# Presentation: 650607

## New Starts Program Assessment

- February 12, 2007

## Contents

- Project and Program Background
- Summary of Findings
- Initial Implementation Road Map *(Note: Road Map condensed to 8.5x11 for electronic version)*
- Detailed Recommendations for Improvement
- Overview of Case Studies
- Overview of Analogous Project Delivery Processes
**APPENDICES:**
- APPENDIX A:  Case Studies Report *(under separate cover)*
- APPENDIX B:  Assessment of Analogous Project Delivery Processes *(under separate cover)*
- APPENDIX C:  Completed Interview Roster

## Project and Program Background

## Project Overview

**Assumptions**

- Personnel and stakeholders identified by FTA for participation in our assessment are sufficiently representative of the broader stakeholder community to provide diverse and complete input on New Starts.
- All requested documentation, if available, has been provided to the Deloitte team.
- Recommendations may include changes that would necessitate regulatory and/or legislative action.

- Project & Program Background

**Background and Scope**

- In June of 2006, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) hired Deloitte Consulting to perform a detailed analysis of the New Starts program.
- The objective of this analysis was to review the project development process to identify opportunities for streamlining or simplifying the process, while focusing on FTA’s stated goals for the program (see next slide). Key activities included:
**Documentation review **– A review of program information provided by FA and also available on *www.fta.dot.gov,* as well as a comparison of the current statute, policies and guidance.
**Key Stakeholder interviews –** Over 60 interviews with FTA Headquarters Offices (TOA, TPE, TPM, TBP), selected FTA Regional Offices, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), selected transit agencies, GAO, and Congressional staff.
**Case Studies –** Detailed reviews of 6 projects awarded recent New Starts Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGA), and 3 Non-New Starts projects, all selected by FTA.
**Review of Analogous Project Delivery Processes –** A review and analysis of selected public and private sector programs to assess leading practices in grants management, investment decisions and risk management. Also includes a discussion of alternative project delivery approaches, such as Design-Build (DB) and Public-Private Partnerships (PPP).

## Throughout this assessment, we focused on identifying improvements to the project development process, while keeping in mind the following objectives:

- The New Starts Project Development Process should:
- 	Deliver valuable projects, on time, on budget, while delivering the projected benefits;
- 	Manage risk, rather than attempting to eliminate risk, and add value;
- 	Assure proper allocation of risks and responsibilities;
- 	Reduce the time and cost of delivering projects and reduce any delay due to Federal reviews;
- 	Assure the predictability, transparency, and repeatability of results; and
- 	Accommodate possible alternative project delivery methods.

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- Project & Program Background

- FTA’s Goals for the New Starts Program

**Each recommended improvement initiative has been mapped to one or****more of these six program objectives to show how each recommendation****helps FTA move the program toward the desired future state.**

## New Starts Stakeholder Overview

**FTA HQ**

**Given the complexity of this stakeholder network, clear, concise and****consistent communication of New Starts policy is essential.**

**Although FTA has a wide variety of stakeholders – all with different profiles and needs for New Starts – our interviews with them have identified many common themes.**

**TPM**

**TBP**

**TOA**

**TPE**

- Note: Many of the FTA organizations and external stakeholders are also supported by a variety of contractors. For simplicity, these contractors are not depicted in the illustration.

- Project & Program Background

**Regional****Offices (TRO)**

**GAO**

**OMB**

**DOT**

**Congress**

**U.S. Taxpayers**

**APTA**

**Project Sponsors**

**Metropolitan Planning****Organization**

**Other Federal and****State Agencies**

## Process Overview

**The current project development process is complicated by a lack of clear definitions of the activities and requirements at each phase and gate/milestone.**

- FinalDesign

- Construction

- Alternatives Analysis

- Preliminary Engineering

- Approval for Entry Into Preliminary Engineering

- Approval for Entry Into Final Design

- Full Funding Grant Agreement

- Begin Revenue Generating Operations

- First 2 Yrs of Operation

- Complete Before & After Study

- Advisory

- Evaluation / Grant-Making / Oversight

- Primary FTA Role:

- Phase

- Gate/Milestone

**Note:**	Activities shown are representative and not intended to depict the complete set of activities for each phase.

- Project & Program Background

- Purpose & Needs
- Alternatives Analysis
- LPA Selection
- Request Entry into PE

- Cost Estimates
- Design Drawings
- Mgt Plans
- Request Entry into FD

- Risk Mgt Plan
- Risk Assessment
- Baseline Cost Estimate
- Congressional Notification

- Pre-Construction and Construction Services
- Project Oversight
- Construction Completed

**A simple, high-level roadmap, such as the example on this slide, can be used to clearly communicate the key activities to project sponsors and other stakeholders.**

## Summary of Findings

## Key Findings

- New Starts generally perceived as a good program.
- Project development process is perceived by grantees as intensive, lengthy, and burdensome.
- Clear and concise definitions of requirements do not exist for each stage of project development.
- The precise status of a project is not always known during project development process.
- Annual project rating requirement creates unnecessary burden.
- Inconsistent enforcement of policies across the program.
- Grantees generally deem FTA staff knowledgeable, dedicated, and professional – but understaffed.
- Roles, responsibilities, authority, and accountability not clearly defined in current organizational structure.
- Organizational conflicts exist between HQ offices and between HQ and Regions.
- Project sponsors not realizing full benefit of alternative delivery methods.
- Ineffective/inadequate use of technology to enable processes.
- The current nomenclature for New Starts phases does not accurately reflect required process activities and causes confusion for program stakeholders.

