Proposed Rule: Major Capital Investment Projects: New Starts Program and Proposed Small Starts Program Category

Friday,
August 3, 2007
Part II
Department of
Transportation
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Part 611

Major Capital Investment Projects;
Proposed Rule
Notice of Availability of Proposed Policy
Guidance on Evaluation Measures for
New Starts/Small Starts; Notice
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:14 Aug 02, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\03AUP2.SGM 03AUP2
43328 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 149 / Friday, August 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • Hand Delivery: To the Docket proposed changes to the existing New
Management System; U.S. Department Starts program, as well as proposed
Federal Transit Administration of Transportation, Docket Operations, rules for the Small Starts program.
M–30, West Building Ground Floor, This NPRM is the culmination of two
49 CFR Part 611 Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Ave., public involvement initiatives for the
[Docket No. FTA–2006–25737] SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 New Starts and Small Starts programs—
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through the Small Starts Advance Notice of
RIN 2132–AA81 Friday, except Federal Holidays. Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (71 FR
Instructions: All submissions must 4864, Jan. 30, 2006) and the Guidance
Major Capital Investment Projects on New Starts Policies and Procedures
include the agency name and docket
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration number or Regulatory Identification (Notice of availability and request for
(FTA), DOT. Number (RIN) for this notice. For comments, 71 FR 3149, Jan. 19, 2006).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. detailed instructions on submitting These separate pre-rule public
comments and additional information involvement processes are being
SUMMARY: This Notice of Proposed on the rulemaking process, see the consolidated into this one rulemaking
Rulemaking (NPRM) provides interested Public Participation heading of the so that issues of overlap and
parties with the opportunity to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of coordination between these two aspects
comment on proposed changes to the this document. Note that all comments of FTA’s discretionary capital
Federal Transit Administration’s received will be posted without change investment program may be addressed.
(FTA’s) New Starts program and a new to http://dms.dot.gov including any This NPRM closes the dockets for both
proposed Small Starts program category. personal information provided. Please of these pre-rule activities and creates a
The new Small Starts program category see the Privacy Act heading under new docket for comments on the NPRM.
is a discretionary grant program SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. FTA provided further opportunity for
category for public transportation Docket: For access to the docket to public involvement by holding a
capital projects that run along a read background documents or number of listening sessions throughout
dedicated corridor or a fixed guideway, comments received, go to http:// the country. Those listening sessions
have a total project cost of less than dms.dot.gov at any time or to the Docket were held at the following dates and
$250 million, and are seeking less than Management System (see ADDRESSES). locations:
$75 million in Small Starts program
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron —San Francisco, CA—February 15–16,
funding. This NPRM addresses
Fisher, Office of Planning and 2006, Hyatt Regency San Francisco.
comments on the Advanced Notice of
Environment, telephone (202) 366– —Ft. Worth, TX—March 1–2, 2006,
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on
4033. FTA is located at 1200 New Jersey Radisson Plaza Hotel Fort Worth.
Small Starts issued on January 30, 2006 —Washington, DC—March 9–10, 2006,
Ave., SE., East Building, Washington,
and the draft Guidance on New Starts
DC 20590. Office hours are from 9 a.m. Wardman Park Marriott Hotel.
Policy and Procedures issued on
January 19, 2006, and makes proposals to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, FTA is planning to conduct similar
for the New Starts and Small Starts except Federal holidays. outreach activities on both this NPRM
programs which take into account these SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and the policy guidance that FTA is
comments. FTA is concurrently issuing issuing concurrently. Details on these
I. Background activities will be announced in a
policy guidance for comment that
describes the factors and measures used On August 10, 2005, President Bush Federal Register notice at a later date
in its evaluation process, which are not signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and on FTA’s Web site.
described in the NPRM. Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A The Response to Comments section of
DATES: Comments must be received by
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU). this notice summarizes and responds to
November 1, 2007. Section 3011 of SAFETEA–LU made a comments received on each of the
number of changes to 49 U.S.C. 5309, questions raised in the Small Starts
ADDRESSES: Written Comments: Submit
which authorizes the Federal Transit ANPRM and the Guidance on New
written comments to the Docket
Administration’s (FTA’s) fixed Starts Policies and Procedures. It begins
Management System, U.S. Department
guideway capital investment grant by restating each question, then
of Transportation, Docket Operations,
program known as ‘‘New Starts.’’ This summarizes the comments received on
M–30, West Building Ground Floor,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that question, as well as our response to
Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Ave.,
implements those changes and proposes the comments and concludes with
SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Comments. You may submit a number of other changes that FTA FTA’s proposal for addressing those
comments identified by the docket believes will improve the New Starts comments in our proposed regulatory
number (FTA–2006–25737) by any of program. language. The Response to Comments
the following methods: In addition to the changes made to the portion of the Preamble is broken down
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// New Starts program, SAFETEA–LU by the following subjects: Eligibility,
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online amended 49 U.S.C. 5309 to add a new Evaluation and Ratings, and Procedures
instructions for submitting comments. capital investment program category for for Planning and Project Development,
• Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. projects requesting less than $75 million first with respect to the Guidance on
Follow the instructions for submitting in Section 5309 Capital Investment New Starts Policies and Procedures and
comments on the DOT electronic docket funds and having a total project cost of then with respect to the APRM on Small
site. less than $250 million. That new capital Starts and concludes with a section
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. investment program, which will be entitled ‘‘Additional Discussion Items
• Mail: U.S. Department of referred to as the ‘‘Small Starts’’ for Comment’’ where FTA specifically
Transportation, Docket Operations, M– program, is the other subject of this seeks feedback on several new issues
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room NPRM. Based on comments received on that it would like to address in the final
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., this NPRM, FTA plans to issue a final rule. The Section-by-Section Analysis in
Washington, DC 20590. rule in the future that will finalize the this notice explains our rationale for the
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 149 / Friday, August 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 43329
language proposed for the regulation, as Finally, some thought that eligibility a portion of the construction of high
well as suggesting alternative proposals should be determined on a case-by-case occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, on which
to some provisions. basis. transit vehicles would run, with money
In order to make the regulation more Response: There is no statutory from the Section 5309 Capital
understandable, FTA is proposing to requirement that a fixed guideway Investment program. This has the
divide it into four subparts that will project must operate in its entirety in a advantage of providing more flexibility
cover General Provisions, ‘‘New Starts,’’ separate or exclusive ROW. The varied to project sponsors with creative ideas
‘‘Small Starts,’’ and ‘‘Very Small Starts.’’ responses indicate the difficulty in for potentially building cost effective
Subpart A would include General strictly defining the parameters that transit projects.
Provisions that apply to all projects should apply to BRT when it does not Specifically, FTA proposes to revise
seeking Section 5309 Capital Investment include a fixed guideway for its full the definition of ‘‘fixed guideway
funds. Subpart B would include those length. FTA has previously made system’’ to include the following clause
provisions that apply to New Starts eligibility determinations on a case-by- at the end of the definition:
(projects of $250 million or more in total case basis and has allowed eligibility for ‘‘Additionally, a transportation facility
cost or requesting $75 million or more projects that include a significant fixed shall be deemed a fixed guideway system
in New Starts funds). Subpart C would guideway portion, e.g., a dedicated solely for the purposes of funding eligibility
cover Small Starts projects (projects of busway, but also include some mixed- under New Starts (49 U.S.C. 5309(3) if the
less than $250 million in total cost and traffic sections. project is designed so that in any given
requesting less than $75 million in Proposal: FTA proposes to define a month (i) transit vehicles utilize the
Small Starts funds but not qualifying as BRT project as a ‘‘fixed guideway’’ if the transportation facility on a barrier-separated
project operates on a fixed guideway right-of-way; and (ii) by means of tolling or
a Very Small Start). Subpart D would
that is dedicated to transit or high other enhancements, 95 percent of the transit
cover Very Small Starts (a subset of vehicles using the facility will be able to
Small Starts projects which are less than occupancy vehicle use for at least 50
maintain an average speed of not less than 5
$50 million in total cost and $3 million percent of its length during the peak
miles per hour below the posted speed limit
per mile (excluding vehicles) and which period, or when congestion inhibits for the time they are on the facility.’’
meet other specified characteristics). transit system performance. In making
this determination it is not necessary In applying this definition FTA intends
FTA has chosen this approach, even to limit the amount of New Starts and
though there is a lot of similarity in the that the 50 percent of its length be
contiguous as long as the 50 percent that Small Starts funds that can be used for
requirements of each subpart, in order constructing the facility to that portion
to assist a project sponsor in finding all is dedicated is designed to provide
significant travel times savings. which benefits transit. FTA could
of the applicable procedures and calculate the ‘‘total project cost’’ of a
In addition, for the purposes of
evaluation criteria in a single subpart, fixed guideway made eligible under this
funding design and construction of New
depending on the size and nature of the proviso as follows: (i) The total project
Starts and Small Starts, FTA proposes to
proposed project. cost of the fixed guideway in its
revise the definition of a ‘‘fixed
II. Response to Comments guideway’’ to include projects meeting entirety, multiplied by (ii) a ratio, (a) the
certain other conditions. FTA is asking numerator of which would be the
The following is a summary of the
for specific comment, under a section expected peak transit vehicle-miles
comments received in response to our
entitled ‘‘Additional Discussion Items traveled on the fixed guideway and (b)
questions raised in Part 2 of the
for Comment’’ on this revised definition the denominator of which would be the
Guidance on New Starts Policies and
that would include a transportation expected total peak vehicle-miles
Procedures and in the Small Starts
facility that, by means of pricing and traveled on the fixed guideway. The
ANPRM, our response to the comments
other enhancements, replicates the product of the calculation would be
received and our proposal for
benefits of ‘‘free-flow’’ conditions for deemed the total project cost
addressing the issue raised by the
transit users historically achieved by a attributable to a transit project eligible
questions in the proposed NPRM.
physically separated right-of-way for funding under New Starts or Small
Guidance on New Starts Policies and available solely for transit and high- Starts. Eligible fixed guideway costs, in
Procedures occupancy vehicles. To make such other words, would be proportionate to
projects eligible for New Starts or Small the transit use of the facility.
Eligibility
Starts funding, FTA proposes to Alternatively, FTA and the applicant
1. How might FTA determine whether incorporate into the regulatory may designate a mutually agreeable
a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project is a definition of ‘‘fixed guideway system’’ a amount as the total project cost. In
‘‘fixed guideway’’ project? provision that deems such a facility, either case, the Federal share, if any,
Comment: Nine comments were subject to certain limitations, to be ‘‘a contributed toward such project costs
received in answer to this question. The separate right-of-way reserved for the would be made available subject to full
range of BRT eligibility requirements exclusive use of public transportation.’’ compliance with the standard rating
suggested in the comments highlights The operation of the new provision criteria for New Starts (or Small Starts)
the inherent difficulty in determining would be limited strictly to defining projects, as provided by applicable
whether a BRT project is a ‘‘fixed eligibility for discretionary funding statutes, regulations, and FTA guidance.
guideway’’ project. Some commenters under New Starts (49 U.S.C. 5309(d)) 2. Should FTA fund HOV projects to
suggested that eligible BRT projects and Small Starts (49 U.S.C. 5309(e)), the degree that they provide benefits to
should operate in an exclusive right-of- and would not alter the definition of public transit riders?
way (ROW) or that certain percentages ‘‘fixed guideway mile’’ for purposes of Comment: Sixteen comments were
of project length should be in an calculating the distribution of funds received in answer to this question.
exclusive ROW. Others stated that under formula programs administered Responses to this issue were equally
eligibility should be based on by FTA. mixed, with similar numbers of
percentage of length subject to certain The practical effect of amending the commenters supporting and opposing
features or ‘‘intensity’’ of usage, such as definition of ‘‘fixed guideway’’ in this the concept. Those who favored support
ridership or vehicles per unit of time. way is that it would allow FTA to fund for HOV projects cited minimum service
levels and ridership as necessary some of the proposed measures, it is less cost estimates. Option 2 responds to
conditions. Those opposed were desirable than Option 1. Several of the SAFETEA–LU by directly incorporating
concerned that the already limited FTA commenters favoring Option 1 stated an evaluation of the reliability of the
funding for New Starts projects would that Option 2 overemphasized the role forecasts when FTA evaluates and rates
be further reduced by those funds being of reliability in the evaluation of proposed projects.
diverted to projects traditionally funded projects relative to what was intended Proposal: FTA proposes to advance
by the FHWA. by SAFETEA–LU. the framework described in Option 2
Response and Proposal: FTA has not A number of commenters suggested into the NPRM with one exception that
participated in HOV projects through that neither Option 1 nor Option 2 is is discussed more fully in the next set
the New Starts program for the last preferred, but rather a new framework of questions. Instead of the nature of the
decade and FTA does not propose to should be developed in consultation problem or opportunity being evaluated
change that policy. However, as stated with the transit industry. However, few as one of the primary factors of project
in the response above, FTA is commenters provided specifics on how justification, along with effectiveness
considering revising the definition of a the framework could be structured. and cost effectiveness, FTA proposes
fixed guideway system, to allow for Most stated that analytical perfection that it will be rated and evaluated under
funding a portion of a new HOT facility should not be the goal, and that an ‘‘other factors’’. The effect of this change
that meets certain conditions. overemphasis on quantification of is that the ‘‘nature of the problem/
measures misses the need for judgment opportunity’’ rather than being included
Project Evaluation and Ratings about some factors that are important as a separate factor, will be considered
3. How might the New Starts yet inherently subjective. One as an ‘‘other’’ factor that can either raise
evaluation framework be changed to commenter suggested a point system be or lower the overall rating for project
better support informed decision- developed, similar to the one proposed justification.
making? Is there a preference for Option in the Transit Cooperative Research 4. In what ways could FTA improve
1, Option 2, or something different? Program Quick Response Project J–06 on the evaluation process to highlight the
Note: Option 1 was described as an the Small Starts program. ‘‘case’’ for a proposed New Starts project
extension of the current framework with the Response: FTA has striven to make its rather than focus on numerical ratings?
two new criteria in SAFETEA–LU, economic evaluations understandable, consistent, 5. Are there any other measures that
development and reliability of the forecast of and fair, and has emphasized that might indicate and characterize the
costs and ridership, added to the project quantifiable measures best achieve these nature and extent of the problem or
justification criteria currently used. The goals. Nevertheless, qualitative opportunity addressed by a proposed
project justification rating would result from measures have been used when New Starts project?
weights applied to the ratings for each of the sufficient quantitative measures cannot 6. How should FTA evaluate or rate
component criteria. The project justification be identified. Each option relies on a projects that address significant
rating described in Option 2 relied on ratings transportation problems compared to
of the problem or opportunity that the New
combination of quantitative and
Start was intended to address, the qualitative measures. projects that take advantage of
effectiveness of the project as a response, and Given the myriad of benefits opportunities to improve service?
the project’s cost effectiveness. The rating for associated with New Starts projects, it is Comment: Question 4 received 4
effectiveness would be based on ratings for difficult to create a New Starts comments, question 5 received 7
mobility for all users, mobility for transit evaluation process to effectively capture comments, and question 6 received 6
dependents, environmental benefits, and all of them. Further, it is not necessary comments. Questions 4, 5, and 6
economic development. The rating for to evaluate all the benefits in order to addressed FTA’s proposal to include in
reliability would be used to raise or lower distinguish the merits of projects. the evaluation of project merit an
ratings for project justification and local Option 2 allows for a more complete examination of the nature or extent of
financial commitment. organization of the key project the problem or opportunity in a
Comment: Seventeen comments were evaluation factors that address different corridor. FTA suggested some measures
received in answer to this question. Of perspectives of a project’s merits. These that might be used to quantify the
those commenters who chose between include the nature of the problem/ problem or opportunity in the corridor,
Options 1 and 2, the majority favored opportunity in the area where the including current bus travel speeds,
the Option 2 framework, stating that it project has been proposed, the project’s current highway speeds, vacancy rates,
allows FTA to more fully understand effectiveness as a response, the degree to value of land, and others.
and appreciate the merits of a particular which the project generates benefits The majority of commenters wrote
project. However, these commenters commensurate with its costs (cost that each project may have unique
suggested some slight modifications to effectiveness), the strength of the local strengths or may be structured to meet
Option 2, specifically with regard to the financial commitment, and the specific local objectives. Rather than
treatment of land use. The commenters uncertainty in the evaluation measures. FTA dictating standard measures that
stated that the treatment of land use This organization facilitates a more might indicate and characterize the
solely as a risk/uncertainty measure coherent description of the worthiness nature and extent of the problem or
rather than as a benefit measure under of a project for New Starts funding in opportunity, these commenters felt that
project effectiveness is inconsistent with language that is more understandable to each sponsoring agency should be left to
the intent of SAFETEA–LU. decision makers. In addition, define the specific measures appropriate
Those commenters favoring Option 1 SAFETEA–LU emphasizes the need for to their project. A few commenters
stated that it has the benefit of more reliable ridership and cost provided specific suggestions for
continuity and keeps the rating process information, adding ‘‘the reliability of measures that might be included in
stable for project sponsors. One of these forecasting methods’’ as a new defining the problem or opportunity
commenters wrote that because Option evaluation consideration, codifying the such as congestion/crowding relief and
2 involves the simultaneous ‘‘before and after’’ study requirement, maintenance of existing mode share.
introduction of numerous complex and requiring FTA to produce an annual The majority of commenters were
factors and includes subjective report on contractor performance in the opposed to giving more weight to
appraisals by FTA or its contractors for development of ridership forecasts and projects that seek to address
demonstrated transportation problems in the overall project justification rating. would be greatly diluted by other
than those projects that take advantage While actual rating measures will be regional economic factors.
of opportunities. described in policy guidance, one way Three commenters supported an
Response: At the heart of any to do this is to use a three-tiered rating evaluation of both regional and station
planning, environmental, or with the highest rating given to projects area economic impacts. One of these
transportation study is an adequate with severe transportation or economic commenters stated that regional forecast
description of the nature and magnitude problems; the next highest rating to models tend to be more reliable than
of the needs that are driving projects with less severe transportation those for smaller station areas.
consideration of projects that could or economic problems; and the lowest Commenters generally supported the
require significant funding and/or have rating for projects which are evaluation of both land use and
significant impacts on the communities opportunities to improve transportation economic development as distinct and
in which they are built. Because of the or economic development. Projects in separate measures, though few
diversity of regional conditions in areas with demonstrable existing comments articulated a clear difference
which New Starts projects are problems will be rated more highly than between these two measures. Many
implemented, local areas are in the best projects in areas where problems are comments characterized economic
position to describe the nature of the only predicted to develop over the next development and land use factors
needs that a project is intended to 20 to 25 years, all else being equal. As interchangeably or stated that land use
address. It is undeniable that projects congestion is one of the Nation’s most factors were a component or indicator of
that address problems that are already daunting transportation challenges, one economic development potential. One
severe have more benefits over the long measure that FTA intends to consider industry association supported
term than those that address problems under ‘‘other factors’’ is the degree to characterizing land use impacts as
that are less severe now, but which are which a project is a part of an effective ‘‘buildings and density’’ while
forecast to be worse over time. However, congestion reduction strategy. FTA will economic development would be
the New Starts process, which measures evaluate projects that are a principal characterized as ‘‘jobs and sales.’’
project benefits for forecast periods that As a means of predicting economic
element of an effective congestion
are 20 to 25 years into the future, based development impacts, several
reduction strategy, in general and a
on annualized costs and benefits, does commenters suggested that FTA focus
pricing strategy, in particular, more
not account for the year in which the on existing developer agreements and
highly. FTA seeks comment on how it
benefits occur. The conventional partnerships and the existence of local
might better measure congestion in the
approach that properly accounts for development incentives.
future. Response: FTA agrees that both
costs and benefits over time would be to FTA will also consider as an ‘‘other
determine them for each year into the station area economic development and
factor’’ any benefit of the project not regional economic impacts are useful
future and perform a net present worth covered under the project justification
computation to today. However, to and valid measures of project benefits.
criteria or other factors that the At the current time, however, the
account for each year of project costs Secretary determines to be appropriate
and benefits would pose a significant analytical tools used to develop regional
to carry out the evaluation. The rating economic analyses appear to be overly
burden on project sponsors due to the
for ‘‘other factors’’ will be compared to costly and burdensome to impose on
considerable effort required for interim
the combined rating for effectiveness every project sponsor. FTA intends to
year forecasts of travel and transit
and cost effectiveness and can be used continue research efforts and case
system capital and operating and
to raise or lower the overall project studies of both the station area impacts
maintenance costs. Therefore, projects
justification rating. and regional economic impacts to
designed to take advantage of an
opportunity to improve transportation 7. Is there a preference for analyzing develop tools that can be applied to
and economic development, while regional economic benefits or station measure the economic development
serving areas that have less severe area economic development benefits? impacts of New Starts projects. The
transportation problems compared to Could FTA utilize both perspectives in regulation is structured to allow new
what is predicted in the future, are evaluating expected economic measures to be added through policy
currently advantaged in the New Starts development impacts? guidance, following public review and
evaluation process compared to areas 8. How might FTA evaluate economic comment.
with current severe problems. development and land use as distinct Whether for land use or economic
Consideration of higher ratings for and separate measures? development, a common theme of the
projects with severe problems currently 9. Are there any additional methods majority of respondent suggestions was
can reduce this unfair advantage. available to predict economic to use indicators of the likelihood of
Proposal: FTA proposes to use the development impacts? If so, how might increased development in areas near
current ‘‘make the case’’ document these other measures be used to evaluate projects. Past research confirms that this
under ‘‘other factors’’ as the basis for proposed New Starts projects? increased development is not added to
evaluating the severity of the Comment: Question 7 received 7 the region but that the effect of transit
transportation or economic comments, question 8 received 11 investments is to attract development
development problem that the New comments, and question 9 received 16 around stations that would locate
Starts project is to address. This comments. Four commenters expressed elsewhere if not for the project, in effect
document is currently part of the a preference for analyzing station area redistributing development within a
evaluative information that FTA economic development benefits rather region. Existing land use conditions,
requests of sponsors of New Starts than regional economic development existing and planned transit-oriented
projects. While FTA will not dictate benefits. Reasons given for the plans and policies, and projections of
specific measures to describe the nature preference included agreement with increases in employment and revenues
and extent of the problem or FTA’s stated opinion that projections of are all factors that help to determine
opportunity addressed by the proposed regional benefits would be time- whether or not a transit project is likely
New Start project, it will consider the consuming and expensive and that a to have an impact on development.
nature of the problem and opportunity project’s influence on a regional basis Indeed, it is not possible to ascertain the
likelihood of a project’s effect on transit accessibility for developable data collection effort to improve the
surrounding development unless a areas in the corridor; and (5) the forecasts for this market, the Summit
number of factors relating to both land economic lifespan of new transit software used by FTA to calculate user
use and economic development are facilities proximate to those developable benefits will automatically capture any
considered in combination. Land use areas. FTA seeks comment on how it additional benefits that may accrue.
considerations provide information might better measure land use/economic FTA has always worked individually
about the potential for development or development in the future. with various project sponsors to better
redevelopment and whether that 10. Are there any other measures of capture the benefits resulting from
development can occur in a transit- mobility benefits that could be used to special events markets. Local travel
oriented way. Although these are evaluate New Starts projects? models are not generally structured to
necessary conditions, they are not in Comment: Ten comments were capture ridership/benefits for this
themselves sufficient to ensure that the received in answer to this question. market. Consequently, FTA has helped
proposed project spurs development, as Commenters suggested that FTA should project sponsors in the past to include
the local development climate must be examine ways to better capture the ‘‘off-model’’ calculations to capture
robust enough to provide the engine following in the mobility benefits these benefits and will continue to do so
needed for development; the project measure: benefits to highway users; in the future.
must be perceived as permanent to benefits resulting from special events FTA acknowledges the value of the
entice developer interest; and the trips; benefits resulting from non-home- trip not taken in terms of reducing
project must increase accessibility to the based trips; and benefits generated by congestion but has not yet been able to
area. Because all these factors must be automobile trips not taken due to develop methodologies capable of
viewed in combination, it is critical that enhanced pedestrian activity in the making reliable estimates of this benefit.
land use and economic evaluation corridor. Proposal: FTA is proposing to adopt
criteria be combined into a single Response: FTA is committed to a definition of user benefits that
criterion. incorporating highway benefits into its explicitly includes congestion relief
Proposal: Until additional research is mobility and cost effectiveness rating in benefits to highway users and
completed, FTA proposes to implement every way feasible. In fact, the pedestrians. FTA is supporting the
an evaluation measure for land use and ‘‘SUMMIT’’ software used by FTA to Office of the Secretary of Transportation
economic development impacts that calculate user benefits already has the and the Federal Highway
focuses on the potential for station-area ability to capture benefits to all Administration to improve travel
development impacts of the proposed transportation system users (including forecasts so that the transportation
projects. The best available measures of highway users). Further, the definition system user benefits to highway users
likely land use and economic of user benefits included in the current can be calculated reliably and be
development benefits can be derived regulation includes benefits to highway included in the cost effectiveness
from the circumstances in which the users. However, this function of the calculation. The Department of
projects would be implemented rather SUMMIT software cannot currently be Transportation expects to release a
than from actual forecasts of used because FTA has found that most Request for Proposals/Work Statement
development. This approach is travel models around the country do not for model improvements in Fall 2007. In
necessary because forecasts of accurately predict changes in highway the interim, as discussed below under
additional development due to New speeds resulting from transit item 4 of ‘‘Additional Discussion Items
Starts projects require considerable improvements. This is a problem with for Comment,’’ FTA will explore the use
resources and contain considerable travel models nationally. FTA does not of surrogate measures which can assess
uncertainty. have the resources on its own to correct the degree to which a proposed New
FTA proposes to use a single criterion the deficiencies but is working with the Start results in congestion relief. These
to ascertain the likelihood of increased Federal Highway Administration to measures could include the current
transit-oriented development resulting address this issue. The rule is structured level of service, delay compared to free
from a New Starts project. Given the in a way that once reliable forecasts of flow speed, or the average daily VMT on
important role that land use plays in such benefits can be produced, they can any highway facility in the project
increasing development, in developing easily be incorporated into the measures corridor.
specific measures for this criterion, FTA of mobility and cost effectiveness Absent any specific suggestions for
will draw upon many of the same through the policy guidance. In other measures of mobility benefits,
factors used in its current evaluation of addition, FTA proposes to adopt other FTA will use its policy guidance to set
land use. These will be augmented with measures on a temporary basis that specific measures for mobility. Two
indicators that provide further would provide an indication of the measures that FTA considers to have
incentives to development. A survey of congestion relief benefits to highway merit are user benefits per passenger
available research on the development users. Such measures would be based mile for those using the New Starts
impacts of transit suggests two primary on measures of current congestion in the project, and the absolute number of
transit-related drivers of development project corridor. FTA seeks comment on passengers using the project. The first
(1) increased accessibility and (2) how it might better measure congestion would measure the magnitude of the
permanence of the transit investment. in the future. user benefits for each traveler and
While the actual FTA proposes to Likewise, the SUMMIT software used whether the savings are significant,
evaluate whether or not the conditions by FTA already captures the benefits while the second would measure the
necessary to support economic resulting from non-home based trips to number of travelers affected.
development exist in the project the extent they are accurately estimated 11. Does the proposed (low-income
corridor by using the following specific in the local travel model. Typically, few mobility) measure entail
measures: (1) Current land-use areas of the country have good data on implementation difficulties for
conditions, (2) development and land- the non-home-based trip market, which measurement, reporting, or comparison
use plans and policies, (3) the economic affects the ability of the local model to between projects?
development climate in the corridor and develop accurate forecasts. If a local 12. Are there any other measures that
region, (4) the project-related change in area is willing to put resources into a FTA should consider when evaluating
the benefits that accrue to transit Proposal: The regulation simply states Comment: Question 14 received 6
dependent populations? that FTA will measure Mobility comments and question 15 received 11
Comment: Question 11 received 3 Benefits. The actual measures will be comments. Four comments received
comments and question 12 received 6 listed in policy guidance. One approach were in favor of eliminating the
comments. In the Guidance on New that FTA is considering is to utilize the operating efficiency criterion because of
Starts Policies and Procedures, FTA share of user benefits accruing to the inability of the measure to
proposed using a new measure for passengers in the lowest income stratum distinguish in a meaningful way
determining mobility for transit or to the lowest auto ownership stratum between projects. However, two
dependents—the share of user benefits (depending on which is used in the commenters disagreed with the
accruing to passengers in the lowest local travel model) compared to the proposal, stating that operating
income stratum or to the lowest auto regional share of the lowest income efficiency can be a significant factor in
ownership stratum (depending on stratum or lowest auto ownership comparing a single new rail line with
which is used in the local travel model) stratum for the region for evaluating the transit system as a whole.
compared to the regional share of the mobility for transit dependents. Response: In the past, FTA has used
lowest income stratum or lowest auto 13. How could FTA improve the the projected system-wide change in
ownership stratum. All commenters to current method of evaluating operating cost per passenger mile to
Question 11 noted that the proposed environmental benefits to produce a measure the impact of proposed New
measure may result in some more useful measure? Starts projects on operating efficiency.
inconsistencies among projects because Comment: Three comments were However, this measure has not proven
of this difference in how local models received in answer to this question. FTA to be a meaningful way of
stratify trip takers. An additional currently measures environmental distinguishing among proposed projects.
comment noted that in densely benefits from proposed New Starts On the other hand, FTA’s evaluation of
developed urban areas, transit projects by examining the projected cost effectiveness has always included
dependency does not correlate with change in regional vehicle miles the annual system-wide operating and
either income or car ownership. traveled (VMT), various types of vehicle maintenance expense as a component of
The comments included the following emissions, and energy consumption. All annualized cost. Therefore, the impact
suggested alternative populations to comments received indicated support of the project on operating and
include when calculating the benefits to for continuing the current measures maintenance costs is already captured
transit dependent populations, but did given that other replacement measures in the calculation of cost effectiveness.
not identify a specific way to measure are not readily available. One Proposal: FTA proposes to remove the
the benefits to these populations: commenter expressed concern that the operating efficiency factor as a separate
Elderly persons, persons with current measures are biased in favor of evaluation criterion, relying instead on
disabilities, and university students. projects that help reduce highway the evaluation of cost effectiveness to
One commenter suggested that FTA congestion and against those projects address this statutory criterion. Project
should include in the measure how well that help relieve transit congestion. sponsors may still calculate operating
the overall transit system serves job Since a project that is meant to reduce efficiency if they find it useful for their
centers, but there was no specific existing congestion on a transit system own comparisons.
discussion of how this might be does not reduce VMT, no environmental 16. Is it desirable for FTA to attempt
measured. benefits would be shown under the to incorporate other measures of
Response: FTA acknowledges that current method. The commenter stated effectiveness besides mobility when
examining the benefits that accrue to the that the rating process should make evaluating cost effectiveness?
lowest income stratum or the lowest accommodations for this situation, but 17. If so, what measures might be
auto ownership stratum from the local acknowledged that no other measures of incorporated and how?
travel forecasting models is only a environmental benefits are readily 18. How could FTA combine
surrogate for determining the benefits to available to address this problem. transportation system user benefits
transit dependents. But this information Response: The current measure is measures with economic development
is already available from all local travel limited to capturing reduced emissions, measures into a valid measure of cost
models and does not require projecting the change in VMT and effectiveness?
development of additional data by energy consumption as a result of Comment: Question 16 received 2
project sponsors. Furthermore, since the automobiles being taken off the road comments, question 17 received 1
measurement relies on the change in when travelers use transit instead of comment, and question 18 received 8
service for that stratum in a given city, driving. However, even in that case, the comments. For all three of the
it is not necessary for every city to use change is usually very small compared questions, comments received were
the same stratum in order for the to emissions region wide, limiting the opposed to incorporating other
measure to allow for comparisons usefulness of the measure. measures of effectiveness in the
between cities. Proposal: FTA proposes to continue evaluation of cost effectiveness. Reasons
FTA believes that whatever measure to evaluate environmental impacts, with for the opposition included the
is used, it should have a way of the actual measures identified in policy potential for ‘‘double-counting’’ benefits
identifying how the project serves guidance. FTA is currently conducting and the increased complexity that
transit dependents rather than simply research to try to develop other would result from adding other
characterizing the project corridor measures that better distinguish the measures.
demographics. Unfortunately, local environmental merits of projects. Response: FTA sees value in
travel models do not usually stratify 14. Should FTA rely on the cost acknowledging additional benefits of
trips by some of the suggested effectiveness evaluation to address the transit projects when comparing
categories—elderly persons, persons operating efficiency criterion? benefits to costs. There are two major
with disabilities, and university 15. If not, in what way could agency components of these additional benefits
students. Consequently, the benefits operating cost information be used to that are distinct from those currently
accruing to these populations cannot be compare New Starts projects to each calculated: Travel time saved by users of
calculated. other? the highway system who experience less
congestion as a result of fewer vehicles replacement cycles, miles between (72 FR 2583) establishing the Pilot
on the highway; and transportation breakdowns, and budgeted purchases. Program’s operating criteria and
benefits from more compact Three additional comments soliciting formal applications.
development patterns. For the first, FTA concerned with the current evaluation FTA believes that the process of
has discovered that current highway methodology were received, but the establishing Public-Private Partnerships,
assignment models do not reliably commenters did not suggest ways to which include innovative arrangements
predict the reductions in travel time for improve the evaluation methodology. for operating New Starts projects, can
highway users. Research and Other points noted in the five comments result in contractual arrangements that
development of improved travel models indicated the policy guidance was not can reduce and/or improve the
are needed to ensure that highway travel clear with regards to who will assess reliability of forecasts of operating costs
time benefits are reliable. For the financial capability. One commenter on New Starts systems. Arrangements
second, additional development would stated that the current process examines under which private sector interests
have to be forecast with and without the the reliability of capital, operating, and take responsibility for the design,
New Starts project and travel models maintenance cost estimates under both construction, operations, finance, and
employed to ascertain the user benefits the project justification evaluation and maintenance of projects can result in
that result. The analytical analysis the financial capability evaluation and transferring much of the long term risk
required to accomplish this is beyond requested more detail from FTA on of project capital and operating costs to
the capabilities of the current demand exactly how financial capability is the private partner. Alternatively, the
forecasting models in virtually every currently evaluated. Lastly, one process of procuring such arrangements
urban area in the nation. As a result, at commenter stated that the requirements can identify changes that can produce
this time there is no analytical approach for operating and maintenance plans are significant improvements in the
that can be implemented to determine more detailed than necessary for efficiency of publicly provided services
the additional economic development systems with a long history of consistent through innovative contractual
benefits that should be added to those performance. arrangements. As a result, projects
currently predicted for travel time Response: Although not specifically which utilize such approaches are likely
savings. However, FTA has identified a accounted for in the financial capability to be rated better, because operating
surrogate for including economic evaluation process, FTA does consider costs will be lower (producing better
benefits to the travel time savings the degree to which private sector ratings of cost effectiveness), and the
calculation. The breakpoint for cost resources are utilized to assist with reliability of the estimates of such costs
effectiveness already includes an project financing when making funding will be higher (producing higher ratings
assumption that the non-transportation recommendations. In addition, FTA has of reliability). FTA asks for specific
recently initiated the Public Private comments on this approach under
benefits, including economic
Partnership Pilot Program outlined in question 5 under the section
development, are approximately equal
SAFETEA–LU as a means to distinguish ‘‘Additional Discussion Items for
to the value of the travel time savings
projects that are supported by private Comment.’’
for a project. Therefore every city is
sector resources. FTA has tried whenever possible to
given the same credit for other benefits. Section 3011(c) of SAFETEA–LU base the financial ratings on readily
Proposal: Because of the difficulty of authorizes the Secretary of available information that all project
incorporating additional measures into Transportation to establish and sponsors consistently calculate and
its evaluation of project cost implement the Pilot Program to report. Of the additional items
effectiveness, FTA is proposing to demonstrate the advantages and mentioned by one commenter for
maintain its current cost effectiveness disadvantages of public-private inclusion in the capital condition
measure of annualized cost per hour of partnerships (PPPs) for certain new subfactor rating, FTA believes that
user benefits at this time. fixed guideway capital projects. In two—replacement cycles and budgeted
19. Are there any ways that FTA particular, the Pilot Program is intended purchases—are already captured in the
could improve the evaluation of to study whether, in comparison to average fleet age calculation. Clearly the
financial capability? conventional procurements, innovative average fleet age will change from year
Comment: Five comments were contracting arrangements, known as to year as replacement vehicles are
received in response to this question. PPPs, better reduce and allocate risks purchased and older vehicles retired.
Two comments were received with associated with new construction of This is true for all grantees. The other
specific suggestions for improvements such projects, accelerate their delivery, item mentioned by the commenter—
or changes to the financial evaluation enhance their operating performance miles between breakdowns—is not
process. The first comment stated FTA once they are constructed and improve always routinely prepared by all transit
should consider the degree to which the reliability of projections of project agencies or prepared with a consistent
private sector resources are leveraged to costs and benefits. This Pilot Program methodology. For example, different
assist with project financing (public- will evaluate this view as applied to the operators may classify breakdowns in a
private initiatives) as well as the degree procurement and operation of eligible different way. Therefore, FTA feels this
to which synergies between Federal projects, which may include projects would not be a good measure to use.
funding sources are leveraged to build funded under the Section 5309 Capital FTA believes the existing measures for
and operate the project. The second Investment program. capital condition are fair, easily
comment stated that FTA should On March 22, 2006, FTA issued a reported, and consistently applied to all
consider a broader set of indicators to notice in the Federal Register (71 FR grantees.
rate the current capital condition of an 14568), soliciting comments and In response to the comment that more
agency rather than just the average age requesting preliminary expressions of detail is needed from FTA on exactly
of the fleet and the agency’s bond interest in sponsoring a project under how financial capability is evaluated,
ratings. The commenter stated that the Pilot Program. Five potential project FTA would like to point out that each
capital condition should be evaluated in sponsors submitted expressions of year as part of the New Starts Reporting
the context of the project sponsor’s full interest. On January 19, 2007, FTA Instructions and again as an appendix to
fleet management plan, including issued a notice in the Federal Register the Annual Report on New Starts, FTA
includes a detailed description of the fail approach, particularly with regard reviews are unnecessary. In addition,
entire rating process, including a to making tough funding one commenter stated that peer projects
discussion of the financial capability recommendation decisions. A less are difficult, if not impossible, to
evaluation and rating process. Included rigorous evaluation of the operating and identify.
in this appendix are two matrices that maintenance financial plan, as Response: Although the New Starts
outline specifically what is required in suggested by one commenter, is process certainly includes mechanisms
the financial plan to receive each level inconsistent with the requirement intended to improve the quality of
of rating (from low to high) for each and added by SAFETEA–LU that FTA must forecasts, reliability can vary
every financial subfactor used in the ensure local funding is available to considerably for a variety of reasons that
evaluation. In addition, FTA has posted operate, maintain, and re-capitalize the relate to (1) transit-orientation of
on its Web site the guidance that it proposed project as well as the rest of existing and future land uses and land-
provides to its financial contractors who the transit system without a reduction use plans and policies, based on the
help develop the financial capability in existing services or levels of service. degree to which project effectiveness
ratings. This provides the industry with The change in SAFETEA–LU to this depends upon projected changes in
additional insight into exactly how the criterion was clearly intended to future land use patterns and the
ratings are determined for those areas of strengthen, not weaken, FTA’s review of likelihood of those changes occurring;
the evaluation that are more subjective the operating and maintenance financial (2) Project sponsor experience with
than quantitative. FTA feels the process plan. FTA believes the current financial implementing previous projects; (3)
is very well described, standardized, capability evaluation methodology Industry experience with the proposed
and completely transparent. meets the requirements of the law. project type; (4) The reliability of
Proposal: FTA proposes to keep the FTA agrees that project sponsors forecasting methods used to prepare
current financial capability evaluation should be given credit when higher those estimates, as well as the reliability
and rating process since the local shares are proposed. FTA proposes of the information provided to FTA for
requirements were not changed by to maintain the non-New Starts funding its evaluation of the project; (5) How the
SAFETEA–LU, the current process has share as one of the financial capability opening year project ridership compares
proven to be useful for distinguishing evaluation criterion. FTA proposes to to that estimated for the 20 to 25 year
among projects, and the process is continue the practice of giving project planning horizon; (6) Enhanced
thoroughly documented and sponsors a higher rating based on a reliability of operating cost forecasts due
transparent. However, FTA will higher non-New Starts share and will to use of innovative contractual
continue to issue the specific measures set the measures for this in its policy arrangements; and (7) Mitigation actions
for each factor for review and comment guidance. In addition, FTA may the project sponsor takes to help
in its policy guidance. In addition, the consider the non-New Starts share improve the reliability of the
proposed regulation would provide for during the decision to recommend a information submitted in support of a
an assessment of the degree to which project for a Full Funding Grant proposed project. For example, travel
project proposals include innovative Agreement (FFGA). However, consistent forecasts made for downtown circulator
contractual arrangements which with SAFETEA–LU, FTA will also projects are by their very nature less
produce significant reductions in consider the project sponsor ability to reliable than those for projects intended
operating expenses, or which improve provide only a 20 percent match and to attract a predominately commuter-
the reliability of forecasts of operating will not rate the project’s local financial oriented travel market. This is because
costs. commitment at less than Medium, travel models have traditionally been
20. Should the existing weighting solely on the basis of a 20 percent better able to predict the travel behavior
factors used to develop the financial match, so long as the project sponsor of commuters, and historically have
ratings be changed? can demonstrate that the 20 percent been poor predictors of travel involving
Comment: Seven comments were match is based on the limited fiscal the type of discretionary trips that a
received in answer to this question. Of capacity of State and local governments. downtown circulator is intended to
the comments received, approximately In this way, FTA can address the attract. Other travel markets that can be
half were in favor of maintaining the SAFETEA–LU requirement that FTA problematic to predict include
existing weights used to develop the consider State and local fiscal capacity suburban-to-suburban travel and park-
financial ratings, and half were at the same time that it addresses the and-ride travel in areas with few
opposed, stating that the current SAFETEA–LU requirement that it gives existing park-and-ride lots. In addition,
weights are awkward, provide little priority to financing projects with a capital cost estimates historically have
insight, and should be changed. Of higher-than-required non-New Starts/ been problematic for tunnels and
those opposed to the existing weighting Small Starts share. elevated structures. Moreover, recent
