nprm overview subpart a and discussion items for comment
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
NPRM Overview, Subpart A and Discussion Items for Comment

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 88

NPRM Overview, Subpart A and Discussion Items for Comment - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 136 Views
  • Uploaded on

NPRM Overview, Subpart A and Discussion Items for Comment. New/Small Starts Outreach Session Charlotte, NC October 9, 2007 Rich Steinmann Assistant to the Administrator. Outline for the Session. Overview, Discussion Items, Subpart A - Brigid Hynes-Cherin

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'NPRM Overview, Subpart A and Discussion Items for Comment' - heinrich


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
nprm overview subpart a and discussion items for comment

NPRM Overview, Subpart A and Discussion Items for Comment

New/Small Starts Outreach Session

Charlotte, NC

October 9, 2007

Rich Steinmann

Assistant to the Administrator

outline for the session
Outline for the Session
  • Overview, Discussion Items, Subpart A - Brigid Hynes-Cherin
  • Subpart B, New Starts – Rich Steinmann
  • Subparts C and D, Small Starts - Sean Libberton
  • Policy Guidance, Measures – Ron Fisher
overall purpose of the session
Overall Purpose of the Session
  • Describe the key provisions of the NPRM and the policy guidance on measures
  • Highlight proposed changes from the existing regulation and policy
  • Answer questions to clarify provisions and provide the underlying rationale
  • Encourage substantive comments to the docket

– comments made at this session are not official

– comments due November 1, 2007

tips for submitting effective comments
Tips for Submitting Effective Comments
  • Demonstrate an understanding of the FTA rationale for the proposed provision
  • Provide coherent discussion of reasons for supporting/opposing the provision
  • Provide cogent description of any proposed changes to provision
  • OR suggest a different alternative
underlying principles used to develop the nprm and policy guidance
Underlying Principles Used to Develop the NPRM and Policy Guidance
  • Projects admitted into PE have resolved all planning issues and have realistic and reliable forecasts of costs, benefits and impacts
  • Measures are objective, based on established research, and respond to statutory criteria
  • Project sponsors have the capability to generate information for measures
difference in effect of nprm versus policy guidance
Difference in Effect of NPRM versus Policy Guidance
  • NPRM
    • Describes eligibility, criteria and key weights, ratings and project development process
    • Changes require an amendment to the rule
  • Policy Guidance on Evaluation Measures
    • Describes weights and measures not referenced in NPRM and how they will be applied for ratings
    • Changes require notice and comment before issuing revised policy guidance
nprm contents
NPRM Contents
  • Guidance on New Starts Policies and Procedures (issued Jan ‘06)
    • 38 questions with comments, FTA responses and proposals
  • ANPRM for Small Starts (issued Jan ‘06)
    • 20 questions with comments, FTA responses and proposals
  • Section-by-Section Analysis
  • Additional Discussion Items for Comments
  • NPRM Content
nprm organization
NPRM Organization
  • Subpart A – General Provisions

- Purpose and contents

- Applicability

- Definitions

- Measures of reliability in the Section 5309 capital investment evaluation and rating process

nprm organization1
NPRM Organization
  • Subpart B/C/D – New Starts/Small Starts/Very Small Starts