**Consistency and clarity of guidance, an increased focus on improved communication, and additional use of technology enablers **
**will further mitigate identified issues.**

**Our assessment reveals key issues in the areas of accountability, transparency and consistency, although stakeholders acknowledge that ****FTA is taking steps in the right direction. FTA’s latest guidance already addresses some of the key issues we have identified.**

- Summary of Findings

## Stakeholder Comments* on the New Starts Program

- Stakeholder Comments* on the New Starts Program

*The ****current FTA mindset**** is that everything has to be ****reduced to a number****.*

*FTA was ****typically very responsive**** to our concerns.*

*We are very ****appreciative**** of ****FTA’s help**** guiding us through the process.*

*By law, we need to incorporate all 5 factors. Right now, ****Cost Effectiveness trumps everything.***

*The ****Team Plan**** could work if one person was leading the horse.*

*The current ****project justification process**** may be ****more**** then we need.*

*The New Starts ****Team Plan**** provides a legitimate ****seat at the table**** for our Regional Office.*

**Comments were received during interviews with both internal and external stakeholders and are paraphrased for presentation purposes.*

*We ARE guilty of ****'moving the goalposts****,' but not just in overall policy changes; it's day-to-day decisions on individual projects.*

*The Project ****Rating Process**** seems to be done in ****total secrecy.***

*We ought to decide ****either to fund a project or not****. Then, if funded, work to make it a showcase project.*

*We do not ****manage ****risk. We try to eliminate it! We are completely ****risk averse.***

*The**** Project Roadmap**** became ****useless**** when it was ****not**** being ****updated.***

- Summary of Findings

## Summary of FindingsStrategy and Policy

- FTA’s Annual Performance Plan could more clearly define objectives for the New Starts project development process, and organizational and individual performance could be more clearly linked to achievement of these objectives.
- FTA staff may not share a common understanding of the program’s measures for success.
- Current “one-size-fits-all” approach treats all project sponsors the same throughout the project development process, although they differ significantly in New Starts experience and knowledge.
- A few policy areas require clear resolution of “tough” issues, e.g., single AA-DEIS approach, use of the cost effectiveness criterion, requirement for annual project ratings.
- FTA is encouraging more activities to be completed and would prefer more involvement during AA, placing additional financial burden on project sponsors.
- The frequency of FTA’s policy changes in recent years kept staff in a mode of perpetual policy creation and review and caused significant confusion for stakeholders.
- Without an early commitment mechanism from FTA, project sponsors lack the ability to engage private partners early enough in the process to realize the full benefits of alternative delivery methods. Project Development Agreements (PDA), currently under discussion, may help address this issue.

**Strategy & Policy**

**The New Starts program assessment revealed the following findings:**

- Summary of Findings

## Summary of FindingsPeople & Organization

- Inherent organizational conflicts (e.g., between TPE and TPM; HQ and Regions) result in ineffective communication and confusion regarding roles and responsibilities.
- The New Starts team process is a good step in the right direction to define roles and responsibilities; however FTA’s current organizational structure does not ensure adequate ownership and oversight of New Starts activities.
- The decision process regarding use of Project Management Oversight Contractors (PMOCs) to assist in the review of New Starts submittals lacks transparency and consistency and may not lead to the highest and best use of FTA funds.
- FTA staff at both HQ and Regions are perceived as extremely dedicated to the success of New Starts projects and to the success of the program overall.
- The lack of formal training and guidance for New Starts coordinators, other FTA staff, and PMOCs results in confusion and uncertainty about roles and responsibilities and results in a very steep learning curve for new staff.
- Leading grants management agencies make use of external expertise in the form of review panels to augment internal expertise.

**People & Organization**

**The New Starts program assessment revealed the following findings:**

- Summary of Findings**People & Organization**

- Summary of Findings

## Summary of FindingsProcess

- Entry and exit criteria for each phase of the process are not clearly defined.
- Travel forecast modeling is extremely complex and poorly understood among all but a very few specialists.
- Inexperienced project sponsors lack sufficient understanding of the requirements for defining the TSM (“baseline”) alternative.
- The requirement for annual rating of all New Starts projects creates a significant burden for both project sponsors and FTA staff.
- Policy that focuses FFGA recommendations on a certain rating of cost effectiveness leads to concerns about statutory compliance and undue burden on grantees for other criteria.
- Project sponsors receive no immediate feedback on application acceptance/completeness and lack visibility into project status and the review and rating of New Starts criteria.
- Project sponsors perceive inconsistent communication and enforcement of policies across the New Starts program.
- Project sponsors encounter confusion and frustration in applying the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process to New Starts and complain about having to “re-do” work previously completed during Alternatives Analysis (AA).
- FTA’s prescribed review times of 30 and 120 days for entry into PE and entry into FD, respectively, are apparently arbitrary and may be unnecessarily long.
- Regions and project sponsors have stated that the “first in, first out,” one-project-at-a-time review process often delays low-risk projects, because they sit in a queue behind more complex projects that happened to be submitted first.
- The use of the current Risk Assessment tool provides important information regarding maximum cost exposure; however, a true Risk Management process, begun during AA and updated through to FFGA, may be more beneficial in terms of ensuring successful projects.
- The activities required during each New Starts phase do not correspond to industry practice in other program areas and cause confusion for program stakeholders.

**Process**

**The New Starts program assessment revealed the following findings:**

- Summary of Findings**Process**

- Summary of Findings

## Summary of FindingsTechnology

- FTA leadership, staff at HQ and the Regions, and project sponsors lack centralized visibility into project status during the project development process.
- Stakeholders often have difficulty obtaining clear, consistent, and current information regarding FTA policy and guidance.
- Processes for grantee submission of reporting requirements and FTA’s review of submissions are manually intensive and subject to inefficiencies.
- Current use of the SUMMIT software seems to have significantly improved FTA’s ability to assess the accuracy of user benefits derived from regional travel models.
- Stakeholders perceive inconsistent communication and enforcement of policies.
- More frequent use of web-based technology can significantly increase the number of grantee workshops conducted with very little increase in cost or time commitment.