scheme, one commenter proposed a Proposal: The NPRM proposes that construction experience has shown that
simple pass/fail approach for evaluating the local financial commitment rating commodity prices can be volatile and
the capital financial plan as well as a consist of equally weighting the ratings that the bidding environment plays a
much less rigorous review of the of the capital and the operating financial much larger role in cost estimates
operating financial plan. Other plan. compared to the past.
comments received concerned retaining 21. How might the FTA incorporate Project sponsors of new transit
the credit given on the New Starts share measures of reliability into project projects commonly ask for peer reviews
rating when higher local shares are evaluation? to help them assess the quality of their
proposed. Comment: Four comments were cost and ridership forecasts. While FTA
Response: Not only does SAFETEA– received in answer to this question. All acknowledges that no two projects are
LU require FTA to rate projects on both comments received were opposed to identical, drawing on past experience
project justification and local financial incorporating measures of reliability from a similar type of project has proven
commitment on a five tier scale from into project evaluation, stating that the invaluable to improving the cost and
low to high, but also FTA sees merit in New Starts process already includes a ridership forecasts of the newer project
showing gradations in financial plan number of mechanisms to evaluate the because these projects often have
ratings versus employing a simple pass/ reliability of forecasts so that additional enough features in common to gain
insights that result in improved recent information available in making experiences cost increases due to
forecasts. its assessment of reliability. sudden market shifts beyond the project
Proposal: SAFETEA–LU specifically 23. How should FTA help to ensure sponsor’s control.
requires FTA to evaluate projects based that contingencies adequately reflect the Response: Although SAFETEA–LU
on the reliability of their forecasts. uncertainties in project design, prices, calls for projects to include adequate
Furthermore, FTA’s experience over the and quantities at each stage of project contingency funds ‘‘to cover
past three decades indicates that there is development? unanticipated cost increases,’’ the
a considerable range of reliability in Comment: Three comments were amount of contingency required
forecasts based on the factors discussed received in response to this question. depends on the amount and nature of
above. FTA proposes to consider Four themes or suggestions emerged uncertainties. FTA agrees that reducing
reliability of the costs and ridership from the comments that relate to the uncertainties earlier in the process
forecasts in its evaluation and to adjust, treatment of uncertainties, project costs, benefits everyone. FTA intends to
either upward or downward, the ratings and project contingencies. In the first pursue this through earlier use of its risk
of the individual criteria that rely on theme, dealing with project assessment and project management
these forecasts. The measures for uncertainties, many commenters stated oversight programs, as well as peer
reliability will be identified in policy that FTA’s project management reviews of cost estimates. The amount of
guidance but are likely to be designed oversight (PMO) program and risk contingency at various points can be
to address the issues addressed above, assessment processes constitute a guided by industry standard percentages
such as transit-orientation of existing worthwhile and sufficient approach. In but should be established for a specific
and future land use plans and policies; addition, one commenter stressed the project through collaboration between
project sponsor experience with value of peer review for cost estimates. FTA and the project sponsor after
implementing previous projects; Many commenters suggested that reviews have been conducted. FTA will
industry experience with the proposed uncertainties could be reduced through further study the commenters’
project type; the reliability of the simplification of FTA’s process, suggestions regarding early screening of
forecasting methods; a comparison of specifically through implementation of projects, rapid execution of the FFGA,
the opening year ridership to that policies to screen out unworthy projects institution of more collaborative
estimated for the planning horizon earlier (i.e., at entry to preliminary processes, the makeup of the cost
engineering (PE)) and to execute FFGAs effectiveness breakpoints, and cost
covering no less than 20 years; use of
within six months of final design entry. management. Nothing in the proposed
innovative contractual arrangements
A second theme, calling for greater regulation would preclude FTA from
which improve the reliability of cost collaboration between project sponsors
estimates; and mitigation actions taken making changes in these areas through
and FTA, was seen throughout the its policy guidance.
by the project sponsor. comments. Collaborative relationships Proposal: FTA proposes to add a
22. How should information on the and ‘‘shirt-sleeve’’ working sessions requirement, taken directly from
reliability of forecasts be modified or were suggested as a way of establishing SAFETEA–LU, as part of the criterion
updated as a proposed project advances appropriate contingency amounts after on the stability of capital funding plan
through project development? risk assessment, improving project that takes into account the availability
Comment: Six comments were reviews ‘‘through a series of intense of contingency amounts that the
received in answer to this question. One partnering sessions,’’ achieving greater Secretary determines to be reasonable to
comment was received stating that FTA accountability for project success, and cover unanticipated cost increases. FTA
and the project sponsor should work to assisting new project sponsors or will collaborate with project sponsors to
improve reliability of forecasts as sponsors with previous difficulties. ensure that project contingencies are
projects advance through project The third suggestion was that FTA appropriate to the specific uncertainties
development. The remaining should use an index other than the GDP related to the proposed project and to
respondents addressed the unrelated deflator to adjust cost effectiveness the level of design. For the purpose of
topic of how and when to solidify breakpoints given that supporting rating a project to address the reliability
funding sources. studies show that construction costs of the cost estimate, FTA will rely in
Response: FTA agrees that with more over the past five years have risen at large part on evaluations by its project
detailed information generated as the rates up to17 percent faster than costs management oversight contractors.
project progresses through project reflected in the GDP deflator. 24. What weights should FTA apply
development the reliability of forecasts The fourth theme is a corollary to the to each measure?
should improve over time. However, third and pertains to cost management Comment: Six comments were
FTA’s experience also shows that even procedures. Rather than requiring received in answer to this question. FTA
with this updated information, forecasts project sponsors to carry extraordinarily proposed to continue the equal
are by their very nature predictive and large contingencies that may jeopardize weighting of the local financial
that it is only through actual completion a cost effectiveness rating, many commitment and project justification
of the project that true costs and commenters suggested an incentive ratings when determining the overall
ridership are known. approach to cost control, specifically project rating. Of the comments received
Proposal: FTA acknowledges that it is allowing sponsors to retain remaining on this question, there was no clear
impossible to totally remove uncertainty funds at construction completion. In majority of opinion. One commenter
from any stage of the process. However, addition, commenters stated that project agreed with FTA’s equal weighting of
the measures prescribed by FTA are sponsors should be allowed to incur local financial commitment and project
written broadly enough to allow FTA to costs, even if they exceed the FFGA justification. One commenter stated that
tailor its assessment of reliability to amount by more than 5 percent, as long local financial commitment and project
reflect the stage that the project is in. as the project sponsor is responsible for justification should not be combined to
Therefore, FTA will use these measures paying for the cost increases out of its arrive at an overall project rating. This
to assess the reliability of forecasts as a own funds. The commenters did feel, commenter stated that the local
proposed project advances through however, that FTA should provide New financial commitment rating should
project development and use the most Starts funding flexibility when a project merely be pass/fail, and that the project
justification rating would prevail for the comprised of the following criteria and to provide more New Starts funding if
overall project rating if local financial weights: 40 percent to land use, 40 project costs are no more than 110
commitment were found to be worthy of percent to mobility for the general percent, and ridership no less than 90
a passing grade. Another commenter population, 10 percent to environmental percent, of the estimates made when the
suggested an entirely new weighting benefits, and 10 percent to transit project was admitted into PE.
scheme: 20 percent weight each to dependent mobility. Finally, under the Current FTA guidance on capital cost
mobility improvements, cost proposed regulatory text, a project estimation and travel forecasting
effectiveness, and financial capability; would not be eligible for a funding discusses the role of uncertainty in
15 percent weight each to land use and recommendation unless it achieves a forecasts and describes how these
economic development; and, 10 percent medium or better rating on cost uncertainties could be reported.
weight to the remaining measures. The effectiveness. However, to ensure that uncertainties
remainder of the comments focused 25. How can the reliability of forecast are being reported consistently by all
solely on how the project justification measures be used to adjust New Starts grantees, FTA intends to issue more
rating is derived, stating that cost project ratings? explicit guidance of what factors should
effectiveness should not be weighted Comment: Four comments were be included in this discussion.
greater than one third of project received in answer to this question. Proposal: FTA believes a requirement
justification and should not be used as Three of these comments stated to adjust ratings based on the reliability
a project veto if it does not meet FTA’s opposition to FTA’s proposal to add of the data should be included to satisfy
specified threshold. uncertainty and risk of the forecasts as several SAFETEA–LU requirements.
Response: SAFETEA–LU places equal evaluation criteria or stated that Understanding uncertainty will allow
emphasis on project justification additional guidance and clarification is FTA to better recommend funding
(referred to as ‘‘project merit’’ in the needed before implementation. The among projects with similar costs and
January 19, 2006 Guidance on News primary reason given for opposing the benefits, but with significant differences
Starts Policies and Procedures) and proposal was that determining the in uncertainties. A better understanding
local financial commitment (referred to uncertainties in the forecasts would of uncertainties will facilitate a better
as ‘‘financial capability’’ in the January require lengthy reviews that would understanding of why costs and
19, 2006 proposed Guidance on New ultimately add cost to the project. The ridership vary from predictions so that
Starts Policies and Procedures). As commenters also stated that the better approaches to forecasts can be
stated previously, FTA feels there is additional analyses would not eliminate developed for future projects.
merit in showing gradations in financial risk and uncertainty in the forecasts. Additionally, because a major purpose
plan ratings (low to high) versus The one commenter supportive of the of planning and project development
employing a simple pass/fail approach, proposal agreed with FTA’s simple studies is to disclose information for
particularly with regard to making tough strategy for incorporating the decision-making, a more explicit
funding recommendation decisions. uncertainty measures into the ratings representation of uncertainties better
Furthermore, FTA believes that moving process. That is, the uncertainty ratings informs decision-makers by providing
to a pass/fail rating approach for should be used to decide the outcome richer information about the likelihood
financial commitment as suggested by for ratings at breakpoint between two of achieving the project benefits and
one commenter would diminish its ratings. costs. FTA will consider the reliability
importance relative to project Response: FTA is not proposing to of operating costs certainties by looking
justification, going against the apparent eliminate risk and uncertainty from at whether there are any innovative
intention of SAFETEA–LU. forecasts, which is impossible, but for contractual arrangements which
Regarding the new weighting scheme project sponsors to report the nature of produce significant reductions in
proposed by another commenter, FTA the uncertainty as a result of their operating expenses, or which improve
has stated previously the general analysis. This will allow both the the reliability of forecasts of operating
difficultly in measuring economic project sponsor and FTA to use that costs.
development benefits and the concern information as they make decisions on
of ‘‘double-counting’’ when rating and whether to advance the project. Project Development Procedures
evaluating economic development More explicit representation of 26. Does the proposed requirement to
versus land use. Consequently, until uncertainties is required by SAFETEA– have local endorsement of the financial
such time as better measures are LU because reliability of forecasts is plan address FTA’s desire to enhance
developed for these areas, the proposed now one of the listed criterions for the degree of confidence in the
weighting scheme would be very project justification. An explicit likelihood of proposed funding sources
difficult to implement. With regards to representation of uncertainties is also to materialize?
not using a cost effectiveness to veto a essential if the project sponsor and FTA 27. Do project sponsors foresee any
project, in the past there has been are to meet other requirements in potential problems securing these local
considerable support by the SAFETEA–LU. For instance, an early endorsements?
Administration to establish a minimum discussion of uncertainties is essential if Comment: Question 26 received 3
standard for a project’s cost the project sponsor is to understand and comments and question 27 received 7
effectiveness in order for the project to explain the reasons that forecasts may comments. FTA proposed a requirement
advance through project development. change between entry into PE, entry into that all proposed sources of funding be
Proposal: FTA proposes to give equal final design, and after opening the specified in the financial plan and that
weight to both project justification and project to revenue operations as each sponsoring agency provide a letter
local financial commitment in required for before/after studies, as well endorsing the proposed financial
calculating the project’s overall rating. as for FTA to accurately assess strategies and funding amounts. The
Within the Project Justification rating, contractor performance. An proposal was meant to increase FTA’s
cost effectiveness and effectiveness are understanding of uncertainties also confidence level earlier in the project
proposed to be weighted equally at 50 provides information to FTA as it development process (prior to entry into
percent. Further, the NPRM proposes implements SAFTETEA–LU’s cost PE) that the project has the support of
that the effectiveness rating be incentive provision, which allows FTA the proposed funding partners. Almost
all commenters misunderstood the 28. Are there any other policies or (NEPA). Others stated that it should be
proposal to mean that letters of requirements that could enhance FTA’s the Transportation System Management
commitment of local funding would be confidence in the funding plans for (TSM) alternative, defined succinctly as
required earlier in the project proposed New Starts projects? the best than can be done without
development process. As a result, of the Comment: Four comments were construction of a new fixed guideway,
3 comments received in response to this received in answer to this question. and that it should be identified as such.
question, only one (an MPO) thought Three comments were received that Other concerns included changes to the
the proposed requirement had merit and suggested other policies or requirements baseline late in the project development
would enhance the degree of confidence FTA might use. Two transit agencies process and the opinion that too much
in the likelihood of funding sources discussed including a timeline for emphasis is placed on the baseline
materializing. The MPO also stated that obtaining funding commitments in a alternative given that in most
the inability of a project sponsor to get project development agreement (PDA). circumstances it would not be built.
the required endorsement would be The fourth comment suggested that FTA Response: FTA believes that a
most telling. All other commenters consider the degree to which the project properly-defined TSM constitutes an
stated that requiring letters of sponsor has expended funds on the appropriate baseline for the purpose of
endorsement (which they interpreted as project at its own risk as an indication estimating New Starts project
letters of commitment) from local of the agency’s commitment to the justification criteria and that, because
agencies on the financial plan early in project. there are only limited circumstances in
the project development process was Response: FTA agrees that a PDA which the use of a no-build alternative
premature. They indicated it would be could be used to lay out timelines for is justified, referring to the baseline by
difficult to get financial commitments receipt of funding commitments, but its ‘‘intended’’ name—the TSM
from local governments without a this would not provide FTA with any alternative—makes sense. FTA does not
corresponding commitment at the same added confidence that the funding support using the no-build as the
time from FTA. Others stated that would actually materialize. FTA also baseline because a consistently defined
FHWA does not require a similar agrees that the degree to which a project TSM alternative is required to ensure a
endorsement from State and local sponsor has expended funds on a level playing field when comparing
governments for highway projects. project is an indication of the project projects across the country. FTA has not
Response: The requirement to obtain sponsor’s commitment to the project. required that the TSM alternative be
a letter of endorsement of a financial However, FTA does not agree that this carried forward in NEPA documents
plan is not intended to be as stringent in and of itself reflects local political when the project sponsor has
as having to obtain a firm letter of support from other potential funding adequately described its reason in the
commitment of funding. FTA believes partners. Too often, project sponsors NEPA document for not carrying the
that this requirement, so clarified, have been unable to obtain sufficient alternative forward for detailed analysis.
should not be that difficult to address, local funding from outside sources, even Both FTA’s oversight of the technical
so long as the project sponsor has though they have expended a work supporting alternatives analyses
worked closely with the proposed considerable amount of their own and the project sponsor’s performance
funding partners, and these partners resources to undertake alternatives of the tests identified in the policy
have actually developed an analysis and PE. guidance prior to FTA approval of the
understanding of their proposed roles. Proposal: Lacking any other baseline alternative are intended to
FTA acknowledges that, as with many suggestions, FTA will rely on the obviate the need for review and
of the New Starts requirements, there is requirement that all proposed sources of adjustment of the baseline during
not a similar requirement for highway funding be specified in the financial subsequent project development stages.
projects. However, the great majority of plan and that each sponsoring agency The fact that SAFETEA–LU establishes
Federal aid highway projects are funded provide a letter endorsing the proposed a Small Starts program that provides a
through FHWA formula grants, and the financial strategies and funding source of capital funding for low-cost
selection of projects is the prerogative of amounts. Again, such a letter would not major transit investments undermines
the States, in cooperation with the constitute a commitment on the part of the argument that TSM-level
metropolitan planning organization a proposed funding partner, but only an improvements cannot be built. This
designated for the area per 23 U.S.C. 134 indication that the funding partner undercuts the argument that it is not fair
(j)(5) and (k)(4), and 49 U.S.C. 5303 (j)(5) understands and is willing to proceed to evaluate the merits of a New Start
and (k)(4); conversely, major transit with further development of its against an ‘‘academic’’ TSM, because
capital investments are funded through proposed role in funding the project. In the TSM is now a viable alternative,
the Section 5309 Capital Investment addition, FTA would continue to which could receive funding through
discretionary program, and projects are require that funding commitments be the Small Starts program category.
selected for funding on a competitive, provided as the project moves through Proposal: FTA is already in the
nationwide basis. the process, with 50 percent of the process of enhancing its guidance on the
Proposal: FTA is proposing to require commitments in place as a condition of development of the New Starts baseline
letters of endorsement for any non- entry into final design, and 100 percent alternative. Because FTA is only
grantee controlled or non-committed of the commitments in place prior to clarifying, rather than changing, its
source of funding specified in the execution of a FFGA. existing guidance, such clarification can
financial plan prior to entry into PE and 29. In what ways could FTA describe be addressed as technical guidance,
with each annual New Starts the baseline alternative more clearly? without affecting any of the higher-level
submission. In the letter of Comment: Twelve comments were principles articulated in the existing
endorsement, each sponsoring agency received in answer to this question. Two regulation and carried forward in the
would need to give their support to commenters said the no-build should be NPRM. The guidance will clarify FTA’s
pursuing whatever steps are necessary the baseline. One commenter stated that expectations that the New Starts
for them to ultimately commit the the use of a baseline that is different baseline will be identical to the TSM
proposed financial strategies and than the no-build puts it in conflict with alternative in all but very rare cases, and
funding amounts. the National Environmental Policy Act will use that terminology to describe the
attributes of the baseline. Since in most Response: Given the critical role that Response: The goal of PE is to finalize
cases the baseline will be the TSM the information gleaned from on-board the project scope, cost estimate, and
alternative, the guidance will describe surveys plays in understanding the financial plan. Project scope must be
the process for developing the TSM nature of the transit riding market and defined such that all environmental
alternative, the appropriate tests for in ensuring that travel models can impacts are identified and adequate
optimizing the TSM alternative, and the replicate current conditions, it is provisions made for their mitigation in
rationale for these tests. The guidance essential that the data on ridership accordance with NEPA. FTA will not
will further provide examples for the patterns be as current as possible. To the complete the NEPA process until a
development of appropriate TSM extent that the data used to validate the project has been approved for entry into
alternatives in specific environments. model varies from current ridership PE. In addition, although the level of
30. Should there be a way to report patterns because of significant changes scope development may vary from
project benefits of the proposed New in population, service, or other factors, project to project, it must, at a
Starts project compared to the no-build the usefulness of the data is diminished. minimum, be advanced to the point
alternative outside the cost effectiveness In fact, it may be necessary to update all where design issues are fully addressed
evaluation? or a portion of the survey more and no significant unknown impacts to
Comment: Two comments were frequently than every five years if an cost may result. FTA intends that the
received in answer to this question. area has experienced dramatic changes cost estimate produced at the end of PE
Both commenters answered in the in service, population, and employment be used as the baseline cost estimate for
affirmative, although neither provided or other factors during that time. For determining the share of Section 5309
suggestions on how to report benefits. example, if the survey was taken when Capital Investment funds to be awarded
Response: In response to comments little park-and-ride service existed, and in the full funding grant agreement.
submitted by the transit industry and in considerable park-and-ride service was Similarly, FTA expects that the project
recognition of the desire to simplify the implemented after the survey, a new financial plan produced during PE (and
New Starts process, the December 2000 survey would be necessary to submitted to FTA as part of its statutory
New Starts Final Rule eliminated the understand park-and-ride behavior if evaluation to approve project entrance
requirement for an evaluation the New Start project relied in large part into final design) will demonstrate
comparing the New Starts criteria for on the park-and-ride market to generate adequate financial capacity and provide
the build alternative against both the no- ridership. support for the local financial
build and the TSM alternative. Instead, Proposal: FTA proposes that, for commitment necessary before FTA can
the regulation promulgated the current project sponsors using traditional four- execute the FFGA.
requirement that projects be evaluated step travel forecasting procedures to In its May 2006 New Starts Policy
against a single ‘‘baseline’’ alternative, estimate transportation system user Guidance, FTA adopted a policy
typically the TSM alternative. benefits, the procedures be rigorously requiring that NEPA scoping be
Permitting an alternative presentation of validated using an on-board survey of performed prior to entry into PE.
project benefits (build vs. no-build) transit riders completed no more than Scoping prior to PE fosters informed
would result in additional work for five years prior to entry into PE. FTA decision-making in the New Starts
project sponsors and could lead to will determine if changes in service, process and allows for resolution of
confusion over the true representation demographics, or other factors are issues regarding the alternatives to be
of project benefits. Nevertheless, FTA significant enough to require a more considered in the NEPA review to be
has always allowed project sponsors to recent survey to validate the model. made during the planning process
use criteria and measures in their 33. Would a clearer definition of the instead of discovering them during PE
studies that depart from those used by preliminary engineering phase for New and having to do additional planning
FTA, but which address local concerns. Starts projects help project sponsors analyses to address them. NEPA
Proposal: FTA will maintain the target resources expended on completion during PE facilitates
requirement as stated in the current preliminary engineering in ways that performing the requisite engineering
regulation that cost effectiveness will be better support the decision-making and analysis to define the project scope,
based solely on a comparison between process for New Starts? cost, and financial plan, which are
the proposed project and the baseline Comment: Three comments were documented in a ROD.
alternative, while clarifying that the received in answer to this question. Two Final design is a statutorily prescribed
baseline in almost all cases is the TSM comments were received in support of phase of the New Starts project
alternative and providing enhanced this proposal, and one provided an development process following PE and
guidance on the development of the alternative. Commenters stated that preceding construction. Technically,
TSM alternative. significant resources would need to be final design is the phase of project
31. How recent should on-board shifted from final design to preliminary development in which the project
surveys be to ensure that the engineering (PE). Commenters also sponsor prepares for project
information is still valid? stated concern about potential increases construction. During final design, the
32. Are there cases where an on-board in costs. One commenter stated that an engineering and design products of PE
survey less than 5 years old could be out explanation of how PE relates to the are refined for the development and
of date? If so, how might FTA be sure NEPA process would be helpful. solicitation of construction contract
of the usefulness of on-board survey Another stated that all NEPA packages, as well as the development
information? requirements should be met during PE and/or updating of various project
Comment: Question 31 received 5 and that a Record of Decision (ROD) and management plans and risk mitigation
comments and question 32 received 3 FFGA should be issued simultaneously strategies. It is, however, expected that
comments. One commenter believed prior to final design. Another under the definition of New Starts PE
that on-board surveys were not needed, respondent inquired about the purpose adopted in the May 2006 New Starts
stating that other data sources would of final design if PE is expanded to Policy Guidance, the duration of final
suffice. Four commenters suggested include capping of funds. That agency design will be considerably shortened as
surveys be conducted within the past 5 suggested that FTA should have clear PE would result in developing sufficient
to 10 years. criteria for entrance into PE. engineering and design to arrive at an
accurate and reliable cost estimate. identify those project elements that are along with prescribed exit criteria,
Thus, it is expected that the time likely to require cost adjustments so that project sponsors can assess their
between entrance into final design and these potential cost adjustment may be resource needs and plan for them
negotiations on an FFGA will be accounted for in the resulting baseline accordingly.
reduced. cost estimate, as part of the contingency 36. Does the proposed policy of MPO
Proposal: FTA has defined the calculation, at the completion of PE. reaffirmation of the proposed project
conditions that must be met at the Proposal: FTA is currently reviewing address FTA’s goal of ensuring local
completion of New Starts PE. FTA its PMOC regulations and guidance with support for implementing and financing
believes that these conditions will help the goal of providing greater program proposed New Starts projects?
in clarifying when a New Starts project effectiveness in New Starts project 37. If FTA implements the previously
is ready to move from one step to the development and delivery. These mentioned local endorsement of the
next. changes will be discussed under a Financial Plan, does this separate action
34. How might the Project separate rulemaking to amend the become redundant?
Management Oversight (PMOC) process Project Management Oversight Comment: FTA received 8 comments
be designed to support the higher regulation and are not reflected in this on question 36 and 1 comment on
expectation regarding the results of NPRM. question 37. Five commenters noted
preliminary engineering? 35. Does this approach significantly opposition to the proposal mentioned in
Comment: Only one comment was increase the cost of preliminary question 36. Those opposed who wrote
received, and it favored enhanced engineering? If so, is that problematic if this proposal would add an unnecessary
PMOC assistance. The respondent stated costs are just shifted from final design? step to the process that would delay
that although nearly all the information Comment: Two comments were
final design approval and thereby add to
needed to make a final decision on received in response to this question,
the cost of project development. In
project funding should be complete at both generally agreeing that the cost of
the end of PE, completion of PE would increase. One commenter addition, they wrote this would not help
engineering should not be a criterion for stated that the proposed requirement to address FTA’s concern of ensuring
exiting PE. Design refinements and would result in an extended PE phase local support for financing of the
subsequent cost adjustments should be and blur the line between PE and final project. Lastly, commenters suggested
expected through the final design phase. design. Specifically, the commenter this would create a disconnect with
The earlier in the process that the noted that a shift in consultants between requirements placed on highway
PMOC understands the unique phases could result in increased costs projects. Three comments were received
challenges the project faces in terms of due to the need to redesign project stating no objection to the proposal, but
engineering and cost estimating, the elements and that increased costs also not stating strong support of it.
more likely the PMOC will be able to should not eliminate projects from the These commenters wrote it was
assist in determining whether or not the New Starts pipeline. The other stated reasonable and in line with current local
contingencies are appropriate. that asking project sponsors to front planning process requirements, but
Response: FTA has a number of load their design costs may prove to be would not help address FTA’s concern.
activities underway to strengthen its an onerous burden. Only one comment was received on
project management oversight activities Response: It is not clear that costs for whether the proposal was redundant
during PE. These include cost PE will increase in order to meet FTA’s should FTA implement its other
validation, independent cost estimates, requirement for a more reliable cost proposal for local endorsement of
and risk analysis and management. The estimate. This is because the nature of financial plans. That commenter wrote
PMOC reviews grantee data and work performed in PE and in final it was not redundant and that it is
corresponding engineering analysis design has never been well defined, and important for the MPO as a regional
throughout PE to determine the as a result the level of engineering entity to formally state that it supports
completeness and mechanical performed varies widely among the project in its final configuration.
correctness of the baseline cost estimate. projects. Expenditures for PE in the past Response: FTA does not believe this
Project cost reviews are an iterative have not always been focused on a proposal would add significant time or
review process, whereby costs are reliable cost estimate, but have cost to the project development process.
assessed for consistency with the project addressed a variety of concerns, many of The FTA/FHWA metropolitan and
scope adopted in the ROD (as amended which did not necessarily enhance the statewide planning regulations require
and/or updated to the selected soundness of the cost estimate. In that before Federal funds may be spent
alignment), as well as consistency with addition, many candidate New Starts on a project, it must be adopted into the
relevant, identifiable industry or project sponsors have already MPO’s financially constrained
engineering practices. In this manner, undertaken ‘‘continuing/extended PE’’ metropolitan transportation plan and
FTA can determine that the project prior to entry into final design in order transportation improvement program.
scope and costs are sufficiently to identify and resolve engineering and/ FTA’s proposal would ensure that the
complete to support the level and or design issues. In those instances, the latest information on the project’s cost
quality of revenue service expected. project’s sponsors have generally been estimate and impacts is incorporated
Using these tools during project able to complete final design in a into the region’s transportation plan.
development allows the grantee, with shorter timeframe. From an accounting Proposal: To verify that New Starts
Federal oversight, to identify standpoint, requiring this effort by all projects, with their final scope and
opportunities to improve the operation project sponsors may increase costs costs, are supported by regional
and cost effectiveness of its project. incurred during the designated PE phase planning partners, FTA proposes to
Whereas design refinements are but decrease costs during final design. require that MPOs reaffirm their
expected during final design, significant Proposal: The proposed regulation commitment to implementing and
cost adjustments should not occur. The clearly identifies the products of both financing projects, prior to those
scope and cost reviews that FTA PE and final design. With FTA clearly projects advancing into final design, if
incorporates in its risk analysis defining each phase of New Starts significant changes have occurred in the
conducted during PE are intended to project planning and development, project definition or cost.
38. Section 5309(h)(3) as amended by changes made by SAFETEA–LU, that questions, and FTA’s response and
SAFETEA–LU accords FTA the would include an incentive clause that proposal for the NPRM follows:
discretion to provide a higher would allow for an amendment to either 1. What portion of the project should
percentage of New Starts funding than increase the Federal funding be in a separate right-of-way to qualify
that requested by the project sponsor as contribution or allow for the addition of for funding under the Small Starts
an incentive to producing reliable scope, when actual opening year eligibility criteria? Should this
ridership forecasts and cost estimates. ridership is no less than 90 percent of determination be based on length or on
How could FTA implement this that forecast and actual capital costs, performance?
provision of SAFETEA–LU? adjusted for inflation, are not more than 2. How might FTA interpret the
Comment: Eight comments were 110 percent of that estimated, at the requirements that a project represent a
received in total, but very few included time the project entered PE. This ‘‘substantial investment?’’
specific ideas on how the incentive standard is slightly more stringent than 3. How might we ensure that a Small
could be implemented. Two the wording in SAFETEA–LU, as FTA is Starts project is in a ‘‘defined corridor?’’
commenters were opposed to the Comments: Questions 1 and 2
proposing to amend the FFGA only after
incentive idea. Four transit agencies and received 20 comments each, and
the project is complete and operating,
one MPO were supportive of the idea. question 3 received 11 comments.
rather than assessing whether forecasts Comments were generally split on the
One transit agency expressed neither have stayed within these limits prior to
support nor opposition, but rather first question of eligibility. Of the 12
execution of the FFGA. FTA believes comments that noted the need for a
concerns with what projections would that the incentive should only be
be evaluated to determine eligibility, separate right-of-way for Small Starts
provided for actual performance not for projects, there was a consensus that 25–
suggesting that the proposal may result projected performance. However, as
in less accurate cost and ridership 50 percent of the length of the project
suggested by the commenters, FTA is should be in exclusive right-of-way to
forecasts. The two commenters opposed allowing the incentive to be used either
to the idea, and one of the transit be eligible for Small Starts funding.
to increase the Federal share or to add Reasons cited for a minimum guideway
agencies in support of the idea, scope to the system.
suggested that rather than allowing threshold included the ability to show
grantees to reduce the local share if New ANPRM on Small Starts a permanence of investment, which
Starts funding is increased under the would better support the land use and
Small Starts Eligibility economic development objectives of
incentive, project sponsors should
instead be required to use the additional proposed transit investments, and to
SAFETEA–LU constrains eligibility of
funding for betterments to the project. ensure travel time savings. But 4 of the
projects for Small Starts funding by
One transit agency suggested that 8 commenters not in favor of requiring
imposing limits of less than $75 million a dedicated right-of-way noted similar
incentives are acceptable only if they in Section 5309 Capital Investment
are kept small (2–3 percent increase) gains in performance may be made
funds and less than $250 million for through the use of ITS technology such
while another transit agency suggested total project cost. However, it broadens
that FTA should work with the project as signal prioritization, queue jumping,
eligibility in terms of project definition and other operational treatments.
sponsor to determine an incentive by relaxing the existing requirement that
amount that would be meaningful. Indeed, slightly more than half of the
the project include a fixed guideway. commenters on this question favored a
Another comment stated that an FFGA With this change, a project that would
should be amended before it is fully performance-based determination of
not meet the fixed-guideway criterion is eligibility, with travel time savings the
paid out to increase the New Starts now eligible if it (1) includes a
share if ridership and cost estimates most commonly suggested performance
substantial portion that is in a separate criteria.
prove reliable over the course of the first right-of-way, or (2) represents a
year of operation. All 20 of the commenters favored the
substantial investment in specific kinds inclusion in the NPRM of a definition of
Response: Regarding the accuracy of
of transit improvements in a defined ‘‘substantial investment.’’ However, 2
forecasts, the concern of the
corridor. comments stressed the need for
commenting agency that this proposal
could result in less accurate cost and The eligibility provisions of the flexibility and opposed either a dollar
ridership forecasts may be unfounded. statute raise several issues: (1) How to value or a specific list of criteria
Presumably the commenter is suggesting define ‘‘substantial portion in a separate elements that needed to be met, as
that grantees would overstate costs and right-of-way;’’; (2) how to define proposed in the ANPRM. Twelve
understate ridership during project ‘‘substantial investment’’; (3) the comments requested that a portion of
development so as to come in under possibility that project sponsors could the right-of-way be dedicated, although
budget after completion of the project divide traditional New Starts projects 7 of these stated that FTA should not
and with higher ridership to be eligible into two or more Small Starts projects; mandate that a separate right-of-way be
for an incentive. The very nature of the and (4) the possibility that a Small an element of every Small Start. More
New Starts rating and evaluation Starts project might be proposed as the specific comments noted that a
process would prevent this from initial transit service in a corridor. The substantial investment should be
happening, because overstating costs ANPRM provided a discussion of the defined in terms of infrastructure
and understating ridership would challenges and merits of various investment. Fifteen commenters
significantly impact a project’s cost approaches to addressing these issues, recommended that FTA define
effectiveness. Furthermore, FTA and readers of this NPRM are substantial investment as a ‘‘package’’ of
examines both cost and ridership encouraged to refer to it for more investments listed in 49 U.S.C.
projections closely throughout project information. The ANPRM further posed 5309(e)(10), as amended by SAFETEA–
development and would not accept several questions related to the LU, including hardware such as signal
obvious misrepresentation of costs and eligibility of Small Starts projects with pre-emption, off-board fare collection,
ridership. the goal of facilitating a discussion of level boarding, station investment, and
Proposal: FTA proposes to implement this important topic. These questions, a special vehicles. Due to the large
a new feature of FFGAs, consistent with summary of industry reaction to the number of potential variables associated
with a ‘‘substantial investment,’’ 7 physical characteristics is more to take transit is not based upon route
comments noted the need for clear, non- appropriate. schedule information.
regulatory based guidance that should Likewise, FTA believes that it is While other project features such as
cover the majority of projects. necessary to define a minimum level of park-and-ride lots and off-board fare
Suggestions to the question on transportation investment sufficient to collection are also eligible expenses
‘‘defined corridor’’ were wide ranging. justify the project for discretionary under the program, they are not
Three commenters noted that a Small Starts funding. Otherwise, Small required elements. The regulation
traditional view of an arterial street or Starts projects would be competing for simply states that the project must be a
a transportation corridor may be too funding with many capital investments corridor bus project; however, FTA
rigid of a definition and suggested that (e.g. buses) that should be funded with intends to review proposed projects on
FTA take a flexible approach to the FTA formula, bus discretionary, or Title a case-by-case basis to determine
definition of a ‘‘corridor’’ for Small 23 flexible funds. Thus, FTA is whether they are located in a ‘‘defined
Starts purposes. One commenter proposing a number of specific project corridor.’’ A key consideration for this
recommended, for example, that a components that would comprise a review will be whether the project is
corridor could be defined as a ‘‘substantial investment’’ to improve the located in a single travel shed.
combination of parallel streets, as a level of transit service, yet not require 4. Should we try to prevent traditional
downtown shopping area, or as a central a specific threshold or dollar value of New Starts projects from being divided
business district. To further define the improvements. into two or more Small Starts projects?
corridor, local policies on economic It is very difficult to prescribe the If so, in what ways might we prevent
development and land use should be dimensions of a ‘‘defined corridor’’ this from happening?
examined and matched to the Comments: Twenty comments were
given the diversity of project contexts.
corresponding area of interest. Seven received in answer to this question.
Nevertheless, the principles guiding the
commenters suggested that a more Only three of the commenters indicated
definition should be that the project
narrow definition be used, for the they were in favor of allowing
addresses a single travel shed that
reason that the modest costs of Small traditional New Starts projects to be
consists of a concentration of trip
Starts tend to lend themselves to divided into two or more Small Starts
origins and destinations. While there is
improvements to existing travel projects. The main reason cited to
no rigid definition of travel corridor,
corridors rather than creation of more permit this division was that any
routes with significant geographic phased implementation would result in
expensive new services. Two separation would be considered to serve
commenters expressed concern that any faster implementation of at least some
different corridor travel markets. portions of a larger proposed
definition must be able to distinguish Proposal: FTA proposes in this NPRM
Small Starts from improvements that investment, and that any ‘‘stand-alone’’
that to qualify for funding, Small Starts segment/project should be considered
could be funded under the Section 5309
bus projects must either (a) provide a by FTA so long as it is deemed worthy
bus or FTA formula programs.
Two commenters cited additional dedicated right-of-way for at least 50 when evaluated against the Small Starts
concerns on consideration of a Small percent of the total project length in the criteria. The remaining 17 commenters
Starts project that would cross multiple peak period or when congestion inhibits noted that the division of large New
jurisdictions. To proceed on a project transit system performance, or (b) be a Starts projects into two or more Small
spanning jurisdictions, it was corridor-based bus project with the Starts projects is contrary to the intent
recommended that a number of following minimum elements: of the Small Starts program. However,
construction and planning phases be • Substantial transit stations 14 commenters noted that the funding
allowed if that type of implementation • Traffic signal priority/pre-emption, of projects in the same region but on
approach facilitated project delivery. provided that there are traffic signals on adjacent or unrelated corridors should
Response: FTA believes that there is the corridor, be allowed and even encouraged. In
significant merit to using a performance- • Low-floor buses or level boarding, addition, other more specific comments
based approach to determine whether or • Branding of the proposed service, included limiting the amount of funding
not the separate right-of-way is and over a given time period or justifying
‘‘significant.’’ Because all fixed • 10-minute peak/15-minute off peak funding on the basis of how corridor
guideway projects (rail projects and headways or better while operating at improvements are included in a region’s
those with catenary, i.e., electric trolley- least 14 hours per weekday metropolitan transportation plan.
bus service using overhead wires for The first three bullets are taken Response: The purpose of the
power supply) are automatically eligible directly from the statute; the fourth is a simplified evaluation and project
for New Starts and Small Starts, the low-cost strategy for achieving a sense development process for Small Starts is
following is relevant to bus projects of the uniqueness and permanence of to scale the analysis and procedures
only. Generally, the purpose of a transit service and is thus consistent according to the complexity of the
separate right-of-way for bus projects is with SAFETEA–LU’s requirement that a projects. Projects that are very large
to remove transit vehicles from general- corridor-based bus capital project investments in fixed guideway transit
purpose traffic, thereby speeding up include ‘‘features that support long-term facilities demand the full due diligence
service. Therefore, a performance-based corridor investment.’’ The fifth bullet regarding the benefits, costs, and the
determination would ensure that the embodies the underlying concept that, project sponsor’s capability and
portion of the project in a separate right- to be successful transportation readiness in order to ensure that public
of-way actually had the intended effect investments, Small Starts projects must resources are allocated to their best use.
of better operating performance. provide for a significant level of transit These larger projects should not be able
However, FTA has never applied a service. Experience in major transit to evade due diligence simply because
performance standard to fixed-guideway corridors across the United States they are divided into phases which
projects. Thus, in the interest of suggests that 10-minute peak individually meet the cost limits for
consistency among potential Section frequencies, in addition to representing Small Starts.
5309 Capital Investment projects, FTA a high level of service, is the minimum Proposal: FTA proposes that all
believes that using a criterion based on headway at which passengers’ decision potential Small Starts projects (i.e.,
portions of a larger investment) planned opening, rather than design, year. In projects. These questions, a summary of
in a corridor will be evaluated as a considering the reliability of ridership industry comments, and FTA’s response
single project. If the combined cost or estimates, FTA will closely examine the and proposal for this NPRM follow:
total requested funding amount, both justification for the ridership and travel 6. How should the evaluation
expressed in year-of-expenditure time benefits of such projects. framework for New Starts be changed or
dollars, is over the Small Starts limits, Consequently, sponsors of such projects adapted for Small Starts projects?
the project will be evaluated as must make an extremely compelling Comments: Twenty-four comments
traditional New Starts project. case that there is sufficient planned were received in response to this
5. Should we establish a minimum development to result in conditions that question. Several commenters addressed
ridership requirement to ensure that support a strong transit travel market. not only the overall evaluation
Small Starts projects are used to framework but also measures for local
improve the quality of service for Small Starts Evaluation and Ratings financial commitment and FTA’s
existing transit markets rather than As amended by SAFETEA–LU, 49 proposal that the nature of the problem
represent the first transit service offered U.S.C. 5309(e)(2) allows the Secretary of or opportunity in the Small Starts
to potentially new transit markets? If Transportation to provide funding project corridor be included in FTA’s
not, how can a project demonstrate need assistance to a proposed project under evaluation of Small Starts. Comments
for an investment? this new Small Starts category only if on these specific measures were
Comments: Twenty-seven comments the Secretary finds that the project is: addressed in our response to questions
were received in answer to this (A) Based on the results of planning that specifically addresses these two
question. Approximately two-thirds of and alternatives analysis; issues. Of the two evaluation framework
commenters opposed the idea of (B) Justified based on a review of its options presented in the ANPRM,
instituting a minimum ridership public transportation supportive land Option 2 generated the most support,
requirement for Small Starts, citing that use policies, cost effectiveness, and although 3 commenters strongly
this would penalize communities that effect on local economic development; indicated that land use should be
are in the initial stages of land and elevated to a benefit rather than used as
development and thus currently do not (C) Supported by an acceptable degree a risk factor. Four commenters objected
have a demand for transit or of local financial commitment. to both Options 1 and 2, and proposed
communities that are trying to open up The statute expands on the an alternative approach—a ‘‘point-
new markets to transit. The 9 justification required in paragraph (B), system’’ developed in a Transit
commenters in favor of the minimum requiring that the Secretary make the Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)
ridership requirements indicated that following determinations: quick study report.
such a threshold would allow Small • The degree to which the project is In terms of local financial
Starts funds to be provided only to those consistent with local land use policies commitment, 1 commenter noted that
areas that have a demonstrated need for and is likely to achieve local FTA should not penalize smaller Small
improved transit. It was further development goals; Starts project sponsors who may not be
suggested by 8 of these 9 commenters • The cost effectiveness of the project able to generate more than a 20 percent
that in these existing cases, there would at the time of the initiation of revenue local funding match, although another
be substantially less risk to a project’s service; commenter hoped that FTA would
achievement of success because of this • The degree to which a project will continue to encourage local overmatch
demonstrated need. have a positive effect on land use and through its evaluation of local financial
Response: FTA recognizes that the local economic development; commitment. Two commenters
implementation of high quality transit • The reliability of the forecasting suggested that State and local
service in areas where such service does methods used to estimate costs and governments or private investors are
not exist today can, when combined ridership associated with the project; unwilling to commit project revenues
with aggressive corridor land use and until they receive assurances of Federal
development initiatives, contribute to • Any other factors that the Secretary funding, and that FTA needs to consider
future use of service. determines appropriate to make funding prior history in obtaining non-Federal
Proposal: In the interim guidance for decisions. commitments as a surrogate for actual
