This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-15-159 
entitled 'Public Transit: Federal and Transit Agencies Taking Steps to 
Build Transit Systems' Resilience but Face Challenges' which was 
released on December 10, 2014. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

December 2014: 

Public Transit: 

Federal and Transit Agencies Taking Steps to Build Transit Systems' 
Resilience but Face Challenges: 

GAO-15-159: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-15-159, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Public transit systems, which receive funding from the federal 
government, are vulnerable to catastrophic events, as demonstrated by 
the impact Hurricane Sandy and other events have had on transit 
systems. These events highlight our reliance on transit systems for 
access to jobs, medical care, and other services, as well as the cost 
of recovering from these events. For instance, of the $50.5 billion 
Congress appropriated to help communities devastated by Sandy, $10.9 
billion was provided for disaster relief to public transit agencies. 
Building resilience—-the ability to prepare for, respond to, recover 
from, and mitigate the risk of catastrophic events-—is one strategy to 
help limit the nation's fiscal exposure to catastrophic events. 

GAO was asked to review transit system resilience to catastrophic 
events. This report examines (1) how DHS and DOT help transit agencies 
make their systems resilient; (2) actions selected transit agencies 
take to make their systems resilient; and (3) challenges transit 
agencies face with making their systems resilient. GAO examined 
documentation and interviewed officials from DHS and DOT, and 
officials from nine transit and five emergency management agencies.GAO 
selected a non-generalizable sample of agencies in five locations, 
chosen for transit ridership volume and variation in geography, types 
of risks, and transit modes. 

What GAO Found: 

The Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Transportation (DOT) 
provide funding and other support to transit agencies to help make 
their systems resilient to catastrophic events. DHS focuses on 
emergency management and security, and provides funding through its 
hazard-mitigation, transit-security, and other grant programs. DOT's 
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides support through formula 
and discretionary-funding programs for transit capital-investment 
projects and for improving and maintaining existing systems. Both DHS 
and DOT provide transit agencies with technical assistance, such as 
for security programs or climate-change adaptation efforts. 

Transit agencies that GAO selected identified a number of actions they 
are taking to help make their systems more resilient, including 
performing risk assessments and developing plans, such as emergency 
operations plans. These agencies also take actions, such as building 
redundant assets or facilities, to ensure the continuity of operations 
of the agencies' systems. Further, transit agencies have changed their 
infrastructure to mitigate the potential impact of disasters on their 
assets. For example, as shown in the figure below, one agency elevated 
vents and curbs to minimize water flowing into the subway. 

Although all transit agencies GAO selected are taking resilience-
building actions, officials GAO interviewed said that transit agencies 
face challenges with placing priorities on resilience and with certain 
aspects of some grant programs. In particular, officials from DHS, 
DOT, and transit agencies GAO selected explained that it is difficult 
for transit agencies to place priority on resilience activities 
because managers may be reluctant to focus on resilience and 
resilience activities compete with other priorities for funding. 
Federal, transit-agency, and emergency-management officials also cited 
challenges related to some aspects of federal grants that have made it 
difficult for transit agencies to, among other things, incorporate 
resilience into disaster recovery efforts and make regional transit-
networks resilient. DHS, DOT, and some transit agencies are taking 
some actions to address these challenges, such as developing tools to 
help management prioritize resilience activities. 

Figure: Deteriorated Curb Allowed Water to Flow in Subway (Left) and 
Raised Curb and Vent That Minimize Water Flow into Subway (Center and 
Right): 

[Refer to PDF for image: 3 photographs] 

Source: GAO. GAO-15-159. 

[End of figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO did not make any recommendations in this report. DHS and DOT 
provided technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-159]. For more 
information, contact David J. Wise, (202) 512-2834, wised@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

DHS and DOT Assistance Can Contribute to Transit System Resilience; 
However, Some Limitations Exist: 

Selected Transit Agencies Take a Variety of Actions to Make Their 
Transit Systems Resilient: 

Transit Agencies Face Challenges in Placing Priority on Resilience and 
with Certain Aspects of Some Federal Grants: 

Concluding Observations: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: National Policies That Emphasize Resilience of the Nation's 
Critical Infrastructure, Including Public Transit: 

Table 2: Allocation of the $10.2 Billion Disaster Relief Program 
Appropriation for the FTA Emergency Relief Program Appropriations, as 
of November 2014: 

Table 3: Examples of Plans That Transit Agencies Use to Address 
Transit System Resilience: 

Table 4: Emergency Management Offices and Transit Agencies Selected 
for GAO's Review: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Actions That Can Contribute to Transit System Resilience: 

Figure 2: Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) Funds Awarded for 
Public Transit, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2014: 

Figure 3: Mobile Communications Center Used by the Los Angeles Area's 
Orange County Transportation Authority: 

Figure 4: Three Redundant Berths at Seattle/Puget Sound Region's 
Washington State Ferries Ferry Terminal: 

Figure 5: Miami-Dade Transit's Cover Boards for the Third Rail: Old 
Design Can Be Blown Off by High Winds (Left), and New Design Mitigates 
Wind Damage (Right): 

Figure 6: Deteriorated Curb That Allowed Water to Easily Enter Subway 
(Left) and Raised Curb and Vent That Minimized Water Flow into Subway 
(Center and Right): 

Abbreviations: 

BASE: Baseline Assessment for Security Enhancement: 

CDBG: Community Development Block Grant: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOT: Department of Transportation: 

DRAA: Disaster Relief Appropriations Act: 

ERP: Emergency Relief Program: 

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency: 

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration: 

FMA: Flood Mitigation Assistance: 

FTA: Federal Transit Administration: 

HMGP: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program: 

MAP-21: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act: 

MOU: memorandum of understanding: 

PDM: Pre-Disaster Mitigation: 

SEPTA: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority: 

TRB: Transportation Research Board: 

TSA: Transportation Security Administration: 

TSGP: Transit Security Grant Program: 

TTAL: Top Transit Asset List: 

WMATA: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

December 10, 2014: 

The Honorable Tim Johnson: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Robert Menendez: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation and Community Development 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

In recent years, the federal government, in addition to the over $10 
billion that the Department of Transportation (DOT) provides annually 
to transit agencies for their systems, has provided billions of 
dollars to help transit agencies recover from catastrophic 
events,[Footnote 1] such as Hurricane Sandy.[Footnote 2] For example, 
$10.9 billion of the $50.5 billion Congress appropriated to help 
communities devastated by Hurricane Sandy was provided to help 
affected public transit agencies repair and make their transit 
facilities: 

resilient to future disasters.[Footnote 3],[Footnote 4] In addition to 
the financial impact, loss of transit services, and damage of related 
infrastructure can have negative effects on a community by impeding 
access to jobs, medical care, education, shopping, and other services. 
For example, recent severe weather events, such as major winter storms 
in Massachusetts and landslides in Washington State, temporarily shut 
down transit systems in these areas. Further, these types of weather-
related events can be expected to increase. According to the United 
States Global Change Research Program,[Footnote 5] the impacts and 
costs of weather disasters are likely to increase in significance as 
such events become more common and intense due to climate change. 
[Footnote 6] Transit systems' vulnerability results, in part, from 
their open nature, the large geographic areas they cover, and the 
critical transportation service they provide millions of people. 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), DOT, and the over 2,000 
public transit agencies across the country play a role in minimizing 
transit systems' vulnerabilities to catastrophic events and helping 
ensure that transit agencies are resilient to all types of hazards 
caused by nature and people. Resilience is the capability to prepare 
for, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the risk of catastrophic 
events.[Footnote 7] We previously have recommended building 
resilience--such as taking actions to mitigate vulnerabilities to 
severe weather events--as one strategy to help limit the nation's 
fiscal exposure as a result of catastrophic events.[Footnote 8] In 
addition, we identified challenges to building resilience, including 
(1) communities balancing the need to invest in hazard mitigation with 
other economic development goals and (2) the clarity of information 
needed to inform risk-based decision making.[Footnote 9] Such 
challenges may affect the extent to which public transit agencies are 
resilient to catastrophic events. 

Given the importance of public transit agencies and their 
vulnerability to adverse weather and other catastrophic events that 
disrupt transit services and damage transit infrastructure and 
investments, you asked us to identify how public transit agencies make 
their systems resilient to catastrophic events. This report examines 
(1) how DHS and DOT help transit agencies make their systems resilient 
to catastrophic events; (2) actions selected transit agencies take to 
make their systems resilient; and (3) challenges transit agencies face 
with making their systems resilient to such events. Our review focuses 
on all-hazard catastrophic events; that is, those caused either by 
nature (e.g., hurricanes, flooding, fires) or by humans (e.g., 
security events, including terrorism). 

To determine the activities DHS and DOT take to help transit agencies 
make their systems more resilient to catastrophic events, we reviewed 
and analyzed documentation from the two federal agencies on their 
relevant programs, requirements, guidance, policies, and technical 
assistance. We also interviewed officials from these two agencies. 
[Footnote 10] To identify actions selected transit agencies take to 
make their systems more resilient, we reviewed documentation and 
interviewed officials from nine transit agencies and five local 
emergency management offices in five metropolitan areas: Los Angeles 
Region, California; Miami, Florida; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 
Seattle/Puget Sound Region, Washington; and Washington, D.C. These 
areas are among the 10 largest metropolitan areas in terms of transit 
ridership and were selected to obtain variation in geography, types of 
risks, and transit modes.[Footnote 11] In each metropolitan area, we 
selected transit agencies that had relatively high ridership and were 
located in the selected city itself or provided service to the city. 
The nine transit agencies, which we visited, are listed below. 

* Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Los 
Angeles Region, California); 

* Orange County Transportation Authority (Los Angeles Region, 
California); 

* Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) (Los Angeles 
Region, California); 

* Miami-Dade Transit (Miami, Florida); 

* Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) 
(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); 

* Washington State Ferries (Seattle/Puget Sound Region, Washington); 

* King County Metro Transit (Seattle/Puget Sound Region, Washington); 

* Sound Transit (Seattle/Puget Sound Region, Washington); and: 

* Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) (Washington, 
D.C.). 

While the information we obtained from the five metropolitan areas is 
not generalizable to transit systems nationwide, the selected areas 
have some of the larger transit systems in terms of ridership. To 
identify challenges transit agencies face with making their systems 
resilient to catastrophic events, we interviewed officials from DOT, 
DHS, the nine transit agencies, five emergency management offices, and 
four researchers knowledgeable in transit systems, emergency 
management, or federal transportation programs. We analyzed the 
information gained from these interviews to identify the most 
frequently cited challenges. Appendix I describes our objectives, 
scope, and methodology in greater detail. 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2013 through December 
2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

In response to the risks posed by man-made and natural disasters, such 
as acts of terrorism and severe weather, over the past decade the 
federal government has emphasized the need to improve the resilience 
of the nation's critical infrastructure through various national 
policies (see table 1). These policies--which focus on critical 
infrastructure, national preparedness, and climate change or weather-
related events--address resilience in the context of homeland security 
(e.g., terrorism) and natural disasters. The federal government has 
targeted 16 critical infrastructure areas for resilience-building 
policies. Transportation infrastructure, which includes public transit 
systems, is one of these areas.[Footnote 12] 

Table 1: National Policies That Emphasize Resilience of the Nation's 
Critical Infrastructure, Including Public Transit: 

Focus of national policy: Critical Infrastructure; 

National policy: Homeland Security Presidential Directive-7: Critical 
Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection; 
Issued on December 17, 2003; 
Purpose: Designates the nation's mass transit systems, among other 
types of transportation systems, as critical infrastructure. 

National policy: National Infrastructure Protection Plan 2013: 
Partnering for Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience; 
Issued in 2006 and updated in 2009 and 2013; 
Purpose: A strategic framework that describes how federal, state, and 
local government and private sector, and non-profit participants 
should work together to manage risks and achieve security and 
resilience outcomes in critical infrastructure. 

National policy: Presidential Policy Directive-21: Critical 
Infrastructure Security and Resilience; 
Issued on February 12, 2013; 
Purpose: Establishes a national policy on critical infrastructure 
security and resilience. 

Focus of national policy: National preparedness; 

National policy: National Security Presidential Directive-51/Homeland 
Security Presidential Directive-20: National Continuity Policy; 
Issued May 9, 2007; 
Purpose: Establishes a comprehensive national policy to help ensure 
the continuity of essential functions following an emergency. 

National policy: Presidential Policy Directive-8: National 
Preparedness; Issued on March 30, 2011; 
Purpose: Identifies the need for a national preparedness goal and 
strategy aimed at strengthening the nation's security and resilience 
through systematic preparations against terrorist acts and 
catastrophic natural disasters, among other things. This policy 
directive replaced Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8: 
National Preparedness, which was issued on December 17, 2003. 

Focus of national policy: Climate change or weather-related events; 

National policy: Department of Transportation Policy Statement on 
Climate Change Adaptation; Issued in June 2011; 
Purpose: States that DOT shall consider climate change impacts on 
current systems and future investments, and incorporate climate 
adaptation strategies into its transportation missions, programs, and 
operations. This policy statement is in the process of being updated. 

National policy: Executive Order 13632: Establishing the Hurricane 
Sandy Rebuilding Task Force; Issued on December 7, 2012; 
Purpose: Establishes the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force to 
provide coordination necessary to support long-term rebuilding in the 
affected areas. 

National policy: Executive Order 13653: Preparing the United States 
for the Impacts of Climate Change; Issued on November 6, 2013; 
Purpose: Directs the federal government to pursue new strategies to 
improve the nation's preparedness and resilience to the impacts of 
climate change, including in the area of critical infrastructure. 

Source: GAO analysis. GAO-15-159. 

[End of table] 

Actions that can help transit agencies prepare for, respond to, 
recover from, and mitigate the risk of catastrophic events can 
contribute to transit system resilience.[Footnote 13] These actions 
can be taken before, during, and after an event (see figure 1). For 
example, transit agencies can develop plans to help them prepare for a 
catastrophic event before it occurs, and can repair transit 
infrastructure after an event so that the infrastructure can better 
withstand similar events in the future. 

Figure 1: Actions That Can Contribute to Transit System Resilience: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Transit system resilience: 

Preparedness: 
Activities that prevent and protect against potential disasters (e.g., 
planning, training, assessing risk). 

Response: 
Activities that save lives, protect property, and meet basic needs 
after a disaster (e.g., federal, state, and local coordination). 

Mitigation: 
Activities that reduce the loss of life and property by lessening the 
impact of future disasters (e.g., elevating assets to avoid future 
flood damage). 

Recovery: 
Activities that restore, strengthen, and revitalize areas affected by 
a disaster (e.g., repairing infrastructure). 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS documentation on addressing risks. 
GAO-15-159. 

[End of figure] 

In large part, the actions for resilience-building efforts noted in 
figure 1 occur at the local level and are specific to the needs, 
scope, and risks of the transit systems, factoring in state and local 
priorities. However, the Stafford Act of 1988, as amended,[Footnote 
14] mandated a role for the federal government in assisting state and 
local governments to carry out their responsibilities to alleviate the 
damage from disasters. Today, federal agencies--DHS and DOT, in 
particular--share federal oversight of and assistance for critical 
infrastructure, including transit systems.[Footnote 15] Moreover, DHS 
and DOT are the federal agencies responsible under the National 
Infrastructure Protection Plan for promoting national resilience-
related polices in public transit systems. DHS has primary 
responsibility for transportation security and emergency preparedness 
and response. DHS's Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is 
the primary federal agency overseeing security matters for public 
transit systems and provides technical assistance to transit agencies 
to augment their system security.[Footnote 16] DHS's Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) has responsibility for administering the 
public transportation-security grant provisions of the 9-11 
Act[Footnote 17] and is the lead federal agency responsible for 
building the nation's capability to prepare for and respond to all-
hazards catastrophic events. Transit agencies can apply to FEMA for 
grants for emergency planning, response, recovery, and mitigation 
efforts--either directly or through their states, depending on the 
type of grant. DOT's Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides 
funds to help develop new transit systems and improve, maintain, and 
operate existing systems; and provides technical assistance as needed 
to transit systems. As specified by law,[Footnote 18] FTA's programs 
for funding transit systems operate as either formula or discretionary 
grants[Footnote 19] for certain types of capital or operating 
expenses.[Footnote 20] As discussed below, until recently FTA did not 
have funds authorized specifically for resilience or disaster 
assistance for transit systems. 

DHS and DOT Assistance Can Contribute to Transit System Resilience; 
However, Some Limitations Exist: 

DHS Assistance Focuses on Security and Emergency Management: 

Created to strengthen the security of the nation's transportation 
systems, TSA sets priorities for protecting and evaluating the 
security of public transit systems. FEMA, as the federal agency 
responsible for emergency management, has certain grant programs that 
provide funds that may be used for transit systems' resilience-related 
activities both before and after catastrophic events. As noted by DHS 
and transit officials, some changes in funding levels and timing of 
grant availability can limit transit agency and local use of federal 
assistance. 

TSA: 

According to DHS officials, TSA employs a risk-based strategy to 
determine security risks on public transit systems. DHS maintains a 
Top Transit Asset List (TTAL) to identify critical infrastructure 
assets that are vital to the continuity of major transit systems and 
whose destruction would be detrimental to the region and even the 
nation. TSA uses the TTAL to help target technical assistance, and 
FEMA uses it to allocate transit security grants to reduce risks 
associated with major transit systems, especially in large 
metropolitan areas. 

As part of its risk-based approach, TSA conducts 30 to 34 Baseline 
Assessment for Security Enhancement (BASE) reviews of public transit 
agencies per year, which support transit agency resilience in several 
ways.[Footnote 21] For example, TSA uses BASE to evaluate the 
efficiency and effectiveness of transit agencies' security and 
emergency response programs and to identify existing security 
guidelines and requirements and security gaps so the evaluated transit 
agency can prioritize actions to address vulnerabilities to enhance 
security. Officials from DHS and transit agencies we visited said that 
the BASE reviews are an effective tool to assess a transit agency's 
security program. According to DHS officials, DHS also uses the 
results of the BASE reviews in the selection process for Transit 
Security Grant Program (TSGP) grants; the TSGP is discussed further 
below. Furthermore, TSA disseminates best practices, identified in 
part through the BASE program, among regional and national transit 
agencies, emergency management agencies, and state agencies, which can 
help make transit systems more resilient. These best practices 
include, for example, incorporating resilience into capital project 
design. Moreover, DHS has stated that, as critical infrastructure is 
built and refurbished, those involved in making design decisions 
should consider the most effective ways to prepare for threats and 
hazards, mitigate vulnerabilities, and minimize consequences. 

