# Presentation: 782827

## New Starts/Small Starts Workshop

***APTA’s Legislative Conference***
***March 14, 2007***

## Today’s Workshop

- Intro to Program and FY2008 New Starts Annual Report
- New Starts Project Planning
- New Starts Evaluation and Funding
- Small Starts Interim Guidance and New Starts/Small Starts Rulemaking
- Deloitte Report on New Starts and FTA Response

## New Starts Program

- Over $1.5 billion annually for “fixed guideway” transit investments
- Current “pipeline:” 26 projects in PE, Final Design, and Small Starts “Project Development”
- Total cost of pipeline: >$24.7 billion, $11.5 billion in New Starts funding
- FTA tracking >100 planning studies considering major transit capital investments

## New Starts/Small Starts Projects PE, Final Design, and Project Development

## FY 2008 Evaluation Approach

- No changes in measures used – consistent with FY 2007 approach
- Transparent evaluation/rating process
- Continuing focus on project outcomes
- Project risk assessments to support evaluation information
- Cost effectiveness breakpoints adjusted for inflation – per May  2006 Reporting Instructions
- Implements some features of SAFETEA-LU:
- Changes rating nomenclature and scale
- Pre-SAFETEA-LU: *Highly Recommended, Recommended, Not Recommended*
- SAFETEA-LU: *High, Medium, 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 first time evaluation of Small Starts projects

**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

##  Summary of Overall Project Ratings

| FY 2007 Report
24 Projects | FY 2008 Report
25 Projects |
| --- | --- |
|  1 High |  2 High |
|  17 Medium |  18 Medium |
|  2 Low

 4 Exempt |   5 Exempt  |
|  | 

 |

**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).

## Summary of FY 2008 New Starts and Small Starts Budget Recommendations

- 11 existing FFGAs			$863.7 M
- 2 Pending FFGAs			$120.0 M
- 2 Proposed FFGAs			$210.0 M
- 6 Other Projects				$  72.1 M
- 4 Proposed Small Starts 		$  51.8 M
-    Other Small Starts			$  48.2 M
- FTA Oversight/Denali Commission	$  33.9 M
- _   __& Ferry Projects (AK/HI)__	__	__	__	__ _
- TOTAL FY08 New / Small Starts	$1,399 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 2007 budget.

| Location | Project | Rating | Total New Starts Share | Total Project Cost | FY 2008 Budget |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Denver, CO | West Corridor LRT | Medium | $290.6 M 
(51 %) | $574.2 M | $40 M |
| Portland, OR | South Corridor 
I-205/Portland Mall LRT | Medium | $334.4 M 
(60 %) | $557.4 M | $80 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 $210.0 million for two proposed FFGAs.  Each project:
- Is projected to be ready for an FFGA by the end of FY 2008
- Is rated *High*
- Has a *Medium* or higher rating for cost-effectiveness

| Location | Project | Rating | Total New Starts Share | Total Project Cost | FY 2008 Budget |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| New York, NY | Second Avenue Subway Phase I | High | $1,300.0 M 
(28%) | $4,655.4 M | $200.0 M |
| Seattle, WA | University Link LRT Extension | High | $750.0 M 
(46%) | $1,645.9 M | $10.0 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 $72.1 million for six other projects. **
**Each project: **
**Rated *****Medium***** or higher**
**Has a *****Medium***** or better cost effectiveness rating, or is exempt by statute**

| Location | Project | Rating | Total New Starts Share | Total Project Cost |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Hartford, CT | New Britain-Hartford Busway | Medium | $275.3 M 
(60%) | $458.8 M |
| Minneapolis-Big Lake, MN | Northstar Corridor Rail | Medium | $151.8 M 
(49%) | $307.3 M |
| Houston, TX | North Corridor BRT | Medium | $137.4 M 
(50%) | $275.3 M |
| Houston, TX | Southeast Corridor BRT | Medium | $84.8 M 
(50%) | $169.8 M |
| Norfolk, VA | Norfolk LRT | Medium | $128.0 M 
(55%) | $232.1 M  |
| Northern Virginia, VA | Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project-Extension to Wiehle Ave. | Medium | $900.0 M 
(44%) | $2,065.0 M  |