Small Starts, FTA required, as one The statutory provisions for the commitments.
criterion for qualifying as a Very Small evaluation of proposed Small Starts There was little comment on the
Start, that sponsors of such projects projects raise several issues. These proposal that projects be evaluated in
provide evidence of current corridor include the framework for the terms of the problems they solve or the
ridership that would benefit from the evaluation; the specific measures used opportunity they take advantage of. One
project of no less than 3,000 average in the evaluation; and scaling of the respondent was concerned that the
weekday passengers. FTA proposes to evaluation approach for Small Starts ANPRM couches ‘‘problems’’ as only
maintain this eligibility requirement for projects of different size, cost, and being mobility related.
Very Small Starts since it is an intrinsic complexity. The ANPRM provided a Response: Based upon the comments
element of FTA’s ability to warrant the discussion of the challenges and merits received, FTA intends to advance the
project as being cost effective. For all of various approaches to addressing framework described in Option 2 into
other projects, FTA proposes not to these issues. Most notably, FTA the NPRM with one exception that is
require a minimum ridership threshold. proposed two potential options for discussed more fully in the question 3
However, FTA notes that it would seem organizing the Small Starts project under the Guidance on New Starts
unlikely that Small Starts projects criteria into a coherent evaluation Policy and Procedures. FTA has
proposed in corridors with a small or framework. This is the same framework reviewed the TCRP proposal for
non-existent transit market would be that is discussed in Question 3 under evaluating Small Starts projects and
able to generate immediate the Guidance on New Starts Policy and notes that the approach entails double
transportation benefits, as required by Procedures. The ANPRM further posed counting and difficulties determining
SAFETEA–LU in its requirement that several specific questions related to the the proper weights. FTA understands
cost effectiveness be calculated for an evaluation and rating of Small Starts the positive and negative aspects of
encouraging local overmatch to Federal degree to which the proposed Small process. FTA seeks comment on how it
discretionary funding, but notes that Starts project addresses the existing and might better measure economic
SAFETEA–LU permits FTA to consider forecast problem and opportunity as an development/land use in the future.
the degree to which the project financial ‘‘other’’ factor. As congestion is one of In addition to revising Option 2, FTA
plan depends upon non-New Starts this Nation’s most daunting is asking for specific comment, under a
funding, and FTA therefore intends to transportation challenges, another section entitled ‘‘Additional Discussion
reward overmatch for Small Starts just measure that FTA currently intends to
Items for Comment’’ on an alternate
as it does New Starts. Further it would consider under ‘‘other factors’’ is the
evaluation framework for rating
be poor program management for FTA degree to which a project is a part of a
proposed Small Starts projects. This
to make Federal funding commitments significant congestion reduction
strategy. FTA will evaluate projects that framework is based upon three
in advance of local commitments. principles that FTA espouses, which it
Equally importantly, FTA expects that are a principal element of a congestion
reduction strategy, in general and a has heard expressed by many in the
the demand for Small Starts funding transit industry. The first principle is
will be great enough among projects that pricing strategy, in particular, more
highly. FTA seeks comment on how it that there are two primary reasons for
can demonstrate such commitments that implementing major transit capital
it would be counterproductive for FTA might better measure congestion in the
future. investments—mobility improvements
to commit its funds in advance of local
FTA will also consider as an ‘‘other and economic development—and that
funding commitments. FTA strongly
factor’’ any benefit of the project not these can be evaluated on a pass/fail
encourages project sponsors to provide
covered under the project justification basis. In the Small Starts program, FTA
an overmatch under the Small Starts
criteria or other factors that the considers cost effectiveness in terms of
program as it is likely to be as highly
Secretary determines to be appropriate the cost of improving mobility. The
competitive, if not more so, as the New
to carry out the evaluation. This second principle is that FTA’s
Starts program.
consideration could result in a project’s evaluation process for Small Starts
Proposal: The NPRM advances for rating being increased or decreased. should be as simple as possible, and
further review and comment the Option Further, FTA is proposing that land only needs to be sufficient to identify
2 evaluation framework first proposed use be included under both the the best projects, ferret out the worst
in the ANPRM. However, Option 2 has economic development/land use projects, and array those in the middle.
been modified in three important ways. criterion (under effectiveness) and the Finally, the third principle is that
First, the ‘‘nature/extent of problem or reliability criterion. FTA intends that whatever the merit of proposed Small
opportunity’’ in the project corridor has current land use conditions, as well as Starts, lack of sufficient financial
been removed as an explicit evaluation land use plans and policies, be critical capability will prevent its
criterion. FTA acknowledges that this components of these criteria. The implementation; therefore, financial
factor is not specifically identified in 49 economic development/land use commitment should be treated as a
U.S.C. 5309(e)(4). However, FTA notes criterion will account for 60 percent of ‘‘minimum’’ or ‘‘readiness’’
that 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(4)(E) directs FTA the effectiveness rating, with the requirement, rather than a component of
to ‘‘consider other factors that the remaining 40 percent of the rating an overall New Starts project rating.
Secretary determines appropriate.’’ comprised of mobility benefits. This
Therefore, whenever a project is should ensure that the factor is given Figure 1 presents FTA’s proposed
evaluated, FTA intends to consider the sufficient overall attention in the rating Option 3 evaluation framework:
Under this framework, the financial requirements for being considered for will receive an initial rating of High. If
commitment, as measured by the advancement in the Small Starts project a project passes the cost effectiveness
adequacy of a project’s capital and development process. Once readiness is assessment but not the economic
operating plan (but not its proposed determined, projects would be subject to development/land use assessment, it
Small Starts share) would join technical a ‘‘pass/fail’’ assessment of their cost would receive an initial rating of
and legal capacity, and the achievement effectiveness and economic Medium. A project that fails both
of Federal metropolitan planning development/land use impacts. If assessments, or passes the economic
requirements, as basic ‘‘readiness’’ projects pass both assessments, they development assessment but not the
EP03AU07.039</GPH>
cost effectiveness assessment, would example, one commenter favored using However, FTA intends to rely on the
receive an initial rating of Low and will a ‘‘no-build’’ scenario for smaller following simple guidelines for
not be considered by FTA for either projects, but using the TSM for larger definition of the Small Starts baseline
advancement into project development projects. alternative:
or a funding recommendation until the Response: FTA agrees that the • A project with a dedicated right-of-
rating is improved. definition of the Small Starts baseline way for 50 percent or more of its length
These initial ratings are then adjusted should be a locally driven process but in the peak period would usually have
by three factors: (1) The reliability of the disagrees that it should be identical to a TSM as its baseline. In general, a TSM
project’s travel forecasts and cost the NEPA ‘‘no build’’ in all cases. can be satisfied by (1) the inclusion
estimates; (2) the degree of Small Starts Consequently, FTA continues to within its scope of the physical features
funding overmatch; and (3) the require—as it does for traditional New found in a Very Small Starts project, as
magnitude of the problem or Starts—that the alternatives analysis defined elsewhere in this NPRM; and (2)
opportunity the project is intended to study be the venue for developing and service levels which are comparable to
address. All of these factors are evaluating a number of low- to higher- the proposed Small Start.
important. Based upon these cost alternatives that meet the purpose • A project that does not meet the
adjustments, the initial project ratings and need for transportation definition above, including a Very Small
may go up or down. For example, a improvements in a given corridor. No Start, would use a no-build alternative
project that received an initial rating of reasonable alternative should be as its baseline alternative.
Medium, but that is providing a excluded for consideration until an By following these guidelines, FTA
significant overmatch of Small Starts appropriate analysis determines that it believes that the process for approving
funding and/or demonstrates reliable does not sufficiently address locally- the Small Starts baseline alternative will
estimates of project costs and ridership identified problems, commensurate be extremely simplified in comparison
could receive a Medium-High or High with its cost and other impacts. It is with the process for FTA approval of the
overall project rating. On the other through this process that a Small or baseline alternative for traditional New
hand, a project with a similar initial New Starts baseline alternative should Starts. FTA also desires to provide some
rating of Medium but that does not be defined. However, while the flexibility in the definition of the
address a severe transportation problem alternatives analysis process is the baseline alternative for project sponsors
and/or for which ridership and cost venue for identifying the baseline who believe, for whatever reason, these
forecasts are considered not as reliable alternative it should be noted that FTA guidelines are inappropriate for their
would receive an overall rating of uses the baseline alternative not to proposed Small Starts project.
Medium-Low or Low. However, determine whether it is reasonable to Therefore, FTA will consider deviations
consistent with SAFETEA–LU, FTA will advance that alternative for further from these guidelines. In such cases,
also consider the project sponsor’s study, but as the required comparison FTA strives to make its review and
ability to provide only a 20 percent for measuring the benefits of the project. determination as quickly as possible,
match and will not rate the project’s FTA acknowledges that many Small but notes that it is the responsibility of
local financial commitment at less than Starts, particularly Very Small Starts, the project sponsor to make a
Medium, solely on the basis of a 20 will be Transportation System compelling justification for deviation
percent match, so long as the project Management (TSM) improvements: that from the guidelines.
sponsor can demonstrate that the 20 is, lower-cost, operations-oriented 8. How might FTA evaluate economic
percent match is based on the limited upgrades to existing transit services that development and land use as distinct
fiscal capacity of State and local do not require construction of a new and separate measures?
governments. In this way, FTA can fixed guideway. For such projects, a no- Comments: Eighteen comments were
address the SAFETEA–LU requirement build alternative would be the received in response to this question. In
that FTA consider State and local fiscal appropriate Small Starts baseline. For terms of land use, 2 commenters
capacity at the same time that it more complex projects, including those suggested comparing the current
addresses the SAFETEA–LU that contemplate the implementation of densities with the proposed densities of
requirement that it gives priority to a fixed guideway, a non-guideway planned developments. In addition to
financing projects with a higher-than- alternative—for example, a TSM density, however, it was also noted by
required non-New Starts/Small Starts alternative that provides for similar 7 commenters that the existence or
share. service levels as the proposed Small planning of transit-oriented policies
7. How should the baseline alternative Starts—would be the appropriate would be a good measure. Economic
be defined? baseline. Whatever the baseline development had a similar depth of
Comments: Twenty-three comments alternative, FTA agrees that, once a interest and comments. For example, 4
were received in response to this Small Starts project is approved into commenters suggested measurement of
question. Twenty-one commenters project development, the baseline the increase in employment and tax
strongly favored the use of a ‘‘no-build’’ should not change unless the scope of revenue, or the property values of
scenario as a baseline alternative for the Small Start project changes and will current properties versus the selling
Small Starts. Expanding on this, 1 be used only as a comparison for price of future acreage/developments. In
commenter suggested that the Small preparing the required information for addition to these specific suggestions,
Starts baseline be consistent with the the annual New Starts Report (as other commenters noted precautions
NEPA baseline, be locally driven, and necessary) and for making a that should be taken when considering
reflect a project that is included in local recommendation on funding for a these two measures. One commenter
transportation plans and improvement PCGA. cited concern that these should be
programs. It was further suggested by a Proposal: Cognizant of SAFETEA– downplayed in the initial stages of the
commenter that the baseline no longer LU’s expectation that the advancement project’s development, and focus should
be carried into final design. Another of Small Starts projects be streamlined instead be placed on mobility and cost
commenter suggested that the Small to the extent possible, FTA has simply effectiveness.
Starts baseline should be adjusted based proposed in the NPRM that FTA must Response: Whether referring to land
on the complexity of the project. For approve the baseline alternative. use or economic development, a
common theme of the majority of this area and as more quantifiable Starts Policies and Procedures.
respondent suggestions was to use measures are developed they will be Although FTA sees merit in identifying
indicators of the likelihood of increased proposed as part of any new policy other measures of effectiveness, the lack
development in areas near projects. guidance. FTA seeks additional of analytical methods to address many
Existing land use conditions, existing comment on how it can better measure of the desirable characteristics of transit
and planned transit-oriented plans and economic development/land use. projects results in an inability to
policies, and projections of increases in 9. Are there other measures of determine these benefits fairly at this
employment and revenues are all effectiveness that should be considered? time. If FTA is later able to identify
necessary, but not sufficient conditions Comments: Thirteen comments were additional measures, these can be added
for inducing transit-supportive received in response to this question. to the evaluation as part of any changes
development patterns as a result of a An assessment of a project’s effect on to our policy guidance, which would be
transit project. Indeed, it is not possible economic development was the subject subject to public review and comment.
to ascertain the likelihood of a project’s of many commenters. The response to 10. Is it desirable for FTA to attempt
effect on surrounding development those comments was addressed as part to incorporate other measures of
unless a number of factors relating to of Question 3 above. Two commenters effectiveness besides mobility when
both land use and economic stated that FTA faces a challenging task evaluating cost effectiveness? If so, what
development are considered in when creating appropriate measures of measures might be incorporated and in
combination. Land use considerations effectiveness for Small Starts projects. what manner?
provide information about the potential For example, it was noted that one Comments: Thirteen comments were
for development or redevelopment and measure, changes in passenger travel received in response to this question.
whether that development can occur in time, may be difficult to capture in The number and variety of responses
a transit-oriented way. However, while cities where limited ridership or bus seem to indicate not only a great interest
these are necessary conditions, they are service exists. Despite the potential in this evaluation tool, but also provide
not sufficient in and of themselves, as challenges, several measures of a view of priorities in the respondent
the local development climate must be effectiveness were suggested. Increased communities. Suggestions regarding
sufficiently robust to provide the engine access to job centers as well as the cost effectiveness concerned numerous
needed for development; the project reduction in the number of single areas, including service, neighborhood
must be perceived as permanent to occupancy vehicles on the roadway revitalization, and congestion reduction.
entice developer interest; and the were two measures noted. In addition, Commenters specifically suggested
project must increase accessibility to the several ideas mentioned in the ANPRM increased service to transit dependent
area. All these factors must be viewed were emphasized in the comments, users and improved connectivity to job,
including: Reductions in passenger residential, or retail centers, and
in combination in order to evaluate the
travel time, the ability to maintain a cost contributions to local land-use changes
potential economic development
effective transit project, the appearance and economic development as
benefits of the project.
of permanence of the Small Starts measures. Specifically, 2 commenters
Proposal: FTA proposes to use a project, and trends in land values and noted that the cost effectiveness should
single economic development/land use development in and near the project include mobility benefits that would
criterion based on the likelihood of area. Other suggested measures accrue to highway users with the
increased transit-oriented development included the availability of land, the increase of transit use. In addition, 2
resulting from a Small Starts project. success in development near transit in other commenters noted that walkability
The following describes FTA’s current neighboring communities, plans, should also be incorporated into cost
thinking with respect to what these ordinances and policies that support effectiveness. In addition to the
measures will be. Given the important transit-oriented development, and mobility-oriented measures listed
role that land use plays in supporting, economic development. previously, other suggested measures
guiding, and often increasing Response: Measures of effectiveness include the extent to which a
development, FTA will draw upon vary within each project due to its size, community is considered livable. Other
many of the same factors used in its sponsor experience and capabilities, comments noted that the evaluation of
current evaluation of land use. These and location specific criteria. For the effectiveness should be simplified, thus
will be augmented with indicators that concerns relating to changes in eliminating the need for additional
provide further incentives to passenger travel time and increased measures of evaluation.
development. Because measurement of access to jobs, transportation user Response: FTA supports a simplified
economic development in terms of jobs benefits provides an excellent metric cost effectiveness evaluation process.
or value of future development is not that captures all the benefits of interest. The need to maintain this simplification
currently feasible, FTA proposes instead Measures related to land use and has been taken into account when
to evaluate whether or not the economic development will be choosing the appropriate measures and
conditions necessary to support considered by FTA in its evaluation of tools. Thus, specific, quantifiable, and
economic development exist in the the criterion for economic development/ easily attainable measures such as
project corridor. To accomplish this, land use. transportation user benefits and capital
FTA proposes to use the following Proposal: Because the primary costs are necessary components of the
specific measures: (1) Current land-use objectives of transit projects are to evaluation process. More qualitative
conditions, (2) development and land- improve mobility and foster economic measures such as regional connectivity,
use plans and policies, (3) the economic development, FTA has chosen to use neighborhood revitalization,
development climate in the corridor and two criteria for measuring the project’s walkability, and contributions to land-
region, (4) the project-related change in effectiveness. These are mobility, which use and economic development are
transit accessibility for developable is the travel time savings calculated as difficult to incorporate in a measure of
areas in the corridor, and (5) the part of the cost effectiveness measure, cost effectiveness because they are
economic lifespan of new transit and economic development/land use, difficult to measure reliably. As
facilities proximate to those developable the components of which are discussed described in the response to Question
areas. FTA is conducting research in in Question 8 under Guidance on New 10 under New Starts, FTA is currently
unable to accurately assess the mobility mode-specific constants nationally that projects should be streamlined and no
benefits that accrue to highway users will both produce accurate new measures should be introduced.
from high-capacity transit due to the representations of these omitted Response: Although the Small Starts
inability of local travel models to attributes and be fair to all projects evaluation process is meant to be
reliably determine the effect. Once seeking funding. In the interim, in the simpler than that used for New Starts
travel models have been improved to policy guidance issued in June 2007, projects, accurately weighting reliability
reliably forecast these benefits, FTA will FTA has allowed credits for a constant factors remains an important task.
use them. In addition, as described for a new transit mode to an area. The Further, SAFETEA–LU calls for FTA to
under Question 4 in ‘‘Additional credits are based on the attributes of the include an assessment of the reliability
Discussion Item for Comment,’’ FTA is project. of forecasts for Small Starts, just as it
interested in exploring certain surrogate Proposal: FTA’s current policy allows does for New Starts. Reliability
measures that could account for the use of mode constants for travel measures take into account a project
highway user benefits. models that have been carefully sponsor’s ability to manage transit
Proposal: Because of the difficulty of calibrated against travel demand for an projects, as well as factoring in local
incorporating additional measures into existing transit mode, and which fall expertise and development conditions.
its evaluation of project cost within a reasonable range established by Financial reliability depends on both
effectiveness, FTA is proposing to prior experience. For areas proposing a the amount and the terms of local
maintain its current cost effectiveness new mode, FTA has specified credits for financial funding, as well as the size of
measure of annualized cost per hour of a constant based on the project’s the funding request (e.g., is it reasonable
user benefits. As described in Question attributes. It should be noted that this in relation to other projects of a similar
10 under New Starts above and position is not specifically addressed in size in a similar community?). In
Question 4 under ‘‘Additional the NPRM as FTA intends to treat the addition, measures such as forecasted
Discussion Items for Comment,’’ FTA issue of a modal constant through policy ridership and peer reviews are valid
will continue to seek ways to include guidance, not regulation. means to assess reliability.
the benefits to highway users in the 12. How might FTA incorporate risk Proposal: FTA proposes to consider
calculation of user benefits. and uncertainty into project evaluation reliability of the costs and ridership
11. Should mode-specific constants be for Small Starts? forecasts in its evaluation and to adjust,
allowed in the travel demand forecasts? Comments: Fifteen comments were either upward or downward, the ratings
If so, how should they be applied? received in response to this question. of the individual criteria that rely on
Comments: Fourteen comments were Due to the simplified nature of the these forecasts. The measures for
received in response to this question. Small Starts program, 7 comments reliability will be identified in policy
All but two of the commenters favored related to ways in which risk and guidance and these could include a
use of an asserted modal constant in the uncertainty (which FTA now describes number of factors. For instance, for
estimation of Small Starts project as reliability) could be incorporated into travel forecasts (1) the current land use
ridership and mobility estimates. The the evaluation process without and land-use policies, (2) the soundness
two opposed cited the short timeframe compromising this simplicity. For of forecasting tools and data used to
for a Small Start project and that there instance, 4 commenters indicated that predict ridership and mobility benefits,
is too little national data gathered at this peer reviews and risk analysis based on including steps to reduce uncertainty
time and too much variation between similar and previously approved through peer reviews and other quality
communities to make this worthwhile. projects would be a sufficient means of control procedures, (3) comparisons of
Those in favor of utilizing a modal evaluation. Six other commenters ridership forecasts against peer
constant noted that in areas with a total indicated that risk analysis measures projects—similar projects in similar
absence of a particular transit mode, it should be broad in scope such that settings, with particular scrutiny for
may provide a useful assessment tool. simple travel demand models would be projects without any peers, and (4) the
These comments varied from using a able to analyze these measures track record of the project sponsor with
locally-derived constant when the mode effectively and without costly software benefits forecasts for previous transit
is in place to use of nationally packages. To further simplify risk projects.
determined constants. analysis, 4 commenters were in favor of The reliability of the cost
Response: FTA allows use of a mode- creating separate Small Start and Very effectiveness measure would necessarily
specific constant in forecasts that have Small Start project analysis criteria. depend on any uncertainties associated
been carefully calibrated using ridership Specific measures of risk and with both the effectiveness measures
information from the mode. Mode- uncertainty proposed by commenters and the cost estimates. The effectiveness
specific constants play two roles in include the presence or development of reliability could be quantified with the
travel forecasting. The first is to transit-oriented development policies measures outlined above. The cost
represent all the attributes of the mode and public/private funding. reliability measures could be based on
that are not otherwise explicitly Three commenters stated that risk and (1) the soundness of cost-estimating
included in the travel models. These uncertainly were adequately addressed procedures, including steps to reduce
service attributes include visibility, within the financial analysis and risk through peer reviews and other
reliability, span of service, and comfort, evaluation and that additional measures quality-control efforts, (2) comparisons
as well as others. Constants also act as of risk may overly complicate the of the cost estimates against peer
correction factors for all the errors that process. projects, and (3) the track record of the
occur in the models so that model Two commenters questioned the project sponsor with cost estimates for
results can replicate current transit inclusion of travel forecast and cost previous transit projects. In addition,
ridership. Deciding the magnitude of estimate reliability as an evaluation since operating efficiencies are
each of these roles is extremely difficult factor, noting that (1) the simplified measured as part of cost effectiveness,
and the subject of current FTA- nature of Small Starts projects FTA would consider any innovative
sponsored research. When this research minimizes risk and uncertainties contractual arrangements, especially
has been completed, FTA aspires to associated with their implementation Public Private Partnership arrangement,
having an approach to the application of and (2) the process for evaluating which produce significant reductions in
operating expenses, or which improve Starts and Very Small Starts as proposed Starts, the forecast year and level of
the reliability of forecasts of operating in the ANPRM, others simply noted that detail are significantly simplified.
costs in its assessment of reliability. a threshold should be created below
13. What weights should FTA apply Small Starts Procedures for Planning
which little modeling or intensive
to each measure? and Project Development
quantitative analysis would occur. Of
Comments: Nine comments were the 6 commenters opposed to creating a SAFETEA–LU specifies the use of
received in response to this question. distinction among Small Starts projects, some different planning and project
Although the specific weights varied most still saw the need for a scaled development procedures for Small
considerably among commenters, most approach to evaluating Small Starts Starts projects from those used for
agreed that the overall measures of cost projects. This was especially true for traditional New Starts projects. Like the
effectiveness, land use, and economic those commenters who operated requirement for traditional New Starts,
development would provide an accurate existing transit projects, and for which 49 U.S.C. 5309 requires that Small Starts
assessment of the project. Those who the proposed project was simply an projects be based on the results of
stated that cost effectiveness is a extension of an existing project. planning and alternatives analyses but
moderate to important factor weighted it Response: As noted in the ANPRM, because of the short timeframe for the
between 33 percent and 50 percent. One several options are available for analysis (opening year versus the
commenter suggested a scenario in evaluation of Small Starts proposals: (1) planning horizon covering no less than
which a project would be required to Application of the same evaluation 20 years), it is likely that this process
rate well in cost effectiveness, land use, methods for all projects regardless of can be simplified. Unlike traditional
and economic development, or be able scale; (2) development of simplified New Starts, Small Starts need only be
to score highly in any of the three, to analytical procedures for smaller approved to advance from planning and
receive project funding. Three alternatives analysis to project
projects; or (3) defining for small
commenters suggested that although development and construction; no
projects a set of conditions, effectively
cost effectiveness was an important separate approval to enter final design is
‘‘warrants’’ based on project scope and
measure, the evaluation process should required. A Project Construction Grant
implementation setting, under which
allow for leniency where other project Agreement (PCGA), which is a
proposals are automatically deemed to
benefits outweigh cost effectiveness. simplified Full Funding Grant
have an acceptable level of project
One additional commenter indicated Agreement, is used to provide a multi-
justification.
that project merit and a local year funding stream for Small Starts
commitment to funding should Small Starts projects may range in
projects. The ANPRM included a
outweigh the cost effectiveness measure. size from non-guideway improvements
discussion of, and asked for comment
Response: The variety of responses costing $20 million, or perhaps less, to
on, a number of these issues. The
indicates the difficulty in assigning new guideways costing just under $250
following summarizes the comments
weights to each measure. This difficulty million. Given this relatively wide range
received, FTA’s response and proposal
is compounded by the fact that there is of project costs and the potential for
for addressing the issue in the NPRM:
no research that can be used to guide a complexity and risk, different 15. Should there be a distinction in
decision on the importance of each of approaches seem appropriate for the alternatives analysis requirements
the criteria. Therefore, the application of projects of different scale. Furthermore, for Small Starts compared to traditional
weights is policy driven. FTA recognizes that the effort expended New Starts?
Proposal: FTA proposes in the NPRM by project sponsors to develop the 16. Should there be a distinction in
to give equal weight to both project necessary information and by FTA to the alternatives analysis requirements
justification and local financial ensure the reliability of that information for Very Small Starts compared to larger
commitment for the overall project should be matched to the size and projects that qualify as Small Starts?
rating. Further, the project justification complexity of the proposed project. 17. Within an alternatives analysis,
rating will be comprised of cost Lower levels of effort, however, should what other alternatives should be
effectiveness, weighted at 50 percent result from lower levels of complexity, considered in addition to the Small
and effectiveness, weighted at 50 detail, and rigor, not from a reduced Start and the existing service
percent. Economic development/land ability to address the full range of alternatives?
use will account for 60 percent of the evaluation criteria. Given the relatively 18. What should be the key elements
effectiveness rating, with the remaining straightforward nature of the financial or features of a highly simplified or
40 percent of the rating comprised of measures, most of the differences in simplified alternatives analysis?
mobility benefits. An alternative evaluation methods should occur in the Comments: Question 15 received 18
approach, which uses a pass/fail evaluation of project justification, comments, and question 16 received 12
decision rule in lieu of weights was particularly in the methods used to comments. Question 17 received 7
described in Question 6 under the compute mobility benefits and, comments, and question 18 received 8
ANPRM on Small Starts and is therefore, cost effectiveness. comments. There was universal support
specifically called out in the Proposal: FTA advances in this NPRM expressed for differentiating alternatives
‘‘Additional Discussion Items for the very simplified evaluation process analysis between Small Starts and New
Comment’’ at the end of this section. for Very Small Starts projects that was Starts. Numerous commenters suggested
14. Should the FTA make a first proposed in the ANPRM and that letting the NEPA process fulfill the
distinction in the way we evaluate established, on an interim basis, in the requirement for alternatives analysis
Small Starts projects of different total Final Interim Guidance on Small Starts would streamline the project
project costs and scope? issued August 8, 2006. This process development process. The desire for
Comments: Thirty-three comments relies on pre-existing ‘‘warrants,’’ which simplification was rooted in the idea
were received in response to this if met set the project’s justification and that Small Starts projects, due to their
question. Twenty-seven commenters local financial commitment ratings at small size, are inherently less risky than
favored a scaled approach to Small Medium. In addition, while Small Starts the larger New Starts projects, and the
Starts projects. Although some of these projects would be subject to a similar planning process should be
preferred the distinction between Small evaluation process as is used for New correspondingly less complicated.
Another suggestion was to permit the continue to meet the requirements of simplicity with regard to data
analysis of different alignments or NEPA, good planning practices, and requirements and analysis methods. It
phasing strategies of just one mode or proper identification of project costs was further suggested that the ‘‘before
technology, rather than to require an and benefits for funding and after’’ study be cost effective and in
analysis of alternative modes. recommendations. Where an line with the project size and scope,
Approximately two-thirds of the alternatives analysis is performed prior with little or no analysis required for
commenters favored a distinction in the to initiation of NEPA (but consistent Very Small Starts projects. Specific
requirements of alternatives analysis with NEPA principles), the subsequent measures that were noted as potentially
between Very Small Starts and Small NEPA process and document ought to useful included projected versus actual
Starts. These commenters opined that recognize and incorporate planning ridership; annual report of ridership;
the size of the Very Small Starts projects analysis and decisions; this applies to projected versus actual costs (operations
were not substantial enough to warrant both New Starts and Small Starts. A and maintenance, capital); project
an alternatives analysis. Some very simple alternatives analysis and scope; and projected service levels
mentioned that this would be a subsequent evaluation process can be versus actual service levels.
redundant step that could be easily used when Very Small Starts are being Response: The objectives of the
covered in the NEPA documentation considered. ‘‘before and after’’ study are two-fold:
process. The remaining third of Proposal: In this NPRM, FTA (1) To expand insights into the costs and
commenters did not believe there incorporated the proposal advanced in impacts of major transit investments;
should be a difference in the the ANPRM and established, on an and (2) to improve the technical
alternatives analysis process, because by interim basis, in its Final Interim methods and procedures used in the
differentiating between the two Guidance on Small Starts issued August planning and development of those
programs, some may use this as an 8, 2006. This proposal acknowledges investments. These objectives are
incentive to keep projects just under the that a very limited number of equally important to both large-scale
Small Starts cost thresholds in order to alternatives are permissible and that use and smaller-scale transit projects. Small
perform less analysis and be able to step of the no-build alternative as the Starts projects have a unique
through a streamlined process. baseline is appropriate if the project opportunity to affect a greater number of
There was a consensus from the does not include a new fixed guideway. transit agencies with the results
commenters that no additional For Small Starts, the level of analysis for provided from a ‘‘before and after’’
alternatives should be considered. Six an alternatives analysis may be study.
commenters suggested that the considerably simpler than that for New Proposal: FTA proposes to require a
alternatives analysis should be limited Starts if issues associated with the ‘‘before and after’’ study for all Small
to a ‘‘build’’ and a ‘‘no build.’’ One projects being considered are less Starts projects. Support for this
commenter specified that such an complex. For Very Small Starts only approach can be found in 49 U.S.C.
analysis was appropriate in established minimal information needs to be 5309(g)(2)(C), which applies to all
transit markets, but that a simplified developed relating to a clear description Section 5309 Capital Investments, not
analysis might include a ‘‘build’’ and and assessment of the problem or just to those funded under 49 U.S.C.
‘‘improved system’’ for less-well-served opportunity in the corridor, a clear 5309(d). However, FTA is cognizant of
transit markets. One commenter wrote description of the project and how it the need to simplify this process and
that the consideration of other addresses the problem or opportunity, therefore the FTA guidance on ‘‘before
alternatives should be a matter of local determination of the project sponsor’s and after’’ studies for New Starts will be
discretion, so long as the process meets ability to support the costs of building modified to allow for a simplified study
NEPA requirements. and operating the project, and a plan for approach for Small Starts. In addition,
In terms of what constitutes a highly implementing the project. for Very Small Starts, the requirements
simplified or simplified alternatives 19. Should Small Starts projects also for the Before and After Study in the
analysis, 3 commenters again focused be required to perform a ‘‘before and NPRM have been extremely simplified
on the narrowing of alternatives and after’’ study? since the project sponsor is required to
adherence to NEPA as the key factors Comments: Nineteen comments were submit project information that is
that would simplify the process. One received in answer to this question. generally available.
commenter noted that many Small Approximately two-thirds of the 20. Should FTA mandate an early
Starts, and in particular Very Small commenters indicated a ‘‘before and scoping approach for those alternative
Starts, would qualify as categorical after’’ study should not be required of analyses that are not being conducted
exclusions and thus not require an Small Starts projects. Of those opposed concurrently with the formal NEPA
analysis of alternatives. In such cases, to requiring the study, reasons cited process?
they suggested that the NEPA included the cost relative to the project Comments: Fifteen comments were
determination ought to serve as meeting funding allotment, as well as the need received in answer to this question. In
the requirement for alternatives for greater consistency in reporting order to better address environmental
analysis. requirements. Others opposed to requirements for alternatives analyses,
Response: Although larger projects requiring the study noted that while the ANPRM proposed an ‘‘early
require a number of alternatives to be data collection and analysis is a useful scoping’’ procedure. That procedure is
considered in an alternatives analysis to process, and one that should be described in Council on Environmental
assess the numerous tradeoffs in costs, included in the project funding, it Quality’s (CEQ) guidance. It allows for
benefits, and impacts, the consideration should not be a requirement. For the a scoping process in advance of the
of Small Starts often implies that fewer one-third of the commenters who Notice of Intent to prepare an
useful alternatives exist, and in some supported a requirement for a ‘‘before Environmental Impact Statement.
cases, there may only be two and after’’ study, the need for a solid Response to this proposal was mixed
alternatives, one representing the Small base of data and analysis of Small Starts with 6 commenters supporting the
Start and the other representing today’s projects nationwide was consistently approach and 9 commenters opposing
service levels. Nevertheless, the number cited as a reason. However, another it. However, it should be noted that
of alternatives considered must commenter noted the need for more experienced entities and those
representing the largest transit operators of the Guidance on New Starts Policies that Major Investment projects
were opposed to the proposal due and Procedures. contribute to reducing congestion. For
primarily to the fact that scoping is 2. In sections 611.13(b), 611.23(b), example, as noted below, FTA intends
likely to not be required for the majority and 611.33(b) of the regulatory text, of to take account of, as a part of its review
of Small Starts projects under the the NPRM FTA is proposing that the of ‘‘other factors,’’ the degree to which
National Environmental Policy Act costs of all ‘‘essential project elements’’ a project is supported by an effective
(NEPA) regulations. Those entities must be included in the capital cost congestion relief strategy including
stated that because the requirement will estimates that lead to a project’s cost variable pricing. Second, FTA proposes
often be more stringent than what NEPA effectiveness rating. Cost estimates that to continue to include highway user
requires, it should not be imposed. do not include all of these elements will transportation benefits, such as travel
Response: Early scoping, undertaken be considered incomplete and will not time savings from reduced demand on
by sponsors, could assist FTA in making be accepted for rating. FTA requests the highway system, as part of its
a well-reasoned class of action industry input as to which ‘‘essential measure of transportation system user
determination for each Small Starts project elements’’ should be required for benefits used to calculate mobility
project. If, in advance of any informal inclusion. There has been much improvements and cost effectiveness.
early scoping process, it appears that, discussion in the past as to what However, while this factor has been
based on established facts and constitutes an essential element of the included in the definition of user
circumstances, a particular project project versus a project betterment, benefits for some time, as described
proposal qualifies for a categorical which can and should be funded above in response to Question 10 under
exclusion, then early scoping by the entirely with local funds. In addition, in New Starts, reliable estimation of these
project sponsor need not be undertaken; the interest of ‘‘right-sizing’’ some benefits has been problematic. FTA
otherwise, early scoping is the best project sponsors have excluded intends to continue to work closely with
means of determining the appropriate improvements needed in the latter years the Federal Highway Administration to
class of action for purposes of the NEPA of the planning horizon from the scope address the improvements needed in
process. However, because of the of the FFGA, even though such costs are travel models to assure that reliable
likelihood that a vast majority of always required for cost effectiveness estimates can be developed and
proposed projects will not be required calculations. This has led to some included in the measurement of
to engage in formal scoping, this confusion as to whether the project transportation system user benefits.
additional effort outweighs its limited sponsor is required to provide these However, until such estimates are
value. improvements, since they are necessary uniformly available on a reliable basis,
to generate the benefits used in the cost FTA believes it is appropriate to use
Proposal: FTA is not proposing that
effectiveness calculation. One way this alternative measures that could provide
early scoping, as defined by CEQ problem has been addressed is that the
guidance, be required for Small Starts some indication of the congestion relief
project sponsor has included these benefits of New Starts projects. One
projects. Instead, for projects requiring improvements in the 20 year financial
an Environmental Impact Statement, such measure could be the reduction in
plan but has shown that they will be highway vehicle miles of travel between
FTA is proposing to require that the funded with non-Section 5309 Fixed
project has progressed beyond the NEPA the New Start and baseline alternative,
Guideway funds. FTA seeks the weighted by a factor of highway
scoping phase before FTA will approve industry views on how these various
entry into project development. This congestion (e.g., daily vehicle miles of
concepts, ‘‘essential project elements’’,
requirement is identical to that travel per lane mile in the New Starts
‘‘betterments’’ and ‘‘right-sizing’’ should
currently applied to New Starts. project corridor). Such a measure, while
be addressed in the New Starts/Small
imperfect, would allow for
Additional Discussion Items for Starts process.
3. FTA is considering whether an consideration of the amount of reduced
Comment highway demand to be assessed in the
extremely simplified alternative
A few additional issues have been evaluation framework should be context of the severity of congestion in
raised since publication and comment allowed for Small Starts projects. The the corridor. Accordingly, as the third
on the Guidance on New Starts Policies framework would allow for a ‘‘pass/fail’’ way in which congestion would be
and Procedures and the ANPRM on rating for economic development/land addressed in evaluating projects, FTA is
Small Starts. FTA specifically requests use and cost effectiveness, which, when proposing to include ‘‘congestion relief’’
feedback on these issues, which are combined with a reliability factor, as one of the features of ‘‘mobility
identified below and are also discussed would translate into the five levels improvements’’ evaluated as part of
in either the Response to Comments or (high, medium-high, medium, medium- establishing project justification. FTA is
in the Section-by-Section Analysis. FTA low, and low) for the overall rating. This interested in comment on the
will consider comments received on framework could simplify the rating implications for the New Starts program
these issues during future stages of the process, while identifying the projects of taking into account the congestion
rulemaking process. with the most potential. It would not, reduction benefits of transit projects, the
1. FTA has revised the definition of a however, provide as much information measure of congestion relief proposed
fixed guideway system in section 611.5 on the variations between projects. This above, other possible measures of
to reflect the changes included in proposal is more fully described in the congestion relief, and the methods by
SAFETEA–LU. In addition, however, Response to Comments section under which the current travel models could
FTA has included in that definition the proposal for Question 6 in the Small be used to produce better and nationally
facilities, such as HOT lanes, that Starts Evaluation and Ratings section. consistent estimates of highway system
replicate the kind of free-flow 4. Relief of congestion is a top priority user benefits.
conditions expected of a traditional of the Department of Transportation, as 5. FTA is seeking feedback on how to
fixed guideway system through pricing reflected in its recently announced provide additional incentives to
or other enhancements. This proposal is Congestion Initiative. The proposals increase the role of public/private
more fully described under the proposal made in this Notice include several partnerships in Section 5309 Capital
for Question 1 in the Eligibility section features which are designed to assure Investment projects. FTA is proposing
to explicitly address the role of public/ 6. FTA has chosen to publish the provisions that apply to New Starts
private partnerships as part of an weights used to calculate the Project (projects of over $250 million in total
assessment of the role that innovative Justification and local financial cost or requesting more than $75 million
contractual arrangements can play in commitment ratings for New and Small in New Starts funds). Subpart C would
reducing and/or improving the Starts projects in the final rule. cover Small Starts projects (projects of
operating costs both as a measure of the Previously, these weights as well as under $250 million in total cost and
reliability of estimates of operating costs measures used to determine New or requesting less than $75 million in
and in its assessment of the operating Small Starts Project Justification and Small Starts funds but not qualifying as
plan under local financial commitment. Local Financial Commitment ratings a Very Small Start). Subpart D would
However, there may be additional steps have been published in the Annual cover Very Small Starts (a subset of
that FTA could take. In addition, FTA Report on Funding Recommendations Small Starts projects which are less than
is looking at ways that public/private and separately in other FTA $50 million in total cost and $3 million
partnerships can enhance the capital publications. FTA seeks comment on per mile (excluding vehicles) and which
plan under local financial commitment whether to publish both the weights and meet other specified characteristics).
as well as measure cost effectiveness. the measures in the final rule, or to FTA has chosen this approach, even
For purposes of this question, a public/ preserve a degree of flexibility and though there is a lot of similarity in the
private partnership assumes that the maintain the measures in a separate requirements of each subpart, in order
private sector invests its own financial document. to assist a project sponsor in finding all
capital (as opposed to an in-kind 7. FTA is seeking comment on how it of the applicable procedures and
contribution) in the project. One might develop a methodology to better evaluation criteria in a single subpart,
possible approach would be to allow quantify the user benefits attributable to depending on the size and nature of the
‘‘betterments’’ funded by private entities a project. First, FTA seeks comment on proposed project.
to be excluded from the cost a methodology for quantifying the user Subpart A includes a general
effectiveness calculation. This would benefits that would accrue from the statement of purpose and contents,
allow private entities to invest in interaction of the proposed New Start or statements on applicability of the
particular elements of a project that they Small Start project and road pricing regulation, and a section on definitions.
viewed to be of particular benefit to included in an effective congestion These sections are similar to section in
them without jeopardizing an management strategy. the current regulation, but include
acceptable cost effectiveness rating. This Second, FTA seeks a methodology for certain amendments, which are
approach would be available to a project quantifying the benefits attributable to described below. This is followed by a
with an acceptable cost effectiveness the economic development/land use new section on measures of reliability,
rating calculated without taking into changes that occur as a result of a which applies to all projects seeking
account such betterments. To the extent proposed New Start or Small Start Section 5309 Capital Investment funds,
that the addition of the betterments to project. Those changes in economic no matter the size.
the project’s design would result in the development/land use may provide
project’s cost effectiveness becoming Subparts B, C, and D each include
benefits that are not otherwise included separate provisions on eligibility, the
unacceptable, FTA would exclude such in FTA’s current estimation of user
costs from the calculation of cost project justification criteria, the local
benefits. FTA seeks comment on how to financial commitment criteria, overall
effectiveness if they were borne by
quantify this difference in economic project development ratings, and the
private entities. Examples of such
development/land use attributable to project development process, as they
improvements, or betterments, could
the project, as well as how to measure apply to New Starts, Small Starts, and
include additional station entrances to
the benefits that result. Very Small Starts, respectively. These
subway stations, substantial
improvements to a station’s design III. Section-by-Section Analysis subparts build on the sections in the
beyond the design standards used for existing regulations that cover these
Reorganization subjects, amended as described below,
other stations in the system, and
changes in the vertical or horizontal In order to make the regulation more and tailored to the size and complexity
alignment of the project. Alternatively, understandable, FTA is proposing to of the projects being considered.
FTA could exclude from the calculation divide it into four subparts that will Distribution Table
of the cost effectiveness rating those cover General Provisions, ‘‘New Starts,’’
project costs paid for by private ‘‘Small Starts,’’ and ‘‘Very Small Starts.’’ For ease of reference, the following
capital—whether such costs are for Subpart A would include General distribution table indicates proposed
betterments or otherwise—and calculate Provisions that apply to all projects changes in section numbering and titles
a project’s cost effectiveness based only seeking Section 5309 Capital Investment from the current version of the
on costs borne by the public. funds. Subpart B would include those regulations in 49 CFR part 611.
Current part 611 Proposed part 611
611.1 Purposes and Contents ............................................................... Subpart A—611.1 Purpose and Contents.
611.2 Applicability .................................................................................. Subpart A—611.3 Applicability.
Subpart B—611.9 New Starts—Eligibility.
Subpart C—611.19 Small Starts—Eligibility.
Subpart D—611.29 Very Small Starts—Eligibility.
611.5 Definitions .................................................................................... Subpart A—611.5 Definitions.

