a higher rating in the fiscal year 2001 report to reflect project changes. 10 FTA’s supplemental report issued each August will also update ratings for projects that have advanced from alternatives analysis to preliminary engineering and from preliminary engineering to final design since the annual report. Page 8 GAO/RCED-99-113 Mass Transit B-280884 According to FTA, the overall project rating in the new starts report is intended to reflect a project’s merits at a particular point in time and does not translate directly into a funding recommendation or commitment in a given year. In deciding which projects will be recommended for funding or receive a full funding grant agreement, FTA considers projects with an overall rating of recommended or better. However, some projects rated as highly recommended or recommended may not be ready for funding because they are still in the early stages of preliminary engineering. In making funding recommendations, FTA gives first priority to projects with existing grant agreements. After these projects are accounted for, priority is given to projects that are ready to begin final design or construction. In accordance with these funding principles, the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget and FTA’s fiscal year 2000 new starts report recommended $962.72 million in funding for 25 projects. As table 2 shows, these recommendations included $668.18 million for 14 projects currently under construction,11 $216.11 million for seven projects expected to enter final design by the beginning of fiscal year 2000,12 and $32 million for four projects in the later stages of preliminary engineering. TEA-21 limits the amount of new starts funds that can be used for activities other than final design and construction to 8 percent of total new starts funding, or $78.43 million for fiscal year 2000. After accounting for the $32 million for the four recommended projects in preliminary engineering, $46.43 million remains available for other projects currently in or approved to enter preliminary engineering by the end of fiscal year 2000. FTA plans to allocate the remaining $46.43 million on the basis of its review of funding applications and project ratings. The seven remaining projects in preliminary engineering that received overall ratings of recommended or highly recommended but no funding recommendation in the fiscal year 2000 report would be eligible to seek this funding. Appendix II presents the ratings and funding recommendations in FTA’s fiscal year 2000 new starts report. 11 These fourteen projects have existing full funding grant agreements. 12 FTA expects all seven projects to be ready to negotiate full funding grant agreements by the end of fiscal year 2000. Page 9 GAO/RCED-99-113 Mass Transit B-280884 Table 2: FTA’s Fiscal Year 2000 New Starts Funding Recommendations by Dollars in millions Project Phase Fiscal year 2000 Number of Amount of proposed Percent of total project phase projects funding annual funding Construction 14 $668.18 92% Final design 7 $216.11 Preliminary engineering 4 $32 8% $46.43 available for other eligible projects Total 25 $962.72 100% While FTA has implemented a new starts evaluation process that addresses FTA Needs to Issue the TEA-21 requirements, it still needs to issue final regulations to formalize Regulations to Satisify the process. FTA did not meet the TEA-21 deadline of October 7, 1998, for TEA-21 Requirements issuing these regulations. According to FTA, priority was given to satisfying the rating requirements in TEA-21 and issuing the fiscal year 2000 report. FTA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on April 7, 1999. The process described in the proposed rule mirrors the process FTA used to prepare the fiscal year 2000 report. Comments on the proposed rule are due on July 6, 1999. FTA plans to issue the final regulations in the summer of 1999. FTA has said that any changes resulting from comments on the proposed rule will be incorporated into the evaluation and rating process for the fiscal year 2001 annual report. We will continue to monitor FTA’s efforts to implement TEA-21 and report our results in our next annual report. We provided the Department of Transportation with a draft of this report Agency Comments for review and comment. We met with Federal Transit Administration officials, including the Director for Policy Development and officials from the Offices of Planning and of Budget and Policy. FTA agreed with the report’s contents and provided us with some technical comments, which we have incorporated where appropriate. To address the issues discussed in this report, we reviewed the legislation Scope and governing new starts transit