**Technology**

- Summary of Findings**Technology**

- Summary of Findings

## Implementation Road Map & Detailed Recommendations for Improvement

## Note: This condensed Implementation Road Map is included here for continuity and completeness of the electronic version of this report document. For improved readability, an enlarged version is included with all printed copies of the report.

**Note:** This condensed Implementation Road Map is included here for continuity and completeness of the electronic version of this report document. For improved readability, an enlarged version is included with all printed copies of the report.

## Recommended Improvement InitiativesStrategy and Policy (1 of 3)

| Initial Observation | Opportunity for Improvement | Approach | Timing | Cost | FTA Obj. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Organizational and individual performance could be more clearly linked to achievement of organizational goals and objectives. | Develop New Starts performance measures including in-process projects, not just post-FFGA and ones that measure FTA program delivery. | Internal | Quick Win | $ |  |
| FTA’s Annual Performance Plan could more clearly define objectives for the New Starts program. | Once program success measures are defined, incorporate them into the Annual Performance Plan, and communicate them to stakeholders. | Internal | Quick Win | $ |  |
| FTA staff may not share a common understand-ing of the program’s measures for success. | Clearly define the roles and responsibilities for program administration (grantees, region, HQ). | Internal | Quick Win | $ |  |
| Current “one-size-fits-all” approach treats all project sponsors the same throughout the project development process, although they differ significantly in New Starts experience and knowledge. | Work to identify a key set of attributes/criteria (possibly a combination of grantee, project type and rating) upon which some segmentation rules could be developed (if possible and appropriate – will need further discussion). | Rule-making | 6-12 Months | $ |  |
| A few policy areas require clear resolution of “tough” issues, e.g., use of cost effectiveness criterion. | Schedule and conduct facilitated group sessions to reach a decision on each policy issue.  | Internal,
Rule-making | 6-12 Months | $ |  |
| The frequency of FTA’s policy changes in recent years has kept staff in a mode of perpetual policy creation and review and causes significant confusion for stakeholders. | Revise policy review and issuance cycle to minimize major policy and guidance changes, preferably to every two years (per SAFETEA-LU). | Internal | Quick Win | $ |  |
|  | Develop a stakeholder communications strategy and communications plan to define guidelines and procedures for communicating New Starts policy and guidance to all stakeholders. | Internal | Quick Win | $ |  |

- Recommendations for Improvement

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

-  FTA indicates that it has efforts underway to address this issue.

**	****Approach:****	**Legislative = Legislative change needed;    Rulemaking = Implement through Rulemaking;  Guidance = Implement through revised policy guidance;  Internal = Internal FTA initiative
**	****Timing:**	Quick win= < 3 months to implement with immediate start
**	****FTA Impl. Cost:**	$ = 0 – 100K	$$ = 100K – 500K	$$$ = > 500K

- 

- 

## Recommended Improvement InitiativesStrategy and Policy (2 of 3)

| Initial Observation | Opportunity for Improvement | Approach | Timing | Cost | FTA Obj. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| FTA’s guidance “strongly encourages”  AA study documentation and encourages more conceptual engineering activities prior to entering Preliminary Engineering (PE). | Require, rather than encourage, AA study products.
Make associated costs allowable as part of the local match for overall project cost. | Legislative, 
Rule-making, 
Guidance* | 6-12 Months | $ |  |
|  | Communicate other available funding sources to project sponsors outside of New Starts (TIFIA, Private Activity Bonds) | Internal, Guidance | Quick Win |  |  |
| CEO’s statement of certification modified in guidance documents to broaden certification of technical approaches and assumptions. | Either eliminate certification requirement or reduce other requirements based on certification, while maintaining the possibility for audit/verification of methods and assumptions | Rule-making | 6-12 Months | $ |  |
| The current terminology used to define New Starts project development phases is not consistent with industry practice in other aspects of FTA’s program.
The current process is not conducive to private sector involvement early enough in the process to realize the full benefit of alternative delivery methods | Redefine or more clearly define phases to more accurately reflect FTA’s current requirements and to better accommodate alternative delivery methods. | Legislative | 12-18 Months | $ |  |
| FTA guidance stipulates requirements for entry into PE including “agreement on the alternative to use as the baseline for analysis.” Project sponsors have a limited understanding as to what conditions must be met in order for FTA to agree to the baseline. | Provide additional and/or improved guidance regarding baseline alternative definition. | Guidance | Quick Win | $ |  |

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- * May require Congressional authorization/appropriation.

- Recommendations for Improvement

**	****Approach:****	**Legislative = Legislative change needed;    Rulemaking = Implement through Rulemaking;  Guidance = Implement through revised policy guidance;  Internal = Internal FTA initiative
**	****Timing:**	Quick win= < 3 months to implement with immediate start
**	****FTA Impl. Cost:**	$ = 0 – 100K	$$ = 100K – 500K	$$$ = > 500K

## Recommended Improvement InitiativesStrategy and Policy (3 of 3)

| Initial Observation | Opportunity for Improvement | Approach | Timing | Cost | FTA Obj. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| The Small Starts interim guidance provides for streamlined review of “Very Small Starts” projects that meet certain eligibility tests.  This approach could be applied more widely. | Consider use of similar “warrants” for larger projects. | Guidance | Quick Win | $ |  |
| Project sponsors expressed concerns about getting state/local support and funding for their projects without the guarantee of an FFGA from the FTA. | Evaluate use of a PDA or other type of document that may help provide a sense of commitment from both the FTA and the grantee.
Review PDA process with Regional Offices and ensure they can coordinate resources to support the commitments therein. | Guidance, 
Rule-making | 6-12 Months | $ |  |
| Project sponsors believe that regular site visits by members of the FTA staff – both regions and headquarters – would have helped to provide a better understanding of the project’s issues and benefits. | Consider proposing statutory language to enable FTA staff to visit with project sponsors at key points throughout the development process.
Establish predetermined project milestones or specific time intervals for site visits (e.g., entry into new phase or annually) | Legislative | 12-18 Months | $ |  |

- 

- 

-  FTA indicates that it has efforts underway to address this issue.
- * May require Congressional authorization/appropriation.