611.7 Relation to planning and project development processes .......... Subpart B—611.17 New Starts—Project development process.
Subpart C—611.27 Small Starts—Project development process.
Subpart D—611.37 Very Small Starts—Project development process.
611.9 Project justification criteria for grants and loans for fixed guide- Subpart B—611.11 New Starts—Project justification criteria.
way systems.
Subpart C—611.21 Small Starts—Project justification criteria.
Current part 611 Proposed part 611
Subpart D—611.31 Very Small Starts—Project justification criteria.

611.11 Local financial commitment criteria ........................................... Subpart B—611.13 New Starts—Local financial commitment criteria.
Subpart C—611.23 Small Starts—Local financial commitment criteria.
Subpart D—611.33 Very Small Starts—Local financial commitment
criteria.
611.13 Overall project ratings ................................................................ Subpart A—611.7 Measures of reliability in the Section 5309 capital
investment evaluation and rating process.
Subpart B—611.15 New Starts—Overall project ratings.
Subpart C—611.25 Small Starts—Overall project ratings.
Subpart D—611.35 Very Small Starts—Overall project ratings.
Subpart A—General Provisions dropped by the amendments made to 49 provide more detail or specificity or to
U.S.C. Chapter 53 by SAFETEA–LU. be consistent with changes proposed to
Section 611.1: Purpose and Contents
be made elsewhere in the rule. Key
Section 611.3: Applicability
This section describes the purpose of changes include the following.
the proposed rule, which is to This section states that this rule, as in The definition of ‘‘alternatives
implement the requirements of Title 49, the current regulation, applies only to analysis’’ is proposed to be expanded to
United States Code (U.S.C.), sections the evaluation of projects seeking include a requirement that an
5309(d) and (e) and 5328(a). Federal capital investment funds (New alternatives analysis must ‘‘include
Starts and Small Starts) for new fixed sufficient key information to enable the
As is the case with the current guideway systems and extensions to Secretary to make the findings * * *
regulation, the proposed rule establishes existing systems under 49 U.S.C. 5309. required under section 5309.’’ This was
the methodology by which FTA will However, in contrast to the current added to be consistent with the
evaluate candidate projects for Section regulation, ‘‘substantial capital definition of alternatives analysis added
5309 Capital Investment funding. investments in new corridor-based bus to 49 U.S.C. 5309 by SAFETEA–LU.
Applicants must follow these rules to be projects’’ are added to the eligible The definition of ‘‘baseline
considered eligible for discretionary activities for Small Starts, implementing alternative’’ is proposed to be changed
capital investment grants for new fixed additional eligibility provided by slightly to modify the reference to
guideway systems, including substantial SAFETEA–LU. New Starts projects must alternatives that have a better ratio of
corridor-based bus systems or continue to include a fixed guideway measures of mobility to cost than the no
extensions to existing systems. As in the component, as will be described below build alternative by explicitly stating
current regulation, data collected as part in more detail. the condition that the cost effectiveness
of the planning and project As in the current regulation, this of the baseline alternative must meet.
development process and related section also states that the rule does not This is consistent with long standing
regulations, conducted under 23 CFR apply to projects already in final design FTA guidance. Specific reference to
part 450 and 23 CFR part 771, provide or under a Full Funding Grant Transportation System Management or
the basis for evaluating projects seeking Agreement. Very Small Start-like alternatives as
to proceed under the New Starts, Small The proposed rule, consistent with typical baseline alternatives is proposed
Starts, or Very Small Starts programs. SAFETEA–LU, does not continue the to be added.
As in the current regulation, the current exemption from the A definition of ‘‘metropolitan
results of these evaluations will be used requirements of this rule for projects transportation plan’’ is proposed to be
by FTA to make the findings required to seeking less than $25 million in Section added, which is based on the
advance a project into preliminary 5309 Capital Investment funds. requirements in 49 U.S.C. 5303.
engineering (PE) and final design for However, the proposed rule would The term ‘‘Project Construction Grant
New Starts, and into project permit projects which had been exempt Agreement (PCGA)’’ is proposed to be
development for Small Starts and Very and which had already been approved defined as a document similar in
Small Starts. They also will be used to into project development (PE or final concept to a Full Funding Grant
make recommendations, as required design) to use funds that have already Agreement (FFGA), but for Small Starts
under 49 U.S.C. 5309(k)(1), for inclusion been made available through the (including Very Small Starts) projects.
in the President’s annual budget appropriations process and to receive The term ‘‘project development’’ is
request, and to determine which those funds without being rated and proposed to be defined as steps taken
projects are eligible for funding evaluated under the proposed rule. during PE and final design, prior to
commitments under Full Funding Grant However, to receive additional Section award of a FFGA or a PCGA.
Agreements, in the case of New Starts, 5309 Capital Investment (New Starts A definition is provided for the term
or Project Construction Grant and Small Starts) funds from FTA, ‘‘Section 5309 Capital Investments
Agreements, in the case of Small Starts previously exempt projects would have Program’’ which includes funding for
and Very Small Starts. The annual to be rated and evaluated in accordance New Starts and Small Starts projects
report was previously called the New with the provisions of the rule. under Section 5309(b)(1), (b)(4), and
Starts Report, but will now be retitled (m)(2)(A). While the title for all of
because it will include funding Section 611.5: Definitions Section 5309 is ‘‘Capital Investment
recommendations for both New Starts As in the current regulation, this Grants,’’ this rule applies only to
and Small Starts. In contrast to the section defines key terms used in 49 projects seeking discretionary grants for
current regulation, information will not CFR part 611. Many of the definitions New Starts and Small Starts funding
be needed for an annual Supplemental would remain unchanged from the under subsections (b)(1), (b)(4) and
Report on New Starts, formerly required current regulation. However, several (m)(2)(A) and not to funding for Fixed
by 49 U.S.C. 5309(o)(2), as it was definitions have been changed to Guideway Modernization under
subsections (b)(2) and (m)(2)(B) or added that is drawn from long-standing in place or planned which reduce the
discretionary bus grants under use of the term in the planning process. uncertainty of operating cost estimates,
subsections (b)(3) and (m)(2)(C). In essence, it is defined as the best than and mitigation efforts by the project
FTA is proposing a definition of can be done without construction of a sponsor to improve the reliability of
‘‘Project Development Agreement’’ new fixed guideway. At a minimum it forecasts. Once a project’s reliability of
(PDA), which is an agreement between must be more cost effective as compared forecasts has been established, the
FTA and the project sponsor that must to the no build alternative than the New proposed rule would allow FTA to
be executed before the project is or Small Starts project compared to the adjust, upward or downward, specific
approved for entry into PE. The terms no build alternative. This could include ratings that would otherwise be applied
and conditions of a model PDA are set upgrades to transit service through to the specific project justification or
forth in Appendix A to the proposed operational and small physical changes, local financial commitment criteria that
rule. selected highway improvements, minor would be affected by the uncertainties
The term ‘‘Section 5309 Capital widenings, and other focused traffic associated with the area of estimation
Investment’’ is proposed to be defined engineering improvements. reliability determined in the evaluation
as those projects eligible for assistance A definition of ‘‘user benefit’’ has of the factors outlined above.
with funds from the discretionary been added. The term is defined as FTA is considering an alternative
Section 5309 Capital Investment transportation system user benefits structure for developing overall project
Program. This includes new fixed accruing to all travelers affected by the ratings for Small Starts projects. This
guideway systems and extensions, as in proposed Section 5309 Capital proposal is more fully described in the
the current regulation, but also an Investment improvement, compared to a Response to Comments section under
expanded definition of this term. First, baseline alternative. User benefits the Proposal for Question 6 under the
FTA has proposed that the definition include travel time savings, reduced Small Starts Evaluation and Ratings
include a transportation facility that, by out-of-pocket travel costs, section. Should the alternative approach
means of pricing or other improvements in comfort, convenience, be adopted, FTA would also consider
enhancements, replicates the benefits of and reliability, and other benefits that the amount of funding proposed to
‘‘free-flow’’ conditions for transit. accrue to users of specific travel modes, come from outside the Section 5309
Second, in response to SAFETEA–LU where such benefits are supported by Capital Investment program as an
for Small Starts funding, the definition verifiable data. The definition explicitly indication of the reliability of the
includes corridor-based bus projects includes highway users, transit users, financial commitment to the proposed
with at least 50 percent of the project and pedestrians as users of the Small Starts project.
operating in a guideway dedicated to transportation system.
transit or high occupancy vehicle use Subpart B—New Starts
during peak periods, or a substantial Section 611.7: Measures of Reliability in
the Section 5309 Capital Investment Section 611.9: Eligibility for Section
investment in a defined corridor which 5309 Capital Investments Funds (New
includes certain key elements. The key Evaluation and Rating Process
Starts)
elements proposed are substantial This section, which is completely
transit stations, traffic signal priority/ new compared to the existing This section would establish the
pre-emption, low floor buses or level regulation, would provide that FTA eligibility for New Starts funding. New
boarding, branding of the proposed would evaluate and rate the reliability Starts are defined, in section 611.5, as
service, and 10 minute peak and 15 of the forecasts of ridership and costs those projects requesting $75 million or
minute off-peak headways or better for estimated and proposed for a Section more in New Starts funds or having a
at least 14 hours per day. The definition 5309 Capital Investment project. total project cost of $250 million or
also would provide for a categorization SAFETEA–LU amended 49 U.S.C. 5309 more. As in the current regulation, New
of projects into three categories (New to add new provisions (49 U.S.C. Starts projects must be the result of
Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small 5309(d)(3)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5309 planning and alternatives analysis.
Starts), depending on the size of the (e)(4)(D)) that require FTA to evaluate Codifying current FTA practice, projects
project and certain project features. New the reliability of these forecasts and must have at least 50 percent of the
Starts projects would be defined as proposals. However, as stated in the project length (not necessarily
those requesting $75 million or more in NPRM, the specific measures that will contiguous) operating on a fixed
Section 5309 Capital Investment funds, be used to evaluate and rate reliability guideway that is dedicated to transit or
or a total project cost of $250 million or will be established in policy guidance. high occupancy vehicle use during the
more. Small Starts projects would be It is likely that these measures would peak period or when congestion inhibits
projects requesting less than $75 million address the transit orientation of transit system performance. Projects
in Section 5309 Capital Investment existing and future land uses in the which qualify as a New Start project due
funds and a total project cost of less environment of the proposed project, to their cost or requested New Starts
than $250 million. Very Small Starts the experience of the project sponsor in share must be evaluated under the
projects would be defined as meeting implementing previous major projects criteria and procedures provided for in
Small Starts requirements, but in similar to that being proposed, industry Subpart B; they may not be subdivided
addition having a total cost of less than experience with implementation of for the purpose of analysis, rating, and
$3 million per mile (not including projects of a similar nature, the evaluation into a series of Small Starts
vehicles), a total project cost of less than reliability of forecasting methods used or Very Small Starts projects covered by
$50 million, and including by the project sponsor and of the Subparts C or D.
demonstrably effective and cost- information provided by the project
sponsor in support of the evaluation Section 611.11: Project Justification

