# Presentation: 394738

## FY2007 New Starts Annual Report & Introduction To Discussions

***New Starts/Small Starts Listening Session and Seminar***
***San Francisco, CA***
***February 15-16, 2006***

## Outline

- Overview of New Starts Process, Evaluation and Framework
- FY 2007 Evaluation Process
- New Provisions (related to New Starts) in SAFETEA-LU
- Summary of Project Ratings
- FY 2007 Budget Recommendations
- Overall Recommended Funding
- Pending FFGAs
- Proposed FFGAs
- Other Projects
- Small Starts

## New Starts Planning and Project Development Process

- Final Design
- Commitment of Non-Federal Funding,
- Construction Plans, ROW Acquisition,
- Before-After Data Collection Plan,
- FTA Evaluation for FFGA,
-  Begin Negotiations

- Project Management Oversight

- Construction

- Preliminary Engineering
- Complete NEPA Process
- Refinement of Financial Plan

- Select LPA,
-   MPO Action,Develop Criteria,
- PMP

- FTA Decision
- On Entry
- into PE

- FTA Decision
- On Entry
- into Final Design

- Full Funding
- Grant Agreement

***Preliminary Engineering***

***Final Design***

***Construction***

- Decision Point

- Major Development
-            Stage

- Systems Planning

***Planning***

**New Starts Planning and Project Development Process**

**Notes:**
Key FTA decision points

 -- Entry into preliminary engineering

-- Entry into final design

-- Signing a full funding grant agreement

Project oversight begins in preliminary engineering and continues through the construction phase.   

FTA received a moderately effective or 83 out of 100 rating on OMB’s Program Assess Rating Tool (PART) in the FY 2005 Budget.   

## New Starts Projects in Final Design and Preliminary Engineering, FY 2007 Annual Report

**New Starts Projects in Final Design and Preliminary Engineering, FY 2007 Annual Report**

## Summary Rating

**Project Justification**
** ****Rating**

**Financial Rating**

**Non-Section**
**5309 Share**

**Capital **
**Finances**

**Operating **
**Finances**

**Other **
**Factors**

- Low Income
-  Households

- User
-  Benefits

- Mobility
-  Improvements

-   Environmental
- Benefits

- Operating
-  Efficiencies

**Cost **
**Effectiveness**

**Land**
** ****Use**

***The FTA New Starts Evaluation and Rating Framework***

- Minimum Project Development Requirements:

- Employment

- Capital
-  Cost

- O&M
- Cost

- User
-  Benefits

- Metropolitan Planning and Programming Requirements

- Project Management Technical Capability

- Other                       Considerations

- NEPA                                    Approvals

**Notes:**
We use this chart to describe the current rating process to potential project sponsors.  It highlights the detailed factors that tend to be the most telling in our evaluation of individual projects. 
The boxes in bold are quantifiable measures that are formally used in evaluation of the project.  The unbolded boxes under project justification are used as a tiebreaker in making final project decisions.  

Project Justification- cost-effectiveness and the land-use setting tend to distinguish most effectively among projects.
Cost effectiveness looks directly at the return on investment: the return in benefits to travelers from investment in capital and operations.
Land-use setting looks at the transit-friendliness of current development in the corridor, local policies to support transit-oriented development, and the performance track-record of those policies.  Includes Growth Management issues, supporting zoning regulations, potential impact on transit investment on regional land use. 
User benefits measure focuses on increasing mobility for both new transit riders and existing transit riders.  It provides a much more complete picture of the transportation benefits of New Starts projects – particularly in larger urban areas that already have lots of transit ridership.  Measure of changes in travel time which reflects locally-derived values for trip components.