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- Recommendations for Improvement

**	****Approach:****	**Legislative = Legislative change needed;    Rulemaking = Implement through Rulemaking;  Guidance = Implement through revised policy guidance;  Internal = Internal FTA initiative
**	****Timing:**	Quick win= < 3 months to implement with immediate start
**	****FTA Impl. Cost:**	$ = 0 – 100K	$$ = 100K – 500K	$$$ = > 500K

## Recommended Improvement InitiativesPeople & Organization (1 of 2)

| Initial Observation | Opportunity for Improvement | Approach | Timing | Cost | FTA Obj. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| The current availability and allocation of staff resources may limit FTA’s ability to review and assist New Starts projects timely and efficiently.(This problem may be compounded if the Small Starts program encourages a significant increase in the volume of submissions.) | Conduct a human capital assessment to identify skills gaps and opportunities for reallocation of resources, with a particular emphasis on critical skills (e.g., travel forecasting, NEPA reviews) and succession planning. | Internal  | 3-6 Months | $$ |  |
|  | Aggressively move to fill vacant positions. | Internal | Quick Win | $ |  |
|  | Based on human capital assessment, request budget authority for additional resources. | Internal* | 12-18 Months* | $$$ |  |
| Organizational tensions (e.g., between TPE and TPM; HQ and Regions) result in ineffective communication and confusion regarding roles and responsibilities.
The New Starts team process does a good job of addressing roles and responsibilities, however FTA’s current organizational structure does not ensure adequate ownership and oversight of New Starts activities. | Increase visibility of and support for the New Starts Team concept by formalizing it through FTA executive leadership. | Internal | Quick Win | $ |  |
|  | Strengthen the New Starts Team by creating a position for a director of New Starts operations with overall accountability for the program. | Internal* | Quick Win* | $$ |  |
|  | Conduct a brief organizational design study to consider organizational changes and determine optimal structure for FTA. (Note that this issue is broader than just New Starts and must be considered with respect to FTA’s entire scope of project development and project management responsibilities). | Internal | Quick Win | $$ |  |

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- Recommendations for Improvement

-  FTA indicates that it has efforts underway to address this issue.
- * May require Congressional authorization/appropriation.

**	****Approach:****	**Legislative = Legislative change needed;    Rulemaking = Implement through Rulemaking;  Guidance = Implement through revised policy guidance;  Internal = Internal FTA initiative
**	****Timing:**	Quick win= < 3 months to implement with immediate start
**	****FTA Impl. Cost:**	$ = 0 – 100K	$$ = 100K – 500K	$$$ = > 500K

## Recommended Improvement InitiativesPeople & Organization (2 of 2)

| Initial Observation | Opportunity for Improvement | Approach | Timing | Cost | FTA Obj. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| The decision process regarding use of PMO contractors to assist in the review of New Starts submittals lacks transparency and consistency and may not lead to the highest and best use of FTA funds. | Establish and document criteria for New Starts Coordinators to request a contractor (PMOC) to assist with cost and risk assessments. | Internal | Quick Win | $ |  |
| The lack of formal training and guidance material for New Starts coordinators and other positions within the program results in confusion and uncertainty about roles and responsibilities and a very steep learning curve for new staff. | Consider establishing a formal mentor program to allow unseasoned New Starts coordinators the ability to observe and learn from the more experienced New Starts staff. | Internal | 3-6 Months | $ |  |
|  | Establish a more formal training program specific to New Starts to ensure staff receive required training. | Internal | 3-6 Months | $ |  |
| Grantees felt that the PMOCs had to learn the FTA risk assessment process and then try to enforce it with the project sponsors. PMO contractors lacked training and full understanding of new guidance as they provided oversight to the grantees. | Develop and provide training, potentially leveraging web-seminars, for the PMOCs any time new guidance is issued to grantees. | Internal, 
Guidance | 3-6 Months
 | $$ |  |

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- Recommendations for Improvement

- 

- 

**	****Approach:****	**Legislative = Legislative change needed;    Rulemaking = Implement through Rulemaking;  Guidance = Implement through revised policy guidance;  Internal = Internal FTA initiative
**	****Timing:**	Quick win= < 3 months to implement with immediate start
**	****FTA Impl. Cost:**	$ = 0 – 100K	$$ = 100K – 500K	$$$ = > 500K