effective project elements. For the
process, a comparison of opening year Criteria (New Starts)
purpose of categorizing projects, costs
would be expressed in year-of- project ridership to that estimated for The approach taken in the proposed
expenditure dollars. the planning horizon covering no less rule for evaluation of the justification
A definition of ‘‘Transportation than 20 years, the degree to which for New Starts projects builds on the
System Management (TSM)’’ would be innovative contractual arrangements are approach in section 611.9 of the current
regulation. As required by 49 U.S.C. FTA proposes to address this factor project is a part of a significant
5309(d)(2)(B), FTA must find that a through the cost effectiveness measure, congestion reduction strategy that
project is ‘‘justified’’ based on a which already includes operating costs incorporates pricing. Others could
comprehensive review of a series of in the annualized costs, because include multimodal emphasis of the
criteria. Many of these criteria were experience has shown that a separate locally preferred investment strategy,
unchanged by SAFETEA–LU, but measure of operating efficiencies does including the proposed New Starts
several were added or were given added not meaningfully distinguish between project as one element; environmental
emphasis. As under the current projects. FTA expects that operating justice considerations and equity issues;
regulation, FTA will evaluate and rate a efficiencies resulting from innovative consideration of innovative financing,
proposed project based on information contractual arrangements will result in procurement and construction
coming from locally-conducted lower operating expenses and hence techniques, including design-build
alternatives analyses and project higher cost effectiveness ratings. FTA turnkey applications; and additional
development processes. Also as in the will consider any innovative contractual factors relevant to local and national
current regulation, FTA will use a arrangements, including public private priorities and to the success of the
‘‘multiple measure’’ approach to partnerships, as a measure of operating project.
determine the overall justification of a efficiencies in its evaluation of both In the current regulation, a series of
proposed project, combining the ratings reliability and the operating plan as part ‘‘considerations’’ specified in 49 U.S.C.
made against a series of criteria. of local financial commitment. 5309(d) are laid out. The proposed rule
As in the current regulation, ratings Consistent with the changes made by does not explicitly include these
for each of the specified criteria will be SAFETEA–LU, which explicitly added
considerations as specific criteria.
expressed in terms of five levels of ‘‘economic development’’ to the list of
However, the measures which will be
descriptive indicators ranging from justification factors, and which elevated
used to support the criteria that are
‘‘high’’ to ‘‘low.’’ Subsection (a)(2) ‘‘public transportation supportive land
explicitly identified do implicitly cover
provides that the specific measures for use policies and future patterns’’ from a
the considerations included in 49 U.S.C.
each of the project justification criteria consideration to a justification factor,
5309(d). Specifically, congestion relief
will be published in policy guidance ‘‘economic development/land use’’ is
(49 U.S.C. 5309(d)(3)(D)(i)) and
and may be changed from time to time. included as a measure of effectiveness.
improved mobility (49 U.S.C.
However, as required by SAFETEA–LU, As described above in the Questions 7
5309(d)(3)(D)(ii)) are incorporated in the
such changes will be subject to notice and 8 of the response to comments
and comment before they are finalized received on the Guidance on New Starts measures of mobility and transportation
and will be published at least every two Policies and Procedures and Question 8 system user benefits; air pollution (49
years or when substantial changes of the ANPRM on Small Starts, it is U.S.C. 5309(d)(3)(D)(iii)), noise
occur. difficult to separately evaluate these two pollution (49 U.S.C. 5309(d)(3)(D)(iv),
As proposed in the January 2006 factors. Nonetheless, recognizing the and energy consumption (49 U.S.C.
Guidance on New Starts Policy and importance that SAFETEA–LU provided 5309(d)(3)(D)(v) are addressed in the
Procedures, FTA is proposing to adopt by including both these factors, FTA measure for environmental benefits;
a new approach to classify the criteria will use this combined measure as an and, finally, ancillary and mitigation
used for project justification. Mobility important part of the evaluation of costs (49 U.S.C. 5309(d)(3)(D)(vi)) and
improvements (including mobility for project justification. Thus, the rating of local land, construction, and operating
transit dependents and congestion cost effectiveness and of effective will costs (49 U.S.C. 5309(d)(3)(J)) are
relief), economic development/land use, be weighted equally in computing the included in the costs used to calculate
and environmental benefits will be project justification rating. Economic cost effectiveness. As noted earlier,
classified as measures of project development/land use will comprise 40 measures of congestion relief could also
effectiveness. percent of the effectiveness measure, include measures of reduced highway
Cost effectiveness is proposed to be with an additional 40 percent given to travel weighted by severity of
evaluated separately, measured as mobility for the general population congestion, as well as being included in
annualized capital and operating costs (including congestion relief), 10 percent the measure of transportation system
divided by transportation system user to environmental benefits, and the final user benefits used to calculate cost
benefits. The capital cost used for cost 10 percent to transit dependent effectiveness. Further, infrastructure
effectiveness must include all essential mobility. costs and other [land use] benefits (49
project elements necessary for As in the current regulation, U.S.C. 5309(d)(3)(E)) and the cost of
completion of the project. effectiveness and cost effectiveness are suburban sprawl (49 U.S.C.
Transportation system user benefits are evaluated by comparing the project to 5309(d)(3)(F)) are addressed in the
explicitly defined elsewhere to the baseline alternative and ‘‘other measure of economic development/land
incorporate benefits to all transportation factors’’ will be considered in setting the use. The mobility of the public
system users, including transit riders, overall rating for project justification. transportation dependent population
highway users, and pedestrians. In the Although FTA is not proposing, as was (49 U.S.C. 5309(d)(3)(G)) is, in fact, a
long run, it is expected that the measure proposed in the January 19, 2006 draft key part of the mobility measure of
will count highway user benefits Guidance on New Starts Policies and effectiveness, and economic
explicitly, once transportation models Procedures, to explicitly assess the case development (also in 49 U.S.C.
are capable of providing reliable and for the project as a separate measure, 5309(d)(3)(G)) is part of the economic
nationally consistent estimates of their FTA intends to evaluate this issue for all development/land use measure of
value. projects as part of its assessment of effectiveness. Population density (49
‘‘Operating efficiencies’’ is no longer ‘‘other factors.’’ As part of its policy U.S.C. 5309(d)(3)(H)) is addressed as
included as a separate evaluation guidance FTA will identify which part of the economic development/land
criteria, even though it is called out in additional factors will be considered as use measure of effectiveness and current
49 U.S.C. 5309(d)(2)(B) as one of the ‘‘other factors.’’ One measure that FTA transit ridership (also in 49 U.S.C.
factors to be assessed by FTA in finding currently intends to consider under 5309(d)(3)(H)) forms an important part
that a project is ‘‘justified.’’ Instead, ‘‘other factor’’ is the degree to which a of the new measure of reliability.
Finally, the technical capacity of the that would provide that FTA would give ‘‘recommended,’’ which is now a rating
grant recipient (49 U.S.C. 5309(d)(3)(I) is priority to financing projects that of ‘‘medium.’’ In other words, both
addressed in the measures of reliability, require less New Starts funds, while at project justification and local financial
as well as forming an important part of the same time considering the fiscal commitment would have to be rated
the assessment of readiness to proceed capacity of State and local governments ‘‘high, medium-high or medium’’ in
to through project development. to provide more New Starts funds in order to achieve an overall rating of
Subsection (c) is essentially determining whether to rate the ‘‘high, medium-high or medium.’’
unchanged from the existing regulation project’s overall local financial Consistent with SAFETEA-LU, the
and requires the New Starts project to be commitment below ‘‘medium.’’ proposed rule continues to require an
compared to the baseline alternative and As in the current regulation, ratings of overall project rating of at least
that a greater degree of certainty with the percentage of Federal funds sought ‘‘medium’’ for a project to advance to a
respect to the scope, level of from the New Starts program and the subsequent step in the project
commitment and the plans and policies capital and operating financial development process or to be
that support land use and economic commitments will be made on a five recommended for funding.
development are required as the project level scale ranging from ‘‘low’’ to
moves through the process. ‘‘high.’’ These ratings will be combined, Section 611.17: Project Development
A new subsection (d) is added that as in the current regulation, into an Process (New Starts)
indicates that while project sponsors are overall rating of financial commitment This section provides for the
expected to use the traditional four-step on a five level scale ranging from ‘‘low’’ procedures by which New Starts
model to estimate mobility benefits, to ‘‘high.’’ projects are to advance through the
alternative, simpler methods may be project development process. For New
applied with FTA approval. Section 611.15: Overall Project Ratings Starts, this process is largely consistent
Finally, as in the current regulation, (New Starts) with the project planning and
subsection (e) states that the ratings for As in the current regulation, the development procedures in section
each of the criteria will be combined ratings on project justification and local 611.7 of the current regulation. All
into an overall rating of project financial commitment will be combined projects must emerge from the
justification. As in the current into an overall project rating. In contrast metropolitan and Statewide planning
regulation, the overall rating for project to the current regulation, which, as processes. Projects must proceed
justification will range on a five level provided for in Transportation Equity through both the PE and final design
scale from ‘‘high’’ to ‘‘low.’’ ‘‘Other Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21), stages of the project development
factors’’ will be considered in setting the called for overall project ratings to be process before being eligible to be
overall rating. The proposed rule expressed as ‘‘highly recommended,’’ recommended for New Starts funding.
explicitly indicates that applying these ‘‘recommended,’’ or ‘‘not As in the current regulation, project
‘‘other factors’’ can result in an recommended,’’ the proposed rule calls sponsors must perform an alternatives
adjustment, upward or downward, in for, consistent with SAFETEA-LU, analysis. The proposed rule indicates
the overall rating of project justification. projects to be assigned overall ratings on that this analysis must be consistent
a five level scale of ‘‘high,’’ ‘‘medium- with FTA guidance and NEPA
Section 611.13: Local Financial high,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ ‘‘medium-low,’’ and requirements. The alternatives analysis
Commitment Criteria (New Starts) ‘‘low.’’ In addition, in response to the must cover a range of alternatives and
The approach taken to evaluate local requirement in SAFETEA-LU, the result in selection of a locally preferred
financial commitment is proposed to be proposed rule calls for the summary alternative that is formally adopted and
largely unchanged from the current rating to take into account the degree of included in the region’s metropolitan
regulation. This includes an assessment the reliability of the estimates of transportation plan.
of the amount of non-Section 5309 ridership and costs. The proposed rule defines project
Capital Investment funds being As in the current regulation, ratings development to include PE and final
requested, and the stability and will be made at the time a project seeks design. The proposed rule includes
reliability of the funding proposed to be to move from one step in the project more detail on the definition of the
used to cover both the capital costs of development process to another, and activities that are included in PE which
the project and the operating costs of the annually for the purposes of the annual are then translated into entry criteria for
entire transit system, including the report on funding recommendations final design. It indicates that PE
project. As in the current regulation, the required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(k)(1). includes completion of the NEPA
capital and operating financing plans The proposed rule does not specify process, design of all major project
will be rated over the planning horizon how the ratings of project justification elements to the extent that no
covering no less than 20 years for the and local financial commitment will be significant cost-related issues remain,
project. The measures for rating the translated into the overall project and cost estimation that permits
stability of the funding to cover ratings, except to indicate, similar to the development of a financial plan that
operating costs will include an current regulation, that a project must establishes the maximum amount of
assessment of the degree to which be rated at least ‘‘medium’’ on project New Starts funding which FTA will
innovative contractual arrangements are justification, and local financial provide if the project were to receive a
in place to assure the reliability of commitment to be rated ‘‘medium’’ full funding grant agreement. As in the
operating cost estimates. overall. Since, as required by SAFETEA- current regulation, minimum readiness
The provision which calls for FTA to LU, a five level scale will now be used, criteria for entry into PE are provided.
assess the degree to which planning and FTA proposed to apply a similar Along with the previous requirement
PE have been carried out with other decision rule to determining the rating that FTA approve the baseline
than Section 5309 Capital Investment of ‘‘medium-high’’ and ‘‘high’’ as is used alternative, new features of these criteria
funds has been dropped, as this in the current regulation which required include a requirement that the NEPA
requirement was deleted by SAFETEA– ratings of at least ‘‘medium’’ on both scoping process has been completed
LU. In addition, as required by local financial commitment and project before FTA approves entry into PE, that
SAFETEA–LU, a provision is proposed justification to achieve a rating of independent endorsement has been
received from potential funding partners proposed rule requires that data on the SAFETEA–LU, as FTA is proposing to
of the proposed financing strategy, and project through the end of PE must be process an amendment for these
that the travel demand forecasting collected and submitted to FTA as part additional incentive funds only after the
methods have been validated against a of the final design submittal. Again, project is complete and operating, rather
survey of transit riders no more that five analogous to the current regulation’s than providing an immediate incentive
years old. In addition, approval to enter requirement for a rating of based on whether forecasts stayed
PE will also require development of a ‘‘recommended,’’ a project must receive within these limits after entry into PE
preliminary plan to conduct the ‘‘before an overall rating of at least ‘‘medium’’ but prior to execution of the FFGA. FTA
and after study’’ that is required by the to advance into final design. Further, as believes that the incentive should only
amendment to 49 U.S.C. 5309(g)(2)(C) in the current regulation, project be provided for actual performance, not
added by SAFETEA-LU. Such studies sponsors approved to enter final design for projected performance. As in the
are already required by the current are granted pre-award authority to current regulation, FTA is limited in the
regulation. This added requirement to conduct final design activities, right-of- amount of FFGA commitments it can
enter PE is designed to assure that the way acquisition and utility relocation make during a given reauthorization
process of conducting such studies is prior to grant approval. Other project cycle by the amount authorized, plus a
facilitated. An overall rating of activities would require a Letter of No statutory limit on contingent
‘‘medium’’ is required to receive Prejudice. As stated in subsection (d)(7), commitments, which are subject to
approval to enter PE; this is consistent projects that are approved into final future authorizations. Finally,
with the current regulation’s design will be exempt from any changes consistent with the current regulation, a
requirement that the project have an in New Starts policy or guidance. ‘‘before and after’’ study must be
overall rating of ‘‘recommended.’’ As in As in the current regulation, criteria completed within 30 months of project
the current regulation, project sponsors are provided for execution of Full opening that assesses the costs of the
approved to enter PE are granted pre- Funding Grant Agreements (FFGAs) in project and actual ridership two years
award authority to conduct all PE subsection (e). Projects must be rated after opening compared with the
activities prior to grant approval. ‘‘medium’’ or better, project sponsors estimated costs and forecast ridership at
In a new subsection (2(H)) FTA is must be determined to have the entry into PE, final design, and the
proposing to require the execution of a technical capacity to carry out the FFGA.
Project Development Agreement (PDA) project, and no outstanding issues may
before approval of entry into PE. The remain. The proposed rule notes in Subpart C—Small Starts
PDA would set forth the mutual subsection (e)(2) that FTA’s funding
Subpart C provides for the eligibility,
understandings of FTA and the project decision is distinct from project
criteria, and process requirements that
sponsor regarding the steps and evaluation and rating process. Projects
will be applied to Small Starts projects
schedule to ensure the satisfactory that meet or exceed the criteria
that do not meet the requirements for
completion of the NEPA process, the described in this section are eligible, but
Very Small Starts. As required by 49
steps and schedule to complete are not guaranteed, to be recommended
U.S.C. 5309(e), as amended by
preliminary engineering and final for funding. FTA will recommend
SAFETEA–LU, it is based on a
design, including development of projects for funding in the annual
simplified process but similar to that
reliable cost estimates and ridership Report on Funding Recommendations
used for the larger, New Starts projects
forecasts, a discussion of all significant and President’s Budget only if the
uncertainties in the development of project is rated at least ‘‘medium’’ covered by Subpart B.
costs, benefits and financial overall and has a cost-effectiveness Section 611.19: Eligibility for Section
information, and the steps and schedule rating of at least ‘‘medium.’’ 5309 Capital Investment Funds (Small
to secure funding commitments. The As noted earlier, it is intended that Starts)
terms and conditions of a model PDA the maximum New Starts share of the
between FTA and a project sponsor are project be established at entry into final Section 611.19 provides the eligibility
set forth in Appendix A to the proposed design. However, FTA will entertain criteria for Small Starts. First, as defined
rule. requests for additional New Starts in section 611.3, a Small Starts project
Final design entry criteria are also funds, on a case-by-case basis where must have a total project cost of less
proposed in subsection (d), similar to costs have increased outside the control than $250 million and seek no more
those in the current regulation. New of project sponsors. FFGAs are proposed than $75 million in Section 5309 Capital
readiness criteria include a requirement to continue to specify the cost and scope Investment funds. To be eligible as a
that the project be reaffirmed in the of the project, the schedule that the fixed guideway, as with New Starts, the
region’s metropolitan transportation project sponsor must meet, and the project must involve operation for at
plan if there are any significant cost or schedule of Federal funding amounts least 50 percent of its total length (not
scope changes during PE, and a (subject to appropriations). Consistent necessarily contiguous) on a facility
requirement for an agreement between with changes made by SAFETEA–LU, in dedicated to transit and other high
FTA and the project sponsor as to the subsection (e)(7), FTA proposes to add occupancy vehicles during peak periods
maximum amount of New Starts a new feature of FFGAs, which would (or other congested periods). However,
funding that will be sought for the be an incentive clause that would allow in contrast to New Starts, a Small Starts
project. However, as stated in for an amendment to increase the project may also involve a corridor bus
subsection (d)(2)(D), FTA will entertain Federal funding contribution when project with certain design features. The
requests for increases above this amount actual opening year ridership is no less proposed rule requires substantial
in an FFGA for the project if it is than 90 percent of that forecast and transit stations, traffic signal priority or
determined that costs have increased actual capital costs are not more than preemption, low floor buses or level
outside of the project sponsor’s control. 110 percent of that estimated at the time boarding, branding of the service, and
As in the current regulation, approval to the project entered PE, compared in 10 minute peak/15 minute off peak
enter final design will require further constant dollars. The standard being set headways at least 14 hours per day.
development of the plan to conduct the for ridership and cost is slightly more New Starts projects may not be
‘‘before and after’’ study. However, the stringent than provided for in subdivided to meet Small Starts
eligibility. Larger projects must follow is a part of a significant congestion will give priority to projects that include
the requirements of Subpart B. reduction strategy. FTA will evaluate more than required Small Starts funds it
projects that are a principal element of will not rate projects that propose a
Section 611.21: Project Justification
a significant congestion reduction funding strategy based on an 80 percent
Criteria (Small Starts)
strategy, in general and a pricing Section 5309 funding share below
This section provides the justification strategy, in particular, more highly. FTA ‘‘medium’’ so long as the amount of
criteria for Small Starts. Although will also consider as an ‘‘other factor’’ Section 5039 funding requested is
similar to the criteria for New Starts in any benefit of the project not covered consistent with the fiscal capacity of
section 611.11, there are some under the project justification criteria or State and local governments. FTA
significant simplifications. Small starts other factors that the Secretary strongly encourages all project sponsors
projects must still be rated based on the determines to be appropriate to carry to request the lowest amount of Section
results of an alternatives analysis, but, out the evaluation. Measures of 5309 funding reasonable. Like New
given the reduced amount of effectiveness and cost effectiveness will Starts, the Small Starts program is likely
justification information required, it is be based on comparing the proposed to be extremely competitive. While FTA
likely that such analysis may be project with a baseline alternative and will not use the Section 5309 funding
simpler. A multiple measure approach will be assessed using opening year request to reduce the overall local
is again specified, but the number of forecasts (rather than the forecasts for financial commitment rating below
criteria is reduced. Specific measures the planning horizon covering no less ‘‘medium,’’ it is likely in its policy
for each criterion are not specified in than 20 years, as is the case for New guidance to propose a process that
the regulation but will be published and Starts). rewards projects for requesting a lower
changed, upon notice and comment as There is likely to be a significant than 80 percent Section 5309 share. In
part of the process of developing policy difference between the analytical addition, as noted in section
guidance. procedures used for Small Starts and 611.27(c)(2) just because a project is
The project justification criteria for New Starts projects. As opening year rated Medium, there is no guarantee that
Small Starts are classified into those forecasts will be the basis for evaluation, the project will be recommended for
related to effectiveness, contributing to simplified methods for projecting user funding.
50 percent of the project justification benefits may be used, but are subject to
rating and cost effectiveness FTA approval. Section 611.25: Overall Project Ratings
contributing 50 percent of the project As with New Starts, an overall rating (Small Starts)
justification rating. For Small Starts, the on a five level scale ranging from ‘‘high’’ The approach taken in section 611.25
effectiveness criteria are mobility to ‘‘low’’ will be applied to the measures for developing the overall project ratings
improvements for the general for each criterion that make up the for Small Starts projects is essentially
population and economic development/ Small Starts project justification rating. identical to the approach used in
land use. The mobility measure would section 611.15 for New Starts. Projects
include a calculation of the travel time Section 611.23: Local Financial
will be assigned an overall project rating
savings for highway users as discussed Commitment Criteria (Small Starts)
on a five level scale ranging from ‘‘high’’
under New Starts above and provides 40 Section 611.23, covering local to ‘‘low’’ that will combine the ratings
percent of the effectiveness rating. As financial commitment criteria for Small made for project justification and local
with New Starts, economic development Starts, is almost identical to section financial commitment. Projects must be
and land use will be evaluated together 611.13, which covers these criteria for rated at least ‘‘medium, medium-high or
as a measure of effectiveness. But under New Starts. Project financial plans for high’’ on both project justification and
Small Starts, economic development/ capital and operating costs must be local financial commitment to receive
land use will contribute to 60 percent of rated to determine their stability and an overall rating of ‘‘medium, medium-
the effectiveness rating. As described reliability. The rating of the stability of high or high,’’ respectively. Projects
above in the Response to Comments operating costs will take into account must have an overall rating of
under Question 7 and 8 on the Guidance the degree to which innovative ‘‘medium’’ to advance from one step in
on New Starts Policies and Procedures contractual arrangements, especially the project development process to the
and under Question 8 on the ANPRM on public private partnerships, are in place next. The only significant differences
Small Starts, it is difficult to evaluate which can improve the reliability of are that there is no requirement for a
these two factors separately. estimates of operating costs. Based on separate approval for PE and final
Nonetheless, recognizing the the amount of non-Section 5309 Capital design in project development and the
importance that SAFETEA–LU provided Investment funding proposed, the commitment document is a simpler
by including both these factors, FTA has capital plan and the operating plan will Project Construction Grant Agreement
incorporated a combined criterion as an each be rated on a five level scale from (PCGA), rather than an FFGA.
important part of the evaluation of ‘‘high’’ to ‘‘low.’’ An overall rating of
project justification. ‘‘high’’ to ‘‘low,’’ also on a five level Section 611.27: Project Development
As with New Starts, cost effectiveness scale, will be assigned based on the Process (Small Starts)
is proposed to be defined as annualized ratings of the capital and operating The initial steps in the project
costs divided by user benefits. As with plans and proposed New Starts share. planning and development process for
New Starts, ‘‘other factors’’ will be used The only significant difference in the Small Starts are identical to the process
to assess those features not included in regulation is that projects will be rated required under section 611.17 for New
the explicit criteria for effectiveness and based on plans which go through the Starts. On the other hand, due to the
cost effectiveness, and will be used to year of opening, rather than for the smaller scale of these projects, the type
adjust the overall project rating. Other planning horizon covering no less than and detail of the analysis that must be
factors will always include a rating for 20 years. Detailed measures will be conducted is likely to be somewhat
the problem or opportunity in the provided in the policy guidance that simpler. Projects must be the result of
project corridor. Another measure that will identify simplified information that alternatives analyses and must be
FTA intends to consider as an ‘‘other can be used to satisfy the financial plan included in the local metropolitan
factor’’ is the degree to which a project requirement. Furthermore, while FTA transportation plan. The alternatives
analysis must address a range of the project is based on the evaluations criteria, but which still are small enough
alternatives (albeit, a shorter list), and ratings required, the project has an to qualify as a Small Start, must follow
including a TSM alternative as the overall rating of ‘‘medium’’ or better, the the procedures and criteria set out in
baseline alternative. However, where no sponsor has the technical capacity to Subpart C. To be eligible as a fixed
fixed guideway alternative is being carry out the project, and there are no guideway, as with New Starts, a Very
considered, the no-build alternative may major outstanding issues interfering Small Starts project must involve
serve as the baseline. with successful completion of the operation for at least 50 percent of its
For Small Starts, the second step in project. The PCGA will include a total length (not necessarily contiguous)
the process is ‘‘project development,’’ requirement for completion of the on a facility dedicated to transit and
which combines PE and final design. ‘‘before and after’’ study. In the case of other high occupancy vehicles during
The steps which must be undertaken for Small Starts, ‘‘after’’ is defined as one peak periods (or other congested
entry into project development are year after service commences, rather periods). However, in contrast to New
essentially the same as those required than two years as is the case with New Starts, and similar to a Small Starts
under section 611.17 for New Starts PE Starts. Data on the progress of the project, a Very Small Start project may
and final design, but combined and project to date must be submitted before also involve a corridor bus project with
tailored to the smaller scale of the the PCGA will be awarded. FTA’s certain design features. The proposed
proposed Small Starts project. The funding decision is distinct from project
NEPA process must be completed before rule requires substantial transit stations,
evaluation and rating process. Projects
final design can begin and before a traffic signal priority or preemption, low
that meet or exceed the criteria
funding recommendation can be made. floor buses or level boarding, branding
described in this section are eligible, but
During the project development, costs are not guaranteed, to be recommended of the service, and 10 minute peak/15
must be established and uncertainties for funding. FTA will recommend minute off peak headways at least 14
mitigated, but the Federal contribution projects for funding in the annual hours per day. As with New Starts,
of Small Starts will not be set until Report on Funding Recommendations projects may not be subdivided to meet
negotiation of the PCGA. and President’s Budget only if the Very Small Starts eligibility. Larger
The criteria for entry into Small Starts project is rated at least ‘‘medium’’ projects must follow the requirements of
project development are essentially the overall and has a cost-effectiveness Subpart B or C.
same as those for entry into New Starts rating of at least ‘‘medium.’’ The total Section 611.31: Project Justification
PE, again scaled to the project’s size: (1) amount of funding committed in PCGAs Criteria (Very Small Starts)
Alternatives analysis must be cannot exceed the amount of funding for
completed; (2) the NEPA scoping Small Starts authorized in law, plus a This section provides the justification
process must be completed unless a statutorily limited amount of contingent criteria for Very Small Starts. Although
categorical exclusion has been granted; commitments, subject to future similar to the criteria for Small Starts in
(3) the project must be in the authorizations. section 611.21, there is a major
metropolitan transportation plan; (4) simplification. While Very Small Starts
financing strategies must be endorsed by Subpart D—Very Small Starts
projects must still be based on the
prospective funding partners; (5) the Subpart D provides for the eligibility, results of an alternatives analysis, the
travel demand forecasting process must evaluation criteria, and procedural justification information required is
be validated; and (6) the project sponsor requirements that will be applied to
related to the predefined characteristics
must have adequate technical capacity Very Small Starts projects. It is
of the Very Small Starts project. Because
to carry out the project. A project must essentially identical to Subpart C, but
Very Small Starts projects are made
be rated at least ‘‘medium’’ to advance provides for an even more simplified
eligible based on a set of project
into project development. A ‘‘before and approach to project development and
characteristics that assures that they are
after’’ study is required for Small Starts, uses ‘‘warrants’’ for determining project
justification for Very Small Starts effective and cost-effective, rather than
and the plan for developing the study
must be completed during project projects, which are a subset of Small rate these projects on the basis of an
development. Pre-award authority is Starts projects that have a set of defined evaluation of information, FTA will
provided for all preliminary engineering characteristics. These very simple, simply assign an overall project
activities upon approval to enter project smaller projects can be found to be justification rating of ‘‘medium’’ to these
development. In addition, once the justified solely on the basis of these projects if they meet the predefined
environmental process is completed, as project characteristics. This process is characteristics, although ‘‘other factors’’
represented by a signed ROD or FONSI also based on, but now highly can be used to increase this rating.
or a finding that the project is a simplified from, the requirements for ‘‘Other factors’’ include whether a
categorically excluded under 23 CFR the larger, New Starts projects covered project is a principal element of a
777.117, the project sponsor also has by Subpart B. significant congestion reduction
automatic pre-award authority for final strategy, in general and a pricing
design, right of way acquisition and Section 611.29: Eligibility for Section strategy, in particular. FTA will also
utility relocation. 5309 Capital Investment Funds (Very consider as an ‘‘other factor’’ any benefit
For Small Starts, the commitment Small Starts) of the project not covered under the
document is a PCGA. As with the FFGA Section 611.29 provides the eligibility project justification criteria or other
for New Starts, the PCGA specifies the criteria for Very Small Starts. First, as factors that the Secretary determines to
amount and schedule of Federal defined in section 611.3, a Very Small be appropriate to carry out the
funding, which can include a Starts project must have a total project evaluation. Another significant
commitment of future funds, and the cost of less than $50 million and a difference between Very Small Starts
project cost, scope, and schedule, and project cost of less than $3 million per and Small/New Starts will be in the
commits the grantee to complete the mile (not including vehicles) and serve analytical procedures used. No forecasts
project based on these parameters. To be a corridor where at least 3,000 existing are required; the sponsor need only
eligible for a PCGA, FTA must find that riders per day will benefit from the provide counts of existing ridership in
the environmental process is complete, project. Projects that do not meet these the corridor and the cost per mile.
Section 611.33: Local Financial ‘‘low,’’ which will combine the ratings metropolitan transportation plan; (4)
Commitment Criteria (Very Small made for project justification and local financing strategies must be endorsed by
Starts) financial commitment. Since projects prospective funding partners; and (5)
Section 611.33, covering local which qualify as a Very Small Start by the project sponsor must have adequate
financial commitment criteria for Very their nature automatically are granted a technical capacity to carry out the
Small Starts, is identical to section rating of ‘‘medium’’ for project project. A project must be rated at least
611.23, which covers these criteria for justification, a project must have a ‘‘medium’’ to advance into project
Small Starts. Financial plans for capital rating of at least ‘‘medium’’ on local development. A very simplified ‘‘before
financial commitment to receive an and after’’ study is required for Very
and operating costs must be rated to
overall rating of ‘‘medium.’’ It should be Small Starts and the plan for developing
determine their stability and reliability.
noted that a project can receive a rating the study must be complete before a
FTA intends to issue very simplified
higher than ‘‘medium’’ for project PCGA is executed. Pre-award authority
information to support the capital and
justification only through the use of is provided for preliminary engineering
operating plan requirements as part of
‘‘other factors’’ or the application of the upon approval to enter project
its Policy Guidance. The rating of the
reliability measures. Projects must be development. In addition, once the
stability of operating costs will take into
rated at least ‘‘medium’’ overall to enter environmental process is completed, as
account the degree to which innovative
the project development process or to be represented by a signed ROD or FONSI
contractual arrangements, especially
recommended for funding and receive a or a finding that the project is
public private partnerships, are in place PCGA.
which can improve the reliability of categorically excluded under 23 CFR
estimates of operating costs. Section 611.37: Project Development 117.17, the project sponsor also has
Furthermore, while FTA will give Process (Very Small Starts) automatic pre-award authority for final
priority to projects that include more design, right of way acquisition and
The initial steps in the project utility relocation.
than required Small Starts funds, it will planning and development process for
not rate projects that propose a funding For Very Small Starts, the
Very Small Starts are identical to the commitment document is a PCGA. As
strategy based on an 80 percent Section process required under section 611.17
5309 funding share below ‘‘medium’’ so with the FFGA for New Starts, the
for New Starts and under Section 611.27 PCGA specifies the amount and
long as the amount of Section 5039 for Small Starts. However, due to the
funding requested is consistent with the schedule of Federal funding, which can
even smaller scale of these projects, the include a commitment of future funds,
fiscal capacity of State and local type and detail of the analysis that must
governments. FTA strongly encourages and the project cost, scope, and
be conducted is simpler. For instance, schedule, and commits the grantee to
all project sponsors to request the no baseline alternative is required as the
lowest amount of 5309 funding that is complete the project based on these
project sponsor does not prepare parameters. To be eligible for a PCGA,
financially feasible. Like New Starts, the specific information on effectiveness
Very Small Starts program is likely to be FTA must find that the environmental
and cost effectiveness but simply process is complete, the project is based
extremely competitive. While FTA will provides existing data that supports the
not use the 5309 funding request to on the evaluations and ratings required,
rating for the project. However, projects the project has an overall rating of
reduce the overall local financial must be the result of alternatives
commitment rating below ‘‘medium,’’ it ‘‘medium’’ or better, the sponsor has the
analyses and must be included in the
is likely in its policy guidance to technical capacity to carry out the
local metropolitan transportation plans.
propose a process that rewards projects For Very Small Starts, as with Small project, and there are no major
for requesting a lower than 80 percent Starts, the second step in the process is outstanding issues interfering with
5309 share. In addition, as noted in ‘‘project development,’’ which combines successful completion of the project.
section 611.27(c)(2), just because a PE and final design. The steps that must The PCGA will include a requirement
project is rated Medium, there is no be undertaken are essentially the same for completion of the ‘‘before and after’’
guarantee that the project will be as those required under section 611.17 study. In the case of Very Small Starts,
recommended for funding. for New Starts PE and final design, but ‘‘after’’ is defined as one year after
The capital plan and operating plan again combined and tailored to the service commences, rather than two
and the proposed Section 5309 Capital much smaller scale of the proposed years as is the case with New Starts. The
Investment share will each be rated on Very Small Starts project. The NEPA NPRM notes again in subsection
a five level scale from ‘‘high’’ to ‘‘low.’’ process must be completed during 611.37(d)(2) that a sufficient rating
An overall rating of ‘‘high’’ to ‘‘low,’’ project development, which for a Very under the proposals contained in this
also on a five level scale, will be Small Start, might involve only NPRM is not a guarantee that a PCGA
assigned based on the ratings of the documentation of a categorical will be recommended. The total amount
capital and operating plans and exclusion. During project development, of funding committed in PCGA’s cannot
proposed Section 5309 Capital costs must be established and exceed the amount of funding for Small
Investments share. Projects will be rated uncertainties mitigated but the Federal Starts authorized in law plus a
based on plans that go through the year contribution of Small Starts will not be statutorily limited amount of contingent
of opening. set until negotiation of the PCGA. commitments, subject to future
As with Small Starts, the criteria for authorizations.
Section 611.35: Overall Project Ratings entry into Very Small Starts project
(Very Small Starts) IV. Regulatory Analysis and Notices
development are essentially the same as
The approach taken in section 611.35 those for entry into New Starts PE, again A. Executive Order 12866
for developing the overall project ratings scaled to the project’s much smaller FTA has determined that this is a
for Very Small Starts projects is similar size: (1) Alternatives analysis must be significant rule under E.O. 12866
to the approach used in section 611.25 completed; (2) the NEPA scoping because it will affect transfers (i.e., grant
for Small Starts. Projects will be process must be completed unless a payments) of more than $100 million or
assigned an overall project rating on a categorical exclusion has already been more annually. This NPRM implements
five level scale ranging from ‘‘high’’ to granted; (3) the project must be in the a grant program, and as such, it only
imposes regulatory requirements upon applicants is minimal given that a F. Executive Order 13132
applicants requesting funding under the portion of their project development This action has been analyzed in
program. The rating criteria that are the costs can be reimbursed with Federal accordance with the principles and
subject of this NPRM are funds. criteria contained in Executive Order
Congressionally-mandated. 13132. The proposed regulations would
The proposed rule is not intended to C. Departmental Significance
implement a discretionary grant
address a market failure, rather it is This rule is a ‘‘significant regulation’’ program that would make funds
intended to both make the regulation as defined by the Department’s available, on a competitive basis, to
consistent with the recent changes to 49 Regulatory Policies and Procedures, States, local governments, and transit
U.S.C. 5309 and change the way projects because it involves an important agencies. The requirements only apply
are currently evaluated. Under the departmental policy and will probably to those entities seeking funds under
existing regulation, all non-exempt New generate a great deal of public interest. this chapter, and thus this action would
Starts projects are evaulated using the The purpose of this NPRM is to propose have not substantial direct effects on the
same process without regard to the size how FTA will process, rate and States, on the relationship between the
of the investment. This results in a more recommend for funding various major Federal government and the States, or
rigorous evaluation of smaller projects public transportation capital investment on the distribution of power and
than is needed given the size of the projects. responsibilities among the various
Federal investment. Thus, this proposed levels of government. FTA has also
rule would vary the level of evaluation D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
determined that this proposed action
based on the size of the project and the When an agency issues a rulemaking would not preempt any State law or
size of the Federal investment based on proposal, the Regulatory Flexibility Act regulation or affect the States’ ability to
the changes recently made to 49 U.S.C. (RFA) requires the agency to ‘‘prepare discharge traditional State governmental
5309. and make available for public comment functions. Based on this analysis, it has
B. Regulatory Evaluation an initial regulatory flexibility been determined that the proposed rule
analysis,’’ which will ‘‘describe the does not have sufficient Federalism
FTA performed a regulatory
evaluation of this NPRM, but did so in impact of the proposed rule on small implications to warrant the preparation
a qualitative manner due to the entities.’’ (5 U.S.C. 603(a)). Section 605 of a Federalism Assessment. Comment
difficulty of evaluating the industry- of the RFA allows an agency to certify is solicited specifically on the
wide costs and benefits of the program a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, Federalism implications of this
this NPRM would implement. This if the proposed rulemaking is not proposal.
NPRM proposes a process that FTA will expected to have a significant economic
G. National Environmental Policy Act
use to evaluate and rate major capital impact on a substantial number of small
entities. FTA has analyzed this proposed
investments under the statutory criteria action for the purpose of the National
in 49 U.S.C. 5309. This includes smaller As noted earlier, it is difficult for FTA
to estimate the number and types of Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
capital projects requesting less than $75 U.S.C. 4321), and has determined that
million in Section 5309 Capital applications it may receive for major
capital investment funds. Based on this proposed action would not have
Investment program funds and that have any effect on the quality of the
a total cost of less than $250 million. FTA’s experience, however, major
capital investments are not undertaken environment. This action qualifies for a
Given the discretionary nature of the categorical exclusion under FTA’s
program and the fact that FTA cannot by small municipal entities. Even so, if
small municipal entities were to apply NEPA regulations at 771.117(c)(20),
anticipate in advance which projects which covers the ‘‘[p]romulgation of
will be submitted for evaluation and for funding under this regulatory
proposal, they would likely do so under rules, regulations, and directives.’’
funding, it is impossible to determine
with accuracy the industry-wide costs the Small Starts program or the Very H. Energy Act Implications
and benefits of this rule. Small Starts program, for which the The proposals contained in this
Based on its past experience though, requirements have been streamlined. NPRM would likely have a positive
FTA has qualitatively evaluated the Based on this evaluation, FTA hereby effect on energy consumption because,
financial impact the NPRM would place certifies that the proposals for the New through the Federal investment in
on applicants if the adopted as Starts program contained in this NPRM, public transportation projects, these
proposed. The grant application if adopted, would not have a significant projects would increase the use of
requirements specified in law are economic impact on a substantial public transportation.
substantial, but the major capital grant number of small entities. FTA invites
program makes available funds to defray comment from members of the public I. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
project development costs. For example, who believe there will be a significant and Coordination With Indian Tribal
49 U.S.C. 5309(m)(5) allows up to 8 impact on small municipal entities. Governments
percent of funds allocated for New Executive Order 13175 requires
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
Starts and Small Starts to be available agencies to ensure meaningful and
for project development costs. This NPRM proposes information timely input from Indian tribal
Additionally, 49 U.S.C. 5339, as collection requirements subject to the government representatives in the
amended by SAFETEA–LU, makes Paperwork Reduction Act. The development of rules that ‘‘significantly
funding available for the alternatives calculation of the paperwork burden of or uniquely affect’’ Indian communities
analysis phase of project development. this NPRM is provided in the docket. and that impose ‘‘substantial and direct
Finally, the transit formula program The agency has submitted a request for compliance costs’’ on such
under 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5307 and a Paperwork Reduction Act approval. communities. We invite Indian tribal
flexible funds under Title 23 may also FTA currently collects information governments to provide comments on
be used for planning and project under an approved Paperwork the effect that adoption of specific
development activities. Thus, the Reduction Act request (control #2132– proposals in this NPRM may have on
financial impact of this rule on the 0529). Indian communities.
J. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act PART 611—MAJOR CAPITAL financial commitment criteria specified
INVESTMENT PROJECTS in 49 U.S.C. 5309(d)(2)(B) and (C) and
This rule will result in the 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(2)(B) and (C);
expenditure by State, local, and tribal Subpart A—General Provisions (4) Determine project eligibility for
governments, in the aggregate, of Sec. Federal funding commitments, in the
$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 611.1 Purpose and contents. form of Full Funding Grant Agreements
However, this expenditure is voluntary, 611.3 Applicability. as specified in 49 U.S.C. 5309(g)(2) or
611.5 Definitions.
and not the result of a Federal, Project Construction Grant Agreements
611.7 Measures of reliability in the Section
unfunded mandate. 5309 Capital Investment evaluation and as specified in 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(7);
rating process. (5) Support funding recommendations
K. Statutory/Legal Authority for This for this program for the
Rulemaking Subpart B—New Starts Administration’s annual budget request;
611.9 Eligibility. and
This rulemaking is issued under 611.11 Project justification criteria. (6) Fulfill the reporting requirements
authority of section 3011 of the Safe, 611.13 Local financial commitment criteria. under 49 U.S.C. 5309(k)(1), Annual
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 611.15 Overall project ratings.
611.17 Project development process. Report on Funding Recommendations.
Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA–LU), which Subpart C—Small Starts § 611.3 Applicability.
requires the Secretary of Transportation 611.19 Eligibility. (a) This part applies to all proposals
to prescribe regulations for Small Starts 611.21 Project justification criteria. for Federal Section 5309 Capital
capital investment projects funded 611.23 Local financial commitment criteria. Investment funds for new fixed
under 49 U.S.C. 5309 with a Federal 611.25 Overall project ratings. guideway systems and extensions to
share of less than $75,000,000 and a 611.27 Project development process. existing fixed guideway systems,
total cost of less than $250,000,000. In Subpart D—Very Small Starts including substantial capital
addition, this NPRM implements 611.29 Eligibility. investments in corridor-based bus
changes made by section 3011 to the 611.31 Project justification criteria. projects.
New Starts program for funding capital 611.33 Local financial commitment criteria. (b) This part does not apply to
investment projects with a higher 611.35 Overall project ratings. projects approved into final design prior
611.37 Project development process. to [the effective date of final rule] unless
Federal share or total cost than that Appendix A to Part 611—Model Project
specified for the Small Starts program. the sponsor proposes project changes
Development Agreement that warrant the project’s return to
Appendix B to Part 611—Project Evaluation
L. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) Framework
preliminary engineering. Such projects
Appendix C to Part 611—Section 5309 will continue to be rated under the
The Department of Transportation regulatory provisions in effect at the
Capital Investment Program Categories
assigns a regulation identifier number time the project was approved into final
(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5309; 49 CFR 1.51.
design until the Full Funding Grant
the Unified Agenda of Federal Subpart A—General Provisions Agreement is executed.
Regulations. The Regulatory Information (c) Projects that were exempt from the
Service Center publishes the Unified § 611.1 Purpose and contents. project evaluation and rating process
Agenda in April and October of each (a) This part prescribes the process (requesting under $25 million in Section
year. The RIN number contained in the that applicants must follow to be 5309 Capital Investment funding), and
heading of this document may be used considered eligible for capital were approved into project development
to cross-reference this action with the investment funds for new fixed prior to [the effective date of final rule],
Unified Agenda. guideway systems, substantial will receive the Section 5309 Capital
investments in corridor-based bus Investment funds that have been
M. Privacy Act systems, or extensions to existing appropriated before [the effective date of
Anyone is able to search the systems under 49 U.S.C. 5309(d) and (e). final rule] without being evaluated and
Also, this part prescribes the rules that rated under the provisions of this part,
electronic form for all comments
will be used by FTA to evaluate as long as all grant requirements are
received into any of our dockets by the
proposed Section 5309 Capital met. To receive additional Section 5309
name of the individual submitting the Capital Investment funds after [the
Investment projects as required by 49
comments (or signing the comment, if U.S.C. 5309(d) and (e), and the effective date of the final rule], projects
submitted on behalf of an association, scheduling of project reviews required must be evaluated and rated according
business, labor union, etc.). You may by 49 U.S.C. 5328(a). to the process defined in this part.
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act (b) This part defines how the results
Statement in the Federal Register of the evaluation described in paragraph § 611.5 Definitions.
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR (a) of this section will be used to: The definitions established by Titles
19477) or you may visit http:// (1) Approve entry into preliminary 12 and 49 of the United States Code, the
dms.dot.gov. engineering and final design, as Council on Environmental Quality’s
required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(d)(5), for regulation at 40 CFR parts 1500–1508,
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 611 New Starts, or into project development and FHWA/FTA regulations at 23 CFR
Government contracts; Grant as required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(6), for parts 450 and 771 are applicable, unless
Small Starts; a different definition is described below,
programs—Transportation; Public
(2) Rate projects as ‘‘high,’’ ‘‘medium- in which case, the definition in this
Transportation.
high,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ ‘‘medium-low,’’ or section will apply for purposes of this
For the reasons stated in the ‘‘low,’’ as required by 49 U.S.C. part. In addition, the following
preamble, the Federal Transit 5309(d)(5) and 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(6); definitions apply:
Administration proposes to revise 49 (3) Assign individual ratings for each Alternatives analysis means a study
CFR part 611 to read as follows: of the project justification and local conducted as part of the transportation
planning process required under 49 transit, people movers, ferry boat defines the scope of a project, the
U.S.C. sections 5303 and 5304, that service, and dedicated facilities for Federal financial contribution, and
evaluates all reasonable mode and buses (such as BRT) and other high other terms and conditions for funding
alignment alternatives for addressing a occupancy vehicles. Additionally, a Small Starts projects as required by 49
transportation problem in a corridor or transportation facility shall be deemed a U.S.C. 5309(e)(7).
subarea, and results in the selection of fixed guideway system solely for the Project development refers to the
a locally preferred alternative by the purposes of funding eligibility under activities and procedures that are to be
chief executive officers or official boards New Starts (49 U.S.C. 5309(d)) and conducted during preliminary
of the sponsoring governmental Small Starts (49 U.S.C. 5309(e)) if the engineering and final design before FTA
agency(ies) and the metropolitan project is designed so that in any given can execute a Full Funding Grant
planning organization(s) with month: transit vehicles utilize the Agreement or Project Construction
jurisdiction through a public process. transportation facility on a barrier- Grant Agreement.
An alternatives analysis also provides separated right-of-way; and by means of Project Development Agreement
sufficient information to enable FTA to tolling or other enhancements, 95 means a signed agreement between FTA
evaluate and rate the project percent of the transit vehicles using the and a project sponsor for a New Starts
justification and local financial facility will be able to maintain an project that sets forth the principal
commitment criteria as required by this average speed of not less than 5 miles issues to be resolved, products to be
regulation. per hour below the posted speed limit completed, all significant cost and
Baseline Alternative means the for the time they are on the facility. This ridership uncertainties and the
alternative against which the proposed definition does not alter the definition strategies to address them, and the
Section 5309 Capital Investment project of ‘‘fixed guideway mile’’ for purposes schedule for reaching significant
is compared to develop project of calculating eligibility for formula milestones during the course of project
justification measures. Relative to the programs administered by FTA, development The terms and conditions
no-build alternative, it should include including Urbanized Area Formula of a model PDA are set forth in
transit improvements lower in cost than Grants (49 U.S.C. 5307(b)) and Fixed Appendix A to this part.