Financial Conditions- non-5309 New Starts funding, capital finances, and operating finances are the key details.
Non-5309 New Starts funding is simply the share of total capital funding obtained from other sources.
Stability and reliability of capital plan/operating plan
Non-Section 5309 New Starts share (overmatch)

Minimum project development requirements include Metropolitan Planning and Programming Requirements, NEPA Approvals, Project Management Technical Capability (such as the inclusion of a project management plan, project team) and Other Considerations (such as ADA, general grant requirements)

## FY 2007 Evaluation Approach

- No changes in measures used – consistent with FY 2006 approach
- Transparent evaluation/rating process
- Continuing focus on project outcomes
- Project risk assessments to support evaluation information
- Cost effectiveness breakpoints adjusted for inflation – per Spring 2005 cost effectiveness framework announcement
- Eliminates Not Rated designation for projects with unreliable or incorrect data submissions.  These projects now receive a Low rating.
- Implements some features of SAFETEA-LU

**Notes:**

The overall evaluation framework is consistent with the FY06 approach.
The cost-effectiveness rating breakpoints are now adjusted for inflation utilizing the GDP Price Index (also known as the GDP deflator) in the President’s Budget. 
Announced via Dear Colleague letter April 29, 2005 

COST EFFECTIVENESS BREAKPOINTS:
	OLD (FY2006)	NEW (FY2007)
High	$9.99 and under	$10.99 and under
Medium-High	$10.00 - $12.99	$11.00 - $13.99
Medium	$13.00 - $19.99	$14.00 - $21.99
Medium-Low	$20.00 - $24.99	$22.00 - $27.99
Low	$25.00 and over	$28.00 and over
(See page B-9 of the report)

Projects designated as “Not Rated” are now replaced with a “Low” rating, consistent with S-LU

## New Provisions in SAFETEA-LU

- Changes rating scale from three-level to five-level
- Pre-SAFETEA-LU: *Highly Recommended, Recommended, Not Recommended*
- SAFETEA-LU: *High, Medium-High, Medium, Medium-Low, Low*
- Limits Secretary’s ability to require a non-Federal financial commitment for a project that is more than 20 percent of the net capital project cost.
- Includes new “Small Starts” program
- Includes funding for Ferries and Denali Commission
- Legislative requirements for Small Starts rulemaking plus biennial publication of New Starts Policy Guidance for notice and comment

**Notes:**
For FY07 ratings, FTA used only High, Medium, and Low.  Further determination will be made for FY08 cycle on what will constitute the “Medium-Low” and “Medium-High” ratings. 
SAFETEA-LU states that nothing in the statute shall be construed as authorizing the Secretary to require a new starts match less than 80 percent.  FTA has since removed the previous decision rule to automatically give a “low” rating for those projects seeking more than 60 percent.

The only projects that would be affected (but are not) are:
Salt Lake City, Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail (80% share), however the cost share rating is administratively exempt.
Schuylkill Valley Metrorail Project (80% Share), however has low ratings throughout anyway. 
SAFETEA-LU reauthorized Ferry Capital Projects in Alaska and Hawaii, with $15 million in funding authorized each fiscal year from 2006 to 2009 
Authorized Denali Commission with $5 million earmarked for each fiscal year from 2006 to 2009.  The Commission is designed to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, and economic support throughout Alaska, particularly in remote communities. 
Dates of Publication:
Small Starts ANPRM submitted to OST 11/23, to publish 1/13/06
New Starts Policy Guidance due to OST this Friday, 12/9
New Starts/Small Starts NPRM to OST 4/26/2006
New Starts/Small Starts NPRM publish 9/15/2006
Final Rule publish 6/7/2007

## Summary of Overall Project RatingsProjects in Final Design and Preliminary Engineering

| FY 2006 Report
29 Projects | FY 2007 Report
20 Projects |
| --- | --- |
|  2 Highly Recommended |  1 High |
|  13 Recommended |  17 Medium |
|  10 Not Recommended

 4 Not Rated |  2 Low |
| -------------- 4 Removed from FD / PE |  0 Not Rated 
-------------- 12 Removed from FD / PE

 |

**Notes:**
FY 2007 = 24 projects total, including 4 exempt projects

FTA rated 20 projects in the FY 07 report, compared to 29 in the FY06 report.  

While FY06 projects used the TEA-21 rating framework (HR, R, NR), this chart applies the SAFETEA-LU rating framework for comparability.

There are fewer “Low” projects in the FY07 report.  This is because a number of projects have left the New Starts pipeline.

Projects leave the pipeline for a number of reasons (see next slide).