FEMA: 

FEMA administers several grant programs that transit agencies can to 
apply for to improve the resilience of their systems. The Transit 
Security Grant Program (TSGP)[Footnote 22] is a competitive program 
for funding projects to reduce risks associated with potential 
terrorist attacks and to increase the resilience of transit and other 
forms of critical infrastructure. Projects include installing security 
cameras and providing security training for transit employees. For 
instance, King County Metro in the Seattle/Puget Sound Region received 
a TSGP grant for cameras, dogs for bomb detection, and overtime costs 
for security staff. In addition, transit agencies that receive TSGP 
grants are required to take actions before applying to receive the 
grants to plan for and help mitigate the impact of events on transit 
systems. These actions include developing security plans and 
conducting risk assessments to identify vulnerabilities and weaknesses 
in security, such as in emergency response planning and employee 
training. Transit agencies that receive TSGP grants are required by 
FEMA policy to use their grants within 2 years of receiving them, 
although transit agencies may request an extension through a formal 
request to FEMA that describes why an extension is needed.[Footnote 23] 

TSGP funds for public transit peaked in fiscal year 2009 at almost 
$500 million, but were at or below $90 million in each of the past 3 
fiscal years. [Footnote 24] See figure 2 for the annual TSGP amounts 
awarded for public transit from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 
2014--the current year. Later in this report, we discuss the 
challenges experienced by transit agencies related to the timing of 
these grant funds. To determine which transit agencies receive TSGP 
funds, a panel of officials from different DHS agencies, including 
FEMA and TSA, rank and score proposed projects based on, among other 
things, whether agencies have assets listed in the TTAL and their BASE 
results.[Footnote 25] 

Figure 2: Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) Funds Awarded for 
Public Transit, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2014: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Annual appropriations: $135.3 million. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Annual appropriations: $136.0 million. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Annual appropriations: $162.9 million. 
Supplemental appropriation: $94.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Annual appropriations: $356.1 million. 

Fiscal year: 2009c; 
Annual appropriations: $348.6 million; 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: $143.7 million. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Annual appropriations: $253.4 million. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Annual appropriations: $200.1 million. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Annual appropriations: $87.5 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Annual appropriations: $83.7 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Annual appropriations: $90 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of funding data provided by DHS on the TSGP. 
GAO-15-159. 

[End of figure] 

FEMA also administers a Port Security Grant Program, designed to 
directly support maritime transportation-infrastructure security 
activities, such as improvement of port-wide maritime security-risk 
management, maritime security-training exercises, and maritime 
security-mitigation protocols that support port recovery and 
resilience capabilities. According to DHS officials, ferry systems 
that are awarded these funds cannot also apply for TSGP funds for the 
same project. 

In addition to the TSGP and Port Security Grant Program, transit 
agencies are eligible for the Homeland Security Grant Program. These 
grants, such as the Urban Areas Security Initiative, are aimed at 
helping metropolitan areas build and sustain national preparedness. 
However, transit agencies cannot apply directly for these funds. State 
Administrative Agencies apply for these grants on behalf of the state 
and its subgrantees, including transit agencies and other local 
entities seeking such funds. 

FEMA's disaster-and hazard-mitigation grant programs can also be used 
for helping make transit systems resilient. Public Assistance, 
typically the largest of these programs, focuses on immediate post-
disaster recovery efforts and its grants can be used for removing 
debris, implementing emergency protective measures, and repairing or 
replacing damaged public equipment or facilities. Public Assistance 
funds also may be used for hazard mitigation measures to damaged 
infrastructure to reduce the likelihood of future damage. According to 
FEMA officials, transit agencies are also eligible for three FEMA 
mitigation grant programs--Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-
Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program, and Flood Mitigation Assistance 
(FMA) Program--that primarily fund weather-related resilience efforts, 
such as implementing flood control measures or protection from the 
effects of earthquakes. Transit agencies in the wake of recent 
disasters have used mitigation funds to support resilience projects. 
[Footnote 26] 

While FEMA's mitigation grant programs can help transit agencies carry 
out resilience-type projects, we identified two limitations transit 
agencies face in trying to obtain such funds. First, to obtain FEMA 
funding, transit agencies must apply through their state government as 
opposed to applying directly to the federal government. Thus, transit 
agencies are competing with other state and local organizations, 
including non-transit-related organizations such as housing 
organizations and public utilities, for FEMA funds. Second, FEMA 
officials noted that because various FEMA grants and other federal 
funds to aid recovery and resilience building after a catastrophic 
event have different regulations and timeframes, it could be difficult 
for the grant recipients to coordinate the use of these funds for 
resilience efforts.[Footnote 27] We will discuss challenges that 
transit agencies and others indicate arise from competing priorities 
and the timing of federal grants in more detail later in the report. 

DOT Focuses on Transit Funding and Technical Assistance: 

DOT provides funding and technical assistance to transit agencies to 
improve their resilience. DOT requires that transit agencies with 
light rail, heavy rail, or other rail "fixed-guideway systems" have 
hazard and emergency management programs, and develop security 
plans.[Footnote 28] As we discussed above, actions that help transit 
agencies prepare for catastrophic events, such as developing plans, 
can help build transit system resilience. 

FTA Formula and Discretionary Funds: 

FTA provides financial assistance through various formula and 
discretionary programs for transit capital-investment projects and for 
improving and maintaining existing systems. All of these programs, 
except for the new Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program 
(ERP), allow but do not provide specifically for improvements for 
transit systems' resilience to catastrophic events. However, according 
to FTA officials, activities to build resilience in transit systems 
are eligible capital expenses under these programs. For example, a 
transit agency could use Section 5339--Bus and Bus Facilities Program 
funds[Footnote 29] to build a new bus facility on higher land to make 
it less vulnerable to floods. 

FTA grantees are responsible for managing their programs in accordance 
with federal requirements, and FTA is responsible for ensuring that 
grantees follow federal statutory and administrative requirements. 
While FTA does not require transit agencies' use of such grants for 
resilience projects, FTA officials said that one way to ensure that 
transit agencies practice resilience is the grant requirement[Footnote 
30] that grantees maintain FTA-funded assets in good operating order 
for the duration of their "useful life" or expected period of service. 
FTA may require that transit agencies refund FTA for the portion of an 
FTA-paid asset if that asset does not last the minimal life cycle for 
that asset. FTA officials stated that this requirement could 
incentivize transit agencies to take actions that could contribute to 
system resilience. For example, the useful life requirement could 
encourage transit agencies to adopt improved asset management 
practices, which also improve the resilience of transit assets. 
[Footnote 31] However, in cases of disasters, FTA can waive this 
requirement. FTA waived this requirement for the buses that were 
destroyed by Hurricane Katrina and thus were taken out of service 
before reaching their minimum useful life. FTA officials further told 
us that, as permitted under the Stafford Act, FTA waived the remaining 
useful life for property damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Sandy. 

In addition to federal requirements, FTA officials told us that local 
building codes and current industry design standards could help 
transit agencies build resilience. For instance, according to transit 
officials we spoke with in California, California's stringent seismic 
codes enable transit systems to build to better withstand earthquakes. 
Research has shown that design improvements have resulted in stronger, 
more resilient transit vehicles that can better withstand terrorist 
attacks. 

FTA Emergency and Disaster-Related Fund: 

Among other things, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 
Act (MAP-21) authorized the Public Transportation Emergency Relief 
Program (ERP) within FTA, which provides grants for, among other 
things, capital projects to protect, repair, reconstruct, or replace 
equipment and facilities of public transportation systems that the DOT 
Secretary determines are in danger of suffering serious damage, or 
have suffered serious damage, as a result of an emergency.[Footnote 
32] A transit agency can apply directly for these grants without 
having to go through its state government (as required for most FEMA 
grants). Under the FTA ERP, damaged or threatened transit equipment 
and facilities can be repaired as well as made more resilient to 
current and future conditions and risks. Further, operating costs to 
cover evacuation activities, rescue operations, and temporary transit 
services are also eligible uses of the FTA ERP. While similar to the 
Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) ERP for highway facilities, 
the FTA ERP has not received funding on an ongoing basis, which could 
limit some transit agencies' ability to respond immediately after a 
disaster. The FHWA ERP is authorized to obligate a specific amount 
annually to be paid from the Highway Trust Fund,[Footnote 33] 
supplemented by appropriations from the General Fund of the U.S. 
Treasury,[Footnote 34] on an as-needed basis. While MAP-21 authorized 
the FTA ERP, Congress, to date, has not provided annual appropriations 
for the program. The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, however, 
provided a one-time appropriation of $10.9 billion for FTA's ERP for 
recovery, relief, and resilience efforts in areas affected by 
Hurricane Sandy.[Footnote 35],[Footnote 36] Table 2 shows how FTA 
allocated the ERP funds. 

Table 2: Allocation of the $10.2 Billion Disaster Relief Program 
Appropriation for the FTA Emergency Relief Program Appropriations, as 
of November 2014: 

Notice: March 29, 2013; 
Description of allocations: $2 billion for response and recovery 
expenses for Sandy-affected transit agencies. 

Notice: May 29, 2013; 
Description of allocations: $3.7 billion for response, recovery, and 
local priority resilience funding. 

Notice: September 22, 2014; 
Description of allocations: Approximately $3.6 billion to help transit 
agencies in Sandy-affected areas become more resilient (e.g., seawall 
construction and replacement of a deteriorated drawbridge). 

Notice: Not yet announced or allocated; 
Description of allocations: $0.82 billion for remaining unfunded 
recovery expenses incurred by affected agencies. 

Source: GAO analysis of FTA data. GAO-15-159. 

Note: The $10.9 billion appropriations was decreased by 5 percent as a 
result of the sequestration mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 
(Pub. L. No. 112-25, 125 Stat. 240 (2011)) and after intergovernmental 
transfers to other bureaus and offices within DOT. 

[End of table] 

The only appropriation that the FTA ERP has received to date is for 
public transit in areas affected by Hurricane Sandy.[Footnote 37] 
Since Sandy, there have been other catastrophic weather-related 
events, such as mudslides and heavy snow storms. However, Congress did 
not appropriate ERP funds for those events. If Congress does not 
appropriate ERP funds for a specific event, transit agencies can still 
apply through their states for FEMA's assistance and mitigation 
programs or use their FTA's formula funds. As we discuss below, FTA 
and transit agency officials told us that demand for limited funds 
makes it difficult for transit agencies to prioritize actions for 
building resilience versus other, more immediate needs, such as 
maintaining and operating existing assets. 