- Eligibility

- Project justification criteria

- Local financial commitment criteria

- Overall project ratings

- Project development process

discussion item 1 expand the definition of fixed guideway
Discussion Item 1. Expand the definition of fixed guideway
  • In addition to SAFETEA-LU changes, include facilities that achieve free-flow conditions through pricing, such as HOT lanes
    • If transit uses a barrier-separated ROW AND
    • 95% of the transit vehicles using the facility will maintain an average speed of not less than 5 MPH below posted speed limit
  • Funds could only be used to construct that portion of the facility that benefits transit and only if it meets New Starts criteria
  • Definition does not alter “fixed guideway mile” for purposes of calculating distribution of funds under the formula program
discussion item 2 cost effectiveness must include all essential project elements
Discussion Item 2. Cost effectiveness must include all “essential project elements”
  • If all elements needed to generate forecast year demand are not included, FTA will not rate project, however
    • What constitutes a “betterment” which is appropriately funded with local funds
    • Can improvements needed beyond the planning time frame be included in the financial plan and CE calculation but not the FFGA application (“rightsizing”)
discussion item 3 use an extremely simplified evaluation framework for small starts
Discussion Item 3. Use an extremely simplified evaluation framework for Small Starts
  • Use financial commitment as a readiness condition, not a rating factor
  • Rate projects as high, medium or low for project justification (PJ)
  • Assess both CE and economic development /land use as either “pass” or “fail”
  • Two “pass” ratings yield high PJ rating, CE “pass” yields medium, CE “fail” or two “fails” yield low
  • PJ rating modified by reliability rating to get five tier overall rating
  • Less able to distinguish between projects although identifies projects with most potential
discussion item 4 federal investments should contribute to reducing congestion
Discussion Item 4. Federal investments should contribute to reducing congestion
  • Ratings will take into account whether
    • the project is supported by a variable pricing strategy
    • there are any measurable highway travel time savings
    • there is improved mobility (reduction in highway VMT weighted by a factor for highway congestion)
  • Need input on
    • Implications for transit of measuring congestion reduction benefits
    • Ways to measure highway benefits and improved mobility
    • Improving current travel models to produce better results and more consistent estimates
discussion item 5 incentives to increase the use of ppps
Discussion Item 5. Incentives to increase the use of PPPs
  • Ratings take into account
    • Innovative contractual arrangements to reduce operating costs
  • Need input on
    • Assuming an otherwise acceptable cost effectiveness rating, should “betterments” funded by private sector (not “in kind contribution” but private equity) be excluded from cost effectiveness measure?
    • Examples include
      • additional station entrances
      • improvements to station design beyond standards
      • changes in vertical or horizontal alignment
    • Alternatively, should all private capital be excluded from the cost effectiveness measure?
discussion item 6 include measures in the final rule
Discussion Item 6. Include measures in the final rule
  • If measures are included in the rule instead of a separate policy guidance than any change in measures would require an amendment to the rule in order to change the measures
    • Can we develop better measures over time that should be implemented in a timely manner?
    • Are we better served by stability in the measures?
discussion item 7 better quantify project benefits
Discussion Item 7. Better quantify project benefits
  • What methodology would forecast the benefits that accrue from the interaction of the proposed project and road pricing?
  • What methodology could be deployed to quantify any additional economic development/land benefits resulting from the project, that are not already included in the user benefits, and what would it measure?
discussion item 7 continued
Discussion Item 7. (continued)
  • Current Land Use (LU) measures
    • Likelihood of additional development
    • Likelihood of project achieving ridership forecasts
    • Magnitude of local support as reflected in plans, policies and past performance
  • Combined EconDev/LU Measures
    • Extent current land use is ripe for development
    • Transit-oriented plans and policies
    • Economic development climate in the corridor
    • Increased transit accessibility of the project
    • Economic lifespan of the project
discussion item 7 continued1
Discussion Item 7 (continued)
  • Benefits not currently measured
    • Forecast of projected development
    • The trip not taken and/or shorter trips
    • Economic/Social effects of TOD
    • Reduction in the cost of delivery of other public services, e.g. more compact utility location
  • How to quantify measures
    • Ability to include in cost effectiveness
subpart a general provisions
Subpart A: General Provisions
  • Purpose and content on Part 611
  • Applicability of Part 611
  • Definition of terms
  • Consideration of measures of reliability
subpart a applicability
Subpart A: Applicability
  • Part 611 applies to all projects seeking New Starts/Small Starts funds unless at the time the final rule is issued :
    • The project has been approved into FD, and there are no major project changes
    • The project was an exempt project ($25M or less) and requests funds appropriated prior to the final rule, as long as all other grant requirements are met
subpart a key definitions
Subpart A: Key Definitions