## Recommended Improvement InitiativesProcess (1 of 4)

| Observation | Opportunity for Improvement | Approach | Timing | Cost | FTA Obj. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Entry criteria for each phase of the process are not clearly defined.
New Starts technical guidance and policies often lack sufficient clarity and consistent implementation. | Define explicit input and output requirements for each phase based on submissions that are “best in class” as identified by FTA. (Note: FTA is adding PE specific exit criteria through the latest NPRM.)
Develop timing standards for each phase and each activity within a phase, where possible. | Rule-making | 6-12 Months | $ |  |
|  | Develop a simple “roadmap” that concisely identifies requirements for navigating through the project development process. | Internal | Quick Win | $ |  |
| Travel forecast modeling is extremely complex and poorly understood among all but a very few specialists.
The level of review and scrutiny conducted by FTA on the travel forecast model was considered by grantees to be excessive relative to the level of accuracy that the model was intended to provide. | Focus a team on improving understanding of travel forecasting by: developing standard templates, distributing best-in-class examples, conducting web training sessions, and hiring/ training additional subject matter experts.  | Internal | 6-12 Months | $ |  |
|  | Determine appropriate metrics for use in Small Starts to simplify the need for complicated travel forecasts. | Internal | 3-6 Months | $ |  |
|  | Resolve issues that prevent FTA from hiring additional travel experts (e.g., Quick Hire). | Internal | 3-6 Months | $ |  |
|  | Develop improved training and expand training offerings in travel modeling.
Include senior FTA staff in training and provide them with a “layman’s” understanding of the process, so they are better able to discuss these issues with stakeholders. | Internal | 3-6 Months | $ |  |

- Recommendations for Improvement

-  FTA indicates that it has efforts underway to address this issue.

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

**	****Approach:****	**Legislative = Legislative change needed;    Rulemaking = Implement through Rulemaking;  Guidance = Implement through revised policy guidance;  Internal = Internal FTA initiative
**	****Timing:**	Quick win= < 3 months to implement with immediate start
**	****FTA Impl. Cost:**	$ = 0 – 100K	$$ = 100K – 500K	$$$ = > 500K

## Recommended Improvement InitiativesProcess (2 of 4)

| Observation | Opportunity for Improvement | Approach | Timing | Cost | FTA Obj. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Policy that focuses on a cost effectiveness threshold as the basis for funding recommendations has two implications: 
Some stakeholders are concerned that FTA is currently not complying with statutory requirements by not including all five criteria in the overall Project Justification rating; and
Other criteria with significantly less or no attributed weight still require a high level of time and resources to meet reporting requirements. | Clearly demonstrate that all Project Justification criteria are being measured and evaluated, which may include segregating some criteria from cost-effectiveness and/or making improvements to the measurements for certain criteria. (Note: FTA is currently drafting NPRM to broaden land-use in cost effectiveness criterion.)
Minimize reporting requirements for those criteria deemed less important to the overall project rating.  | Rule-making, 
Guidance | 6-12 Months | $ |  |
| Project sponsors perceive inconsistent communication and enforcement of policies across the New Starts program. | Develop Standard Operating Procedures for the New Starts Team Leaders and other key New Starts positions that formalizes the duties, responsibilities, and procedures for each position. | Internal | Quick Win | $ |  |
|  | Implement automated case management system and other web-based solutions to standardize communication and enforcement of policies across the program.
Establish formal policy and process for responding to every grantee correspondence with a formal response or at the very least written notification that their correspondence has been received. | Internal | 6-12 Months | $$$ |  |

- Recommendations for Improvement

-  FTA indicates that it has efforts underway to address this issue.

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

**	****Approach:****	**Legislative = Legislative change needed;    Rulemaking = Implement through Rulemaking;  Guidance = Implement through revised policy guidance;  Internal = Internal FTA initiative
**	****Timing:**	Quick win= < 3 months to implement with immediate start
**	****FTA Impl. Cost:**	$ = 0 – 100K	$$ = 100K – 500K	$$$ = > 500K

## Recommended Improvement InitiativesProcess (3 of 4)

| Observation | Opportunity for Improvement | Approach | Timing | Cost | FTA Obj. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Regions and project sponsors have stated that the “first in, first out,” one-project-at-a-time review process often delays low-risk projects, because they sit in a queue behind more complex projects that happened to be submitted first. | Develop a “fast track” queuing process (based on customer segmentation) that prioritizes review schedule based on customer history, level of risk or customer timelines.
Adjust process or staffing, as needed, to enable multiple reviews to be conducted in parallel. | Rule-making, 
Guidance | 6-12 Months | $ |  |
| Project sponsors encounter confusion and frustration in integrating the NEPA process to New Starts, and complain about redundancies and having to “re-do” work for FTA previously completed to satisfy NEPA requirements. | Explicitly define NEPA requirements as applied to New Starts, and clarify guidance. | Guidance | 6-12 Months | $ |   |
| FTA’s prescribed review times of 30 and 120 days for entry into PE and entry into FD, respectively, are apparently arbitrary and are generally longer. | Gather historical data to determine actual time required for these reviews (Case Study data equates to approximately 60 and 135 days, respectively).
Propose legislation altering the prescribed time in accordance with realignment of activities toward the front end and convey review time requirements to project sponsors. | Rule-making,
Guidance, 
Legislative | 12-18 Months | $ |   |
| The use of the current Risk Assessment tool provides important information regarding maximum cost exposure; however, a true Risk Management process, begun during AA and updated through to FFGA, may be more beneficial in terms of ensuring successful projects.
The current Risk Assessment approach seems to add approximately 3-4 months of effort to the project development process. | Define Risk Management as a process rather than an outcome, starting in AA and continuously updated through FFGA (and during construction).
Require project sponsors to incorporate Risk Management methodologies earlier in the project development process. | Guidance | 3-6 Months | $ |   |

- Recommendations for Improvement

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

**	****Approach:****	**Legislative = Legislative change needed;    Rulemaking = Implement through Rulemaking;  Guidance = Implement through revised policy guidance;  Internal = Internal FTA initiative
**	****Timing:**	Quick win= < 3 months to implement with immediate start
**	****FTA Impl. Cost:**	$ = 0 – 100K	$$ = 100K – 500K	$$$ = > 500K