FTA Technical Assistance Related to Climate Change: 

In May 2011, FTA issued a Policy Statement on Climate Change 
Adaptation and announced a Climate Change Adaptation 
initiative.[Footnote 38] The initiative included funding for seven 
transit climate-change adaptation-assessment pilot programs for 
assessing the vulnerability of transit agency assets and services to 
climate change hazards such as heat waves and flooding to help develop 
strategies that transit agencies can take to mitigate or adapt their 
systems to better address climate change impacts. DOT expects to issue 
these projects' final reports in fall 2014. These reports can be a 
tool, highlighting practices that transit agencies could adopt for 
their systems. The reports are intended to inform climate change 
efforts of participating transit agencies and provide information on 
the efforts' applicability to other transit agencies. In addition, in 
2011, FTA issued a study, Flooded Bus Barns and Buckled Rails, which 
it has disseminated to the nation's transit agencies. This study 
focused on how transit agencies could incorporate climate change 
adaptation into their systems and activities--such as asset management 
systems, planning, and emergency response--and provided examples of 
strategies. In 2011 and 2012, FTA offered workshops for transit 
agencies on how they can adapt their transit systems so that they are 
more resilient to the long-term effects of climate change. Further, 
FTA has held training sessions and workshops for transit agencies to 
share lessons learned and best practices. 

FTA has also funded the Transportation Research Board (TRB) to 
undertake a research project entitled Improving the Resiliency of 
Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disaster. Objectives include 
reviewing current research and developing guidelines, strategies and 
tools for public transit agencies to make their systems more resilient 
to natural disasters and climatic events. TRB plans to issue all this 
work by mid-2016. 

Other FTA Guidance, Technical Assistance, and Proposed Rulemaking: 

In addition to workshops, webinars, and other workgroups sponsored by 
the American Public Transportation Associations, FTA has held as part 
of the Climate Change Adaptation initiative, FTA provides guidance and 
training that can aid transit agencies in preparing for, responding to 
and mitigating the potential impact of disasters, thereby improving 
their systems' resilience to such disasters. For example, 

* Built-in Redundancy: FTA encourages transit agencies to "build in" 
redundancy in, among other things, infrastructure, communications, and 
power supplies.[Footnote 39] Redundancy of assets and operations 
within a transit system may help a system respond to catastrophic 
events by allowing transit agencies to fall back to secondary options 
rather than ceasing service if a portion of the system is damaged 
during a disaster. 

* Mutual Aid Agreements: FTA recommends--in its guidance--that transit 
agencies develop mutual aid agreements or memorandums of understanding 
(MOU) with other relevant organizations and agencies in the same or 
adjoining communities or areas to, among other things, formalize and 
authorize assistance during emergencies, so that they can quickly 
recover and resume operations following a disaster.[Footnote 40] 

* Capital investment decision making: MAP-21[Footnote 41] requires FTA 
to develop a transit asset-management system that would, in part, 
assist transit agencies in prioritizing rehabilitation and replacement 
investments. These rehabilitation and replacement projects may help 
transit agencies mitigate the impacts of catastrophic events by 
incorporating strategies such as elevating assets above flood levels. 
FTA's October 2013 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on a national 
transit asset-management system would require transit agencies to, 
among other things, develop transit asset-management plans to help 
them make these investment decisions.[Footnote 42] In a 2013 report, 
we found that asset management planning is a leading practice that can 
help transit agencies plan and prioritize replacement and 
rehabilitation investments.[Footnote 43] 

Selected Transit Agencies Take a Variety of Actions to Make Their 
Transit Systems Resilient: 

Officials from eight of the nine transit agencies we visited told us 
that they would consider their transit systems to be resilient if they 
can resist or minimize damage, continue operations, or resume 
operations quickly, if an emergency were to occur.[Footnote 44] The 
transit agencies also identified a number of actions that help improve 
their systems' resilience, including actions that help them prepare 
for, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the impacts of emergencies 
and catastrophic events. These actions include, but are not limited 
to, developing plans, performing risk assessments, ensuring the 
continuity of transit system operations, and mitigating the impact of 
catastrophic events on physical assets.[Footnote 45] 

Transit Agencies Develop Plans and Perform Risk Assessments: 

All nine transit agencies have developed plans to help make their 
systems resilient to catastrophic events. In general, plans can help 
transit agencies prepare for, respond to, and recover from for 
catastrophic events should they occur. The plans from the transit 
agencies that we reviewed can generally be categorized as those that 
address all-hazards or those that address a specific hazard relevant 
for transit agencies' locations (see table 3). Transit agencies 
typically have multiple plans, some of which are described in the 
table below. 

Table 3: Examples of Plans That Transit Agencies Use to Address 
Transit System Resilience: 

Type of plan: All-hazards plans; 
Examples of plans from selected transit agencies: 
* Continuity of operations plans: Eight of the nine[A] selected 
transit agencies have continuity-of-operations plans. The continuity-
of-operations plans that we reviewed describe how the agency will 
sustain its essential services across a wide range of potential 
emergencies; 
* Emergency-operations, management, or preparedness plans: All of the 
selected transit agencies have emergency-operations, management, or 
preparedness plans. The plans that we reviewed, among other things, 
identify the roles and responsibilities of key personnel and describe 
operational procedures and protocols following an emergency. 

Type of plan: Hazard-specific plans; 
Examples of plans from selected transit agencies: 
* Hurricane plan: Miami-Dade Transit has a plan that prepares the 
agency for hurricanes. This plan identifies the roles and 
responsibilities of personnel in the event of a hurricane, describes 
operational procedures and protocols for emergency services, 
identifies asset protection strategies, and provides guidance on 
"return to operations" procedures; 
* Landslide mitigation action plan: Seattle/Puget Sound Region's Sound 
Transit participated in the development of a plan that describes 
strategies, such as building retaining walls, to mitigate the impact 
of landslides along portions of a railroad that are used by Sound 
Transit's commuter trains. To develop this plan, Sound Transit worked 
with the Washington State Department of Transportation, Amtrak, and 
other stakeholders to identify factors of landslides and impacts to 
passenger rail services. 

Source: GAO summary of information provided by selected transit 
agencies. GAO-15-159. 

[A] The remaining transit agency is in the process of developing its 
continuity of operations plan. 

[End of table] 

All nine transit agencies perform assessments to identify risks to 
their transit systems so that they can make informed decisions to 
mitigate the risks and improve resilience. For example, Philadelphia's 
SEPTA performs a six-stage risk assessment on all of its transit 
stations. As a part of this assessment, SEPTA police determine the 
overall rating of stations based on threats, vulnerabilities, and the 
value of the station to the overall transit system. The agency then 
develops countermeasure reports that provide recommendations to 
address identified risks. In addition to developing recommendations to 
address risks, officials from some transit agencies explained that 
they use the risk assessments to, among other things, inform the types 
of training and drills the agencies conduct, or guide their investment 
decision-making. For example, officials from Seattle/Puget Sound 
Region's Washington State Ferries told us that one risk area they 
identified based on a risk assessment of vessels and terminals was 
that many employees and passengers could sustain injuries during an 
emergency. As a result, the agency held training to address this risk. 
Officials from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation 
Authority told us they conducted risk assessments to identify areas 
susceptible to mudslides and as a result, decided to fund the building 
of retaining walls and fences to stop debris from falling on to the 
rights-of-way in those areas. Further, based on their risk 
assessments, officials from Seattle/Puget Sound Region's King County 
Metro Transit and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation 
Authority told us that they identified security risks to their transit 
tunnels and, as a result, funded actions to enhance security in those 
tunnels. 

In certain instances, transit agencies may not be able to implement 
solutions to address identified risks because, according to transit 
officials, funding may be limited, the public or labor unions may 
disapprove of the suggested solution, or the suggested solution may be 
cost prohibitive. In such situations, some officials from agencies 
said that they temporarily accept the risk until better or more cost-
effective alternatives are available, or use existing solutions, to 
address the risks. For example, an official from Miami-Dade Transit 
explained that when funding is not available to address security 
risks, the agency's security program supervisors work with facilities 
maintenance staff to determine whether corrective measures could be 
addressed during facilities maintenance work. 

Transit Agencies Take Actions to Help Ensure the Continuity of Transit 
Systems and to Mitigate the Impact of Catastrophic Events on Physical 
Assets: 

In addition to developing plans and performing risk assessments, all 
nine transit agencies showed us or told us about redundant facilities 
or transit assets to help ensure continuity of transit service if a 
portion of their systems or facilities is damaged during catastrophic 
events. For example: 

* Six transit agencies have built, are building, or have requested 
funding to build backup command, control, or communications centers to 
direct transit operations in case the main center is affected by a 
catastrophic event. Some of these centers are mobile in nature so that 
they can change their location as needed. In general, redundant or 
backup centers provide transit agencies the ability to dispatch trains 
and buses should the main centers be unable to do so. See figure 3. 

Figure 3: Mobile Communications Center Used by the Los Angeles Area's 
Orange County Transportation Authority: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: Orange County Transportation Authority. GAO-15-159. 

[End of figure] 

* Los Angeles area's Orange County Transportation Authority uses buses 
powered by natural gas to provide bus service, but this agency also 
maintains a small contingency fleet of diesel-powered buses in ready 
condition that can be placed into service immediately in an emergency. 
An official from this agency said that this diesel-powered fleet is a 
critical resource: if a major earthquake, for example, interrupts the 
delivery of natural gas to his location, the diesel buses could become 
the only emergency transportation resource capable of being refueled 
and providing bus service. 

* Seattle/Puget Sound Region's Washington State Ferries has ferry 
terminals that are susceptible to damage during an earthquake. As 
such, to ensure that ferry service can continue in the event of an 
emergency, this agency has built terminals with more than one berth to 
increase the chances that at least one berth will remain functional to 
some level following a major earthquake. See figure 4 for a terminal 
with three redundant berths. In addition to redundant berths at any 
given terminal, Washington State Ferries also has additional terminals 
that could be used should all the berths at a terminal be unusable. An 
official from Washington State Ferries said that ensuring the 
continuity of service for the ferries is important in his region 
because the ferry system could experience an increase in the number of 
users while the road systems are being repaired. 