Fixed Guideway System:

– facility in separate ROWor rail for exclusive use by public transportation or high occupancy vehicles for at least 50% of its length NEW! OR

– uses ROW usable by other forms of transportation but has a fixed catenary system OR

– is a corridor based bus (for Small Starts), having at least 50% of its length as fixed guideway during peak periods OR

subpart a key definitions1
Subpart A: Key Definitions

Fixed Guideway System (con’t)

– represents a substantial investment in a defined corridor OR

– uses a barrier-separated ROW and 95% of the transit vehicles using the facility will maintain an average speed of not less than 5 MPH below posted speed limit. (definition does not alter that for “fixed guideway mile” for the formula program) NEW!

subpart a key definitions2
Subpart A: Key Definitions

TSM alternative:

– …”At a minimum it must be more cost effective as compared to the no build alternative than the New or Small Start project compared to the no build alternative”…. NEW!

subpart a measures of reliability in the evaluation and rating process
Subpart A: Measures of reliability in the evaluation and rating process
  • Measures and their ratings will be applied to each project justification and local financial commitment criterion rating increasing or decreasing the criterion rating
  • Reliability measures are identified in the policy guidance
notice of proposed rulemaking new starts

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – New Starts

Ron Fisher

Director, Office of Project Planning

Office of Planning and Environment

nprm topics to be covered
NPRM Topics To Be Covered
  • Eligibility
  • Project justification
  • Local financial commitment
  • Overall project rating
  • Project development
new starts eligibility
New Starts Eligibility
  • Project is based on the results of an alternatives analysis
  • Total project cost ≥ $250M OR New Starts Funding ≥ $75M
  • At least 50% of the project length operating on a fixed guideway in the peak period NEW!
  • May not be subdivided into Small or Very Small Starts NEW!
new starts project justification rating
New StartsProject Justification Rating

Project Justification

  • Other Factors
  • MTC
  • Cong. Pricing

Cost Effectiveness (50%)

Effectiveness (50%)

Mobility

Econ Dev / Land Use

Transit Dep. Mobility

Env. Benefits

40%

10%

10%

40%

new starts project justification rating1
New StartsProject Justification Rating

Cost Effectiveness (CE)

  • Definition

Annualized Capital and Operating Costs

Transportation System User Benefits

  • Breakpoints for ratings adjusted annually in the Reporting Instructions
  • Operating efficiencies no longer explicit evaluation criteria; inherent in CE
new starts project justification rating2
New StartsProject Justification Rating

Effectiveness – Mobility (40%) NEW!

  • Mobility for general population, including congestion relief
  • Congestion relief based on degree to which project reduces highway travel demand and the relative level of congestion in the corridor based on estimated delay
new starts project justification rating3
New StartsProject Justification Rating

Effectiveness – Econ. Dev/ Land Use (40%) NEW!

  • Extent to which current land use is ripe for development
  • Transit-oriented plans and policies
  • Economic development climate in the project corridor
  • Increase in transit accessibility offered by the project
  • Economic lifespan of the project
new starts project justification rating4
New StartsProject Justification Rating

Other Factors

  • Make the Case always rated
  • Project is a principle element in a congestion management/pricing strategy
  • Additional Factors
    • Any factor the project sponsor believes not captured elsewhere in project justification criteria
    • Any factors the Secretary decides important
new starts local financial commitment rating
New Starts Local Financial Commitment Rating

Local Financial Commitment

Capital Finance Plan (50%)

Operating Finance Plan (50%)

new starts overall project rating
New Starts Overall Project Rating
  • 5 Level Rating Scale: High, Medium-High, Medium, Medium-Low, and Low
  • Ratings will be given:
    • When the project moves from one step to the next –OR–
    • If the project has experienced significant changes for the Annual report –OR–
    • If the project is being considered for a funding recommendation
  • Must receive at least a “medium” to move from one step to the next or to receive a funding recommendation
  • Both the project justification and local financial commitment rating must be a “high, medium-high, or medium” in order to achieve an overall project rating of a “high, medium-high, or medium” NEW!
new starts project development process
New Starts Project Development Process