## Projects No Longer in New Starts Report

- Twelve proposed New Starts projects (in Preliminary Engineering or Final Design) included in the FY 2006 report are not in the FY 2007 report
**Discontinued development and/or no longer seeking New Starts funds**
- El Paso, TX - Starter Line
- Las Vegas, NV - Resort Corridor Downtown Monorail
- Los Angeles, CA – Exposition Corridor
- Orange County, CA - CenterLine LRT
- South Wasilla - AK Track Realignment
- Tampa Bay, FL -  Regional Rail System
**Suspended Preliminary Engineering until local project issues can be addressed**
- Boston, MA - Silver Line Phase III
- Ft. Collins, CO - Mason Transportation Corridor
- New Orleans, LA - Desire Streetcar
- San Jose, CA  - Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor
**Completed without New Starts FFGA**
- Kansas City, MO - Southtown BRT
**Revised Project Development**
- San Diego, CA - Mid-Coast LRT Phase 1 to be combined with Phase two as a single project.

**Notes:**
In FTA’s effort to better manage the New Starts pipeline, we note a decrease in the number of projects currently in Preliminary Engineering or Final Design advancing towards an FFGA.  Note that the majority of these projects would be labeled Low if they were evaluated, which explains why there are so few Low projects in this year’s report. 
2 projects, Chicago Metra’s North Central Corridor Commuter Rail and the Union Pacific West Line Extension, completed their FFGAs with FY2006 funding. 
Kansas City, MO – Southtown BRT was completed without executing an FFGA

## Summary of FY 2007 New Starts and Small Starts Budget Recommendations

- 16 existing FFGAs			$571.9 M
- 2 Pending FFGAs			$355.0 M
- 5 Proposed FFGAs			$302.6 M
- 5 Other Projects				$101.8 M
-    Small Starts 				$100.0 M
- FTA Oversight/Denali Commission	$  34.7 M
- _   __& Ferry Projects (AK/HI)__	__	__	__	__ _
- TOTAL FY07 New / Small Starts	$1,466 M

**Notes:**
Breakdown of Oversight, Denali, and Ferry is as follows:
$14.66 m for oversight (1% takedown)
$15 m for Ferry Capital Projects in Alaska and Hawaii
$5 m Denali Commission

## Pending FFGAs

- Funding recommendations are the proposed levels in the FFGAs as currently drafted.
- Both projects recommended for FFGAs previously, in President’s FY 2006 budget.

| Location | Project | Total New Starts Share | Total Project Cost | FY 2007 Budget |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| New York, NY | Long Island Rail Road East Side Access | $2,632.1 M 
(34 %) | $7,779.3 M | $300 M |
| Pittsburgh, PA | North Shore LRT Connector | $217.7 M 
(55 %) | $393.0 M | $55 M |

**Notes:**
Long Island Rail Road East Side Access – New York, New York
2 Station, 3.5 mile Commuter Rail Extension from LIRR's Main and Port Washington Branch lines in Long Island and Queens to Grand Central Terminal on Manhattan’s East Side
Current East River crossings are at capacity and subject to severe congestion.  LIRR operates at capacity in this area, and without the project future LIRR trains to Penn Station are projected to operate at 27 percent over their passenger-carrying capacity. 
FTA notes that the New Starts funding request of $2.63 billion is higher than what has historically been provided by FTA to other major capital investment projects, but the New Starts share is significantly lower.
2012 Expected Opening; 171,900 Avg. Weekday Boardings (2030); 27,300 Daily New Riders (2030)
Target date for FFGA signing – June 06
Received $336.6 million in FY06 approps. 
Overall Rating: Medium, CE Rating: Medium

North Shore LRT Connector – Pittsburgh, PA
4 Station, 1.5 mile Light Rail Transit extension that would link the Golden Triangle area of downtown Pittsburgh across the Allegheny River to the rapidly developing North Shore and Strip District Areas.  Project also includes 0.3 mile spur from the existing Steel Plaza LRT station in downtown Pittsburgh to the Convention Center
Execution of FFGA has been delayed due to unanticipated cost increase, FTA is working with the grantee to reconfigure the project scope to reasonable conform the cost estimate.  FTA expects that the final project scope, budget, and resulting benefits will continue to support execution of the FFGA
2010 Expected Opening; 15,800 Avg. Weekday Boardings (2025); 4,100 Daily New Riders (2025)
Total project cost subject to receipt of new bids; may increase to allow for an increase in contingency account.  FTA prefers NS dollar value does not increase.
Target date for FFGA signing – April 06
Received $54.5 million in FY06 approps.
Overall Rating: Medium, CE Rating: Medium

