**[Comments to Docket No. FTA-2006-25737]{.underline}**

**[October 31, 2007]{.underline}**

**[Submitted by Ed Coven, Transit Office Manager]{.underline}**

**[Florida Department of Transportation]{.underline}**

**[Comments on 49 CFR Part 611, Major Capital Investment Projects;
Proposed Rule]{.underline}**

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is a significant rule under
Executive Order 12866. It implements changes made to the New Starts
program in SAFETEA-LU, and it proposes a number of additional changes
with the purpose of improving the program. The rule covers not only
traditional New Starts, but it implements the Small Starts component of
49 U.S.C. 5309, and introduces the Very Small Starts program.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has urged that comments be
organized to focus on the seven discussion items listed below.

1\) Expanded Definition of Fixed Guideway

2\) Cost Effectiveness must include all "essential project elements"

3) Use an extremely simplified evaluation framework for Small Starts

4\) Federal Investments Should Contribute to Reducing Congestion

5\) Incentives to Increase the Use of PPPs

6\) Include measures in the Final Rule

7\) Better Quantify Project Benefits

The following comments focus on a few key areas within each of these
discussion items that are of particular interest and importance to the
State of Florida.

[1) Expanded Definition of Fixed Guideway]{.underline}

The NPRM states: *"Additionally, a transportation facility shall be
deemed a fixed guideway system solely for the purposes of funding
eligibility under New Starts if the project is designed so that in any
given month (i) transit vehicles utilize the transportation facility on
a barrier-separated right-of-way; and (ii) by means of tolling or other
enhancements, 95 percent of the transit vehicles using the facility will
be able to maintain an average speed of not less than 5 miles per hour
below the posted speed limit for the time they are on the facility."*

This broadening of the definition for what is eligible as a New Start
demonstrates an Intermodal focus on the part of the Department of
Transportation. Rather than developing projects within a modal "silo",
this proposal seeks to coordinate the integration of transit and highway
projects to provide maximum benefits for congested urban areas, and we
offer our endorsement and support for this creative proposal. However,
the New Starts funding availability is very limited and competitive. Any
funding from the FTA New Starts category for a project of this nature
should be used for the project component that would otherwise already be
eligible for FTA capital assistance, such as transit capital equipment
and facilities.

[2) Cost Effectiveness must include all "essential project
elements"]{.underline}

We support FTA's efforts to clarify the definitions of which project
costs should be included in the cost effectiveness calculation. It is
our perspective that should project sponsors wish to enhance elements of
a project that may not be essential, yet are desired by the community,
they should have this flexibility. When these betterments will be paid
for with private or non-traditional local funds (such as a tax increment
financing that depends on associated development around stations), these
costs should be excluded from the cost effectiveness calculation.

The effect of designing and building bare bones facilities in order to
meet a certain threshold for cost effectiveness may not in the long term
be the best decision for a specific project or for the community, or for
transit in general. Amenities such as landscaping or public art may be
highly valued by the community and necessary to garner public support,
yet they provide no benefits that would be quantifiable in the cost
effectiveness calculation.

[3) Use an extremely simplified evaluation framework for Small
Starts]{.underline}

In FTA's Small Starts proposal, projects are to be evaluated on both
cost effectiveness and economic development/land use. If both of these
criteria receive a "pass" rating, the project is rated high and moves
forward. If only the cost effectiveness passes, the project is rated
medium, and may still move forward. If both items fail, the project is
rated low and cannot advance. Our concern, as it is with the New Starts
process, is that once again FTA's definition of cost effectiveness is
relied upon as the one measure that determines whether a project may
advance. In this scenario, failing on the combined criteria of economic
development/land use, but passing on cost effectiveness allows the
project to move on. But if a project passes on economic development/land
use, but fails on cost effectiveness, it would receive a low rating and
will not be considered by FTA for either advancement into project
development or a funding recommendation.

So in spite of Congressional intent that the FTA consider other factors,
they continue to propose that cost effectiveness carry an inordinate
weight. As we recall, the Small Starts program was initially proposed to
assist projects like downtown streetcars advance, without being in
direct competition with much larger, and much different, New Starts
projects. The intent was also for there to be a simplified process.
While FTA has made efforts to simplify the Small Starts process, what is
being currently proposed may not in reality benefit some of the types of
projects for which the program was initially developed.

In Florida, we have several proposals for modern downtown streetcar
projects, similar to the Portland modern streetcar system. These
projects can demonstrate extensive economic development and land use
benefits, as well as congestion mitigation benefits. But because they
operate on street, in mixed traffic, they will have difficulty
generating the time savings numbers necessary to meet cost effectiveness
thresholds as currently administered by the FTA, and so they may not be
able to advance through the FTA process. The ironic point is that the
local government's purpose in developing these projects is to remove
cars from the road system, promote economic development, and support
higher land use densities -- not to necessarily reduce travel times for
users of the system. But because failure to meet the cost of time
savings measure alone will stop a project, the degree to which it
accomplishes the other valid articulated goals is irrelevant.

We believe that as drafted, the Small Starts program might be more
appropriately named the Bus Rapid Transit program, because it is likely
that under this proposal, these may be the only types of projects that
are likely to qualify.

[4) Federal Investments Should Contribute to Reducing
Congestion]{.underline}

FTA is proposing to adopt a definition of user benefits that explicitly
includes congestion relief benefits to highway users and pedestrians. We
support this effort to treat transit within the context of the overall
transportation system, and to recognize that investments in one mode can
provide benefits to another. We encourage the U.S. DOT to continue to
develop and refine its methods to accurately capture and document these
benefits, which can only help in the identification and selection of
good transportation projects in congested urbanized areas. And we urge
FTA to provide sufficient weight to these criteria to make the analysis
meaningful and relevant to the New Starts project approval process.