the proposed Section 5309 Capital Guideway Modernization. Secretary means the Secretary of
Investment project that represent the FTA means the Federal Transit Transportation.
best that can be done to address Administration. Section 5309 Capital Investment
mobility problems in the corridor Full Funding Grant Agreement program means a program of assistance
without constructing a new fixed (FFGA) means an instrument that for new fixed guideway and certain
guideway. The baseline alternative is defines the scope of a project, the corridor-based bus systems and
typically the Transportation System Federal financial contribution, and extensions to such systems eligible for
Management alternative or a Very Small other terms and conditions for funding assistance under 49 U.S.C. 5309(b)(1),
Starts arterial bus project. New Starts projects as required by 49 (b)(4), (d), (e), and (m)(2)(A) and this
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) means a U.S.C. 5309(d)(1) and (g)(2). part.
series of coordinated improvements in a Metropolitan transportation plan Section 5309 Capital Investment
transit system’s infrastructure, means the official multimodal means a new fixed guideway system or
equipment, operations, and technology transportation plan covering a period of an extension to an existing fixed
that give preferential treatment to buses no less than 20 years that is developed, guideway system, but does not include
on urban roadways. The intention of adopted and updated by the rail modernization or non-corridor bus
BRT is to reduce bus travel time, metropolitan planning organization capital projects funded under 49 U.S.C.
improve service reliability, increase the through the metropolitan transportation 5309. Projects eligible for Section 5309
convenience of users, and increase planning process under 23 CFR part Capital Investment program funding
transit ridership. 450. will be categorized as follows:
Fixed guideway system means a NEPA process means those (1) New Starts project refers to a
public transportation facility that procedures necessary to meet the project requesting Section 5309 Capital
utilizes and occupies a separate right-of- requirements of the National Investment program funds of $75
way or rail for the exclusive use of Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as million or more in Section 5309 Capital
public transportation and other high amended (NEPA), found at 23 CFR part Investment program funds or that has a
occupancy vehicles for at least 50 771. The NEPA process is completed total cost of $250 million or more, both
percent of the length of the project, or when a Record of Decision (ROD) or in year of expenditure dollars.
uses a fixed catenary system and a right- Finding of No Significant Impact (2) Small Starts project refers to a
of-way usable by other forms of (FONSI) is issued by FTA, or when FTA project requesting less than $75 million
transportation, or in the case of Small agrees that the project is categorically in Section 5309 Capital Investment
Starts, a corridor-based bus project excluded under 23 CFR part 771. program funds and that has a total cost
where at least 50 percent of the project Requirements under other Federal of less than $250 million, both in year
operates in a separate right-of-way environmental laws should be of expenditure dollars.
during the peak period or the project integrated into the environmental (3) Very Small Starts project refers to
represents a substantial investment in a review process per FTA’s NEPA a subset of Small Starts projects that
defined corridor that includes at least regulations at 23 CFR 771.113(a) and 23 cost less than $3 million per mile
the following elements: substantial CFR 771.133. (excluding vehicles) and have a total
transit stations; traffic signal priority/ Planning horizon means the period cost of less than $50 million in year of
pre-emption; low-floor buses or level used for forecasting costs and benefits. expenditure dollars, and are composed
boarding; branding of the proposed For New Starts the planning horizon entirely of demonstrably effective and
service; and 10 minute peak/15 minute must be at least 20 years. For Small cost-effective project elements.
off-peak headways or better for at least Starts the planning horizon is opening Transportation System Management
14 hours per day. This includes, but is year. (TSM) alternative is a low-cost
not limited to, rapid rail, light rail, Project Construction Grant Agreement alternative compared to the fixed
commuter rail, automated guideway (PCGA) means an instrument that guideway alternatives considered. It
represents the best low-cost strategies Subpart B—New Starts (b) The evaluation criteria and
that can be applied in a corridor to weights assigned to each for New Starts
address identified problems without the § 611.9 Eligibility. project justification are as follows:
construction of a fixed guideway (a) To be eligible for New Starts (1) Effectiveness criteria (50 percent of
system. At a minimum it must be more funding, a proposed project must meet the summary rating for project
cost effective as compared to the no the following prerequisites: justification):
build alternative than the New or Small (1) Be based on the results of planning (i) Mobility improvements for the
Start project compared to the no build and alternatives analysis as described in general population (40 percent of the
§ 611.17. ratings for effectiveness), including
alternative. It is usually the baseline
congestion relief. Congestion relief shall
against which all of the guideway (2) Have at least 50 percent or more be measured based on the degree to
alternatives are evaluated. Generally, of the total project length as a fixed which the project reduces highway
the TSM alternative emphasizes guideway during the peak period or travel demand and the relative level of
upgrades in transit service through when congestion inhibits transit system congestion in the corridor based on
operational and small physical performance. estimated delay.
improvements, plus selected highway (3) Have a total project cost of $250 (ii) Economic development/land use
upgrades through intersection million or more or a requested Section (40 percent of the ratings for
improvements, minor widenings, and 5309 Capital Investment share of $75 effectiveness). Economic development/
other focused traffic engineering million or more, both in year of land use shall be measured using factors
actions. expenditure funds. that address the additional development
User benefits refers to the (b) Projects that would otherwise expected around project stations as a
transportation system benefits, qualify for funding as a New Starts result of the New Start project. These
expressed in hours of perceived travel project may not be subdivided into factors include the extent to which
time (travelers perceive wait and walk several Small Starts projects. Projects current land use is ripe for
may be built in phases or a series of development, transit-oriented plans and
time as more onerous than in-vehicle
minimum operable segments, but all policies, the economic development
time, so that perceived travel time
projects envisioned for a single corridor, climate in the project corridor, the
converts wait and walk time into
for the purposes of establishing Small increase in transit accessibility offered
equivalent minutes of in-vehicle time), Starts program eligibility, will be by the project, and the economic
that accrue to all travelers affected by evaluated together as a single project. If lifespan of the project.
the proposed Section 5309 Capital the combined cost or total requested (iii) Environmental benefits (10
Investment project compared to a funding amount, both expressed in year- percent of the ratings for effectiveness).
baseline alternative. User benefits of-expenditure dollars, is over the Small (iv) Mobility improvements for transit
include travel-time savings, out-of- Starts limits, the projects will be dependents (10 percent).
pocket travel and parking costs, evaluated as New Starts projects. (2) Cost effectiveness (50 percent of
convenience, comfort, reliability, and the summary rating for project
other benefits that accrue to users of § 611.11 Project justification criteria. justification) shall be calculated by
specific travel modes over the planning In order to approve a grant for a dividing annualized capital and
horizon forecast. Travelers include proposed New Starts project and to operating costs by transportation system
transit riders, highway users and approve entry into the preliminary user benefits. Cost effectiveness for New
pedestrians. engineering and final design phases as Starts will be evaluated based on the
required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(d)(5), FTA forecast made over the planning
§ 611.7 Measures of reliability in the must find that the proposed project is horizon. Annualized cost shall include
Section 5309 Capital Investment evaluation meritorious as described in 49 U.S.C. all elements necessary for completion of
and rating process. 5309(d)(3). the project with contingency amounts
In the evaluation of project (a) To make the statutory evaluations that are reasonable to cover
justification and local financial and assign ratings for project unanticipated cost increases plus
commitment for Section 5309 Capital justification, FTA will evaluate annual operating and maintenance
information developed locally through costs. The breakpoints corresponding to
Investment projects, FTA shall consider
alternatives analyses and refined the cost effectiveness ratings will be
the reliability of the estimates of
through the project development adjusted for inflation annually as part of
ridership and costs as required by 49 the Reporting Instructions.
U.S.C. 5309(d)(3)(B) and (4)(B)(i), as phases.
(3) Other factors will be considered
well as 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(4)(D). (1) The method used to make this under the authority provided by 49
(a) The measures of reliability in the determination will be a multiple U.S.C. 5309(d)(3)(K).
measure approach in which the merits (i) All projects will be evaluated and
forecasts used to support the measures
of candidate projects will be evaluated rated on the severity of the
of project justification and local
in terms of each of the criteria specified transportation and economic
financial commitment will be by this section.
published, subject to notice and development problem or opportunity in
(2) The ratings for each of the criteria the corridor and consideration of the
comment, in policy guidance at least
will be expressed in terms of descriptive appropriateness of the proposed project
every two years or when substantial
indicators, as follows: ‘‘high,’’ as a response.
changes are made
‘‘medium-high,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ ‘‘medium- (ii) Depending upon the applicability,
(b) Reliability measures will be low,’’ or ‘‘low.’’ The application of these also considered will be the following
applied by adjusting, either upward or descriptors to each of these criteria will factors:
downward, ratings for the specific be published, subject to notice and (A) Identification of the project as a
project justification and local financial comment, in policy guidance at least principal element of a congestion
commitment criteria affected by the every two years or when substantial reduction strategy, in general and a
associated uncertainties. changes are made. pricing strategy, in particular;
(B) Any factor which the New Start (1) The proposed share of project policy guidance at least every two years
project sponsor believes articulates the capital costs to be met using funds from or when substantial changes are made.
benefits of the proposed major capital sources other than the Section 5309 (d) The individual ratings for each
investment but which is not captured Capital Investment program, including measure described in this section will
within the other project justification both the non-Federal match required by be combined into a summary rating of
criteria; and Federal law and any additional local, ‘‘high,’’ ‘‘medium-high,’’ ‘‘medium,’’
(C) Other factors that the Secretary State or non-Section 5309 Capital ‘‘medium-low,’’ or ‘‘low’’ for local
determines to be appropriate to carry Investment Federal funding financial commitment. To develop the
out the evaluation. (‘‘overmatch’’). Unless otherwise summary ratings, the rating for capital
(c) In evaluating proposed New Starts specified in Federal law, FTA will not and operating financial plans will be
projects under these criteria: take into account the non-Federal funds given equal weights. The rating for the
(1) For the effectiveness and cost expended on a project other than the proposed share from other than the
effectiveness criteria, the proposed New New Starts project being evaluated Section 5309 Capital Investments
Starts project will be compared to the when computing the non-Federal share program will be used to assign a higher
baseline alternative. of that New Starts project. However, or lower rating should the weighting of
(2) As a candidate project proceeds FTA will give priority to financing the capital and operating financial plan
through project development, a greater projects that include more non-5309 ratings produce a rating which would
degree of certainty is expected with funds than are required as local match otherwise fall between the summary
respect to the scope of the project and under 5309(h). At the same time, FTA rating levels specified in this section.
a greater level of commitment is will take into consideration the fiscal
capacity of State and local governments § 611.15 Overall project ratings.
expected with respect to the funding
strategy and the plans and policies by not reducing the overall local (a) The summary ratings developed
intended to support economic financial commitment rating below for project justification and local
development and transit supportive ‘‘medium,’’ for projects that, due to state financial commitment, adjusted by the
land use. or local fiscal capacity constraints, degree of reliability of estimates of
(d) New Starts project sponsors will propose a funding strategy with an 80 ridership, costs, and funding sources
generally use traditional methods to percent Section 5309 Capital Investment (§§ 611.7, 611.11, and 611.13), will form
estimate mobility benefits (user benefits funding. the basis for the overall rating for each
and ridership). These methods are based (2) The stability and reliability of the project.
on the traditional four-step regional proposed capital funding plan for (b) FTA will assign overall ratings of
travel demand modeling procedures, constructing all essential elements of ‘‘high,’’ ‘‘medium-high,’’ ‘‘medium,’’
and project sponsors shall follow FTA the New Starts project and transit ‘‘medium-low,’’ or ‘‘low’’ as required by
guidelines in defining alternatives, system, including the availability of 49 U.S.C. 5309(d)(5)(B) to each
operating plans, and other assumptions contingency amounts that the Secretary proposed project. To obtain an overall
used to develop travel forecasts. Project determines to be reasonable to cover rating of ‘‘medium,’’ a project must have
sponsors that wish to use alternative unanticipated cost increases. at least a ‘‘medium’’ rating for project
technical methods to develop forecasts (3) The stability and reliability of the justification and local financial
of ridership and project benefits must proposed operating funding plan to commitment. To obtain an overall rating
receive prior written approval from operate and maintain the entire transit of ‘‘medium-high,’’ a project must have
FTA. system as planned, including local at least a rating of ‘‘medium-high’’ for
(e) The individual ratings for each of resources to recapitalize and operate the both project justification and for local
the criteria described in this section will overall proposed public transportation financial commitment. To obtain a
be combined into a summary rating of system, including essential feeder bus rating of ‘‘high,’’ a project must have a
‘‘high,’’ ‘‘medium-high,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ and other services necessary to achieve rating of ‘‘high’’ for both project
‘‘medium-low,’’ or ‘‘low’’ for project the projected ridership levels without justification and for local financial
justification using the weights provided requiring a reduction in existing public commitment.
for above. ‘‘Other factors’’ will be transportation services or level of (1) These ratings will indicate the
considered and applied by adjusting, service to operate the proposed project, overall merit of a proposed project at the
either upward or downward, the and including the existence of time of evaluation.
summary project justification rating. contractual arrangements that are
designed to reduce and/or make more (2) Ratings for individual projects will
§ 611.13 Local financial commitment predictable the annualized cost of be updated annually for purposes of the
criteria. operations. annual report on funding levels and
allocations of funds required by 49
In order to approve a grant for a New (b) The capital and operating plans
U.S.C. 5309(k)(1), and as required for
Starts project under 49 U.S.C. 5309, and specified in paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of
FTA approvals during the following
to approve entry into the preliminary this section will be evaluated over the
project development steps:
engineering and final design phases as planning horizon, consistent with the
required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(d)(5), FTA planning horizon used for travel (i) Advancement of proposed New
must find that the proposed project is forecasting purposes. Starts projects into both preliminary
supported by an acceptable degree of (c) For each proposed project, ratings engineering and final design;
local financial commitment, as required for paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (3) of this (ii) Decision to recommend New
by 49 U.S.C. 5309(d)(4). section will be reported in terms of Starts projects for Full Funding Grant
(a) The financial capability of the descriptive indicators, as follows: Agreements; and
project sponsor to build, operate, and ‘‘high,’’ ‘‘medium-high,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ (iii) Projects that achieve an overall
maintain the proposed project as well as ‘‘medium-low,’’ or ‘‘low.’’ The rating of ‘‘medium’’ or better will be
the existing and planned system will be application of these descriptors to each allowed to advance into and through
evaluated according to the following of these criteria will be published, project development, and may be
measures: subject to notice and comment, in recommended for funding.
§ 611.17 Project development process. approval into preliminary engineering have been independently endorsed by
All New Starts projects must emerge within 30 days of receipt of a complete those agencies identified as responsible
from the metropolitan and statewide formal request from the project for providing or approving the funding.
planning process, consistent with 23 sponsor(s). Where future State and/or local
CFR part 450, and be included in the (2) Consistent with 49 U.S.C. government action or public referendum
metropolitan transportation plan. 5328(a)(3), FTA will complete the is required to establish (and commit) the
Proposed projects must be based on the evaluation of a proposed project for proposed funding source, a letter of
results of alternatives analysis and approval into final design within 120 endorsement and a timeframe for
proceed through the phases of project days of receipt of a complete formal implementation and commitment is
development before being request from the project sponsor(s). required from the appropriate policy-
recommended for New Starts program (c) Preliminary Engineering. making or decision-making body
funding. (1) The preliminary engineering phase responsible for providing or approving
(a) Alternatives Analysis. To be of New Starts project development is the the proposed funding;
eligible for project funding under the process of finalizing the project scope, (vi) For project sponsors using
New Starts program, local project cost, and the financial plan such that: traditional travel forecasting procedures
sponsors must perform an alternatives (i) All environmental and community (commonly referred to as four-step
analysis consistent with FTA guidance. impacts are identified and adequate models) to estimate transportation
(1) The alternatives analysis must provisions made for their mitigation in system user benefits and ridership, the
develop information on the benefits, accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5324(b) and procedures have been rigorously
costs, and impacts of alternative NEPA, with issuance of a Record of validated using a survey of transit riders
strategies to address a transportation Decision (ROD) or Finding of No that has been completed not more than
problem or opportunity in a given Significant Impact (FONSI); five years prior to a request to enter
corridor, leading to the adoption of a (ii) All major or critical project preliminary engineering;
locally preferred alternative. elements are designed to the level that (vii) Project sponsors have
(2) The alternative strategies no significant unknown impacts relative demonstrated adequate technical
evaluated in an alternatives analysis to their costs are likely; and capability to carry out preliminary
should include a no-build alternative, at (iii) All cost estimating is complete to engineering for the proposed project;
least one TSM alternative that is able to the level of confidence necessary for the (viii) FTA and the project sponsor
serve as the New Starts project baseline project sponsor to implement the have signed a Project Development
alternative, and a number of build financing strategy, including Agreement (PDA) that identifies
alternatives that represent the full range establishing the maximum dollar principal issues to be resolved, products
of reasonable responses to the amount of the New Starts program to be completed during project
transportation problem or opportunity. financial contribution needed to development, all significant
The project baseline alternative implement the project. uncertainties and the strategies to
represents the best that can be done (iv) The project sponsor has used address them, and schedules for
without building a fixed guideway credible, relevant, identifiable and cost- reaching significant milestones during
system. This generally means a bus effective industry or engineering the course of project development. At a
alternative that addresses as effectively practices that are uniformly and minimum, a PDA will include the steps
and cost-effectively as possible the same consistently applied in preparing for and schedule to ensure the satisfactory
transportation problem or opportunity and making these determinations. The completion of the NEPA process, the
as the build alternative. FTA will cost estimating process during steps and schedule to complete
determine whether to require a separate preliminary engineering would preliminary engineering and final
baseline alternative on a case-by-case specifically identify the main design including development of
basis, if a project sponsor provides components of the project as identified reliable cost estimates and ridership
information intended to demonstrate in FTA’s Standardized cost categories, forecasts, a discussion of all significant
that the no-build alternative (i.e., a including all essential project elements, uncertainties in the development of
continuation of existing transit service and add sufficient contingencies to cost, benefit, and financial information,
policies in the study area) fulfills the cover the remaining design and cost and the steps and schedule to secure
requirements for a baseline alternative uncertainties that will be addressed in funding commitments; and
(indicated by very high levels of existing final design. (ix) All other applicable Federal and
transit service), (2) A proposed project can be FTA program requirements have been
(3) The locally preferred alternative considered for advancement into met.
must be selected from among the preliminary engineering only if: (3) Consistent with 49 U.S.C.
evaluated alternative strategies and (i) Alternatives analysis has been 5309(g)(2)(C), project sponsors shall
formally adopted and included in the completed; submit a preliminary plan for collection
metropolitan transportation plan. (ii) FTA has approved the alternative and analysis of information to identify
(b) Project Development. Consistent that will serve as the baseline the ‘‘before and after’’ impacts of the
with 49 U.S.C. 5309(d)(5) and 49 U.S.C. alternative against which the proposed New Starts project and the accuracy of
5328(a)(2), FTA will approve entry of project will be compared in the the forecasts prepared during
proposed projects into project evaluation and rating process; development of the project. The project
development. Project development will (iii) The NEPA scoping process has sponsor will also submit the initial
include FTA approval points for been completed or the project has been information on project scope, service
preliminary engineering and final granted a categorical exclusion; levels, capital costs, operating costs, and
design. Preliminary engineering and (iv) The proposed project has been ridership of the project produced during
final design will proceed as described in adopted as the locally preferred alternatives analysis, identify the entity
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. alternative in the metropolitan responsible for each in order to facilitate
(1) Consistent with 49 U.S.C. transportation plan; FTA’s compliance with preparation of
5328(a)(2), FTA will complete the (v) The proposed financial strategies, the Contractor Performance Assessment
evaluation of a proposed project for planned funding sources, and amounts Report required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(l)(2),
and provide a discussion of the key the project that was approved to enter key remaining uncertainties that may
uncertainties that may affect preliminary engineering; affect achievement of the forecasts.
achievement of the forecasts. (iv) FTA and the project sponsor have (i) The plan shall finalize the
(4) FTA’s approval will be based on agreed on the final New Starts program preliminary ‘‘before and after’’ plan
the results of its evaluation as described funding amount that generally may not developed prior to entry into
in §§ 611.11 through 611.15. be exceeded in any subsequent Full preliminary engineering. The plan will
(5) At a minimum, a proposed project Funding Grant Agreement. FTA will provide for: Collection of ‘‘before’’ data
must receive an overall rating of entertain requests for higher levels of on the current transit system;
‘‘medium’’ and be reasonably expected New Starts funding when, during final documentation of the ‘‘predicted’’
to continue to meet the requirements of design but prior to execution of the Full scope, service levels, capital costs,
this section to be approved for entry Funding Grant Agreement, FTA operating and maintenance costs, and
into preliminary engineering. determines that the increase in costs is ridership of the project; collection of
(6) This part does not in any way beyond the project sponsor’s control. ‘‘after’’ data on the transit system two
revoke FTA approvals to enter These cost increases are expected to be years after opening of the New Starts
preliminary engineering made prior to limited to unforeseen cost increases due project; and analysis of the consistency
[effective date of the final rule]; to unusual occurrences. FTA will of ‘‘predicted’’ project characteristics
however, in order to advance to final decide on a case-by-case basis whether with the ‘‘after’’ data.
design, the project would be subject to these circumstances apply to a given (ii) The ‘‘before’’ data collection shall
the requirements of this part. project and what dollar amount is obtain information on transit service
(7) New Starts projects approved to attributable to these occurrences. FTA levels and ridership patterns, including
advance into preliminary engineering would participate in these cost increases origins and destinations, access modes,
receive blanket pre-award authority to proportionate to the previously agreed- trip purposes, and rider characteristics.
incur project costs for preliminary to percentage share between FTA and The ‘‘after’’ data collection shall consist
engineering activities prior to grant the project sponsor; likewise FTA of information comparable to the before
approval. would participate in any cost reductions data on transit service levels and
(i) This pre-award authority does not identified during final design ridership patterns, plus information on
constitute a commitment by FTA that proportionate to the previously agreed- the as-built scope and capital costs of
future Federal funds will be approved to percentage share between FTA and the New Starts project.
the project sponsor. (iii) The analysis of this information
for the project.
shall describe the impacts of the New
(ii) All Federal requirements must be (v) Project sponsors have
Starts project on transit services and
met prior to incurring costs in order to demonstrated adequate technical
transit ridership, evaluate the
retain eligibility of the costs for future capability to carry out final design for
consistency of ‘‘predicted’’ and actual
FTA grant assistance. the proposed project; and
project characteristics and performance,
(d) Final Design. Consistent with 49 (vi) All other applicable Federal and
and identify sources of differences
U.S.C. 5309(d)(5), FTA will evaluate a FTA program requirements have been
between ‘‘predicted’’ and actual
proposed New Starts project prior to met.
outcomes.
approval into final design. (3) FTA’s approval will be based on (iv) For funding purposes, preparation
(1) Final Design is the phase of project the results of its evaluation as described of the plan for collection and analysis of
development during which the in §§ 611.11 through 611.15. data is an eligible part of the proposed
significant remaining uncertainties in (4) At a minimum, a proposed project project.
the construction cost estimate that were must receive an overall rating of (6) Project sponsors shall collect data
specified at the end of preliminary ‘‘medium’’ and be reasonably expected on the current system, according to the
engineering are mitigated, detailed to continue to meet the requirements of plan required under § 611.17(c)(3) as
specifications and bid documents are this section to be approved for entry approved by FTA, prior to the beginning
produced, all significant third party and into final design. of construction of the proposed New
relocation agreements are signed, all (5) Consistent with 49 U.S.C. Starts project. Collection of this data is
funding commitments needed to 5309(g)(2)(C), project sponsors seeking an eligible part of the proposed project
complete the project are finalized, and Full Funding Grant Agreements shall for funding purposes.
all remaining technical and regulatory submit a complete plan for collection (7) Projects that are approved into
issues relating to readiness to begin and analysis of information to identify final design are exempt from any
construction are completed. the ‘‘before and after’’ impacts of the changes in New Starts policy, guidance,
(2) A proposed project can be New Starts project and the accuracy of and procedures.
considered for advancement into final the forecasts prepared during (8) This part does not in any way
design only if: development of the project. The project revoke prior FTA approvals to enter
(i) The NEPA process has been sponsor will also submit updated final design that were made prior to [the
completed with FTA’s issuance of a information on project scope, service effective date of the final rule]; however,
ROD or FONSI, or FTA’s concurrence in levels, capital costs, operating and if the project has not already been
a categorical exclusion; maintenance costs, and ridership of the recommended for a Full Funding Grant
(ii) All of the conditions described in project produced during preliminary Agreement, in order to be so
§ 611.17(c)(1) and as further defined in engineering; identify the entity recommended the project would be
FTA’s policy guidance for completion of responsible for each in order to facilitate subject to the requirements of this part.
preliminary engineering have been met. FTA’s compliance with preparation of (9) Projects approved to advance into
(iii) The project is reaffirmed in its the Contractor Performance Assessment final design receive blanket pre-award
final configuration and costs (after Report required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(l)(2); authority to incur project costs for final
NEPA and preliminary engineering) in prepare an analysis of the changes design activities prior to grant approval.
the metropolitan transportation plan if between the current project information Pre-award authority to acquire real
significant changes have occurred in the and the information prepared during property and to relocate residents and
project definition or cost compared to alternatives analysis; and discuss the businesses in accordance with the
Uniform Relocation and Real Property (ii) The grantee will be required to and document the predicted
Acquisition Policies Act is granted upon complete construction of the project, as characteristics and performance of the
completion of the NEPA process. defined in the scope, to the point of project.
(i) All other activities must receive a initiation of revenue operations, and to (ii) Two years after the project opens
Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) to be absorb any additional costs incurred or for revenue service, the grantee shall
eligible for Federal reimbursement. necessitated using non-Section 5309 collect the ‘‘after’’ data on the transit
(ii) All Federal requirements must be Capital Investment funds; system and the New Starts project,
met prior to incurring costs in order to (iii) FTA and the grantee will determine the impacts of the project,
retain eligibility of the costs for future establish a schedule for anticipating and analyze the consistency of the
FTA grant assistance. Federal contributions; and ‘‘predicted’’ performance of the project
(e) Full-Funding Grant Agreements (iv) Specific annual contributions with the ‘‘after’’ data. A report on the
(FFGAs). under the FFGA will be subject to the findings and supporting data will be
(1) FTA will determine whether to availability of overall budget authority, submitted to FTA no later than 30
execute an FFGA for proposed New Congressional appropriations, and the months after the project opens for
Starts projects based on: ability of the grantee to use the funds revenue service.
(i) The evaluations and ratings effectively. (iii) For funding purposes, collection
established by this regulation; (6) If a project is completed using less of the ‘‘before’’ data, collection of the
(ii) The technical capability of project than the total funding authorized in the ‘‘after’’ data, and the development and
sponsors to complete the proposed New FFGA, the project sponsor may request reporting of findings are eligible parts of
Starts project; and a grant amendment to spend the the proposed project.
(iii) A determination by FTA that no remaining funds on other system capital (11) This part does not in any way
outstanding issues exist that could improvements. alter, revoke, or require re-evaluation of
interfere with successful (7) Consistent with 49 U.S.C. existing FFGAs that were issued prior to
implementation of the proposed New 5309(h)(3), the FFGA may include an [the effective date of the final rule].
Starts project. incentive clause that will provide a
(2) FTA’s funding decision is distinct specified higher than requested New Subpart C—Small Starts
from project evaluation and rating Starts funding share, not to exceed 80
process. Projects that meet or exceed the percent, under the following conditions: § 611.19 Eligibility.
criteria described in this section are (i) Actual opening year ridership is (a) To be eligible for Small Starts
eligible, but are not guaranteed, to be not less than 90 percent of the opening funding, a proposed project must meet
recommended for funding. FTA will year ridership estimated at the time the the following prerequisites:
recommend projects for funding in the project entered preliminary engineering (1) Be based on the results of planning
annual Report on Funding for a project of equivalent scope; and and alternatives analysis as described in
Recommendations and President’s (ii) The actual scope and construction § 611.27.
Budget only if the project is rated at cost of the project is not more than 10 (2) Must include at least 50 percent of
least ‘‘medium’’ overall and has a cost- percent higher than the construction the total project in a fixed guideway
effectiveness rating of at least cost estimated at the time the project during the peak period or when
‘‘medium.’’ entered preliminary engineering. The congestion inhibits transit system
(3) An FFGA shall not be executed for construction costs will be compared in performance, or be a corridor bus
a project that is not authorized for final constant dollars for the year the project project that includes at least the
design and construction in accordance entered preliminary engineering. following elements:
with Federal law. (iii) The higher New Starts share will (i) Substantial transit stations;
(4) FFGAs may be executed only for be in the form of an amendment to the (ii) Traffic signal priority/pre-
those projects that: FFGA to be used either to increase the emption;
(i) Have an overall rating of Federal share for costs incurred in (iii) Low-floor buses or level boarding;
‘‘medium’’ or better; completing the project as agreed to in (iv) Branding of the proposed service;
(ii) Have completed the appropriate the FFGA, or for other agreed to system and
steps in the project development capital improvements, prior to closing (v) 10 minute peak/15 minute off peak
process; out the FFGA. headways or better for at least 14 hours
(iii) Meet all applicable Federal and (8) The total amount of Federal per day.
FTA program requirements; and obligations under FFGAs and potential (3) Must have a total project cost of
(iv) Are ready to utilize New Starts obligations under Letters of Intent will under $250 million and request less
funds, consistent with available not exceed the amount authorized for than $75 million in Section 5309 Capital
program authorization. New Starts under 49 U.S.C. 5309. Investment funds, both in year of
(5) In any instance in which FTA (9) FTA may also make a ‘‘contingent expenditure funds. If the project
decides to provide financial assistance commitment,’’ which is subject to future exceeds either of these limits, it shall be
under the Section 5309 Capital congressional authorizations and considered and evaluated as a New Start
Investment program for construction of appropriations, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. under subpart B of this part.
a New Starts project, FTA will negotiate 5309(g)(B) 5338(c), and 5338(f). (b) Projects that would otherwise
an FFGA with the grantee during final (10) Consistent with 49 U.S.C. qualify for funding as a New Starts
design of that project. Pursuant to the 5309(g)(2)(C), the FFGA will require project may not be subdivided into
terms and conditions of the FFGA: implementation of the data collection several Small Starts projects. Projects
(i) The maximum level of Federal plan prepared in accordance with may be built in phases or a series of
financial contribution under the Section § 611.17(d)(5): minimum operable segments, but all
5309 Capital Investment program will (i) Prior to the beginning of potential Small Starts projects
be consistent with the maximum New construction activities the grantee shall envisioned for a single corridor will be
Starts share determined at the time the collect the ‘‘before’’ data on the existing considered together as a single project
project entered final design as provided system, if such data has not already for the purpose of determining Small
in paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of this section; been collected as part of final design, Starts eligibility. If the combined cost or
total requested funding amount, both dividing annualized capital and consistent with FTA guidance and
expressed in year-of-expenditure operating costs by transportation system industry practice.
dollars, is over the Small Starts limits, user benefits. Cost effectiveness for New (e) The individual ratings for each of
the projects will be evaluated as New Starts will be evaluated based on the the criteria described in this section will
Starts projects. forecast made over the planning be combined into a summary rating of
horizon. Annualized cost shall include ‘‘high,’’ ‘‘medium-high,’’ ‘‘medium,’’
§ 611.21 Project justification criteria. all elements necessary for completion of ‘‘medium-low,’’ or ‘‘low’’ for project
In order to approve a grant for a the project with contingency amounts justification using the weights provided
proposed Small Starts project, and to that are reasonable to cover for above. ‘‘Other factors’’ will be
approve entry into the project unanticipated cost increases plus considered and applied by adjusting,
development phase as required by 49 annual operating and maintenance either upward or downward, the
U.S.C. 5309(e)(6), FTA must find that costs. The breakpoints corresponding to summary project justification rating.
the proposed project is meritorious as the cost effectiveness ratings will be
described in 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(4). § 611.23 Local financial commitment
adjusted for inflation annually as part of criteria.
(a) To make the statutory evaluations the Reporting Instructions.
and assign ratings for project In order to approve a grant for a Small
(3) Other factors will be considered
justification, FTA will evaluate Starts project under 49 U.S.C. 5309, and
under the authority provided by 49
information developed locally through to approve entry into project
U.S.C. 5309(d)(3)(K).
alternatives analyses and refined (i) All projects will be evaluated and development as required by 49 U.S.C.
through the project development phase. rated on the severity of the 5309(e)(6), FTA must find that the
(1) The method used to make this transportation and economic proposed project is supported by an
determination will be a multiple development problem or opportunity in acceptable degree of local financial
measure approach in which the merits the corridor and consideration of the commitment, as required by 49 U.S.C.
of candidate projects will be evaluated appropriateness of the proposed project 5309(e)(5). The financial capability of
in terms of each of the criteria specified as a response. the project sponsor to build, operate and
by this section. (ii) Depending upon the applicability, maintain the proposed project as well as
(2) The ratings for each of the criteria also considered will be the following the existing and planned system will be
will be expressed in terms of descriptive factors: evaluated according to the following
indicators, as follows: ‘‘high,’’ (A) Identification of the project as a measures:
‘‘medium-high,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ ‘‘medium- principal element of a congestion (a) The proposed share of project
low,’’ or ‘‘low.’’ The application of these reduction strategy, in general and a capital costs to be met using funds from
descriptors to each of these criteria will pricing strategy, in particular; sources other than the Section 5309
be published as policy guidance, subject (B) Any factor which the Small Start Capital Investment Program, including
to notice and comment, at least every project sponsor believes articulates the both the non-Federal match required by
two years or when substantial changes benefits of the proposed project but Federal law and any additional local,
are made. which is not captured within the other State or non-Section 5309 Capital
(b) The evaluation criteria and project justification criteria; and Investment Federal funding
weights assigned to each for Small (C) Other factors that the Secretary (‘‘overmatch’’). However, FTA will give
Starts project justification are as follows: determines to be appropriate to carry priority to financing projects that
(1) Effectiveness criteria (50 percent of out the evaluation. include more non-Section 5309 Capital
the summary rating for project (c) In evaluating proposed Small Investment funds than are required as
justification): Starts projects under these criteria: local match under section 5309(h). At
(i) Mobility improvements for the (1) For the effectiveness and cost the same time, FTA will take into
general population (40 percent of the effectiveness criteria, the proposed consideration the fiscal capacity of State
ratings for effectiveness), including Small Starts project will be compared to and local governments by not reducing
congestion relief. Congestion relief shall the baseline alternative. the overall local financial commitment
be measured based on the degree to (2) As a candidate project proceeds rating below ‘‘medium,’’ for projects
which the project reduces highway through project development, a greater that, due to state or local fiscal capacity
travel demand and the relative level of degree of certainty is expected with constraints, propose a funding strategy
congestion in the corridor based on respect to the scope of the project and with an 80 percent Section 5309 Capital
estimated delay. a greater level of commitment is Investment funding. Unless otherwise
(ii) Economic development/land use expected with respect to the funding specified in Federal law, FTA will not
(60 percent of the ratings for strategy and the plans and policies take into account the non-Federal funds
effectiveness). Economic development/ intended to support economic expended on a project other than the
land use shall be measured using factors development and transit supportive Small Starts project being evaluated
that address the additional development land use. when computing the non-Federal share
expected around project stations as a (d) Simplified methods may be used of the Small Starts project.
result of the New Start project. Such for Small Starts projects with prior (b) The stability and reliability of the
factors include the extent to which written approval from FTA. Depending proposed capital funding plan for
current land use is ripe for on the scope and complexity of the constructing all essential elements of
development, transit-oriented plans and proposed Small Starts project, the Small Starts project and transit
policies, the economic development information regarding user benefits and system, including the availability of
climate in the project corridor, the ridership could be estimated based on contingency amounts that the Secretary
increase in transit accessibility offered existing ridership, on-board surveys, determines to be reasonable to cover
by the project, and the economic calculations of stop-to-stop running unanticipated cost increases.
lifespan of the project. time improvements, peer project (c) The stability and reliability of the
(2) Cost effectiveness (50 percent of experience, pivot-point and elasticity proposed operating funding plan to
the summary rating for project based methods, or other methods of operate and maintain the entire transit
justification) shall be calculated by estimating ridership and user benefits system as planned, and including the
existence of contractual arrangements, (2) Ratings for individual projects will projects, project development combines
including public private partnership be updated annually for purposes of the the goals and activities of preliminary
arrangements, that are designed to annual report on funding levels and engineering and final design into a
reduce and/or make more predictable allocations of funds required by 49 single phase with a single FTA approval
the annualized cost of operations. U.S.C. 5309(k)(1), and as required for point. However, under NEPA
(d) The capital and operating plans FTA approvals during the following regulations (23 CFR part 771), final
specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of project development steps: design activities may not commence
this section must include costs and (i) Advancement of proposed Small prior to completion of the NEPA
revenues up to and including opening Starts projects into project development; process.
year. (ii) Decision to recommend Small (1) The project development phase of
(e) For each proposed project, ratings Starts projects for Project Construction Small Starts is the process of finalizing
for paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this Grant Agreements. the project scope, cost, and the financial
section will be reported in terms of (c) Projects that achieve an overall plan such that:
descriptive indicators, as follows: rating of ‘‘medium’’ or better will be (i) All environmental and community
‘‘high,’’ ‘‘medium-high,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ allowed to advance into project impacts are identified and adequate
‘‘medium-low,’’ or ‘‘low.’’ The development and may be recommended provisions made for their mitigation in
application of these descriptors to each for funding. accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5324(b) and
of these criteria will be published, § 611.27 Project development process. NEPA, with FTA’s issuance of a Record
subject to notice and comment, in of Decision (ROD) or Finding of No
All Small Starts projects must emerge
policy guidance at least every two years Significant Impact (FONSI), unless the
from the metropolitan and statewide
or when substantial changes are made. project is found to be categorically
planning process, consistent with 23
(f) The individual ratings for each excluded from the NEPA process by
CFR part 450, and be included in the
measure described in this section will FTA under 23 CFR 771.117;
metropolitan transportation plan.
be combined into a summary rating of (ii) All major or critical project
Proposed projects must be based on the
‘‘high,’’ ‘‘medium-high,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ elements are designed to the level that
results of alternatives analysis and
‘‘medium-low,’’ or ‘‘low’’ for local no significant unknown impacts relative
proceed through project development
financial commitment. To develop the to their costs will result; and
before being recommended for Small
summary ratings, the rating for capital Starts program funding. (iii) All cost estimating is complete to
and operating financial plans will be (a) Alternatives analysis. To be the level of confidence necessary for the
given equal weights. The rating for the eligible for project funding under the project sponsor to implement the
proposed share from other than the Small Starts program, local project financing strategy, including
Section 5309 Capital Investments sponsors must perform an alternatives establishing the maximum dollar
program will be used to assign a higher analysis consistent with FTA guidance. amount of the Small Starts program
or lower rating should the weighting of (1) The alternatives analysis must financial contribution needed to
the capital and operating financial plan develop information on the benefits, implement the project.
ratings produce a rating which would costs, and impacts of alternative (iv) The project sponsor has used
otherwise fall between the summary strategies to address a transportation credible, relevant, identifiable, and cost-
rating levels specified above. problem or opportunity in a given effective industry or engineering
corridor, leading to the adoption of a practices that are uniformly and
§ 611.25 Overall project ratings. consistently applied in preparing for
locally preferred alternative.
(a) The summary ratings developed (2) The alternative strategies and making these determinations. The
for project justification and local evaluated in an alternatives analysis cost estimating process would
financial commitment, adjusted by the must include a no-build alternative, at specifically identify the main
degree of reliability of estimates of least one Transportation System components of the project as identified
ridership and costs, as provided in Management (TSM) alternative that is in FTA’s standardized cost categories,
§§ 611.7, 611.21, and 611.23, will form able to serve as the Small Starts project including all essential project elements,
the basis for the overall rating for each baseline alternative, and an appropriate and add sufficient contingencies to
project. number of build alternatives. If the cover unanticipated cost increases.
(b) FTA will assign overall ratings of alternatives analysis only considers (v) Detailed specifications and bid
‘‘high,’’ ‘‘medium-high,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ projects that would qualify as Small documents are produced, all funding
‘‘medium-low,’’ or ‘‘low’’ as required by Starts projects and does not include a commitments needed to complete the
49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(6)(B), to each new fixed guideway alternative, the project are finalized, and all remaining
proposed project. To obtain an overall Small Starts project already fits the technical and regulatory issues relating
rating of ‘‘medium,’’ a project must have definition of a TSM alternative. In this to readiness to begin construction are
at least a ‘‘medium’’ rating for project case, the no-build alternative will serve completed.
justification, and local financial as the baseline in both the alternatives (2) A proposed project can be
commitment. To obtain an overall rating analysis and in the Small Starts considered for advancement into project
of ‘‘medium-high,’’ a project must have evaluation and rating process. development only if:
at least a rating of ‘‘medium-high’’ for (3) The locally preferred alternative (i) Alternatives analysis has been
both project justification and for local must be selected from among the completed;
financial commitment. To obtain a evaluated alternative strategies and (ii) FTA has approved the alternative
rating of ‘‘high,’’ a project must have a formally adopted and included in the that will serve as the baseline
rating of ‘‘high’’ for both project metropolitan transportation plan. alternative against which the proposed
justification and for local financial (b) Project development. Consistent project will be compared in the
commitment. with 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(6) and evaluation and rating process;
(1) These ratings will indicate the 5328(a)(2), FTA will evaluate proposed (iii) The NEPA scoping process has
overall merit of a proposed project at the Small Starts projects for approval into been completed or the project has been
time of evaluation. project development. For Small Starts granted a categorical exclusion;
(iv) The proposed project has been project development made prior to [the and the information prepared during
adopted as the locally preferred effective date of the final rule]. alternatives analysis, and a discussion
alternative in the metropolitan (7) Small Starts projects entering of the key remaining uncertainties that
transportation plan; project development receive blanket may affect achievement of the forecasts.
(v) The proposed financial strategies, pre-award authority to incur project (A) The plan shall finalize the
planned funding sources, and amounts costs for preliminary engineering prior preliminary plan developed prior to
have been independently endorsed by to grant approval. Pre-award authority entering project development as
those agencies identified as responsible for final design and to acquire real estate required by § 611.27(c)(3). The plan will
for providing or approving the funding. and to relocate residents and businesses provide for: Collection of ‘‘before’’ data
Where future State and/or local in accordance with the Uniform on the current transit system;
government action or public referendum Relocation and Real Property documentation of the ‘‘predicted’’
is required to establish (and commit) the Acquisition Policies Act is scope, service levels, capital costs,
proposed funding source, a letter of automatically granted upon completion operating costs, and ridership of the
endorsement and a timeframe for of the NEPA process as evidenced by project; collection of ‘‘after’’ data on the
implementation and commitment is FTA’s issuance of a ROD or FONSI, or transit system one year after opening of
required from the appropriate policy- FTA’s concurrence in a categorical the Small Starts project; and analysis of
making or decision-making body exclusion. All other activities must the consistency of ‘‘predicted’’ project
responsible for providing or approving receive a Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) characteristics with the ‘‘after’’ data.
the proposed funding; to be eligible for Federal reimbursement. (B) The ‘‘before’’ data collection shall
(vi) For project sponsors using (i) This pre-award authority does not obtain information on transit service
traditional travel forecasting procedures constitute a commitment by FTA that levels and ridership patterns, including
(commonly referred to as four-step future Federal funds will be approved origins and destinations, access modes,
models) to estimate transportation for the project. trip purposes, and rider characteristics.
system user benefits and ridership, the (ii) All Federal requirements must be The ‘‘after’’ data collection shall consist
procedures have been rigorously met prior to incurring costs in order to of comparable information on transit
validated using a survey of transit riders retain eligibility of the costs for future service levels and ridership patterns,
that has been completed not more than FTA grant assistance. plus information on the as-built scope
five years prior to a request to enter (c) Project Construction Grant and capital and operation and
project development; Agreements (PCGAs). maintenance costs of the Small Starts
(vii) Project sponsors have (1) FTA will determine whether to project.
demonstrated adequate technical execute a PCGA for Small Starts projects (C) The analysis of this information
capability to carry out project based on: shall describe the impacts of the Small
development for the proposed project; (i) The results of the evaluations and Starts project on transit services and
and ratings process contained in this part; transit ridership, evaluate the
(viii) All other applicable Federal and (ii) The technical capability of the consistency of ‘‘predicted’’ and actual
FTA program requirements have been project sponsor to complete the project characteristics and performance,
met. proposed Small Starts project; and identify sources of differences
(3) Consistent with 49 U.S.C. (iii) The NEPA process has been between ‘‘predicted’’ and actual
5309(g)(2)(C), project sponsors shall completed with FTA’s issuance of a outcomes.
submit a preliminary plan for collection ROD or FONSI or FTA’s concurrent in (D) For funding purposes, preparation
and analysis of information to identify a categorical exclusion; of the plan for collection and analysis of
the ‘‘before and after’’ impacts of the (iv) The project is reaffirmed in its data is an eligible part of the proposed
Small Starts project and the accuracy of final configuration and costs (after project.
the forecasts prepared during NEPA and project development) in the (vii) Project sponsors shall collect
development of the project. The project metropolitan transportation plan if data on the current system, according to
sponsor will also submit the initial significant changes have occurred in the the plan required under § 611.27(b)(3) as
information on project scope, service project definition or cost compared to approved by FTA, prior to the beginning
levels, capital costs, operating and the project that was approved to enter of construction of the proposed Small
maintenance costs, and ridership of the into project development; and Starts project. Collection of this data is
project produced during alternatives (v) A determination by FTA that no an eligible part of the proposed project
analysis, identify the entity responsible outstanding issues exist that could for funding purposes.
for each in order to facilitate FTA’s interfere with successful (2) FTA’s funding decision is distinct
compliance with preparation of the implementation of the proposed Small from project evaluation and rating
Contractor Performance Assessment Starts project. process. Projects that meet or exceed the
Report required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(l)(2), (vi) Consistent with 49 U.S.C. criteria described in this section are
and provide a discussion of the key 5309(g)(2)(C), project sponsors seeking eligible, but are not guaranteed, to be
uncertainties that may affect PCGAs shall submit a complete plan for recommended for funding. FTA will
achievement of the forecasts. collection and analysis of information to recommend projects for funding in the
(4) FTA’s approval will be based on identify the ‘‘before and after’’ impacts annual Report on Funding
the results of its evaluation as described of the Small Starts project and the Recommendations and President’s
in §§ 611.7 and 611.21 through 611.25. accuracy of the forecasts prepared Budget only if the project is rated at
(5) At a minimum, a proposed project during development of the project. The least ‘‘medium’’ overall and has a cost-
must receive an overall rating of project sponsor will also submit effectiveness rating of at least
‘‘medium’’ and be reasonably expected updated information on project scope, ‘‘medium.’’