## Proposed FFGAs

- FTA recommends $302.6 million for five proposed FFGAs.  Each project:
- Is projected to be ready for an FFGA by the end of FY 2007
- Is rated *Medium* or higher
- Has a *Medium* or higher rating for cost-effectiveness, or is exempt by statute and/or Administration decision

| Location | Project | Total New Starts Share | Total Project Cost | FY 2007 Budget |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Denver, CO | West Corridor LRT | $290.6 M 
(49%) | $593.0 M | $35.0 M |
| Portland, OR | South Corridor I-205/Portland Mall LRT | $334.4 M 
(60%) | $557.4 M | $80.0 M |
| Washington Co, OR | Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail | $58.7 M
(50%) | $117.3 M | $27.6 M |
| Dallas, TX | Northwest/Southeast LRT MO | $700.0 M 
(50%) | $1,406.2 M | $80.0 M |
| Salt Lake City, UT | Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail | $489.3 M 
(80%) | $611.7 M | $80.0 M |

**Notes:**
West Corridor LRT - Denver, Colorado (FY06 approps = $4.95 m)
12 Station, 12.1 mile light rail transit (LRT) line Extends from Regional Transportation District’s (RTD) existing LRT line, and connects with the Central Platte Valley LRT and the Central Corridor LRT line
2013 Expected Opening; 28,700 Avg. Weekday Boardings (2025); 4,700 Daily New Riders (2025)
Overall Rating: Medium, CE Rating: Medium
South Corridor I-205/Portland Mall LRT - Portland, Oregon(FY06 approps = $0 m)
15 Station, 8.3 mile light rail transit (LRT) line; Connects to existing “MAX” LRT system; Two segments, will increase capacity into downtown Portland
2009 Expected Opening; 46,500 Avg. Weekday Boardings (2025); 9,400 Daily New Riders (2025)
Overall Rating: Medium, CE Rating: Medium
Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail - Washington County, Oregon (FY06 approps = $14.85 m)
– Exempt from Cost Effectiveness by Law
5 Station, 14.7 mile commuter rail line; Will connect to Westside MAX light rail transit (LRT) system
2008 Expected Opening; 3,000 Avg. Weekday Boardings (2020); 1,900 Daily New Riders (2020)
Overall Rating: Medium, CE Rating: Medium-Low
Northwest/Southeast LRT MOS - Dallas, Texas (FY06 approps = $11.88 m)
16 Station, 21 mile light rail transit (LRT) line; Two segments, to be augmented by another locally-funded extension
2011 Expected Opening; 45,900 Avg. Weekday Boardings (2025); 10,700 Daily New Riders (2025)
Overall Rating: Medium, CE Rating: Medium
Weber Co. to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail - Salt Lake City, Utah (FY06 approps = $8.91 m)
- Administrative Exemption
8 Station, 43 mile commuter rail line; Bus and light rail transit (LRT) connections are intended to provide further service to other regional travel markets
2008 Expected Opening; 11,800 Avg. Weekday Boardings (2025); 6,100 Daily New Riders (2025)
Overall Rating: Medium, CE Rating: Medium-Low

## Other Projects

**FTA recommends $101.8 million for five other projects. **
**Allows funding for Largo FFGA Amendment required by SAFETEA-LU **
**Four other projects are expected to be in Final Design by Spring 2006**
**Each project: **
**Rated *****Medium***** or higher**
**Has a *****Medium***** or better cost effectiveness rating, or is exempt**
**Is expected to be in FD by Spring 2006 if issues addressed**

| Location | Project | Rating | Total New Starts Share | Total Project Cost |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| New York, NY | Second Avenue Subway MOS | Medium | $1,300.0 M 
(26%) | $4,947.8 M |
| Northern Virginia, VA | Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project-Extension to Wiehle Ave. | Medium | $920.0 M 
(50%) | $1,840.1 M |
| Norfolk, VA | Norfolk LRT | Medium | $99.8 M 
(49%) | $203.7 M |
| Seattle, WA | University Link LRT Extension | High | $700.0 M 
(41%) | $1,720.0 M |
| Largo, MD | Additional 52 Rail Cars Required by SAFETEA-LU | Not Applicable | To Be Determined | To Be Determined |