Application Evaluation / Review Time

Upon receipt of a complete formal request…

  • PE
    • FTA will complete an application evaluation within 30 days
  • FD
    • FTA will complete an application evaluation within 120 days
new starts project development process1
New Starts Project Development Process

Definition of Preliminary Engineering:

Finalization of project scope, cost and financial plan so that:

  • NEPA is concluded
  • Design is sufficient to obviate significant unknown costs
  • Cost estimate supports financial plan
  • Credible, relevant, identifiable and cost effective industry practices can be applied in FD
new starts project development process2
New Starts Project Development Process

Preliminary Engineering Entry Requirements:

  • AA is complete
  • FTA has approved the baseline alternative
  • Project sponsors must demonstrate adequate technical capacity to carry out PE
  • NEPA scoping complete
  • Proposed project adopted into regional transportation plan

Before and After Study Requirements:

  • Develop preliminary plan to conduct Before and After Study
  • AA data and an analysis of uncertainties required for Before and After Study must be submitted
  • Identify entity responsible for each forecast or estimate

Note: Funding for collection and analysis of data related to the Before and After Study may be included (up to 80%) in the project’s eligible funding expenses.

new starts project development process3
New Starts Project Development Process

NEW! Preliminary Engineering Entry Requirements:

  • Independent endorsement received from potential funding partners
  • Travel demand models validated against a survey of transit riders not more than 5 years old
  • Execute project development agreement (PDA) with FTA
new starts project development process4
New Starts Project Development Process

Final Design Entry Requirements:

  • NEPA process complete
  • All conditions for completion of PE met
  • If significant changes to project definition or cost have occurred in PE, the project must be reaffirmed in the regional plan NEW!
  • FTA and project sponsor have agreed on exact amount of funding sought NEW!

Before and After Study Requirements:

  • Project data through end of PE must be submitted to FTA
  • Finalize plan to conduct Before and After Study NEW!
  • Any changes in scope, costs, service levels, or ridership from AA estimates should be analyzed and documented in a memo.
  • Identify entity responsible for each forecast or estimate
new starts project development process5
New Starts Project Development Process

Full Funding Grant Agreement:

  • Projects that meet or exceed requirements are eligible but not guaranteed to receive a funding recommendation
  • Incentive Clause NEW! – FTA will process an amendment for incentive funds AFTER project is complete and operating IF:
    • Actual opening year ridership no less than 90% of forecast AND actual capital costs are not more than 110% of that estimated upon entry into PE
  • No outstanding issues exist that may interfere with successful implementation of the project
  • At least medium cost effectiveness rating to be recommended for funding
new starts project development process6
New Starts Project Development Process

Full Funding Grant Agreement (Con’t):

Before and After Study Requirements:

  • Prior to construction activities, collect before data if not collected as part of final design
  • Two years after project opens for revenue service, collect after data
  • Submit report analyzing findings and include supporting data no later than 30 months after project opened for revenue service NEW!
notice of proposed rulemaking small and very small starts

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – Small and Very Small Starts

Sean Libberton

Chief, Analysis Division

Office of Planning and Environment

fta s proposed approach to small and very small starts
FTA’s Proposed Approach to Small and Very Small Starts
  • Adopt a Simplified Version of existing New Starts process for Small Starts
  • Implement a “Warrants” system for Very Small Starts
fta s proposed approach to small and very small starts1
FTA’s Proposed Approach to Small and Very Small Starts

How Small and Very Small Starts differ from New Starts:

