# Presentation: 749490

## 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
- Subpart B, New Starts – Rich Steinmann
- Subparts C and D, Small Starts - Sean Libberton
- Policy Guidance, Measures – Ron Fisher

## 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 

- 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 

- 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

- 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

- 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

- Subpart A – General Provisions
- 	- Purpose and contents
- 	- Applicability
- 	- Definitions
- 	- Measures of reliability in the Section 5309 capital investment evaluation and rating process

## 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 

- 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” 

- 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

- 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

- 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

- 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

- 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

- 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)

- 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 (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

- Purpose and content on Part 611
- Applicability of Part 611
- Definition of terms
- Consideration of measures of reliability

## 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 

- Fixed Guideway System:
- – facility in separate ROW or 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 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 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

- 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

- Ron Fisher
- Director, Office of Project Planning
- Office of Planning and Environment

## NPRM Topics To Be Covered 

- Eligibility
- Project justification
- Local financial commitment
- Overall project rating
- Project development

## 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

- Cost Effectiveness (50%)

- Effectiveness (50%)

- Mobility

- 40%

- Transit Dep. Mobility

- 10%

- Env. Benefits

- 10%

- Econ Dev / Land Use

- 40%

- Project Justification

- Other Factors
- MTC
- Cong. Pricing

## New StartsProject 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 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 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 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

- Capital Finance Plan (50%)

- Operating Finance Plan (50%)

- Local Financial Commitment

## 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!

- 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 Overall Project Rating**

## 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

*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 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

- 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 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.

- 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 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

- 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 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

- 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 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

- 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 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!

*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!

**New Starts Project Development Process**

## 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 

- 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 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 Covered 

- Eligibility
- Project justification
- Local financial commitment
- Overall project rating
- Project development

## 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 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

- 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

- Cost Effectiveness (50%)

- Effectiveness (50%)

- Mobility

- 40%

- Econ dev/LU

- 60%

- Other Factors:
- MTC
- Cong Pricing

- Project Justification

## Small StartsProject 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 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 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 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

- Capital Finance Plan (50%)

- Operating Finance Plan (50%)

- Local Financial Commitment

## 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 Rating	

- _OPTION 2 FRAMEWORK_

- INITIAL RATING

- EVALUATION

- READINESS

- FINAL RATING

- FILTER

- Financial Plan,
- Technical  and Legal Capacity, Status in LRTP

- Cost Effectiveness

- Ec Dev / Land Use

- BOTH PASS

- BOTH FAIL

- High Rating

- Medium Rating

- Low Rating

- Reliability
- Overmatch
- Problem or Opportunity

- High Rating

- High-Med Rating

- Medium Rating

- Med-Low Rating

- Low Rating

- ONLY  COST - EFFECTIVENESS
- PASSES

## 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

- 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 Starts Overall Project Rating**

##  
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

- 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 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

- 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 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)

- 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 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.

- 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 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

- 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 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”

- 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 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

- 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

**Small and Very Small Starts Project Development Process**

## 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

- 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

- Cost Effectiveness (50%)

- Effectiveness (50%)

- Mobility

- 40%

- Transit Dep. Mobility

- 10%

- Env. Benefits

- 10%

- Econ Dev / Land Use

- 40%

- Project Justification

- Other Factors
- MTC
- Cong. Pricing

- Reliability

## New StartsProject 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 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 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 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 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 Measures

- _Cost Effectiveness _
- Mobility-Focused measure

## New StartsProject 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 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 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 Rating

- Capital Finance Plan (50%)

- Operating Finance Plan (50%)

- Capacity / Estimates / Assumptions – 50%
- Condition – 25%
- Commitment – 25%

- Local Financial Commitment

- Other Factors
- Overmatch
- Innovative Contract. Agreements

## 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 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 Rating

- Cost Effectiveness (50%)

- Effectiveness (50%)

- Mobility

- 40%

- Land Use

- 60%

- Other Factors
- (Econ Development)

- Project Justification

- Reliability

## Small StartsProject 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 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 Measures

- _Cost Effectiveness _
- Mobility-Focused measure

## Small StartsProject 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 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

- Capital Finance Plan (50%)

- Operating Finance Plan (50%)

- Capacity / Estimates / Assumptions – 50%
- Condition – 25%
- Commitment – 25%

- Local Financial Commitment

- Other Factors
- Overmatch
- Innovative Contract. Agreements

## 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 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*