REPORT TO THE CONGRESS 09W26 Grants To Improve @us Transit Systems - Progres$ And Problems B-769497 Urban Mass Transportation Admhstratton Department of Transportation BY THE COMPTROLLER GENEhAL OF THE UNITED STATES ’ COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON DC 20548 B-169491 To the Speaker of the House of Representatives c and the President pro tempore of the Senate I This 1s our report entitled “Gryts to Improve Bus Transit Systems--Progress and Problems We made our review pursuant to the Budget and Accountmg Act, 1921 (31 U S C 53), and the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950 (31 U S C 67) We are sendmg copies of this report to the Director, Office of Management and Budget, and to the Secretary of Transportation 1 ?.-P 9 2 A+- Comptroller General of the United States . Contents Page DLGE ST 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Program obJectives 2 Scope of review 3 2 PROGRESS AND PROBLEMS IN MEETING UMTA PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 4 Growing operating deficits 4 Attracting new riders 6 Impact of traffic congestion 7 General improvements m service 9 Levels of service 9 E qulpment and f acllltles 10 Fare structure 11 Public commumcatlons 11 Special services to transit dependents 12 Improving the urban environment 13 Reducing air pollution 14 Impact on energy consumption 15 3 NEED FOR UMTA TO BECOME A MORE POSI- TIVE FORCE IN FOSTERING NEEDED IM- PROVEMENTS IN BUS TRANSIT 17 Strengthening role of transit development plans 17 Improving progress reporting 21 Collectmg and exchanging lnformatlon on transit improvement 22 Conclusions 24 Recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation 24 Agency comments and our evaluation 25 APPENDIX I Purpose of UMTA capital grant to Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority as of Decem- ber 31, 1973 27 II Purpose of UMTA capital grant to City and County of Honolulu as of December 31, 1973 28 APPENDIX Page III Purpose of UMTA capital grants to Twin Cities Area Metropolitan Transit Com- mlsslon a5 of December 31, 1973 29 IV Purpose of UMTA capital grants to Trl- County Metropolitan Transportation Dls- tract of Oregon as of December 31, 1973 30 V Letter dated August 19, 1974, from the Asslst- ant Secretary for Admmlstiatlon, Depart- ment of Transportation, to the General Ac- counting Office 31 VI Prmclpal offlclals of the Department of Trans- portation responsible for the admmlstratlon of actlvltles dlscussed m this report 45 ABBREVIATIONS UMTA Urban Mass Transportation Admlmstratlon HUD Department of Housmg and Urban Development GAO General Accountmg Office COMPTROLLER GENERAL’S GRANTS TO IMPROVE BUS REPORT TO THE CONGRESS TRANSIT SYSTEMS--PROGRESS AND PROBLEMS Urban Mass Transportation Admmlstratlon Department of Transportation B- 169491 -D--N-DIGEST WHY THE REVIEW WAS MADE --Mmneapolls-St Paul, Mm- nesota, and To help meet metropolitan trans- portation needs, the Urban Mass --Portland, Oregon i Transportation Admlmstratlon 7 3,~ (UMTA) offers Federal grants to local authorities for developing FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS transit systems Capital grants to this end totaling $2.4 bllllon were provided as of Decem- Growing operating deficits ber 31, 1973 Bus transit 1s an important as- Through the capital grant pro- pect of urban mass transporta- gram, the public bodies m the tion Like other types of mass four areas have progressed to- transit, bus systems have been ward unified or coordinated Jeopardized by increasing capital transit systems, purchased new and operating costs and decreas- buses, facllltles, and equ+.ment, mg numbers of riders UMTA and made service improvements, had committed $699 mllllon to without fare increases How- bus transit systems as of Decem- ever, these changes have contrlb- ber 3 1, including $36 0 mllllon for uted to sharp increases in op- the public takeover of private erating deficits requiring sub- systems and for purchases of stantial local subsidies from a capital equipment to help mam- variety of sources tam and improve those systems To obtam some idea of what has In recognltlon of the increasing been done, GAO reviewed capital dlfflcultles experienced by pub- grants totaling $87 mllllon for lic author&es m meeting their local bus transit m four metro- deficits m mass transit opera- politan areas tions, leglslatlon 1s pending in the 93d Congress under which --Atlanta, Georgia, local public systems would re- ceive Federal aid in meeting - -Honolulu, Hawall, their deficits (See p 4 ) Tear Sheet Upon removal the report cover date should be noted hereon Attracting new riders and the Some improvements were made impact on traffic congestron and in response to recommendations the urban environment in the 5-year tr ansrt development plans required by UMTA How- The four transit systems have ever, a number of improvements been successful m reversing the set forth m the plans were not long-term decline m rldershlp implemented for various rea- Aggregate figures show an m- sons, some of which were not crease of