**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

##  The New Starts Environment

** ****The New Starts Environment**

- Individual Senate and House Members

**315 Projects**
- 16 FFGAs, 26 FD/PE, 100 AA

- Inspector
- General

- Govt
- Accountability
- Office

- Press

## FTA New Starts 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

## How FTA Meets Its Goals

- Sound and rigorous management of the program
- Promote - and assist in - the development of reliable information on costs and benefits
- Transparent evaluation process
- Local decisions, project ratings, and funding recommendations are based on the best information available to both the public and decision-makers

## New Starts Project Planning

## New Starts Project Development Process

- Project Development:  Typically 6-12 Years

- Alternatives Analysis    1-2 years

- Preliminary Engineering2-3 years

- 3-7 years

- Operation

**FTA Approval Required for****Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA)**

- ~ 100 AA Studies

- 19 PE Projects

- 7 FD Projects

**FTA Approval Required**

**FTA Approval Required**

- 16 FFGA Projects

- Construction

- Final Design

**Notes:**
FTA Must Respond to Congressional Directives Including:

Increased FTA oversight of Alternatives Analysis
Purpose and Need
Description of Alternatives
Technical Approach for Travel Forecasting, Capital Costs and Operating Costs
Estimation of Costs, Ridership, and User Benefits for Each Alternative

30-Day Congressional Notice before PE and Final Design Approvals

## Key Decisions for Each Phase of Project Development

- Systems planning: priority corridor
- Alternatives analysis: mode and alignment
- Preliminary engineering: final scope/cost, completion of NEPA, financial plan
- Final design: construction documents
- Full Funding Grant Agreement
- FTA: funding
- Project sponsor: delivery of the project

## Why Alternatives Analysis Matters. Sets the context for making informed decisions. Answers the questions that need answers:

- Local questions:
- What do we want to do?
- What are the benefits?
- How much does it cost?
- Where’s the money going to come from?
- How do we make it happen?

- FTA questions:
- What’s the problem and were all reasonable alternatives considered?
- How solid is the LPA decision?
- Were the New Starts criteria developed correctly?
- How does the project rate?
- Should FTA fund it?

## Alternatives Happen!

- Political leadership changes
- Cost increases
- Funding decreases
- Opposition to more precise alignments
- Opposition to project on basis of costs compared to benefits

## New Starts Planning: FTA Lessons Learned

- Good planning = *good decisionmaking*
- Pay attention to the early decisions
- Don’t plan to deal with planning issues in PE
- Acknowledge, manage, and minimize risk
- Need for consideration of a wide range of alternatives *with consistent policy assumptions*
- Need to invest in the time and resources to do it right
- FTA should be involved early on and throughout the process
- FTA can add value!

## New Starts Evaluation and Funding

## New Starts Rating Criteria 

- Mobility improvements
- Environmental benefits
- Operating efficiencies
- Cost effectiveness*
- Land Use*
- Economic Development* (new!)
- Reliability of costs and ridership forecasts*(new!)
- Local financial commitment*
- Other factors*
- * = Also Small Starts Criteria

## 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)

## New Starts Overall Ratings 

**High**
- Project rated at least "medium-high" for bothfinance and project justification
**Medium**
- Project rated at least "medium" for bothfinance and project justification
**Low**
- Project not rated at least "medium" for bothfinance and project justification

## Cost Effectiveness Measure

- Cost per unit of benefit:
- Cost measure: Annualized incremental capital (federal and local) plus annual operating cost
- Benefit measure: hours of transportation system user benefits

## Source of Transportation Benefits of New Starts Projects

- Highway Users: benefits from less congestion due to travelers changing from driving to riding on the New Start
- Current transit users: benefits from faster travel times for New Starts project compared to their previous transit mode
- New transit users:  benefits from faster travel times for New Starts project

## Calculation of Transportation Benefits of New Starts Projects

- Highway Users: not determined because of serious travel model difficulties in quantifying degree of congestion relief
- Transit users: benefits from faster travel times for New Starts project for all travelers in the region
- In-vehicle time
- Walk and wait time
- Number of transfers
- Capacity constraints
- Reliability, comfort, security, branding