  • AA could contain few alternatives, use forecasts of transportation benefits with simplified methods and address project opening, not 20-year forecasts (Small Starts only)
  • Land use submission reduced for project justification (Small Starts only)
  • No final design approval
  • Simplified PMP and cost reviews
  • Simplified PCGA
nprm topics to be covered1
NPRM Topics To Be Covered
  • Eligibility
  • Project justification
  • Local financial commitment
  • Overall project rating
  • Project development
small starts eligibility
Small Starts Eligibility
  • Project is based on the results of an alternatives analysis
  • Total cost < $250M AND request for Small Starts funding < $75M
  • May not be part of a larger New Starts project; all potential Small Starts envisioned for a corridor will be considered as a single project.
small starts eligibility1
Small Starts Eligibility
  • At least 50% of the project length operating on a fixed guideway in the peak period –OR–
  • Be a corridor based bus project with the following elements:
    • Substantial transit stations
    • Traffic signal priority / pre-emption
    • Low floor buses or level boarding
    • Branding of the proposed service
    • 10 min peak / 15 min off-peak headways for at least 14 hours a day
very small starts eligibility
Very Small Starts Eligibility

Must Meet All of the Preceding Requirements Plus:

  • Total cost of less than $50 million
  • Less than $3 million/mile (exclusive of rolling stock)
  • Ridership of 3,000 or more on an average weekday
  • May not be part of a larger New Starts project; all potential Very Small Starts in a corridor will be considered as a single project.
small starts project justification rating
Small StartsProject Justification Rating

Project Justification

  • Other Factors:
  • MTC
  • Cong Pricing

Cost Effectiveness (50%)

Effectiveness (50%)

Mobility

Econ dev/LU

60%

40%

small starts project justification rating1
Small StartsProject Justification Rating

Cost Effectiveness (CE)

  • Definition

Annualized Capital and Operating Costs

Transportation System User Benefits

  • Breakpoints for ratings adjusted annually in the Reporting Instructions
small starts project justification rating2
Small StartsProject Justification Rating

Effectiveness – Mobility (40%) NEW!

  • Mobility for general population, including congestion relief
  • Congestion relief based on degree to which project reduces highway travel demand and the relative level of congestion in the corridor based on estimated delay
small starts project justification rating3
Small StartsProject Justification Rating

Effectiveness – Econ. Dev / Land Use (60%) NEW!

  • Extent to which current land use is ripe for development
  • Transit-oriented plans and policies
  • Economic development climate in the project corridor
  • Increase in transit accessibility offered by the project
  • Economic lifespan of the project
small starts project justification rating4
Small StartsProject Justification Rating

Other Factors

  • Make the Case always rated
  • Project is a principle element in a congestion management plan with pricing as a strategy
  • Any factor the project sponsor believes not captured elsewhere in project justification criteria
  • Any factors the Secretary decides important
small and very small starts local financial commitment rating
Small and Very Small Starts Local Financial Commitment Rating

Local Financial Commitment

Capital Finance Plan (50%)

Operating Finance Plan (50%)

small starts overall project rating
Small Starts Overall Project Rating
  • Overall Project Rating:
    • Project Justification Rating (50%)
    • Local Financial Commitment (50%)
  • 5 Level Rating Scale: High, Medium-High, Medium, Medium-Low, and Low
  • Both the project justification and local financial commitment rating must be a “high, medium-high, or medium” in order to achieve an overall project rating of a “high, medium-high, or medium”
small starts overall project rating1
Small Starts Overall Project Rating

OPTION 2 FRAMEWORK

READINESS

EVALUATION

INITIAL RATING

FILTER

FINAL RATING

High Rating

High Rating

BOTH PASS

Cost Effectiveness

High-Med Rating

Financial Plan,

Technical and Legal Capacity, Status in LRTP

Reliability

Overmatch

Problem or Opportunity

ONLY COST - EFFECTIVENESS

PASSES

Medium Rating

Medium Rating

Med-Low Rating

Ec Dev / Land Use

BOTH FAIL

Low Rating

Low Rating

small starts overall project rating2
Small Starts Overall Project Rating
  • Ratings given for:
    • Requests to enter project development–OR–
    • Annual Report if project has experienced significant changes –OR–
    • Project considered for a funding recommendation
  • Must receive at least a “medium” to advance into project development or receive a funding recommendation
small and very small starts project development process
Small and Very Small Starts Project Development Process