Figure 4: Three Redundant Berths at Seattle/Puget Sound Region's 
Washington State Ferries Ferry Terminal: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: GAO. GAO-15-159. 

Note: Washington State Ferries also has additional terminals that 
could be used if all berths at a terminal become unusable. 

[End of figure] 

All nine transit agencies provided us with information about, or told 
us about, their efforts to coordinate with other local or regional 
agencies to, for example, help prepare for, respond to, and recover 
from catastrophic events and to help ensure that their systems can 
resume or continue operations if such events were to occur. We found 
transit agencies that have, as FTA suggests, formal agreements with 
other transit or transportation agencies to facilitate the 
coordination, and other transit agencies that participate in local or 
regional transit coordination groups. For example, the Seattle/Puget 
Sound region's King County Metro Transit has a memorandum of 
understanding with the City of Seattle's Department of Transportation 
which defines and coordinates the actions each agency will take during 
snow events (such as providing certain bus services and removing snow 
on roads). Additionally, two transit agencies we visited in the Los 
Angeles region have a formal agreement with other transit agencies in 
California that describes how transit agencies in the state will, in 
an emergency, receive and provide mutual assistance to each other in 
the form of personnel, services, and equipment so that transit systems 
can continue to operate. Separately, officials from Philadelphia's 
SEPTA told us that while they do not have a formal agreement with 
other local transit agencies, they participate in a regional transit 
working group to, among other things, address common security-related 
issues, coordinate drills and training, and efficiently administer and 
procure certain security equipment and other services. 

While we did not assess the effectiveness of the selected transit 
agencies' coordination efforts with other state and local agencies, 
our July 2009 report on disaster assistance stated that stakeholders 
faced obstacles with coordination and collaboration after the 2005 
Gulf Coast hurricanes.[Footnote 46] Based on our review of five past 
disasters, we found that collaborative practices could help 
communities recover and rebuild from catastrophic events.[Footnote 47] 
Accordingly, we recommended that FEMA establish a mechanism for 
sharing information and best practices focused on disaster recovery, 
including practices that promote effective collaboration. In September 
2013, we found that FEMA had implemented this recommendation. 

In addition, eight transit agencies we visited showed or told us about 
changes they have made to their physical infrastructure to mitigate 
the impacts of catastrophic events on their transit systems. For 
example: 

* Miami-Dade Transit made changes to better protect its electrified 
third rail and reduce damage and replacement costs. This transit 
agency uses cover boards to protect the electrified third rail that 
supply power to its trains. Officials from this transit agency told us 
that hurricane winds ripped off cover boards in some places, damage 
that prompted them to look for better solutions to protect the third 
rail. As a result, officials installed newly designed cover boards 
that allow winds to flow through the cover, rather than catch the 
wind--thus allowing the cover boards and the third rail to better 
withstand hurricane winds (see figure 5.) 

Figure 5: Miami-Dade Transit's Cover Boards for the Third Rail: Old 
Design Can Be Blown Off by High Winds (Left), and New Design Mitigates 
Wind Damage (Right): 

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs] 

Source: GAO. GAO-15-159. 

[End of figure] 

* Philadelphia's SEPTA changed its roadside curbs and subway vents to 
reduce subway flooding. Flooding is one of the key risks to this 
transit agency's rail system. Officials explained that subway flooding 
occurs, in part, because water accumulates near roadside curbs that 
have deteriorated, thus allowing water to enter vents that provide air 
to the underground train system. To remedy the problem, the transit 
agency raised curbs or vents throughout the city to minimize water 
flow into the vents (see figure 6). Prior to implementing this 
renovation, the transit agency had previously relied on a strategy of 
covering vents susceptible to flooding with plywood and sand bags in 
advance of large storms, but this process was labor intensive and 
dependent on how much time was available before a storm. 

Figure 6: Deteriorated Curb That Allowed Water to Easily Enter Subway 
(Left) and Raised Curb and Vent That Minimized Water Flow into Subway 
(Center and Right): 

[Refer to PDF for image: 3 photographs] 

Source: GAO. GAO-15-159. 

[End of figure] 

Transit Agencies Face Challenges in Placing Priority on Resilience and 
with Certain Aspects of Some Federal Grants: 

Officials from DOT, DHS, transit agencies and emergency management 
offices we visited stated that transit agencies face challenges 
related to placing priority on resilience and some aspects of certain 
grant programs that can help make transit systems resilient.[Footnote 
48] These challenges were the most frequently cited challenges across 
the agencies we reviewed.[Footnote 49],[Footnote 50] DOT, DHS, and 
some transit agencies have taken or are taking some actions to address 
identified challenges. 

Placing Priority on Resilience May Be Challenging: 

Officials from DOT, DHS, and the transit agencies and emergency 
management offices we visited identified a variety of challenges that 
make it difficult for transit agencies to place priority on resilience 
activities. 

First, officials from DOT and DHS told us that resilience may not be a 
priority for transit agency managers. These managers may not make 
resilience a priority because it is difficult for them to make the 
case for resilience projects and because catastrophic events occur 
infrequently. As far back as June 1998, we reported that state and 
local governments might be reluctant to take actions that improve 
resilience to natural hazards because, among other reasons, decision-
makers may not have complete or accurate information on the extent to 
which averted losses could exceed the increased cost of resilience 
actions.[Footnote 51] Gathering comprehensive and reliable data to 
make decisions about cost-benefit tradeoffs continues to be difficult. 
FTA has developed a tool to help transit agencies in Sandy-affected 
areas evaluate the cost-effectiveness of resilience projects in 
reducing the vulnerabilities of both an asset and of the public 
transportation system to future disasters. This information on cost-
effectiveness was among the factors FTA used to help it determine 
which resilience projects would receive ERP funds. Additionally, three 
transit researchers whom we interviewed agreed that it can be 
challenging to convince management that preparing transit systems for 
future catastrophic events should be a priority; they further 
explained that this is because such events may not happen or may 
happen infrequently. 

Second, officials from four transit agencies we visited as well as 
DOT, and DHS indicated that resilience activities compete with other 
priorities for funding. 

* Competing with other transit agency priorities: Resilience 
activities may compete with other transit agency priorities--such as 
those that address systems operations --for funding. For example, an 
official from Seattle/Puget Sound Region's Washington State Ferries 
explained that because his transit system lost a critical source of 
funding--the state's motor-vehicle excise tax--the agency needed to 
direct its existing funding sources to operating and construction 
costs, which left little room for resilience-related activities, such 
as building redundant systems. Officials from Philadelphia's SEPTA 
told us that they sometimes have to prioritize funding to address 
federal requirements--such as a requirement to install positive train 
control on railroads used to transport commuters, inter-city rail 
passengers, or hazardous materials--which limits the funding that is 
available for other agency activities such as those that help make 
their system resilient.[Footnote 52] 

* Competing with other state priorities: In 1998, 2007, and 2014, we 
found that state and local governments might be reluctant to invest in 
resilience-building activities--such as hazard mitigation--because 
leaders may be concerned that these activities will detract from 
economic development goals that may be a higher priority for 
communities.[Footnote 53] According to a FEMA official, transit 
systems have not been high priority in states' applications for FEMA 
mitigation grants, such as the HMGP, in part because states tend to 
focus on other priorities that are of interest to communities. The 
FEMA official told us, for example, that after Hurricane Sandy, a 
state prioritized HMGP grants for residential housing rather than for 
transit. An official from an emergency management office said that 
these competing priorities may limit the funding provided to transit 
agencies and affect their ability to undertake activities that could 
help make their systems resilient. 

Third, officials from seven transit agencies and four emergency-
management offices said that federal funds are not always available 
for transit systems' resilience and limits their ability to undertake 
activities that could help make their systems resilient. Officials 
from some of these transit agencies said that federal funds are not 
always available to help them make their systems resilient to 
catastrophic events, particularly natural disasters, before they 
occur. For example, as discussed earlier, ERP funds are currently 
available only after an event occurs and only if Congress provides an 
appropriation specific to the event. Furthermore, according to 
officials from one transit agency and two emergency management 
offices, federal funds provided after a disaster to improve resilience 
to future disasters are limited. An official from the transit agency 
said that funding is limited because federal funds provided after a 
disaster, other than through the ERP, are largely focused on recovery 
and not mitigation or other activities that can be used to address 
resilience. An official from one of the two emergency management 
offices said that following a disaster, state or local funding may not 
be readily available to cover the federal cost sharing requirements 
applicable to federally funded projects, thus preventing them from 
receiving the federal funds. In addition, officials from some of the 
transit agencies said that funding for the TSGP, a grant program that 
helps transit agencies improve their systems' resilience to security 
risks, is sporadic and difficult to obtain or has declined. As 
discussed earlier, TSGP funds for public transit peaked in fiscal year 
2009 at almost $500 million; but were at or below $90 million in each 
of the past 3 fiscal years. Miami-Dade Transit officials said that the 
lack of TSGP funding has made it difficult to obtain funding to 
implement security upgrades at facilities, and officials from 
Seattle/Puget Sound Region's King County Metro Transit said the 
decline has made it difficult to obtain funds to maintain implemented 
security solutions.[Footnote 54] The four transit researchers we spoke 
with agreed that the availability of funds for resilience is a 
challenge for transit agencies. Two of these transit researchers 
further explained that funding resilience activities is especially 
challenging for smaller transit agencies or agencies that do not have 
enough funding from fare box revenue to address their operating costs. 