## Painting a Picture with User Benefits

## Cost-Effectiveness

- Rating Values:
- Low 			>$29 per hour
- Medium-low  		$23 - $28.99 per hour
- Medium		$15 - $22.99 per hour
- Medium-high		$11.50  - $14.99 per hour
- High  			< $11.49 per hour

**Notes:**
FTA recently revised the cost-effectiveness thresholds
This reflects the updated thresholds

## Current Land Use Rating Criteria

- Existing Land Use
- Transit-supportive Plans and Policies
- Growth Management
- Transit-supportive Corridor Policies
- Supportive Zoning Regulations Near Transit Stations
- Tools to Implement Land Use Policies
- Performance and Impacts of Policies
- Performance of Land Use Policies
- Potential Impact of Transit Investment on Regional Land Use
- Other Land Use Considerations

## Local Financial Commitment

- Stability and reliability of capital plan
- Stability and reliability of operating plan
- Non-Section 5309 New Starts share (overmatch)
- Key Considerations:
- Demonstrated non-New Starts funding commitments
- Demonstrated financial capacity
- Reasonable cost, revenue, and other assumptions

## Financial Ratings In Project Development

- PE Approval – Reasonable financial plan; Funding sources identified; Good non-federal funding history
- Annual New Starts Evaluation (PE) – Proposed funding sources established; Funds are planned and budgeted; Refined cost estimates
- FD Approval – At least 50 percent of non-5309 New Starts funding committed; Firm cost estimates; Address funding shortfalls
- FFGA – 100% non-New Starts funding committed; Funding shortfalls covered

## What is a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) ?

- Formal Agreement signed by FTA and Grantee following detailed review by DOT, OMB and Congress
- Agreement on Project Scope, Budget, and Schedule
- Terms and Conditions of Federal Participation
- Multi-year Funding Commitment (subject to Congressional Appropriations)
- Caps Federal Section 5309 New Starts funds

## Full Funding Grant Agreement

- To receive an FFGA a project must:
- Be Authorized in Law
- Complete the Planning, Project Development, and NEPA Processes
- Meet Project Readiness Requirements (techinical capacity, firm and final cost estimate and funding)
- Receive a “Medium” or higher overall rating
- Receive a “Medium” or higher cost effectiveness rating
- Meet all other Federal Requirements

## Small Starts Interim Guidance andNew Starts/Small Starts Rulemaking

## Key SAFETEA-LU Provisions

- Separate Funding Category beginning   FY 07 ($200 million authorized annually)
- Rulemaking Required

## Small Starts

- Simplified Process
- Planning and Alternatives Analysis
- Project Development
- Construction
- Simplified “Project Construction Grant Agreement”
- Scope
- Cost
- Schedule
- Federal Funding Maximum Amount and Schedule
- Local Funding Sources

## Eligibility - Costs

- Total cost ≤ $250 million
- New Starts share ≤ $75 million
- Exempt projects (≤ $25 million New Starts share) may:
- Remain exempt until Final Rule – then be evaluated and rated
- Be evaluated and rated now

## Eligibility - Project Definition

- Fixed guideways, _or_
- Corridor bus project including at least:
- Substantial transit stations
- Traffic signal priority or pre-emption
- Low floor buses or level boarding
- Branding of the proposed service
- 10 min peak/15 min off-peak headways or better while operating at least 14 hours a day

## Eligibility – Very Small Starts

- Simple, low-cost projects that qualify for streamlined process
- Very Small Starts eligibility criteria:
- Existing daily riders over 3,000/weekday
- Total cost under $50 million
- Under $3 million per mile, _excluding_ rolling stock

## Alternatives Analysis for Small Starts

- Refer to existing alternatives analysis guidance for New Starts
- Narrower range of alternatives
- Potentially less complex analytical methods

## Alternatives Analysis for Very Small Starts

- Identification of corridor problems or opportunities
- Definition of the project
- Analysis of costs, benefits, and impacts of the project compared to existing conditions
- Determination of financial viability
- Explanation of choice of preferred alternative
- Implementation Plan