**Notes:**
Second Avenue Subway MOS - New York, New York (FY06 approps = $24.75 m)
3 Station, 2.3 mile heavy rail project; To extend existing rail service in MTA system; MOS is first part of a planned 8.5-mile subway line extending the length of Manhattan’s East Side
2012 Expected Opening; 213,000 Avg. Weekday Boardings (2030); 5,350 Daily New Riders (2030)
CE Rating: Medium
Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project-Extension to Wiehle Avenue - Northern Virginia (FY06 approps = $25.74 m)
5 Station, 11.6 mile heavy rail project; Extension of existing Metrorail system; Extension is the first minimum operable segment (MOS) of a proposed 23.1-mile extension of Metrorail west to Dulles International Airport and Loudoun County
2011 Expected Opening; 77,400 Avg. Weekday Boardings (2030); 16,000 Daily New Riders (2030)
CE Rating: Medium-Low
Norfolk LRT - Norfolk, Virginia (FY06 approps = $0 m)
11 Station, 7.4 mile light rail transit (LRT) line; To serve as the initial segment of a regional rapid transit system
2008 Expected Opening; 6,500 Avg. Weekday Boardings (2025); 1,600 Daily New Riders (2025)
CE Rating: Medium
University Link LRT Extension - Seattle, Washington (FY06 approps = $0 m)
2 Station, 3.1 mile light rail transit (LRT) line; Extension of the Central Link LRT Initial Segment currently under construction; University Link itself is the first phase of a planned North Link LRT extension to the Northgate Transit Center in North Seattle
2016 Expected Opening; 40,200 Avg. Weekday Boardings (2030); 17,400 Daily New Riders (2030)
CE Rating: Medium

## Small Starts

- SAFETEA-LU authorizes $200 million for the Small Starts program
- President’s Budget proposes $100 million to begin the program
- SAFETEA-LU requires a rulemaking to define Small Starts criteria and evaluation process
- Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published January 30, 2006
- Will begin to implement program with guidance in the proposed rule and law
- Encourages lower cost and flexible projects to address local transportation issues
- Existing projects in pipeline may be eligible

**Notes:**
Other Small Starts possibilities include
Scaled back Norfolk LRT or Sacramento South Corridor LRT Extension
Repackaging of “suspended projects” such as Ft. Collins Mason Street BRT, New Orleans Desire Streetcar, and Lowell (MA) – Nashua (HN) Commuter Rail
Existing projects that may be eligible are exempt from evaluation because their requests are less than $25 million.

POTENTIAL SMALL STARTS
		NS Requested	New Starts Share	Total Capital Cost
Nashville, East Corridor Commuter Rail 	$24.0 	59%	$41.0
Sacramento South Corridor LRT Ext.	$98.6	50%	$197.1
Wilmington to Newark Com. Rail	$24.9	45%   	$54.9
Harrisburg, CORRIDORone Rail MOS	$24.9	29%	$87.0
Providence, South County Com. Rail	$24.9	57%	$43.7
Norfolk, Norfolk LRT		$99.8	49%	$203.7

Dates of Publication:
Small Starts ANPRM submitted to OST published 1/30/2006
New Starts/Small Starts NPRM to OST 4/26/2006
New Starts/Small Starts NPRM publish 9/15/2006
Final Rule publish 6/7/2007

## Purpose of Listening Session

- Present SAFETEA-LU provisions , issues and potential approaches in Small Starts ANPRM and major starts policy paper
- Answer questions relating to the ANPRM and policy paper
- Solicit suggestions on how to address SAFETEA-LU provisions

## Program Goal

- Fund meritorious projects
- Develop reliable information on project benefits and costs
- Ensure projects treated equitably nationally
- Facilitate communication between FTA, transit industry and Congress

## Guiding Principles for Development of Small Starts and Large Starts Rule

- Evaluation process should accurately reflect the merits of projects
- Requirements should ensure level playing field for all projects
- Requirements should be mode-neutral
- Costs, benefits and impacts should be developed using established methodologies

## Schedule for Rulemaking

- Jan 2006: Publication of the Small Starts ANPRM and Large Starts policy paper
- March 10: Deadline for comments
- September 2006: Issuance of NPRM for small and major starts
- June 2007: Issuance of the final rule