to continue to meet the requirements of service levels, capital costs, operating (3) A PCGA shall not be executed for
this section to be approved for entry and maintenance costs, and ridership of a project that is not authorized for
into project development. the project produced during project construction by Federal law.
(6) This part does not in any way development, an analysis of the changes (4) PCGAs may be executed only for
revoke prior FTA approvals to enter between the current project information those projects that:
(i) Have an overall rating of ‘‘after’’ data, and the development and (a) To make the statutory evaluations
‘‘medium’’ or better; reporting of findings are eligible parts of and assign ratings for project
(ii) Have completed the appropriate the proposed project. justification, FTA will evaluate
steps in the project development information developed locally through
process; Subpart D—Very Small Starts alternatives analyses and refined
(iii) Meet all applicable Federal and through the project development phase.
§ 611.29 Eligibility.
FTA program requirements; and (b) For Very Small Starts projects, a
(iv) Are ready to utilize Small Starts (a) To be eligible for Section 5309
Capital Investment funding for a Very single summary rating of project
funds, consistent with available justification will be provided, based on
program authorization. Small Start, a proposed project must
meet the following prerequisites: the project’s ability to meet the
(5) In any instance in which FTA requirements in § 611.29(a)(3) that takes
decides to provide financial assistance (1) Be based on the results of planning
and alternatives analysis as described in into account the project’s mobility
under the Section 5309 Capital improvements, economic development,
Investment program for construction of § 611.37.
(2) Have at least 50 percent of the land use impacts, and cost effectiveness.
a Small Starts project, FTA will (c) Other factors will be considered
project in a fixed guideway during the
negotiate a PCGA with the grantee under the authority provided by 49
peak period or when congestion inhibits
during project development. Pursuant to U.S.C. 5309(d)(3)(K).
transit system performance, or be a
the terms and conditions of the PCGA: (1) All projects will be evaluated and
corridor bus project that includes at
(i) The grantee will be required to
least the following elements: rated on the severity of the
complete construction of the project, as
(i) Substantial transit stations; transportation and economic
defined, to the point of initiation of (ii) Traffic signal priority/pre- development problem or opportunity in
revenue operations and to absorb any emption; the corridor and consideration of the
additional costs incurred or necessitated (iii) Low-floor buses or level boarding; appropriateness of the proposed project
with local or other non-Section 5309 (iv) Branding of the proposed service; as a response.
Capital Investment funds; and
(ii) FTA and the grantee will establish (2) Depending upon the applicability,
(v) 10 minute peak/15 minute off peak also considered will be the following
a schedule for anticipating Federal headways or better for at least 14 hours
contributions; and factors:
per day. (i) Identification of the project as a
(iii) Specific annual contributions (3) Must have the following
under the PCGA will be subject to the principal element of a congestion
characteristics to qualify for pre-
availability of overall budget, authority, reduction strategy, in general and a
approval of the project justification
Congressional appropriations, and the pricing strategy, in particular;
criteria:
ability of the grantee to use the funds (i) Be in a corridor with a minimum (ii) Any factor which the Very Small
effectively. of 3,000 existing transit riders who will Start project sponsor believes articulates
(6) The total amount of Federal benefit from the proposed project. the benefits of the proposed project but
obligations under PCGAs and potential (ii) Have a total project cost of less which is not captured within the other
obligations under Letters of Intent will than $50 million and an average cost of project justification criteria; and
not exceed the amount authorized for less than $3 million per mile (exclusive (iii) Other factors that the Secretary
Small Starts under 49 U.S.C. 5309. of rolling stock). Projects that exceed the determines to be appropriate to carry
(7) FTA may also make a ‘‘contingent limits provided for in paragraph (a)(3) of out the evaluation.
commitment,’’ which is subject to future this section will be considered and (d) The procedures used to produce
congressional authorizations and evaluated as a Small Starts project, the information to support the project
appropriations, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. described in Subpart C of this part. justification rating for Very Small Starts
5309(g)(B) 5338(c), and 5338(f). (b) Projects that would otherwise will be based on data supporting the
(8) The PCGA will require qualify for funding as a New Starts or existing ridership and average cost per
implementation of the data collection Small Starts project may not be mile required under § 611.29(a)(3) .
plan prepared in accordance with subdivided into several Very Small (e) Very Small Starts projects are
paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of this section: Starts projects. Projects may be built in composed of project elements described
(i) Prior to the beginning of phases or a series of minimum operable in § 611.29(a)(3) that are warranted as
construction activities, the grantee shall segments, but all projects envisioned for both effective and cost-effective and
collect the ‘‘before’’ data on the existing a single corridor will be considered shall be rated ‘‘medium’’ for project
system, if such data has not already together as a single project for the justification. Projects not composed of
been collected during project purpose of determining eligibility as a such elements do not qualify for
development, and document the Very Small Starts project. If the evaluation as a Very Small Start, and are
predicted characteristics and combined cost or total requested subject to the requirements of subpart C
performance of the project. funding amount, both expressed in year- of this part.
(ii) One year after the project opens of-expenditure dollars, is over the Very
for revenue service, the grantee shall § 611.33 Local financial commitment
Small Starts limits, the projects will be
collect the ‘‘after’’ data on the transit criteria.
evaluated as a New Starts or Small
system and the Small Starts project, Starts project. In order to approve a Very Small
determine the impacts of the project, Starts project into project development
analyze the consistency of the § 611.31 Project justification criteria. or for a grant under 49 U.S.C. 5309, FTA
‘‘predicted’’ performance of the project In order to approve a grant for a must find that the proposed project is
with the ‘‘after’’ data, and report the proposed Very Small Starts project, and supported by an acceptable degree of
findings and supporting data to FTA no to approve entry into the project local financial commitment, as required
later than 18 months after the project development phase as required by 49 by 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(5). The financial
opens for revenue service. U.S.C. 5309(e)(6), FTA must find that capability of the project sponsor to
(iii) For funding purposes, collection the proposed project is meritorious as build, operate and maintain the
of the ‘‘before’’ data, collection of the described in 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(4). proposed project, as well as the existing
and planned system will be evaluated § 611.35 Overall project ratings. (3) The locally preferred alternative
according to the following measures: (a) The summary ratings developed must be selected from among the
(a) The proposed share of project for project justification and local evaluated alternative strategies and
capital costs to be met using funds from financial commitment, adjusted by the formally adopted and included in the
sources other than the Section 5309 degree of reliability of estimates of metropolitan transportation plan.
Capital Investment program, including ridership and costs (as described in (b) Project development. Consistent
both the non-Federal match required by §§ 611.7, 611.31, and 611.33), will form with 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(6) and 49 U.S.C.
Federal law and any local, state or the basis for the overall rating for each 5328(a)(2), FTA will evaluate proposed
additional non-Section 5309 Capital project. Very Small Starts projects for approval
Investment Federal funding (b) FTA will assign overall ratings of into project development. For Very
(‘‘overmatch’’). However, FTA will give ‘‘high,’’ ‘‘medium-high,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ Small Starts projects, project
priority to financing projects that ‘‘medium-low,’’ or ‘‘low,’’ as required by development combines the goals and
include more non-5309 funds than are 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(6)(B), to each activities of preliminary engineering
required as local match under 5309(h). proposed project. To obtain an overall and final design into a single phase with
At the same time, FTA will take into rating of ‘‘medium,’’ a project must have a single FTA approval point. However,
consideration the fiscal capacity of State at least a ‘‘medium’’ rating for both under NEPA regulations (23 CFR Part
and local governments by not reducing project justification and local financial 771), final design activities may not
the overall local financial commitment commitment. commence prior to completion of the
rating below ‘‘medium,’’ for projects (1) These ratings will indicate the NEPA process.
that, due to state or local fiscal capacity overall merit of a proposed project at the (c) Project Development.
constraints, propose a funding strategy time of evaluation. (1) The project development phase of
with an 80 percent Section 5309 Capital (2) Ratings for individual projects will Small Starts, including Very Small
Investment funding. Unless otherwise be updated annually for purposes of the Starts, is the process of finalizing the
specified in Federal law, FTA will not annual report on funding levels and project scope, cost, and the financial
take into account the non-Federal funds allocations of funds required by 49 plan such that:
expended on a project other than the U.S.C. 5309(k)(1), and as required for (i) All environmental and community
Very Small Starts project being FTA approvals during the following impacts are identified and adequate
evaluated when computing the non- project development steps: provisions made for their mitigation in
Federal share of the Very Small Starts (i) Advancement of proposed Very accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5324(b) and
project. Small Starts projects into project
(b) The stability and reliability of the NEPA, which results in FTA’s issuance
development; and of a Record of Decision (ROD) or
proposed capital funding plan for (ii) Decision to recommend Very
constructing all essential elements of Finding of No Significant Impact
Small Starts projects for Project (FONSI), unless the project is found to
the Very Small Starts project and transit Construction Grant Agreements.
system, including the availability of be categorically excluded from the
(c) Projects that achieve an overall
contingency amounts that the Secretary NEPA process by FTA under 23 CFR
rating of ‘‘medium’’ or better will be
determines to be reasonable to cover 771.17;
allowed to advance into project
unanticipated cost increases; and (ii) All major or critical project
development and may be recommended
(c) The stability and reliability of the elements are designed to the level that
for funding.
proposed operating funding plan to no significant unknown impacts relative
operate and maintain the entire transit § 611.37 Project development process. to their costs will result; and
system as planned and including the All Very Small Starts projects must (iii) All cost estimating is complete to
existence of contractual arrangements emerge from the metropolitan and the level of confidence necessary for the
that are designed to reduce and/or make statewide planning process, consistent project sponsor to implement the
more predictable the annualized cost of with 23 CFR part 450, and be included financing strategy, including
operations. in the metropolitan transportation plan. establishing the maximum dollar
(d) The capital and operating plans Proposed projects must be based on the amount of the Small Starts program
specified in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) results of alternatives analysis and financial contribution needed to
of this section must include annual proceed through project development implement the project.
costs and revenues through opening before being recommended for Section (iv) The project sponsor has used
year. 5309 Capital Investment program credible, relevant, identifiable and cost-
(e) For each proposed project, ratings funding. effective industry or engineering
for paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this (a) Alternatives analysis. To be practices that are uniformly and
section will be reported in terms of eligible for project funding under the consistently applied in preparing for
descriptive indicators, as follows: Section 5309 Capital Investment and making these determinations. The
‘‘high,’’ ‘‘medium-high,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ program, local project sponsors must cost estimating process would
‘‘medium-low,’’ or ‘‘low.’’ The perform an alternatives analysis specifically identify the main
application of these descriptors to each consistent with FTA guidance. components of the project as identified
of these criteria, and the weights given (1) The alternatives analysis must in FTA’s standardized cost categories,
to each criterion, will be published, develop information on the benefits, including all essential project elements,
subject to notice and comment, in costs, and impacts of alternative and add sufficient contingencies to
policy guidance at least every two years strategies to address a transportation cover unanticipated cost increases.
or when substantial changes are made. problem or opportunity in a given (v) Detailed specifications and bid
(f) The individual ratings for each corridor, leading to the adoption of a documents are produced, all funding
measure described in this section will locally preferred alternative. commitments needed to complete the
be combined into a summary rating of (2) The alternative strategies project are finalized, and all remaining
‘‘high,’’ ‘‘medium-high,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ evaluated in an alternatives analysis technical and regulatory issues relating
‘‘medium-low,’’ or ‘‘low’’ for local must include a no-build alternative and to readiness to begin construction are
financial commitment. at least one Very Small Start alternative. completed.
(2) A proposed project can be for final design, to acquire real estate Investment funding for construction of a
considered for advancement into project and to relocate residents and businesses Very Small Starts project, FTA will
development only if: in accordance with the Uniform negotiate a PCGA with the grantee
(i) Alternatives analysis has been Relocation and Real Property during project development. Pursuant to
completed; Acquisition Policies Act, is the terms and conditions of the PCGA:
(ii) The NEPA scoping process has automatically granted upon completion (i) The grantee will be required to
been completed, or the project has been of the NEPA process as evidenced by complete construction of the project, as
granted a categorical exclusion; FTA’s issuance of a ROD or FONSI or defined, to the point of initiation of
(iii) The proposed project has been FTA’s concurrence in a categorical revenue operations, and to absorb any
adopted as the locally preferred exclusion. All other activities must additional costs incurred or necessitated
alternative in the metropolitan receive a Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) with local or other non-Section 5309
transportation plan; to be eligible for Federal reimbursement. Capital Investment funds;
(iv) The proposed financial strategies, (i) This pre-award authority does not (ii) FTA and the grantee will establish
planned funding sources, and amounts constitute a commitment by FTA that a schedule for anticipating Federal
have been independently endorsed by future Federal funds will be approved contributions; and
those agencies identified as responsible for the project. (iii) Specific annual contributions
for providing or approving the funding. (ii) All Federal requirements must be under the PCGA will be subject to the
Where future State and/or local met prior to incurring costs in order to availability of budget authority and the
government action or public referendum retain eligibility of the costs for future ability of the grantee to use the funds
is required to establish (and commit) the FTA grant assistance. effectively.
proposed funding source, a letter of (d) Project Construction Grant
(6) The total amount of Federal
endorsement and a timeframe for Agreements (PCGAs).
(1) FTA will determine whether to obligations under PCGAs and potential
implementation and commitment is obligations under Letters of Intent will
required from the appropriate policy- execute a PCGA for Very Small Starts
projects based on: not exceed the amount authorized for
making or decision-making body Small Starts under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
responsible for providing or approving (i) The results of the evaluations and
ratings process contained in this part; (7) FTA may also make a ‘‘contingent
the proposed funding; commitment,’’ which is subject to future
(v) Project sponsors have (ii) The technical capability of the
project sponsor to complete the congressional authorizations and
demonstrated adequate technical
proposed Very Small Starts project; appropriations, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
capability to carry out project
(iii) The NEPA process has been 5309(g)(B), 5338(c), and 5338(f).
development for the proposed project;
completed with FTA’s issuance of a (8) The PCGA will require
and
(vi) All other applicable Federal and ROD or FONSI or FTA’s concurrence in implementation of the data collection
FTA program requirements have been a categorical exclusion; plan prepared in accordance with
(iv) The project is reaffirmed in its paragraph 611.37(c)(3) of this section:
met.
(3) Consistent with 49 U.S.C. final configuration and costs (after (i) Prior to the beginning of
5309(g)(2)(C), project sponsors shall NEPA and project development) in the construction activities, the grantee shall
submit a preliminary plan for collection metropolitan transportation plan if collect the ‘‘before’’ data on the existing
and analysis of information to identify significant changes have occurred in the system if such data has not already been
the ‘‘before and after’’ impacts of the project definition or cost compared to collected during project development,
Very Small Starts project and the the project that was approved to enter and document the predicted
into project development; and characteristics and performance of the
accuracy of the forecasts prepared
(v) A determination by FTA that no project.
during development of the project. The
outstanding issues exist that could (ii) One year after the project opens
project sponsor will also submit the interfere with successful
initial information on project scope, for revenue service, the grantee shall
implementation of the proposed Small collect the ‘‘after’’ data on the transit
service levels, capital costs, operating Starts project.
and maintenance costs, and ridership of system and the Very Small Starts
(2) FTA’s funding decision is distinct project, determine the impacts of the
the project produced during alternatives from project evaluation and rating
analysis, as well as a discussion of the project, analyze the consistency of the
process. Projects that meet or exceed the ‘‘predicted’’ performance of the project
key uncertainties that may affect criteria described in this section are
achievement of the forecasts. with the ‘‘after’’ data, and report the
eligible, but are not guaranteed, to be findings and supporting data to FTA
(4) FTA’s approval will be based on recommended for funding.
the results of its evaluation as described within eighteen months after the project
(3) A PCGA shall not be executed for
in §§ 611.21 through 611.25. opens for revenue.
a project that is not authorized for
(5) At a minimum, a proposed project (A) The Before-and-After Study will
construction by Federal law.
must receive an overall rating of (4) PCGAs may be executed only for consist of a very simple analysis of: A
‘‘medium’’ and be reasonably expected those projects that: post-construction cost summary in FTA
to continue to meet the requirements of (i) Have an overall rating of standardized cost categories compared
this section to be approved for entry ‘‘medium’’ or better; to the cost estimate at the time of entry
into project development. (ii) Have completed the appropriate into project development; a comparison
(6) This part does not in any way steps in the project development of actual ridership (on’s and off’s) in the
revoke prior FTA approvals to enter process; corridor provided in the application to
project development made prior to [the (iii) Meet all applicable Federal and enter project development and new
effective date of the final rule]. FTA program requirements; and counts done one year after opening; and
(7) Very Small Starts projects entering (iv) Are ready to utilize Small Starts a comparison of transit schedules and
project development receive blanket funds, consistent with available frequencies between the transit services
pre-award authority to incur project program authorization. in the corridor as it existed at the time
costs for preliminary engineering prior (5) In any instance in which FTA of entry into project development and
to grant approval. Pre-award authority decides to provide Section 5309 Capital one year after opening. The results of
this study shall be submitted within costs, and impacts of these alternatives. 4.0 Approach Towards Project
eighteen months after project opening. Further, FTA is satisfied that all interested Development
(B) For funding purposes, collection parties and the general public had ample As a prerequisite for FTA’s approval of
of the ‘‘before’’ data, collection of the opportunity to participate in this AA. entry into Preliminary Engineering, [Sponsor]
‘‘after’’ data, and the development and 3.2 The Candidate Project for New Starts has agreed to take an approach towards
reporting of findings are eligible parts of Funds project development that will ensure
the proposed project. consistency in project scope and New Starts
As the result of this AA, [Sponsor] has funding expectations throughout the
Appendix A to Part 611—Model Project identified a project that will be a candidate successive phases of Preliminary
Development Agreement for Federal financial assistance for final Engineering, Final Design, and Construction.
design and construction under 49 U.S.C. To expedite [Sponsor’s] efforts, FTA will take
Project Development Agreement Between the 5309 (hereafter, [name of project] or the a number of steps to help [Sponsor] comply
Federal Transit Administration and the ‘‘candidate project’’). [Name of project] is a with the pertinent Federal requirements.
[Sponsor] for the [Name of Project] [* * * describe the project in terms of mode, Specifically,
1.0 Purpose length, location, and number of stations and
rolling stock.] The candidate project is 4.1 Environmental Impacts
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) described in more detail in Attachment 8.1 [Option One: If the candidate project has
and the [Sponsor] are executing this Project to this Agreement (‘‘Scope of the Project’’). been identified prior to the preparation of a
Development Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) to DEIS, use the following paragraph.] FTA and
As of the date of this Agreement, the
set forth their intentions for compliance with [Sponsor] will prepare an Environmental
estimated total cost of the candidate project
NEPA, the Metropolitan Planning Impact Statement (EIS) [or Environmental
requirements, and the Major Capital is $lll, and [Sponsor] intends to seek
$lll in Federal financial assistance under Assessment (EA] that will evaluate a No
Investment (‘‘New Starts’’) requirements that Build alternative, a Baseline alternative
will govern the [name of project]. FTA and the Section 5309 New Starts program for
Final Design and Construction of the described in Section 3.3 of this Agreement,
[Sponsor] acknowledge that this Agreement the candidate project, and the following
may be modified from time to time to candidate project. The estimated total cost is
set forth in more detail in Attachment 8.2 to modal or alignment alternatives deemed
accommodate statutory or regulatory worthy of study as a result of the scoping
changes, changes to the project, or changes to this Agreement (‘‘Cost Estimate’’). The
meeting held on [date]: [Describe the other
[the Sponsor’s] project management or anticipated sources of financing and relevant
alternatives.] FTA and [Sponsor] agree that
financing plans, as necessary or appropriate. amounts of that financing are set forth in
the EIS [or EA] may incorporate by reference
Attachment 8.3 to this Agreement the AA data and information that support the
2.0 Applicable Statutes, Regulations, and (‘‘Budget’’).
Program Requirements elimination of certain other alternatives from
3.3 Baseline Alternative further study. Should [Sponsor] retain
The [name of project] is a ‘‘major federal consultants to assist in the preparation of the
action’’ subject to the National In accordance with the requirements of 49 EIS [or EA], [Sponsor] will obtain and retain
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. CFR part 611, FTA has approved a baseline a statement from each such consultant that
4321 et seq., and FTA’s regulations at 23 CFR alternative for further study that will be used the consultant has no financial or other
Part 771; a ‘‘major metropolitan for purposes of comparison during the NEPA interest in the outcome of the alternatives
transportation investment’’ subject to the and New Starts processes: [describe the under study. The EIS [or EA] will cover
Metropolitan Planning requirements at 23 baseline alternative]. [specify whether the document will cover
CFR Part 450; a ‘‘new fixed guideway system only the candidate project or potential
or extension of an existing fixed guideway 3.4 Metropolitan Planning Organization’s
Plan and TIP extensions to the candidate project that lie
system’’ subject to the Major Capital within the same corridor]. Consistent with
Investment (‘‘New Starts’’) requirements at 49 The [name of MPO], the Metropolitan both NEPA and Federal transit law, the
U.S.C. 5309 and 49 CFR Part 611; and a Planning Organization for metropolitan public will be given every opportunity to
‘‘major capital project’’ subject to the Project [name of city], has adopted a financially assist in the preparation of the EIS [or EA].
Management Oversight requirements at 49 constrained long range metropolitan [Sponsor] acknowledges, however, that the
U.S.C. 5327 and 49 CFR Part 633. transportation plan (hereafter, the ‘‘Plan’’ or EIS [or EA] will not be published unless and
3.0 Project Readiness for Preliminary [name of the Plan]), and a four-year until FTA determines that the information to
Engineering Transportation Improvement Program, be presented on the costs, benefits, and
(hereafter, the ‘‘TIP’’ or [name of the TIP]), in impacts of the various alternatives is reliable.
As a prerequisite for FTA’s approval of
accordance with 23 CFR part 450. The [Option Two: If the candidate project has
entry into Preliminary Engineering, [Sponsor]
[Sponsor’s] [name of project] has been been identified as the result of a combined
has identified an operable segment of fixed
incorporated into [MPO’s] Plan, and AA/DEIS, use the following paragraph.]
guideway that will be its candidate for
[describe the project activities to be FTA and [Sponsor] published a Draft EIS
Section 5309 New Starts funds under a Full
Funding Grant Agreement. This operable accomplished during the four-year TIP] have [or EA] on [date] that led to the selection of
segment is the product of an Alternatives been incorporated into [MPO’s] TIP. the candidate project as the locally preferred
Analysis that considered an appropriate Consistent with [MPO’s] Plan, [Sponsor’s] alternative in accordance with the
range of alternative modes, alignments, and financial plan for the candidate project requirements of 49 CFR Part 611. FTA and
termini in terms of their likely costs, benefits, anticipates that [identify the funding sources [Sponsor] will now prepare a Final EIS that
and environmental impacts. Specifically: other than the New Starts program and the will complete the evaluation of the No Build
relevant amounts]. alternative, the Baseline alternative described
3.1 Alternatives Analysis in Section 3.3 of this Agreement, the
3.5 Sponsor’s Technical Capacity
In [month and year] [Sponsor] completed candidate project, and [identify any other
an Alternatives Analysis (‘‘AA’’) [or title of As a prerequisite to the execution of this modal or alignment alternatives to be carried
the study] consistent with FTA guidance, Agreement, [Sponsor] has demonstrated its forward]. The Final EIS will cover [specify
good practice, and the requirements of 49 technical capacity and capabilities to carry whether the document will be limited to the
CFR part 611, for the purpose of [* * * out Preliminary Engineering for the candidate project or potential extensions to
describe the transportation problem and candidate project in accordance with the the candidate project that lie within the same
name the corridor]. This AA evaluated a milestones identified in Section 5.0 of this corridor]. Currently, FTA and [Sponsor]
range of reasonable alternatives for that Agreement. Specifically, [describe whether expect to publish the Final EIS in or about
purpose: [* * * describe the number of the Sponsor will perform Preliminary [month, year] and FTA expects to issue a
alternatives, the modes considered, their Engineering with its in-house staff and Record of Decision [or Finding of No
varying alignments and lengths, and the resources or procure the necessary Significant Impact] for the candidate project
range of costs]. FTA is satisfied that this AA engineering expertise from consulting in or about [month, year]. [Sponsor]
presents reliable information on the benefits, contractors or some combination thereof.] acknowledges, however, that the Final EIS
will not be published unless and until FTA refine this Project Management Plan, as party agreements. In its discretion, FTA may
determines that the information to be necessary or appropriate, throughout the also choose to conduct baseline reviews of
presented on the costs, benefits, and impacts course of Preliminary Engineering and again [Sponsor’s] financial and procurement
of the various alternatives is reliable. upon FTA’s approval of the candidate project systems for the purpose of determining
for entry into Final Design. whether [Sponsor] has protocols in place to
4.2 Project Scope, Cost Estimate, and
adequately manage the candidate project in
Budget 4.5 Project Financing Plan
compliance with applicable Federal law and
The fundamental purpose of Preliminary Consistent with Sections 4.2 of this regulation. [Sponsor] agrees that specific
Engineering will be [Sponsor’s] development Agreement, during the course of Preliminary risks identified and prioritized by either
of a definitive project scope, a reliable Engineering [Sponsor] will develop a [Sponsor] or FTA will be reported to FTA,
estimate of total project costs, and a viable financing plan that supports the award of a mitigated, monitored, and updated on a
financing plan for the candidate project maximum amount of Federal financial continuous basis, as the candidate project
which will be used to strictly limits the assistance under the Section 5309 New Starts progresses through Preliminary Engineering
amount of Section 5309 New Starts funds program for Final Design and Construction of and any subsequent phase of project
that will be available at the time the project the candidate project. This Financing Plan development. [Sponsor] also pledges its
is approved for entry into Final Design. will specify a schedule for securing the utmost cooperation in enabling FTA and its
Attached to this Agreement are a preliminary commitment of additional State, local, and consulting contractors both to critique
project scope, a preliminary estimate of total private funding for the candidate project, as [Sponsor’s] risk assessments and perform any
project costs, and a preliminary budget for necessary or appropriate. This Financing separate risk assessments FTA may deem
the candidate project (Attachments 8.1, 8.2, Plan will also reflect the endorsement of any appropriate during the course of the
and 8.3, respectively). State, local, or private entity whose approval candidate project.
[Use the following paragraph if the NEPA is necessary for securing the commitment of
document will cover both the candidate the funding sources identified by that 4.8 Best Available Documents
project and potential extensions to the schedule. The project scope, cost estimate, and
candidate project that lie within the same budget and the draft Project Management
corridor.] 4.6 FTA Oversight
Plan attached to this Agreement are the best
[Sponsor] acknowledges that only the As soon as practicable after the execution available documents at this stage of the
candidate project is being approved for entry of this Agreement FTA will retain the candidate project. [Sponsor] expects to
into Preliminary Engineering pursuant to 49 services of a Project Management Oversight continually revise and refine these
CFR part 611. [Sponsor] will perform Contractor (PMOC) to assist FTA in its documents, however, as the candidate
engineering for potential extensions to the oversight of the candidate project. FTA will project progresses through Preliminary
candidate project so far as necessary for use the services of its PMOC during Engineering and any subsequent phase of
compliance with NEPA—including the study Preliminary Engineering and any subsequent project development. [Sponsor] pledges to
of cumulative impacts and necessary phases of project development. In its promptly provide FTA and its consulting
mitigation—to disclose the implications of discretion, FTA may also retain the services contractors all successive iterations of each of
those extensions for Federal and local of a Financial Management Oversight these documents throughout the course of the
decisions on the candidate project and allow Contractor (FMOC) during any phase of candidate project.
for acquisition of right-of-way upon project development, for the purposes of
completion of compliance with NEPA. obtaining an objective, independent 4.9 Review and Comment
At the conclusion of Preliminary evaluation of [Sponsor’s] plans for financing FTA and [Sponsor] will expedite one
Engineering—and as a condition precedent to both the capital costs of constructing the another’s review and comment on the
FTA’s approval of the candidate project for candidate project and the continuing administrative drafts of NEPA documents,
entry into Final Design—[Sponsor] will operation and maintenance of [Sponsor’s] project management and financing plans, risk
produce a Baseline Cost Estimate for the bus and rail services. assessments, scopes of work, budgets,
candidate project in Year Of Expenditure Additionally, in its discretion, FTA may schedules, and the like by forwarding those
dollars in a level of detail sufficient for retain the services of consultants in land use, documents to the appropriate persons in both
validation by FTA, its Project Management financing, procurement systems agencies to allow for timely responses. FTA
Oversight consultant, [MPO], and state and management, environmental mitigation and and [Sponsor] will make every reasonable
local agencies. [Sponsor] acknowledges that monitoring, and other fields related to the effort to complete their reviews of study
the maximum 5309 New Starts share will be development of transportation infrastructure, deliverables, technical reports, and the like,
set upon entry into final design. for the purposes of evaluating the candidate within thirty days of receiving the material
project and the other alternatives under for review.
4.3 Travel Forecasting study. [Sponsor] pledges its utmost
During the course of Preliminary cooperation in enabling FTA and its PMOC 4.10 Private Sector Participation
Engineering [Sponsor] will continually revise and FMOC to monitor [Sponsor’s] adherence FTA recognizes that [Sponsor] may choose
its travel forecasts to reflect any changes to to its project management and financing to seek private sector participation in the
the project scope and the most recent plans, and to provide FTA and its PMOC and engineering, design, construction, operation,
information on any matter pertinent to travel FMOC all records, data, and access to maintenance, or financing of the candidate
demand, such as newly adopted population property as may be reasonably required for project. FTA will make every effort to
and employment forecasts. [Sponsor] will be that purpose. facilitate [Sponsor’s] public-private
expected to use the most recent model partnerships in the development of the
enhancements available for travel forecasting. 4.7 Risk Assessments candidate project.
Any revisions to [Sponsor’s] forecasts will be Both [Sponsor] and FTA intend to assess
the risks inherent in the candidate project 4.11 Pre-Award Authority
made consistent with good professional
practice and FTA guidance. during Preliminary Engineering and any Upon the execution of this Agreement and
subsequent phase of project development. FTA’s approval of the candidate project for
4.4 Project Management Plan Principally, [Sponsor] and FTA intend to entry into Preliminary Engineering [Sponsor]
Critical to the success of [Sponsor’s] assess the risks inherent in constructing the will have pre-award authority for all
further development of the candidate project candidate project on schedule and within reasonable and allocable costs of Preliminary
will be [Sponsor’s] own plan for managing budget. Such risks may include, but are not Engineering for the candidate project.
that development, including, specifically, limited to, property acquisitions, property [Sponsor] acknowledges, however, that the
[Sponsor’s] management of its contractors, and utility relocations, differing and pre-award authority to acquire real property
budget, and schedule for Preliminary unknown field and subsurface conditions, that accompanies FTA’s issuance of a Record
Engineering. [Sponsor’s] draft Project integration of pre-existing buildings and of Decision is not an administrative,
Management Plan for Preliminary structures, availability of labor and materials, contractual, implied, or moral commitment
Engineering is set forth in Attachment 8.4 to environmental impacts, adverse impacts on of any kind towards the candidate project,
this Agreement. [Sponsor] will revise and historic resources, and transactions of third nor is it any commitment to reimburse
[Sponsor] for any associated costs or to • [Date]: FTA approval of [Sponsor’s] FTA’s Annual Report on New Starts for two
participate in any project on the acquired Project Management Plan consecutive years.
property. [Sponsor] will use its pre-award • [Date]: PMO’s completion of risk
authority with discretion and with full assessment 7.0 Modifications
knowledge of the risks in doing so. • [Date]: [Sponsor’s] adoption of a Modifications to this Agreement may be
definitive scope of work for the candidate proposed at any time during Preliminary
4.12 Contacts project that will be the basis of [Sponsor’s] Engineering on the candidate project and
FTA and [Sponsor] will each designate a request for entry into Final Design will become effective upon approval by both
contact person who has the authority to • [Date]: [Sponsor’s] adoption of a Baseline FTA and [Sponsor].
speak for and represent that person during Cost Estimate for the candidate project, in
Preliminary Engineering on the candidate Year of Expenditure dollars, which will be 8.0 Attachments
project. The contact persons will be the basis for [Sponsor’s] request for entry into Each and every Attachment to this
available, upon adequate notice, to attend Final Design Agreement is incorporated by reference and
and participate in coordination meetings or • [Date]: [Sponsor’s] adoption of a made a part of this Agreement.
otherwise provide timely input into the Financing Plan for the candidate project that Dated: lllllllllllllllll
preparation and review of all documents will be the basis of [Sponsor’s] request for lllllllllllllllllllll
necessary to the development of the entry into Final Design [Name]
candidate project. • [Date]: [State and local agency]
Regional Administrator [Title]
commitments to help finance the candidate
5.0 Milestones Federal Transit Administration
project
[Sponsor] intends to accomplish • [Date]: [Sponsor’s] request for entry into Dated: lllllllllllllllll
Preliminary Engineering as expeditiously as Final Design [Name]
possible. FTA will measure [Sponsor’s] [Title]
progress in Preliminary Engineering against 6.0 Rescission or Suspension of [Sponsor]
the following milestones: Preliminary Engineering
Attachment 8.1 Scope
• [Date]: FTA validation of [Sponsor’s] [Sponsor] acknowledges that, in its
travel demand and ridership forecast discretion, FTA may rescind or suspend the Attachment 8.2 Cost Estimate
methodologies candidate project’s status in Preliminary
• [Date]: Expected publication of a draft Engineering if [Sponsor] fails to make Attachment 8.3 Budget
EIS or EA adequate progress towards a request for entry Attachment 8.4 Draft Project Management
• [Date]: Expected publication of a final into Final Design; there is any significant Plan
EIS or EA change to the scope or cost estimate for the
• [Date]: Expected issuance of a ROD or candidate project; or the candidate project is Appendix B to Part 611—Project
FONSI not rated or rated ‘‘not recommended’’ in Evaluation Framework
EP03AU07.040</GPH>
Appendix C to Part 611: Section 5309