Alternatives Analysis (AA)

  • An AA must develop information on a project’s:
    • Benefits
    • Costs
    • How well it addresses a transportation problem or opportunity in a corridor
  • Must include a no-build, at least one TSM, and as many build options as appropriate
    • The no-build can serve as the baseline alternative if LPA fits the definition of TSM
    • If LPA is a fixed guideway, TSM is the Small Starts baseline
  • The LPA must be selected from the evaluated alternatives and formally adopted and included in the metropolitan transportation plan
small and very small starts project development process1
Small and Very Small Starts Project Development Process

Project Development Entry Requirements:

  • AA is complete
  • FTA has approved the baseline alternative
  • Project sponsors must demonstrate adequate technical capacity to design and construct the project
  • NEPA scoping complete
  • Proposed project adopted into regional transportation plan
  • Overall rating at least “medium”

NOTE: Project Development is the only phase requiring FTA approval

small and very small starts project development process2
Small and Very Small Starts Project Development Process

NEW! Project Development (PD) Entry Requirements:

  • Independent endorsement has been received from potential funding partners
  • Travel demand models validated against a survey of transit riders (Not applicable to Very Small Starts)
small and very small starts project development process3
Small and Very Small Starts Project Development Process

PD Entry Requirements for Before/After Study:

  • Develop preliminary plan to conduct Before and After Study
  • Submit initial information on project scope, service levels, capital costs, O&M costs, and ridership projected during AA and discussion of uncertainties
  • Identify entity responsible for each forecast or estimate of above

Note: Funding for collection and analysis of data related to the Before and After Study may be included (up to 80%) in the project’s eligible funding expenses.

small and very small starts project development process4
Small and Very Small Starts Project Development Process

Definition of Project Development:

Finalization of project scope, cost and financial plan so that:

  • NEPA is concluded
  • Design sufficient obviating significant unknown costs
  • Cost estimate supports financial plan
  • Credible, relevant, identifiable and cost effective industry practices FD
small and very small starts project development process5
Small and Very Small Starts Project Development Process

Project Construction Grant Agreement (PCGA):

  • NEPA process is complete
  • Project reaffirmed in metropolitan plan if significant changes to scope or costs occurred since AA
  • No outstanding issues exist that may interfere with successful implementation of the project
  • Overall project rating at least a “medium”
  • Cost effectiveness rating at least “medium”
small and very small starts project development process6
Small and Very Small Starts Project Development Process

PCGA Requirements for Before/After Study:

  • Complete Before and After Study plan
  • Changes from AA should be analyzed and documented in a memo
  • Project data through end of PD must be submitted to FTA
  • Identify entity responsible for forecasts and estimates
  • Prior to construction, collect before data if not collected as part of project development
  • Collect After Data
    • Small Starts: Two years after project opens for revenue service
    • Very Small Starts: One year after project opens for revenue service
  • Submit report analyzing findings and include supporting data
    • Small Starts: 30 months after project opens for revenue service
    • Very Small Starts: 18 months after project opens for revenue service
proposed policy guidance on evaluation measures for new small starts

Proposed Policy Guidance on Evaluation Measures for New/Small Starts

Ron Fisher

Director, Office of Project Planning

Office of Planning and Environment

approach to documents
Approach to Documents
  • NPRM
    • Includes information on eligibility, criteria and key weights, ratings and project development
  • Policy Guidance on Evaluation Measures for New/Small Starts
    • Describes measures not referenced in NPRM and how they will be applied for ratings
new starts project justification measures
New StartsProject Justification Measures

Project Justification

Reliability

  • Other Factors
  • MTC
  • Cong. Pricing

Cost Effectiveness (50%)