## Evaluation of Small Starts

- Use Existing New Starts Criteria for Small Starts
- Project Justification
- Land-use
- Cost-effectiveness
- Other factors, including economic development, congestion and pricing strategies
- Local Financial Commitment
- Simplifications to New Starts Framework
- Fewer criteria
- Opening year forecasts
- Simpler travel forecasting procedures possible

## Evaluation of Small Starts

- Cost Effectiveness Rating
- Use current breakpoints for ratings
- Increase opening year user benefits to reflect average national 20-year growth rate

## Evaluation of Small or Very Small Starts – Local Financial Commitment

- Small or Very Small Starts projects receive “medium” for local financial commitment if:
- Reasonable plan to secure local share (all non-New Starts funding committed for PCGA)
- Project O&M under 5 percent of agency operating budget
- Agency in solid financial condition
- Projects that cannot meet the conditions above submit a financial plan
- According to FTA guidance
- Covering period up to and including opening year
- Evaluated based on criteria used for New Starts

## FTA Funding Recommendations	

- Small or Very Small Starts eligible for funding if:
- In project development
- “Ready” to implement project
- Summary rating of “Medium” or better
- Like all New Starts - No funding guarantee

## New and Small Starts Program Changes Proposed beginning April/May, 2007

- No submission of information on operating efficiencies or environmental benefits
- Resubmission of information on transit-supportive land use optional
- No submission of information for the Annual Report for projects not eligible for a funding recommendation
- Timely FTA comment on documents describing alternatives
- For PE approval, travel models validated on ridership surveys no older than 5 years (beginning April 2009)
- Constants allowed for sponsors of new modes to a region

## New and Small Starts Program Changes Proposed beginning April/May, 2007 (con’t)

- Overall project rating on 5 levels from high to low
- High financial rating for SS/VSS with 50% or more non-New Starts funding
- New mobility measure
- Reduced set of subfactors for finance rating
- Consideration of opportunity of private contracting in operation plan rating
- Conditions for rating information in DEISs and AAs
- Project justification overall rating effected by project part of congestion management strategy and rating of “make the case” document as “other factors”

## Planned Schedule for Rulemaking

- April 2007: Publication of the Notice of Propose Rulemaking for New and Small Starts
- April 2007: Publication of Weights and Measures document for NPRM
- April 2008: Publication of the Final Rule for New and Small Starts
- April 2008: Publication of Weights and Measures document for Final Rule

## Deloitte Report on New Starts and FTA Response

## Deloitte Report

- Wide ranging assessment of New Starts program
- Goal was to examine opportunities for
- Improving FTA’s management of the program
- Improve communications w/in FTA and between FTA and industry
- Accelerating/simplifying the process for implementing New Starts

## Improving Management of the Program

- Ensuring funding of the most meritorious investments
- Capture more benefits in project evaluation process
- Incorporating Other Factors in Evaluation Process, as proposed in Feb 2007 draft policy guidance
- Add “modal constants” to calculation of benefits, per 07 policy guidance
- Additional strategies in NPRM
- Enhance FTA’s understanding of projects and program
- Examine staffing, oversight, budget resources and re-align where necessary

## Improving Management of the Program

- Optimize program resources
- Develop internal HQ-Regional Office “Team” operating procedures
- Enhance New Starts staff training
- Use technology to achieve efficiencies

## Improve communications

- More program outreach, training
- More Listening Sessions to be held this Spring/Summer
- Training in AA, Travel Forecasting, other topics
- Re-energize Roundtables, consider Small Starts conference?
- Clarify program requirements
- Project Development Milestone Checklists
- More program guidance

## Accelerating/simplifying the process for implementing New Starts

- Minimize reporting requirements
- Proposed reductions in annual reporting in 07 policy guidance
- Improve FTA review times
- Implement “case management system”
- Use of project development agreements to solidify project schedule, FTA response and oversight commitments
- Encourage alternative project delivery approaches
- Streamlining for public-private partnerships