projects, FTA’s annual new starts reports for Methodology fiscal years 1999 and 2000, its technical guidance on the new starts criteria, and other documentation by the agency of its processes and procedures for evaluating projects. We also interviewed appropriate FTA headquarters Page 10 GAO/RCED-99-113 Mass Transit B-280884 and regional officials, the contractors who conducted the financial and land-use assessments, and selected grantees whose projects were assessed in 1997 and 1998. In addition, we attended FTA’s outreach sessions, in which officials explained the new TEA-21 requirements and how FTA intended to meet these requirements. We also observed meetings at the agency in which the project ratings on financial commitment and land use were deliberated. We performed our work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards from July 1998 through April 1999. We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Rodney E. Slater, Secretary of Transportation; the Honorable Gordon J. Linton, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration; the Honorable Jacob Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We are also making copies available to others on request. Page 11 GAO/RCED-99-113 Mass Transit B-280884 Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. Please call me at (202) 512-2834 if you have any questions about this report. Phyllis F. Scheinberg Associate Director, Transportation Issues Page 12 GAO/RCED-99-113 Mass Transit Page 13 GAO/RCED-99-113 Mass Transit Contents Letter 1 Appendix I 16 New Starts Criteria and Related Performance Measures Appendix II 17 FTA’s Fiscal Year 2000 New Starts Ratings and Funding Recommendations Appendix III 20 Major Contributors to This Report Tables Table 1: Chronology of FTA’s Revised New Starts Evaluation 4 Process Table 2: FTA’s Fiscal Year 2000 New Starts Funding 10 Recommendations by Project Phase Table I.1: Summary of New Starts Evaluation Criteria and 16 Performance Measures Figure Figure 1: The FTA New Starts Evaluation and Rating Process 7 Abbreviations FTA Federal Transit Administration ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act Page 14 GAO/RCED-99-113 Mass Transit Page 15 GAO/RCED-99-113 Mass Transit Appendix I New Starts Criteria and Related Performance Measures Table I.1 presents a summary of each of the new starts criteria and the related performance measures that the Federal Transit Administration uses to appraise candidate new starts projects as part of its evaluation and rating process. Table I.1: Summary of New Starts Evaluation Criteria and Performance Criterion Performance measure Measures Mobility improvements •Change in hours of travel time •Low-income households served by the system, expressed in terms of the number of such households within a half-mile of a project’s boarding points Environmental benefits •Change in pollutant emissions •Change in regional energy consumption, expressed in British thermal units •The Environmental Protection Agency’s air quality designation for the region Operating efficiencies Operating cost per passenger mile Cost-effectiveness Incremental cost per incremental passenger Transit-supportive land use •Existing land use •Containment of sprawl •Transit-supportive corridor policies •Supportive zoning regulations •Tools to implement land-use policies •Performance of land-use policies •Other land-use factors Other factors Local policies, programs, and factors relevant to the success of the project Local financial commitment •Proposed local share of project costs •Stability and reliability of capital financing •Stability and reliability of operating funds Source: FTA. Page 16 GAO/RCED-99-113 Mass Transit Appendix II FTA’s Fiscal Year 2000 New Starts Ratings and Funding Recommendations Dollars in millions FY2000 recommended City/project Overall project rating funding Existing full funding grant agreementsa Atlanta - North Line Extension FFGA $45.14 Boston - Piers Transitway, Phase 1 FFGA 53.96 Denver - Southwest LRT FFGA 35.00 Houston - Regional Bus Plan FFGA 62.52 Los Angeles - MOS-3 Segments of Metro Rail FFGA 50.00 Maryland - MARC Extensions - Point of Rocks to Frederick FFGA 0.70 Northern New Jersey - Hudson-Bergen LRT FFGA 99.00 Portland - Westside LRT FFGA 11.06 Sacramento - South Corridor LRT FFGA 25.00 Salt Lake City - South LRT FFGA 37.93 San Francisco - BART to Airport FFGA 84.00 San Jose - Tasman LRT FFGA 31.87 San Juan - Tren Urbano FFGA 82.00 St. Louis - St. Clair County, Illinois LRT FFGA 50.00 Subtotal $668.18 Proposed full funding grant agreements Dallas - North Central LRT Extension Recommended $70.00 Fort Lauderdale - Tri-Rail Commuter Rail Upgrade Highly recommended 20.00 Memphis - Medical