Effectiveness (50%)

Mobility

Econ Dev / Land Use

Transit Dep. Mobility

Env. Benefits

40%

10%

10%

40%

new starts project justification measures1
New StartsProject Justification Measures

Effectiveness

  • Addresses the magnitude of various benefits of a project without regard to cost
  • Benefit measures should be scaled to the project so they don’t always favor large projects
  • Projects can be effective but rate poorly on cost effectiveness and vice versa

Cost Effectiveness

  • Addresses the question of how project benefits compare to costs
new starts project justification measures2
New StartsProject Justification Measures

Effectiveness

General Mobility

  • Average project weekday ridership
  • User benefits per passenger mile on the project
  • Severity of the current congestion in the project corridor

- percent average deviation in peak period average speeds vs free flow

- person hours of delay

- level of service in corridor

- ratio of daily miles to lane miles

new starts project justification measures3
New StartsProject Justification Measures

Effectiveness (con’t)

  • Economic Development / Land Use
    • The extent to which proposed station areas can be further developed
    • The extent to which plans and policies encourage transit-oriented development
    • Local economic conditions
    • Increased accessibility of the project
    • Permanence of the project
new starts project justification measures4
New StartsProject Justification Measures

Effectiveness (con’t)

  • Mobility for Transit Dependents
    • Share of the project’s user benefits for transit dependents, normalized by the share of the metropolitan area’s population found in the lowest income/auto-ownership stratum
    • Number of transit dependent riders on the project
    • User benefits of transit dependents per project passenger-mile
new starts project justification measures5
New StartsProject Justification Measures

Effectiveness (con’t)

  • Environmental Benefits
    • ISO 14001 Certification
    • EPA ratings for the most recent NEPA document
    • Person-days of exposure to “bad air” within the service area
new starts project justification measures6
New StartsProject Justification Measures

Cost Effectiveness

  • Mobility-Focused measure
new starts project justification measures7
New StartsProject Justification Measures

Reliability

  • Transit-orientation of existing and future land use plans and policies
  • Project sponsor experience with implementing previous projects
  • Industry experience with the proposed project type in similar settings
  • Reliability of forecasting methods
  • The degree to which future ridership projections depend on substantial population and employment growth beyond the opening year
  • Use of innovative contractual agreements for operations
  • Mitigation actions taken by project sponsor

NOTE: The reliability measure will be used to raise or lower the rating for the criteria affected by reliability

new starts project justification measures8
New StartsProject Justification Measures

Other Factors:

  • If a proposed project is a principle element of a congestion management strategy, in general, and a pricing strategy, in particular
  • The degree to which a New Starts project addresses significant problems or opportunities in a corridor and the appropriateness of the preferred alternative as a response by reviewing the “make-the-case” document

NOTE: Other factors could increase the project justification rating one level if near a breakpoint

new starts project justification measures9
New StartsProject Justification Measures

Other Factors: Make-the-Case

  • Identification of nature, extent and timing of problem including:
    • Roadway congestion including travel markets affected
    • Effects of congestion on transit performance
    • Impacts of congestion and other accessibility problems on economic development plans
    • Extent to which problems are current vs forecast
  • Effectiveness of project in addressing problems including:
    • Improvements in quality of transit service in terms of reduced travel and wait times, improved reliability
    • Ridership response and economic development impacts
new starts local financial commitment rating1
New Starts Local Financial Commitment Rating

Local Financial Commitment

  • Other Factors
  • Overmatch
  • Innovative Contract. Agreements

Capital Finance Plan (50%)

Operating Finance Plan (50%)

Capacity / Estimates / Assumptions – 50%

Condition – 25%

Commitment – 25%

new starts local financial commitment rating2
New Starts Local Financial Commitment Rating

Other Factors:

Overmatch

  • Requested New Starts share is less than 50% of the total project cost –AND–
  • Overall local financial commitment rating is “medium” or “medium-high”, –THEN–
  • Overall local financial commitment rating will be raised one level.