Making choices about how to prioritize activities given finite 
resources is not a new or unique dilemma for transit agencies. In 
March 2006, we found that while transit agencies that operate rail 
systems may use FTA financial assistance for security activities, such 
as upgrading security technologies, they must balance and prioritize 
such investments in security against other competing needs.[Footnote 
55] Furthermore, making choices about how to prioritize activities, 
which involves the consideration of trade-offs, is similar to the 
process that other organizations, including Congress and federal 
agencies, must go through when confronted with funding requests that 
have merit, but exceed the amount of available funding.[Footnote 56] 
Nonetheless, as noted below, some stakeholders we interviewed are 
considering actions to assist transit agencies place priority on 
resilience activities. 

Philadelphia's SEPTA and FTA are considering some actions that could 
help place priorities on resilience activities within their agency: 

* While participating in an FTA-funded climate-change adaptation-
assessment pilot program, officials from SEPTA found, that one 
strategy that could help ensure that the agency addresses resilience 
across a range of weather events is to incorporate assets' climate 
change vulnerabilities in SEPTA's asset management program. The 2013 
report that summarized the results of the pilot program concluded that 
if this vulnerability information is included in an asset management 
program, decision-makers can use this information to help them 
determine how to address those issues in future maintenance or new 
construction investments.[Footnote 57] This agency has incorporated 
elements of this strategy into its asset management program. 

* FTA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on an asset 
management system, as discussed earlier, and is considering whether 
risk analyses, among other things, should be included in transit 
agencies' asset management plans to help transit agencies make 
investment and other decisions.[Footnote 58] While the proposed 
rulemaking does not specifically refer to transit system resilience, 
consideration of a transit system's risk during investment 
prioritization decisions could help minimize those risks and thus 
improve the resilience of a system. 

Some Federal Grant Program Requirements Pose Challenges for Use of 
Federal Funds for Resilience: 

Transit agency, emergency management, and federal officials also cited 
challenges specifically related to some aspects of federal grants, 
challenges that have affected how or the extent to which transit 
system resilience is addressed. These challenges are discussed below. 

* Incorporating resilience into disaster recovery: Officials from 
emergency management offices in Miami-Dade County and Philadelphia as 
well as officials from Philadelphia's SEPTA and a FEMA official, 
identified challenges with incorporating mitigation activities into 
disaster recovery due to the difficulty of coordinating available 
funding streams. As discussed above, mitigation is one action that can 
contribute to resilience. After a presidentially declared major 
disaster or emergency, an affected state can request funds from FEMA's 
Public Assistance grant program for response and recovery efforts, 
such as for repairing or replacing disaster-damaged transportation 
infrastructure.[Footnote 59] However, an official from one of the 
emergency management offices said that because federal and state 
processes for distributing federal funds that can be used for 
mitigation (i.e., FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds) takes 
time, transit agencies may not be able to use these funds during their 
recovery efforts, such as those that occur with the help of the Public 
Assistance grants. Further, an official from another emergency 
management office said that hazard mitigation grants become available 
after much of the rebuilding is under way or complete. Given the 
different timelines for the Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation 
Grants, opportunities to incorporate resilience into projects 
occurring during the recovery stages of a disaster can be missed. 
Determining when agencies should focus on resilience and recovery can 
be difficult. In March 2010, we found that state and local governments 
might not have the capacity to focus on recovery soon after a 
disaster.[Footnote 60] We have ongoing work to evaluate select efforts 
to facilitate resilience as part of the Sandy recovery effort. We plan 
to issue a report on these efforts in 2015. 

* Decreased focus on regional resilience. Officials from 
Philadelphia's SEPTA, the Los Angeles area's Orange County 
Transportation Authority, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan 
Transportation Authority, and one emergency management office said 
that changes with FEMA's TSGP grant program has affected efforts to 
improve regional resilience. In fiscal year 2011, DHS revised its 
policy for the TSGP grant program from one where the funds were 
allocated to high-risk regions and given to transit agencies in those 
regions using a collaborative process to a nationally competitive 
grant program where all transit agencies nationwide competed for the 
funds. When grants were regionally allocated, transit agencies were 
required to work together to determine how best to request and 
allocate TSGP funds for their region. According to officials from two 
transit agencies, such collaboration with other transit agencies in 
their region is important because a city's transit network is often 
comprised of transit systems run by multiple transit agencies. 
However, when the grant program became competitive, officials from 
three transit agencies and one emergency-management office said that 
transit agencies had less incentive to collaborate with other transit 
agencies in their region because all the agencies were competing for 
the same pool of TSGP funds. FEMA officials told us that the grant 
program still encourages regional collaboration because such 
collaboration is a criterion for determining grant distributions. 
Furthermore, one emergency-management office said that changes with 
another FEMA grant program--the Regional Catastrophic Preparedness 
Grant Program--also potentially limited regional coordination. In 
fiscal year 2012, the Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant 
Program--which was used to support regional all-hazard planning for 
catastrophic events--was discontinued as it was no longer funded. 
According to FEMA officials, this grant program enabled agencies, 
including transit agencies, in a region to coordinate their 
preparedness and planning efforts with other agencies in their region. 
However, officials from the emergency management office told us that 
the discontinuance of the grant program may limit transit agency 
coordination and cooperation that existed under the grant as agencies 
compete with one another for other FEMA preparedness grants. Despite 
transit agencies' decreased incentive to coordinate with other transit 
agencies, we found--as we discuss earlier--that transit agencies 
continue to coordinate with other transit agencies through formal 
agreements or by participating in local or regional transit 
coordination groups. 

* Short period of performance to address resilience of certain assets: 
In fiscal year 2012, DHS changed the period of performance for the 
TSGP grants from 3 to 4 years--depending on the type of project--to 2 
years. According to DHS officials, DHS took this action to encourage 
transit agencies to use their grants quickly. Officials from 
Philadelphia's SEPTA told us that DHS's requirement that transit 
agencies complete projects funded by TSGP grants in 2 years makes it 
challenging for their agency to undertake projects that address 
resilience. Specifically, these officials explained that because of 
DHS's emphasis on completing projects within 2 years, transit agencies 
cannot fully address the resilience of the assets needing greater 
attention because projects related to these assets generally take 
longer than 2 years to complete. According to DHS officials, based on 
a review of seven transit agencies, the length of time for completing 
transit security projects that require construction ranged from about 
2.5 to about 5 years, depending on the type of project.[Footnote 61] 
Transit agencies may request an extension to the 2-year period of 
performance; however, according to DHS guidance on the grants, such 
extensions are only given under exceptional circumstances, such as if 
a natural disaster or other major event were to occur or if complex 
environmental reviews cannot be completed within the time frame. A DHS 
official told us that his agency recognizes the 2-year performance 
period to be a challenge for transit agencies and said that DHS is 
working with transit agencies and Congress to find the right balance 
between getting funding deployed versus the length of time it takes to 
complete more complex projects. The extent of this challenge may 
differ depending on each agency's system. For example, a transit 
researcher we spoke to said that in general, shorter performance 
periods are typically not a problem for transit agencies that 
primarily have bus fleets because projects associated with buses do 
not take as long to complete as rail projects. 

Concluding Observations: 

One of the goals of public transit systems, post-disaster, is to 
resume operations as quickly as possible. After catastrophic events, a 
system can take days, weeks, or months to fully recover and rebuild. 
In the past 13 years, the vulnerability of transit systems to 
catastrophic events has been repeatedly demonstrated as these events, 
particularly extreme weather events, have occurred more frequently. 
Such events are expected to increase going forward. Given that 
catastrophic events can be challenging to predict, transit agencies 
find themselves in the difficult situation of trying to balance the 
needs of daily operations with preparing for such events. There is a 
constant need to balance the immediate needs with the "what-if" needs 
as decision-makers prioritize use of their finite resources. The role 
of the federal government in providing resilience-related assistance 
to transit agencies may fluctuate, depending on the catastrophic 
events and the related authority and appropriations Congress provides 
to DOT and DHS. While it is not possible to make a transit system 
completely immune to catastrophic events, continued efforts by all 
parties to place priority on and improve resilience through 
preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation can help our nation's 
transit systems potentially better withstand and recover from such 
events and reduce their human and economic impacts. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided DHS and DOT with a draft of this report for review and 
comment. DHS and DOT provided technical comments, which we 
incorporated in the report as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is 
available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or WiseD@gao.gov. Contact points for our 
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to 
this report are listed in appendix II. 

Signed by: 

David J. Wise: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This report examines (1) how DOT and DHS help transit agencies make 
their systems resilient to catastrophic events; (2) actions selected 
transit agencies take to make their systems resilient; and (3) 
challenges transit agencies face with making their systems resilient 
to such events. Catastrophic events are those that result in 
extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption 
severely affecting the population, infrastructure, environment, 
economy, national morale, and/or government functions. Our review 
focuses on catastrophic events caused either by nature (e.g., 
hurricanes, flooding, fires) or by humans (e.g., security events, 
including terrorism). Transit modes included in our review include 
rail transit (light-rail, heavy rail, commuter rail), bus, and ferry 
systems. 

To determine the activities DOT and DHS take to help transit agencies 
make their systems resilient to catastrophic events, we reviewed and 
analyzed documentation from the two federal agencies on their relevant 
funding programs, requirements, guidance, policies, and technical 
assistance.[Footnote 62] We also interviewed officials from these two 
agencies. In addition, we reviewed funding data from DHS for the 
Transit Security Grant Program from fiscal years 2005 through 2014 and 
assessed the reliability of the data by interviewing agency officials. 
We determined that the data were reliable for the purposes of 
describing the amount of funding awarded for public transit. Also, to 
understand the federal government's overall approach to addressing 
resilience, we reviewed Executive Orders, Presidential Policy 
Directives, Homeland Security Presidential Directives, and national 
policy statements or plans for national critical infrastructure 
protection and climate change adaptation. Furthermore, we interviewed 
officials from transit agencies and emergency management offices in 
five metropolitan areas for their observations on DOT and DHS 
assistance. The five selected areas and the criteria we used to select 
them are described below. 