## Recommended Improvement InitiativesProcess (4 of 4)

| Observation | Opportunity for Improvement | Approach | Timing | Cost | FTA Obj. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| The requirement for annual rating of all New Starts projects creates a significant burden for both project sponsors and FTA staff. | Discuss and determine if the Land Use rating can be “locked” with subsequent submissions in this area eliminated.
Continue to identify additional ways to minimize the burden of annual ratings (both on project sponsors and FTA), including eliminating - or making optional – portions of annual submissions. | Rule-making,
Guidance | 6-12 Months | $ |  |
| Inexperienced project sponsors lack sufficient understanding of the requirements for defining the TSM (“baseline”) alternative. | Provide additional and/or improved guidance regarding baseline alternative definition. 
Develop a plan to use contractor resources, when needed, to assist with review and analysis of AA deliverables. | Internal | Quick Win | $ |  |
| Project sponsors lack sufficient visibility into project status and the review and rating of New Starts criteria. | Develop specific business requirements and conduct application evaluation to identify a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) interactive, web-based case management solution that will meet FTA’s needs.
Engage DoT OCIO to identify any requirements they will impose on FTA’s system selection process. | Internal | 6-12 Months | $$$ |  |
| Leading agencies conduct initial application screening to establish fulfillment of minimum requirements and determine if eligible for further review. | Develop a two-stage review process: Initial review to determine whether application meets minimum requirements; followed by a qualitative review of the New Starts criteria.  | Guidance | 3-6 Months | $ |   |

- Recommendations for Improvement

-  FTA indicates that it has efforts underway to address this issue.

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

**	****Approach:****	**Legislative = Legislative change needed;    Rulemaking = Implement through Rulemaking;  Guidance = Implement through revised policy guidance;  Internal = Internal FTA initiative
**	****Timing:**	Quick win= < 3 months to implement with immediate start
**	****FTA Impl. Cost:**	$ = 0 – 100K	$$ = 100K – 500K	$$$ = > 500K

## Recommended Improvement InitiativesTechnology

| Observation | Opportunity for Improvement | Approach | Timing | Cost | FTA Obj. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| FTA leadership, staff at HQ and the Regions, and project sponsors lack centralized visibility into project status during the project development process. | Develop specific business requirements for case management.
Develop specific business requirements  for document management.
Develop specific business requirements for web-based document submission
Evaluate available commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) solutions for the above requirements, and conduct a source selection to identify a vendor/solution that will meet FTA’s needs. 
Implement selected system/solution. | Internal | 6-12 Months | $$$ |  |
| Stakeholders have difficulty obtaining clear, consistent, and current information regarding FTA policy and guidance.
Stakeholders perceive inconsistent communication and enforcement of policies. |  |  |  |  |  |
| Processes for grantee submission of reporting requirements and FTA’s review of submissions are manually intensive and subject to inefficiencies. |  |  |  |  |  |
| More frequent use of web-based technology can significantly increase the number of grantee workshops conducted with very little increase in cost or time commitment. | Implement use of web-based technology to increase the frequency of training sessions delivered to the Regional Offices, project sponsors and other stakeholders. | Internal | 3-6 Months | $$ |  |

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- Recommendations for Improvement

- 

**	****Approach:****	**Legislative = Legislative change needed;    Rulemaking = Implement through Rulemaking;  Guidance = Implement through revised policy guidance;  Internal = Internal FTA initiative
**	****Timing:**	Quick win= < 3 months to implement with immediate start
**	****FTA Impl. Cost:**	$ = 0 – 100K	$$ = 100K – 500K	$$$ = > 500K

## Proposed Modifications to New Starts Phases

**The following slide presents a comparison of the current and proposed phases, including some of the key activities and the location of critical process milestones.**

**Our detailed analysis of the project development process, supported by discussions with case study participants and APTA, led to a recommendation for changes to the New Starts phase names and the timing of specific project development activities.**

| The Issue |
| --- |
| The current phase names – Alternatives Analysis (AA), Preliminary Engineering (PE), and Final Design (FD) – align with a traditional project development approach and are referenced in the SAFETEA-LU statute, however, they create a high degree of confusion among stakeholders, sparking the need for change.
We have developed a model that we believe addresses all of the identified concerns. The model is derived from interviews with FTA and APTA, discussions with case study participants, and our review of analogous project delivery methods.
Key attributes of the proposed new model include:
Defines a point within AA at which FTA is engaged and Project Definition begins, leading to a single LPA.
Introduces the concept of a PDA, to occur shortly after selection of the single LPA.
Combines PE and FD into a single “Project Development” phase, acknowledging the fact that virtually all design and engineering is completed without a “natural” break
Retains a milestone for FTA to review and lock the project scope and cost, once these are sufficiently well-defined. 
  (Introduction of this “FFGA Review” milestone, within the Project Development phase, enables early private sector involvement). |

- Recommendations for Improvement

## Proposed New Starts Phase Modifications

- Recommendations for Improvement

## Overview of Case Studies

**Note:****	**This section presents a high-level summary of key findings from the nine case studies reviewed. A complete report on the findings from all nine case studies is included as Appendix A to this report.