Capital Investment Program Categories
New starts Small starts Very small starts
Project Cost ................................... ≥$250 million ................................ <$250 million ................................ <$50 million ($3 million/mile ex-
cluding vehicles).
New Starts Funding Amount .......... Or ≥$75 million ............................. And <$75 million ........................... <$40 million.
Eligible Project Types .................... New or expanded fixed guideway New or expanded fixed guideway Small as Small Starts.
or arterial bus with:
—Transit stations.
—Signal priority/pre-emption.
—Level boarding or low floor
vehicles.
—Branded service.
—10 min peak/15 min off-
peak service for at least 14
hours/day.
Minimum Benefiting Riders ............ None ............................................. None ............................................. 3,000 per average weekday.
Project Development Steps ........... 2-Steps ......................................... 1-Step ........................................... 1-Step
—Preliminary Engineering. —Project development. —Project development.
—Final Design.
Funding Mechanism ...................... FFGA ............................................ PCGA ............................................ PCGA.
Issued in Washington, DC this 19th day of

July, 2007.
James S. Simpson,
Administrator, Federal Transit
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–14285 Filed 8–2–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–57–P

Proposed Rule: Major Capital Investment Projects: New Starts Program and Proposed Small Starts Program Category

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proposed Rule: Major Capital Investment Projects: New Starts Program and Proposed Small Starts Program Category

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Friday,

49 CFR Part 611

Current part 611 Proposed part 611

611.5 Definitions .................................................................................... Subpart A—611.5 Definitions.

Current part 611 Proposed part 611

Subpart D—611.31 Very Small Starts—Project justification criteria.

sponsor in support of the evaluation Section 611.11: Project Justification

‘‘medium’’ and be reasonably expected updated information on project scope, ‘‘medium.’’

Appendix C to Part 611: Section 5309

New starts Small starts Very small starts

Issued in Washington, DC this 19th day of

You might also like