To identify actions selected transit agencies take to make their 
systems resilient, we reviewed documentation and interviewed officials 
from nine transit agencies and five local emergency management offices 
in five metropolitan areas (see table 4).[Footnote 63] The five 
selected areas are Los Angeles, California; Miami, Florida; 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Seattle/Puget Sound Region, Washington; 
and Washington, D.C. We selected the five metropolitan areas because 
they (1) are located in different geographic areas and have the 
potential exposure to different types of weather-and non-weather 
related risks (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, terrorism), (2) have 
varying types of transit modes (light-rail, heavy rail, commuter rail, 
bus, and ferry), and (3) are among the 10 largest metropolitan areas 
in terms of transit ridership.[Footnote 64] While we did not interview 
all transit agencies in each metropolitan area, we selected those that 
had relatively high transit ridership, were located in the city, or 
provided service to the city. While the information we obtained from 
the five areas is not generalizable to transit systems nationwide, the 
selected areas have some of the larger transit systems in terms of 
ridership. When we report the number of agencies that took a 
particular action to make their systems resilient, this does not 
necessarily mean that the remaining agencies did not also take those 
actions. It means that those agencies did not discuss those actions in 
documents provided to us or during the course of our interviews. 

Table 4: Emergency Management Offices and Transit Agencies Selected 
for GAO's Review: 

Metropolitan area: Los Angeles, California; 
Selected emergency management office: Los Angeles Operational Area 
Critical Incident Planning and Training Alliance, whose core members 
are the Los Angeles Sheriff's, Police, and Fire Departments; 
the Los Angeles County Fire Department and Office of Emergency 
Management and the Red Cross. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan 
Transportation Authority participates in this Alliance; 
Selected transit agency: Los Angeles County Metropolitan 
Transportation Authority; Orange County Transportation Authority; 
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink). 

Metropolitan area: Miami, Florida; 
Selected emergency management office: Miami-Dade's Office of Emergency 
Management, a Division of Miami-Dade Fire Rescue; 
Selected transit agency: Miami-Dade Transit. 

Metropolitan area: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 
Selected emergency management office: Philadelphia Office of Emergency 
Management; 
Selected transit agency: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation 
Authority (SEPTA). 

Metropolitan area: Seattle/Puget Sound Region, Washington; 
Selected emergency management office: City of Seattle Office of 
Emergency Management; 
Selected transit agency: Washington State Ferries; King County Metro 
Transit; Sound Transit. 

Metropolitan area: Washington, D.C.; 
Selected emergency management office: District of Columbia Homeland 
Security and Emergency Management Agency; 
Selected transit agency: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
Authority (WMATA). 

Sources: GAO. GAO-15-159. 

Note: In each metropolitan area, we selected transit agencies that 
were located in the city itself or provided service to the city. Also, 
we selected transit agencies that had relatively high ridership. 

[End of table] 

To identify challenges transit agencies face with making their systems 
resilient to catastrophic events, we asked officials from DOT, DHS, 
the nine transit agencies, and five emergency management offices to 
identify challenges. Officials identified challenges when we 
explicitly asked them to identify them or during the course of our 
discussion. We analyzed the information gained from these officials to 
identify the most frequently cited challenges. The most frequently 
cited challenges were those that were cited by four or more transit 
agencies (about half of the transit agencies selected), two or more 
emergency management offices (about half of the emergency management 
offices selected), or both DOT and DHS. When we report the number of 
agencies that identified a particular challenge, this does not 
necessarily mean that the remaining agencies did not also experience 
the challenge. It means that those stakeholders did not raise the 
challenge during the course of our interviews. We also interviewed 
four researchers knowledgeable in transit systems, emergency 
management, or federal transportation programs to further understand 
the challenges transit agencies face. We identified these researchers 
based on our review of transportation research institutes and 
recommendations from officials we interviewed. 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2013 through December 
2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

David J. Wise, (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO staff who made significant contributions to this report include 
Catherine Colwell, Assistant Director; Melissa Bodeau; Martha Chow; 
Roshni Davé; Peter DelToro; Lorraine Ettaro; Kathryn Godfrey; David 
Hooper; and Owen Starlin. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] According to the Department of Homeland Security, catastrophic 
events are emergencies or disasters that result in extraordinary 
levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting 
the population, infrastructure, environment, economy, national morale, 
and/or government functions. 

[2] Sandy has been referred as both a hurricane and a "Superstorm." 
The National Hurricane Center declared Sandy a hurricane, but changed 
that designation to "post-tropical" storm just before it made 
landfall. In this report, we refer to the event as "Hurricane Sandy." 

[3] Disaster Relief Appropriations Act (DRAA), 2013, Pub. L. No. 113-
2, div. A, 127 Stat. 4 (2013). These amounts are not adjusted to 
account for sequestration under section 251A of the Balanced Budget 
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, which the 
Office of Management and Budget calculated would amount to a 5 percent 
reduction in nonexempt, nondefense discretionary funding for the 
fiscal year. 

[4] "The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), under its Emergency 
Relief Program, defines 'resilience' as 'the ability to anticipate, 
prepare for, and adapt to changing conditions and withstand, respond 
to, and recover rapidly from disruptions such as significant multi-
hazard threats with minimum damage to social well-being, the economy, 
and the environment." FTA defines a 'resilience project' as "a project 
designed and built to address existing and future vulnerabilities to a 
public transportation facility or system due to a probable occurrence 
or recurrence of an emergency or major disaster in the geographic area 
in which the public transportation system is located, and which may 
include the consideration of projected changes in development 
patterns, demographics, or climate change and extreme weather 
patterns." 49 C.F.R. § 602.5. 

[5] The U.S. Global Change Research Program was established by 
Presidential Initiative in 1989 and mandated by Congress in the Global 
Change Research Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-606, 104 Stat. 3096 
(1990), to "assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, 
predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global 
change. 

[6] Because the impacts of these events will result in increased 
fiscal exposure for the federal government in many areas, including 
critical transportation, we placed limiting fiscal exposure from 
climate change on our High Risk list. See [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-283], High-Risk Series: An Update 
(Washington, D.C.: February 2013) 

[7] According DHS, mitigation is the effort to reduce loss of life and 
property by lessening the impact of disasters. 

[8] See for example GAO, Disaster Resilience: Actions Are Underway, 
but Federal Fiscal Exposure Highlights the Need for Continued 
Attention to Longstanding Challenges, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-603T] (Washington, D.C.: May 14, 
2014) and GAO, Climate Change: Future Federal Adaptation Efforts Could 
Better Support Local Infrastructure Decision Makers, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-242 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 
2013). 

[9] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-512] and 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-603T]. 

[10] The U.S. Coast Guard has responsibilities over the security of 
ferry systems. We did not include the Coast Guard in the scope of our 
study. 

[11] Ridership is based on FTA's 2011 National Transit Database's 
total unlinked passenger trips. Total unlinked passenger trips are the 
number of passengers who board public transportation vehicles. 
Passengers are counted each time they board vehicles no matter how 
many vehicles they use to travel from their origin to their 
destination. 

[12] The other 15 critical infrastructure sectors are chemical; 
commercial facilities; communications; critical manufacturing; dams; 
defense industrial base; emergency services; energy; financial 
services; food and agriculture; government facilities; healthcare and 
public health; information technology; nuclear reactors, materials, 
and waste; and water and wastewater systems. 

[13] Resilience can incorporate a number of activities, such as 
engaging the whole community in the planning phase, linking public and 
private infrastructure interests, and communicating risks throughout 
the community. 

[14] Pub. L. No. 100-707, 102 Stat. 4689 (1988). Robert T. Stafford 
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, constitutes 
the statutory authority for federal disaster response activities 
especially as they pertain to FEMA and FEMA programs 

[15] In addition to FEMA's mitigation funds, communities may be able 
to seek recovery funds for resilience projects from other federal 
agencies, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development's 
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. CDBG funds are 
allocated to states by formula. 

[16] After the establishment of DHS by the Homeland Security Act of 
2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat 2135 (2002), oversight of public 
transit systems' security was transferred from DOT to DHS. The two 
departments have signed a memorandum of understanding to clarify their 
respective authorities over public transit systems and to provide 
departmental coordination. 

[17] Sections 1405 (6 U.S.C. § 1134) and 1406 (6 U.S.C. § 1135) of the 
Implementing Regulations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9-11 
Act), Pub. L. No. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266, 402 (2007). 

[18] 49 U.S.C. § 5307 (Urbanized areas), § 5310 (Formula Grants for 
the enhanced mobility of seniors and individuals with disabilities), § 
5311 (non-urbanized areas), § 5337 (State of Good Repair Grants), §§ 
5339 (and 5324) (Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Grants).Discretionary 
grants are authorized under 49 U.S.C. § 5309. 

[19] Formula grants are allocated based on formulas prescribed in 
statute or regulation. Discretionary grants are generally awarded on a 
competitive basis to eligible applicants for specific projects. 

[20] Funds under §§ 5307, 5311 (and 5324) are eligible to be used for 
operating expenses. 

[21] According to TSA officials, the BASE is a voluntary assessment; 
that is, it is an assessment used by TSA to encourage transit agency 
implementation of requirements, guidance, and standards--not to 
enforce compliance. TSA focuses BASE assessments on the nation's top 
100 transit systems, as identified by FTA, based on ridership and 
revenues. 

[22] Sections 1405 and 1406 of the Implementing Regulations of the 
9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266, 402 
(2007), codified at 6 U.S.C. § 1134 and 6 U.S.C. § 1135, respectively. 

[23] Prior to fiscal year 2012, FEMA typically required transit 
agencies to use their TSGP funds within 3 to 4 years. However, FEMA 
found that transit agencies were taking too long to use their grants, 
thus resulting in large balances of unused funds. As a result, in 
fiscal year 2012, DHS changed the period of performance for the TSGP 
grants to 2 years to encourage transit agencies to use their grants 
quickly. 