## Approach to New Starts Case Studies

| The Approach |
| --- |
| The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) designated the six most recently awarded Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGA) to be evaluated by Deloitte.
Each of the New Starts Case Studies consisted of the following steps:
Researched the project background using available FTA documentation and grantee’s website 
Met with the key personnel involved with the development of the project
Traveled to the city of the Case Study project
Interviewed grantee’s key personnel for the project in addition to key personal from the Local/Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) (A list of all individuals interviewed is contained in Appendix C)
Reviewed grantee project documentation
Toured the project corridor/construction site
Interviewed (via teleconference or in person) Regional Office staff involved with the project
Interviewed FTA Headquarters Staff involved with the project development
Compiled data, analyzed information within and across projects, and developed the findings presented herein
In addition, FTA also requested a review of the project development process and conduct a similar analysis for three transportation projects recently developed without New Starts funding. |

-  Case Studies

| The Projects |
| --- |
| New Starts Case Study Projects:
GCRTA – Euclid Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Valley Metro – Central Phoenix / East Valley Light Rail Transit (LRT)
DART - Northwest / Southeast Light Rail Transit
CATS – South Light Rail Transit
LACMTA - Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension
UTA – Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail
Non-New Starts Case Study Projects:
NJ Transit – Southern NJ River Line Light Rail Transit
St. Louis Metro – Metro Link Cross County Extension 
Tri-Met – Portland Airport MAX Extension |

## Summary of Key Findings

- Frequent FTA changes in interim and/or final guidance created issues for many of the project sponsors (see details on slides 17-36 – Appendix A).
- Grantees were frustrated with their inability to obtain status information or any indication of FTA’s expected response timeframe for their submittals.
- FTA should consider reevaluating the New Starts (NS) phase nomenclature to more accurately describe the required activities and avoid unnecessary confusion.
- The New Starts process would benefit from more clearly defined roles and responsibilities for the regional office and headquarters.
- FTA needs to develop clearer guidance and parameters for the Baseline Alternative requirements.
- Grantees desire some type of an agreement between FTA and the project sponsor early in the development process to secure a mutual understanding of all parties’ expectations (e.g., Project Development Agreement).
- The Risk Assessment (RA) frustrated grantees and delayed project development due to inconsistent implementation, changing RA guidance, and inexperienced Program Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC). Grantees felt that they had to endure the learning pains of the PMOCs as they tried to implement the new FTA RA review process.
- Stringent and lengthy travel forecast model reviews caused delays to the overall project timeline without significant impact or changes (in most cases) to the physical scope of the project.
- Grantees believe FTA travel limitations and restrictions greatly reduced the ability of FTA staff to visit their project corridor, which limited their full understanding of the project issues and benefits.

**These and other issues are discussed in more detail, along with the associated recommendations for improvement, in the following section. **

**Our analysis of the data on individual projects and comparisons across projects determined that a number of issues challenged the most recent FFGA projects.**

- Case Studies

## Analysis by New Starts Phases

**The next slide compares the overall and by-phase durations of all nine case studies. The subsequent slides present detailed findings related to the PE and FD phases. **

**To better understand the duration and causes of delays for each case study project – including whether any delays were caused by FTA – we assessed each project individually and then conducted various pipeline analyses across all projects.**

- Case Studies

| The Approach |
| --- |
| Each Case Study project was analyzed to determine the overall project timeline from inception to (projected) revenue operation and the duration of each phase of the New Starts process.
We then identified the impact, if any, of the following items on each project:
Any FTA issues or actions that affected the duration of the project development process,
Effects of FTA guidance and requirements on the ultimate project,
Impacts of the National Environmental Protection ACT (NEPA) process and the interaction of the NEPA process with New Starts requirements,
Effects of any local issues on the project development process, and
The role and effectiveness of the PMOC in the project development process.
After assembling that information for each of the individual projects, we looked for trends in the impact of those items across the entire group of projects.  
Following the review of the complete project development process, we present the findings of our more detailed analyses within the Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Final Design (FD) phases. |

## Case Study Project Timeline Overview and Comparison

- Case Studies

**This chart depicts the overall project development durations for the nine projects reviewed. The large variations in project development times reflect the unique nature of each project, however non-New Starts, as a group, are noticeably shorter.**

## Overview of Analogous Project Delivery Processes

**Note:****	**This section presents a high-level summary of key findings from the analogous project delivery processes reviewed. A complete report on the findings from this effort is included as Appendix B to this report.

## Approach to Assessing Analogous Delivery Processes

| The Approach |
| --- |
| FTA requested analysis of analogous approaches to project development and delivery to identify relevant leading practices. 
FTA directed Deloitte to examine analogous grant/funding decision-making processes to understand their evaluation of project costs and benefits and their approaches to assessing and managing project risk.
FTA also directed the Deloitte team to evaluate the benefits of alternative project delivery methods (such as Design-Build) and the degree to which the New Starts program accommodates or enables alternative delivery methods.
FTA requested that Deloitte perform the following activities during its assessment of analogous project delivery processes:
Reviewed analogous funding/project approval processes, identified relevant leading practices and their applicability and implications for implementation in the New Starts program. 
Compared various federal grants management, risk management and other capital investment processes.
Identified applicable leading practices based on Deloitte’s internal experience in the Surety Bonds industry, which shows direct relevance to FTA’s assessment of capital investment projects.
Examined PPP approaches, key legislative enablers and the implications for New Starts.
Reviewed various alternative delivery methods to determine possible improvements to the New Starts project development process that may better enable grantees to realize the benefits from such alternative delivery methods. |

-  Analogous Delivery

| Programs/Approaches Reviewed |
| --- |
| Federal Grants and Capital Investment Programs
National Science Foundation: Critical Zone Observatories
Department of Homeland Security: Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Environmental Protection Agency: Watershed Grant
Department of Health and Human Services: General Grants Management
Agency for International Development: Disaster Prevention Relief
World Bank: Conflict Prevention and Reconstruction Fund
Surety Bonds
Deloitte’s best practices in Surety Bonds assessment
PPP Methodologies
Capital Investment Planning
Alternative Delivery Methods
DB, CMGC, CM At Risk
Funding approval and risk management processes across delivery methods |