Innovative Contractual Agreements

  • If the project sponsor can demonstrate that they have provided the opportunity for the operation and maintenance of the project to be contracted out –AND–
  • Overall local financial commitment rating is “medium” or “medium-high”, –THEN–
  • Overall local financial commitment rating will be raised one level.
new starts local financial commitment rating3
New Starts Local Financial Commitment Rating

Other Factors (continued):

Additional Considerations…

  • If either of a proposed project’s capital or operating finance plans receives a Medium‑Low or Low rating, the overall local financial commitment rating cannot be higher than a Medium-Low
  • To receive an overall local financial commitment rating of Medium-High, both the capital and operating finance plans must be rated at least Medium-High
small starts project justification rating5
Small StartsProject Justification Rating

Reliability

Project Justification

Other Factors

(Econ Development)

Cost Effectiveness (50%)

Effectiveness (50%)

Mobility

Land Use

60%

40%

small starts project justification measures
Small StartsProject Justification Measures

Effectiveness

  • General Mobility
    • Number of average weekday riders on the project
    • User benefits per passenger mile on the project
    • Severity of the current congestion in the project corridor
small starts project justification measures1
Small StartsProject Justification Measures

Effectiveness (continued)

  • Economic Development / Land Use
    • The extent to which proposed station areas can be further developed
    • The extent to which plans and policies encourage transit-oriented development
    • Local economic conditions
    • Increased accessibility of the project
    • Permanence of the project
small starts project justification measures2
Small StartsProject Justification Measures

Cost Effectiveness

  • Mobility-Focused measure
small starts project justification measures3
Small StartsProject Justification Measures

Reliability

  • Transit-orientation of existing and future land use plans and policies
  • Project sponsor experience with implementing previous projects
  • Industry experience with the proposed project type in similar settings
  • Reliability of forecasting methods
  • The degree to which future ridership projections depend on substantial population and employment growth beyond the opening year
  • Use of innovative contractual agreements for operations
  • Mitigation actions taken by project sponsor

NOTE: The reliability measure will be used to raise or lower the rating for the criteria affected by reliability

small starts project justification measures4
Small StartsProject Justification Measures

Other Factors:

  • If a proposed project is a principle element of a congestion management strategy, in general, and a pricing strategy, in particular
  • FTA proposes to rate the degree to which a Small Starts project addresses significant problems or opportunities in a corridor and the appropriateness of the preferred alternative as a response by reviewing the “make-the-case” document

NOTE: Other factors will increase the project justification rating one level if near a breakpoint

small starts local financial commitment rating
Small Starts Local Financial Commitment Rating

Local Financial Commitment

  • Other Factors
  • Overmatch
  • Innovative Contract. Agreements

Capital Finance Plan (50%)

Operating Finance Plan (50%)

Capacity / Estimates / Assumptions – 50%

Condition – 25%

Commitment – 25%

small starts local financial commitment rating1
Small Starts Local Financial Commitment Rating

Other Factors:

Overmatch

  • Requested Small Starts share is less than 50% of the total project cost –AND–
  • Overall local financial commitment rating is “medium” or “medium-high”, –THEN–
  • Overall local financial commitment rating will be raised one level.

Innovative Contractual Agreements

  • If the project sponsor can demonstrate that they have provided the opportunity for the operation and maintenance of the project to be contracted out –AND–
  • Overall local financial commitment rating is “medium” or “medium-high”, –THEN–
  • Overall local financial commitment rating will be raised one level.
small starts local financial commitment rating2
Small Starts Local Financial Commitment Rating

Other Factors (continued):

Additional Considerations…

  • If either of a proposed project’s capital or operating finance plans receives a Medium‑Low or Low rating, the overall local financial commitment rating cannot be higher than a Medium-Low
  • To receive an overall local financial commitment rating of Medium-High, both the capital and operating finance plans must be rated at least Medium-High
ad