[5) Incentives to Increase the Use of PPPs]{.underline}

FTA is seeking feedback on how to provide additional incentives to
increase the role of public/private partnerships in the New Starts
process. It suggests that one possible approach is to allow
"betterments" or project enhancements funded by private entities to be
excluded from the cost effectiveness calculation. Allowing these costs
to be excluded from the cost effectiveness calculations in effect opens
the process to allow project sponsors to "buy down" the cost
effectiveness number. If a project truly demonstrates the potential for
generating economic development and other non-cost effectiveness
benefits, then the private sector should be able to participate in a
manner that will help advance the project. We support this proposal, as
well as the general effort to offer incentives for public/private
partnerships. Consideration of PPPs should be supported as one tool that
may help certain projects advance from planning to reality.

In addition to allowing betterments paid by PPPs to be excluded from the
cost effectiveness, we recommend that this proposal not be limited to
improvements paid only through PPPs, or even by private entities.
Project enhancements paid by local (or state) governments from
non-traditional funding sources such as a tax increment financing, or by
private sources outside of a traditional PPP (commercial development,
shopping malls, etc.), should also be excluded from the cost
effectiveness calculation. As an example, station improvements designed
and paid for by Florida Hospital at their proposed station on the
Central Florida Commuter Rail project, should be excluded from the
calculation. Similarly, a municipality such as Winter Park should be
able to add to the essential features of their station without those
costs jeopardizing the project's overall cost effectiveness rating for
evaluation purposes.

[6) Include measures in the Final Rule]{.underline}

The NPRM proposes to publish specific weights applied to criteria and
measures applied in project evaluation and rating. Historically these
weights have been provided in guidance rather than rule, to allow
flexibility as conditions warrant. Under this proposal, a new rulemaking
would be required to change the weighting of factors. We recommend that
specific weights be issued in guidance and policy, and not included in
the rule.\
\
Similarly, the proposed rule incorporates direction for the
administration of the Very Small Starts program. While this program was
not actually created in law, we believe it to be a positive effort on
the part of the Administration to simplify processes for small projects.
But since it is not statutory, and it is a new concept, we recommend
that FTA issue this direction through guidance rather than rule.

[7) Better Quantify Project Benefits]{.underline}

We agree with FTA's concern that "given the myriad of benefits
associated with New Starts projects, it is difficult to create a New
Starts evaluation process to effectively capture all of them." We
support FTA's efforts to better quantify the project benefits, as this
may ultimately lead to greater consideration of these factors. But at
present, we still voice concern over the weights provided to these
benefits relative to the standards for cost effectiveness.

Our own experiences in Florida have demonstrated to us the difficulty in
achieving FTA cost effectiveness thresholds for commuter rail projects.
These projects traditionally serve longer commutes with less system
capacity than a typical light rail or bus rapid transit project, due to
less frequent service. However it can provide a very high level of
service which may appropriate for the mobility needs in the urbanized
area. Yet the manner in which cost effectiveness is calculated makes it
very difficult for this technology to meet thresholds which are better
designed to evaluate modal technologies operating exclusively in high
density urbanized areas.

It is clear that in SAFETEA-LU, Congress intended to expand the
consideration of additional factors such as economic development, land
use, etc. in FTA's rating of New Starts projects. Congress recognizes
that cost effectiveness, measured in terms of cost per hour of user
benefits, is an important factor in judging whether a project will be
successful. But it also recognizes that good transit projects may also,
or otherwise, help to shape urban development in more efficient
patterns. This can lead to energy savings, through fewer and shorter
automobile trips, as well as help to generate economic development
benefits for the community. We believe that the proposed rule does not
adequately address this direction.

It is the benefits derived from these other factors that ultimately lead
communities to select projects such as commuter rail and streetcar. Yet
because FTA is currently most comfortable in quantifying only cost
effectiveness, only certain types of projects that provide these time
savings related user benefits are likely to qualify. FTA should continue
to work with the transportation industry to develop methods to provide
adequate weighting to these other important factors (congestion relief,
economic development, land use, energy savings, etc.).

While these methods are being developed and tested, FTA in the interim
should recognize that the limitations of the cost effectiveness
thresholds work against certain types of projects like commuter rail and
streetcar systems, which may in fact be good transportation projects. In
the long term, quantifying these other benefits should counterbalance a
lower cost effectiveness score. For the immediate future, we propose
that until these methods for quantifying benefits other than cost
effectiveness are developed and accepted, FTA should consider varying
the thresholds by type of project (heavy, light, and commuter rail, BRT,
streetcar, etc.) so that projects with similar objectives compete
against each other, rather than against the universe of New Start
proposals.

A downtown streetcar should not be judged as heavily on its ability to
create time savings related user benefits, since its primary benefits
may be congestion relief, energy savings, and economic development
related. Similarly, a commuter rail project with multiple benefits is at
a disadvantage against a transit technology or system design which is
focused on creating the types of benefits that the cost effectiveness
calculation rewards.

The current policy to require a single cost effectiveness threshold to
advance a project ends up affecting the type of system or technology
proposed by the community. This works against the New Starts planning
process, wherein the community first develops its locally preferred
alternative without being prejudiced by how it might ultimately score on
a specific evaluation criteria.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important rule
making process.