[24] TSGP funds awarded for public transit were made available through 
annual appropriations, starting in fiscal year 2005. Funds were also 
provided through a supplemental appropriation in fiscal year 2007, and 
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 in fiscal year 2009. 

[25] According to a FEMA official, FTA is invited to be part of this 
panel and has participated in some years, depending on availability of 
FTA staff. 

[26] According to FEMA officials, to get information about how these 
funds were used by transit agencies, they would need to ask the states 
for the information. While FEMA tracks information on the funds at the 
state level, it does not track how states disseminate funds among all 
their sub-grantees. 

[27] In March 2010, we found that some federal recovery funds after 
Hurricane Ike in 2007 and the Midwest floods in 2008 were released 
shortly after the disasters, making it challenging for some state and 
local governments to focus on recovery because they had limited 
capacity to do so at that time. In that report, we recommended that 
DHS, among other things, establish a long-term recovery structure to 
more effectively align the timing and level of involvement of the 
entity responsible for coordinating long-term community recovery 
assistance with the capacity of the affected state and local 
governments. See GAO, Disaster Recovery: FEMA's Long-term Assistance 
Was Helpful to State and Local Governments but Had Some Limitation, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-404] (Washington, D.C.: 
Mar. 30, 2010). In September 2011, FEMA issued the National Disaster 
Recovery Framework, which established a recovery structure intended to 
more effectively align the timing and level of long-term community 
recovery assistance with the capacity of state and local governments. 
In early 2015, GAO will issue a report that will evaluate whether 
Hurricane Sandy-affected areas are incorporating resilience into 
recovery efforts, and the challenges stakeholders in these areas 
experience. 

[28] FTA defines a rail "fixed guideway system" as any light, heavy, 
or rapid rail system, monorail, inclined plane, funicular, trolley, or 
automated guideway that: (1) is not regulated by the Federal Railway 
Administration; and (2) is included in FTA's calculation of fixed 
guideway route miles, or receives funding under FTA's formula programs 
for urbanized areas; or (3) has submitted documentation to FTA 
indicating its intent to be included in FTA's calculation of fixed-
guideway route miles to receive funding under FTA's formula programs 
for urbanized areas. 49 C.F.R.§ 659.5. 

[29] 49 U.S.C. § 5339. 

[30] FTA Circular 5010.1D, Grant Management Requirements, (Nov. 1, 
2008). 

[31] According to FTA officials, FTA does not track how often grantees 
have been required to return funds if their assets did not last 
through their useful life. 

[32] Pub. L. No. 112-14, § 20017(a), 126 Stat. 405, 703, codified at 
49 U.S.C. § 5324. 

[33] The Highway Trust Fund is an account established by law to hold 
federal highway user tax receipts (e.g., receipts for federal excise 
taxes on fuel and other taxes on commercial trucks) that are dedicated 
for highway and transit related purposes. 

[34] The General Fund of the U.S. Treasury holds federal money not 
allocated by law to any other fund account. 

[35] After the enactment of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 
No. 112-25, 125 Stat. 240(2011)), this amount decreased by 5 percent. 

[36] See GAO, Emergency Transportation Relief: Agencies Could Improve 
Collaboration Begun During Hurricane Sandy Response, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-512] (Washington, D.C.: May 28, 
2014) for more information about disaster relief transit agencies 
affected by Hurricane Sandy. 

[37] Pub. L. No. 113-2, div. A, title X, 127 Stat. 4, 35. 

[38] This is in response to Executive Orders and DOT's policy 
statements on climate change, 

[39] Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of 
Transportation and John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems 
Center, Transit Security Design Considerations (November 2004); and 
John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center for Intelligent 
Transportation Systems Joint Program Office, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Effects of Catastrophic Events on Transportation 
System Management and Operations (January 2003). 

[40] Federal Transit Administration, Response and Recovery for 
Declared Emergencies and Disasters: A Resource Document for Transit 
Agencies (Washington, D.C.: April 2012). 

[41] Pub. L. No. 112-141,126 Stat. 405 (2012) authorized surface 
transportation programs through fiscal year 2014. Legislation was 
enacted in August 2014 extending surface transportation programs and 
funding through May 31, 2015, for programs authorized under MAP-21. 
Highway and Transportation Funding Act, Pub. L. No. 113-159, 128 Stat. 
1839 (2014. 

[42] 78 Fed. Reg. 61251 (Oct. 3, 2013). 

[43] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-571], Transit 
Asset Management: Additional Research on Capital Investment Effects 
Could Help Transit Agencies Optimize Funding (Washington, D.C.: July 
11, 2013) 

[44] Officials at the remaining transit agency said that they have not 
adopted a definition for transit system resilience. 

[45] When we report the number of agencies that took a particular 
action to make their systems resilient, this does not necessarily mean 
that the remaining agencies did not also take those actions. It means 
that those agencies did not discuss those actions in documents 
provided to us or during the course of our interviews. 

[46] GAO, Disaster Recovery: Experiences from Past Disasters Offer 
Insights for Effective Collaboration after Catastrophic Events, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-811] (Washington, D.C.: 
July 31, 2009). 

[47] The five disaster discussed are the Loma Prieta Earthquake, 
Hurricane Andrew, the Northridge Earthquake, the Kobe Earthquake, and 
the Grand Forks/Red River Flood. We found that key collaborative 
practices include (1) developing and communicating common goals to 
guide recovery, (2) leveraging resources to facilitate recovery, (3) 
using recovery plans to agree on roles and responsibilities, and (4) 
monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on progress made toward 
recovery. See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-811]. 

[48] During interviews with officials from DOT, DHS, the nine selected 
transit agencies, and five selected emergency management offices, 
officials identified challenges when we explicitly asked them to do so 
or during the course of our discussion. When we report the number of 
agencies that identified a particular challenge, this does not 
necessarily mean that the remaining agencies did not also experience 
the challenge. It means that those stakeholders did not raise the 
challenge during the course of our interviews. 

[49] The methodology we used to determine the most frequently cited 
challenges is described in appendix I. 

[50] In addition to the challenges frequently identified by agencies 
we interviewed, we also heard about other challenges, but less 
frequently, that transit agencies face with making their systems 
resilient to catastrophic events. These challenges, as identified by 
transit agencies, include (1) incorporating resilience into transit 
agency planning or project design; (2) limited ability for smaller 
transit agencies to address resilience because of their size (such as 
limited staff and funding resources); (3) limited flexibility in 
addressing local or transit agency risks; (4) limitations with federal 
grant requirements (such as a requirement to provide a percentage of 
non-federal funds to FEMA-funded projects); (5) aging infrastructure; 
and (6) duplication and redundancy across federal efforts. 

[51] GAO, Disaster Assistance: Information on Federal Disaster 
Mitigation Efforts, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-RCED-98-67] (Washington D.C.: Jan. 
28, 1998). 

[52] Positive train control is a communications-based system designed 
to prevent certain types of accidents caused by human factors, such as 
train-to-train collisions, trains entering work zones, and 
derailments. The Rail Safety Improvement Act required that positive 
train control be installed by December 31, 2015. Pub. L. No. 110-432, 
div.A, § 104, 122 Stat. 4848, 4856(2008). In August 2013, we found 
that most railroads said that they would miss the deadline due to 
numerous challenges caused by the breadth and complexity of installing 
the system. See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-720], 
Positive Train Control: Additional Authorities Could Benefit 
Implementation (Washington, D.C., Aug. 16, 2013). 

[53] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-RCED-98-67]; GAO, 
Natural Hazard Mitigation: Various Mitigation Efforts Exist, but 
Federal Efforts Do Not Provide a Comprehensive Strategic Framework, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-403] (Washington, D.C.: 
Aug. 22, 2007); and [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-603T]. 

[54] Maintaining resilience-related infrastructure improvements and 
technologies after they have been implemented was another frequently 
cited challenge by transit agencies, with five transit agencies citing 
this as a challenge. 

[55] GAO, Passenger Rail Security: Evaluating Foreign Security 
Practices and Risk Can Help Guide Security Efforts, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-557T] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 
2006). 

[56] For example, in April 2009, we found that while Congress and 
federal agencies expressed frustration with the budget and 
appropriations process, it is in the annual appropriations process 
that the Congress considers, debates, and makes decisions about the 
competing claims for federal resources. Congress is confronted every 
year with claims that have merit but which in total exceed the amount 
the Congress believes appropriate to spend. It is not an easy process-
-but it is an important exercise of the constitutional power of the 
purse. GAO, VA Health Care: Challenges in Budget Formulation and 
Issues Surrounding the Proposal for Advance Appropriations, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-664T] (Washington, 
D.C.: Apr. 29, 2009). 

[57] ICF International, A Vulnerability and Risk Assessment of SEPTA's 
Regional Rail: A Transit Climate Change Adaptation Assessment Pilot, a 
report prepared at the request of the Federal Transit Administration, 
Department of Transportation (August 2013). 

[58] 78 Fed. Reg. 61252 (Oct. 3, 2013). 

[59] FTA ERP funds are not available to transit agencies unless 
Congress provides an appropriation for the ERP, as it did in the 
aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. 

[60] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-404].  

[61] We did not independently verify these time frames. 

[62] The U.S. Coast Guard has responsibilities over the security of 
ferry systems. We did not include the Coast Guard in the scope of our 
study. 

[63] We interviewed officials in-person or over the phone, or obtained 
responses to our interview questions via email. 

[64] Ridership is based on FTA's 2011 National Transit Database's 
total unlinked passenger trips. Total unlinked passenger trips are the 
number of passengers who board public transportation vehicles. 
Passengers are counted each time they board vehicles no matter how 
many vehicles they use to travel from their origin to their 
destination. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
"E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]