Center Extension Recommended 15.11 Newark Rail Link (MOS-1) Highly recommended 12.00 Orlando - I-4 Central Florida LRT Project Highly recommended 44.00 Salt Lake City - Downtown Connector Not recommendedb 20.00 San Diego - Mission Valley East LRT Extension Highly recommended 35.00 Subtotal $216.11 Other projects in final design Dallas – Ft. Worth – RAILTRAN, Phase 2 Recommended $0 Los Angeles - LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvement Project Not recommended 0 New Orleans - Canal Streetcar Spine Not recommended 0 Tacoma-Seattle (Sounder) Commuter Rail Recommended 0 Subtotal $0 (continued) Page 17 GAO/RCED-99-113 Mass Transit Appendix II FTA’s Fiscal Year 2000 New Starts Ratings and Funding Recommendations Dollars in millions FY2000 recommended City/project Overall project rating funding Preliminary engineering Baltimore - Central Corridor LRT Double Track Recommended $8.00 Minneapolis - Hiawatha Corridor Transitway Recommended 8.00 Raleigh-Durham - Research Triangle Regional Rail Recommended 8.00 Seattle-Sound Move - Link LRT Highly recommended 8.00 Available for other projects $46.43 Austin – Northwest/North Central Corridor Not rated Boston - Piers Transitway, Phase 2 Not recommended Chicago - Central Kane Corridor Recommended Chicago - North Central Corridor Not recommended Chicago - Southwest Corridor Highly recommended Cincinnati - NE/I-71 Not recommended Cleveland - Euclid Corridor Not recommended Denver - Southeast Corridor Not recommended Kansas City - Southtown LRT Not recommended Las Vegas - Resort Corridor Not recommended Little Rock - Junction Bridge/River Rail Not recommended Miami - East/West Corridor Not recommended Miami - North 27th Avenue Corridor Not recommended New York City - LIRR East Side Access Not recommended N. New Jersey (Hudson-Bergen MOS-2) Not rated Norfolk - Virginia Beach Corridor Not recommended Orange County - Irvine-Fullerton Corridor Recommended Phoenix - Central Phoenix/East Valley Not recommended Pittsburgh - Martin Luther King, Jr., E. Busway Extension Not recommended Pittsburgh - Stage II LRT Reconstruction Not recommended Portland - South/North Corridor Not recommended San Diego - Mid Coast Corridor Highly recommended San Diego - Oceanside Escondido Corridor Highly recommended San Francisco – Bayshore - Third Street LRT Recommended San Juan - Minillas Extension Not rated Tampa - Tampa Regional Rail Not recommended Washington, D.C. - Largo Extension Recommended Subtotal $78.43 Total $962.72 (continued) Page 18 GAO/RCED-99-113 Mass Transit Appendix II FTA’s Fiscal Year 2000 New Starts Ratings and Funding Recommendations Dollars in millions FY2000 recommended City/project Overall project rating funding Ferry Capital Projects in Alaska or Hawaii (Section 5309(m)(5)(A)) 10.32 Oversight activities 7.35 Grand total $980.40 Legend FFGA = full funding grant agreement LIRR = Long Island Railroad LRT = light rail transit MOS = minimum operable segment Note: Figures do not always add to totals because of rounding. a Projects with FFGAs were not rated, since FTA had found the projects to be justified and have adequate local financial commitments at the time the FFGAs were issued. b The Downtown Connector is a segment of the overall Salt Lake West-East light rail project that FTA rated as not recommended. While FTA generally does not recommend funding for projects that are rated as not recommended, it believes this segment of the project should be funded because it will help meet the mass transportation needs of the 2002 Winter Olympics. In fiscal year 1999, the Congress appropriated $5 million in new starts funds for the overall project. Source: FTA’s FY 2000 New Starts Report. Page 19 GAO/RCED-99-113 Mass Transit Appendix III Major Contributors to This Report Ron Stouffer, Assistant Director Resources, Paul J. Bollea, Site Senior Community, and Carol Ruchala, Site Senior Economic Development Division, Washington, D.C. Kirk Kiester, Evaluator-in-Charge Atlanta Field Office (348120) Page 20 GAO/RCED-99-113 Mass Transit Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 or visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to: firstname.lastname@example.org or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at: http://www.gao.gov PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER United States Bulk Rate General Accounting Office Postage & Fees Paid Washington, D.C. 20548-0001 GAO Permit No. G100 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Correction Requested
Mass Transit: FTA's Progress in Developing and Implementing a New Starts Evaluation Process
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1999-04-26.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)