about 20 mrlllon rrders wlthm the control of the grantee m 1973 over low points during organizations. the early 1970s. For example, the grantee m A primary factor m the increase Portland increased the frequency appears m three of the areas to of service on 29 routes How- have been due to reducing fares ever, these changes included or allowing free rides Other only 2 of the 35 service frequency factors are improved and ex- changes m the approved transit panded service and greater pro- development plan The grantee motional efforts The exception has no definite plans for mcreas- 1s Portland where no smgle ac- mg service on the other 33 lines tion appears to have contributed because cost estimates had shown to the small Increase. (See that such increases would have p* 6 1 resulted m substantial increases m the grantee’s operating deficit Increases in riders have helped (See p 9. ) reduce traffic congestlon, air pollution, and energy consump- Special services to transit de- tron The reduction appears to pendent s be relatively small, however (See pp 7 and 13 ) Three of the four transit sys- tems (except Honolulu) had General rmprovements in service made some progress m provldmg special service to transit de- The four transit systems, with pendents (persons not having ac- assistance of UMTA’s grants, cess to alternatlve forms of improved general bus services to transportation), but addltlonal ac- the public through tions were needed, especially to serve riders whose physical llm- --higher levels of servrce, ltatlons prevented the use of standard transit service --new equrpment and faclll- ties, Studies were needed to identify the number of such riders, the --changes m fare structure, and areas to be served, and the spe- cific nature of their transit needs --better public commumcatlons and to include proposed actions m the transit development plans Transit development plans also (See p. 12 ) could re&ze greater usefulness if grant recipients would Strengthening role of tr ansi ‘t development plans --emphasize UMTA’s specific obJectives which mdlvldual The transit development plans transit systems should have not been of maxunum use- accomplish and fulness m assuring UMTA that its capital, grants would contrlb- --provide for the time phasing ute effectively to program ObJec- of planned service lmprove- tlves and meet identified local ments to facilitate measur- transit needs, because grantees mg progress m making such improvements (See --were not firmly committed P 17.1 to implementing the plans and Improving progress reporting --deviated from the plans to UMTA could use more effectively varying degrees without sys- the quarterly progress reports tematically notifying UMTA. required of the grantees by spec- ifying that the reports assess UMTA did not reqmre grantees their progress m Implementing to report periodically on the lm- the transit development plans and plementatlon of approved plans or m meeting UMTA’s specific ob- to Justify deviations or revlSlOnS Jecl ives Also, the frequency of suqh reporting requirements For example, in Atlanta, recom- could be reduced. mended improvements m service for two Qf four counties under the An mformatlve and meanliigful translt authority’s Jurisdiction reportmg system is important had not been made because the because staffing llmltatlons do counties did not approve a local not permit UMTA extensive per- tax to help finance improvements sonal contacts with agencies re- and operations About 35 new ceiving grants (Seep 21 ) buses estimated to cost $1 4 rnll- lion orlgmally were targeted for Collecting and exchanging use m the two counties The tran- information on transit improve- sit authority decided that service ments In these counties would be contln- ued only at the level before public UMTA’s Office of Transit Man- takeover and that, because of in- agement, formed in September creased bus needs and ridership, 1973, was charged with develop- the 35 buses were to be used else- mg methods to assist m modern- where. lzmg and lmprovmg transit Tear Sheet 111 operations and management sys- --Establish and execute pro- tems and to assemble, mamtam, cedures for UMTA’s Office and dlssemmate results of UMTA of Transit Management to projects As of April 1974, the become a central point for Office was not doing these collectmg, analyzing, and mformatron-gatherrng functions drssemlnatmg mformatron for capital grant prolects (See on the results of the capital p* 22 1 grant projects that would be useful to transit systems throughout the United RECOMMENDATIONS States (See p 24 1 AGENCY ACTIONS AND % The Secretary of Transportation should direct the Admlmstrator UNRE s0rs.m~ ISSUES of UMTA to The Department said this report --Require grantees to Justify was a constructive analysis of devlatlons from them ap- UMTA’s capital grant program proved transit development insofar as it relates to larger ur - plans, lf these become nec- ban areas which had recently un- essary or desirable, be- dergone transltlons from private cause of changing clrcum- to public ownership, and it be- stances.