## Key Findings From Analogous Processes

- Leading agencies conduct some form of customer segmentation, determining additional or reduced monitoring and technical assistance to grantees based on varying levels of project risk and grantee capabilities.
- Clear and transparent policies, coupled with effective communication to stakeholders, promote program effectiveness among leading grants management agencies.
- Performance measures, such as linking program activities throughout the process to overall program goals, promote overall program effectiveness and help achieve desired program goals.
- Several agencies make use of external resources, such as independent or peer review panels, to augment internal expertise with that of industry experts and practitioners.
- Immediate review of grantee submissions for fulfillment of minimum requirements and formal notice of acceptance/non-acceptance enables leading agencies to clarify requirements and review timeframes for grantees, and to avoid allocating scarce resources for review of incomplete or inadequate applications.
- Leading agencies use case management and web-based application submission systems to help streamline the submission and review processes while increasing program transparency.
- Formalized training on management-approved guidelines and procedures enables staff to perform functions more effectively and consistently.
- Leading practices in the Surety Bonds industry indicate that clearly defined roles and responsibilities, including lines of authority and approval, facilitate an effective review process.
- An “early commitment” mechanism, such as a Project Development Agreement (PDA), can establish an understanding of project development expectations and can enable the early involvement of private partners.
- PPPs do not introduce different kinds of risks from traditionally developed public sector projects; however, the implementing agency or authority must adopt a new approach to allocating and managing the project’s risks. FTA can support this by incorporating risk allocation, revenue sharing models, and lessons learned from existing PPPs into periodic training sessions
- Project sponsors select project delivery methods based on their experience and resources and the project’s characteristics. Project sponsors select the system that will provide the greatest benefit in terms of cost and schedule and acceptable level of risk for all parties involved.

**Leading practices in federal grants and risk management, surety bond reviews, PPPs, and alternative project delivery methods present a number of opportunities to improve the New Starts Program. Key findings from our assessment include: **

- Analogous Delivery

**These and other issues are discussed in more detail, along with the associated recommendations for improvement, in the following sections. **

## Appendix A:  Case Study ReportAppendix B:  Assessment of Analogous Project	Delivery Method Processes

- (See Reports Under Separate Cover)

## Appendix C:  Completed Interview Roster

## Completed Interviews - FTA Headquarters

| Organization | Name | Title / Group | Date Completed | Follow-up Date |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Office of the Administrator | Sandy Bushue | Deputy Administrator | 8/3/2006 |   |
|  | Matt Welbes | Advisor to the Administrator | 7/27/2006 |   |
|  | Richard Steinmann | Advisor to the Administrator | 7/27/2006 |   |
| Office of Program Mgmt. | Susan Schruth | Associate Administrator | 8/2/2006 |  |
|  | Terry Rosapep | Deputy Associate Administrator | 7/27/2006 |  |
|  | Aaron James | Director, Office Of Engineering | 7/25/2006 | 11/21/2006 |
|  | Vince Valdez | Director, Office of Oversight | 7/20/2006 |  |
|  | Mary Martha Churchman | Director, Transit Programs | 7/20/2006 |  |
| Office of Budget & Policy | Robert Tuccillo | Associate Administrator | 8/2/2006 |   |
|  | Kate Mattice | Chief, Policy Review & Devolvement Division | 8/8/2006 |   |

## Completed Interviews - FTA Headquarters (Cont’d)

| Organization | Name | Title / Group | Date Completed | Follow-up Date |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Office of Planning & Environment | Brigid Hynes-Cherin | Associate Administrator | 8/4/2006 |  |
|  | Ron Fisher | Director, Ofc. Of Proj. Planning | 7/14/2006 | 8/8/2006 |
|  | David Simpson | Acting Deputy Administrator | 8/8/2006 |  |
|  | Sean Libberton | Chief, Analysis Division | 7/21/2006 | 7/28/2006, 11/7/06, 11/15/06 |
|  | Dwayne Weeks | Analysis Division | 7/21/2006 | 11/15/2006 |
|  | Brian Jackson | New Starts Coordinator | 8/29/2006 |  |
|  | Beth Day | Analysis Division | 11/15/2006 |  |
|  | Joe Ossi | Chief of Environmental Division | 8/9/2006 |  |
|  | Jim Barr | Environmental Division | 11/15/2006 |  |
|  | Jim Ryan | Technical Methods | 8/2/2006 |  |
|  | Tonya Holland | Community Planner | 7/19/2006 | 8/4/2006 |

## Completed Interviews - FTA Regional Office

| Organization | Name | Title / Group | Date Completed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Regional Offices | Dick Doyle  | Region I Administrator | 7/24/2006 |
|  | Peter Butler | Region I | 7/24/2006 |
|  | Mary Beth Mello | Region I | 7/24/2006 |
|  | Susan Borinsky  | Region III Administrator | 7/31/2006 |
|  | Robert Patrick | Region VI Administrator | 7/26/2006 |
|  | Gail Lyssy | Region VI | 7/26/2006 |
|  | Peggy Crist | Region VI | 7/26/2006 |
|  | Blas Uribe | Region VI | 7/26/2006 |
|  | Lee Waddleton  | Region VIII Administrator | 7/24/2006 |
|  | Kim Sullivan | Region VIII | 7/24/2006 |
|  | Dave Beckhouse | Region VIII | 7/24/2006 |
|  | Don Cover | Region VIII | 7/24/2006 |
|  | Charmaine Knighton | Region VIII | 7/24/2006 |
|  | Ryan Hammon | Region VIII | 7/24/2006 |
|  | Jennifer Stewart | Region VIII | 7/24/2006 |
|  | Leslie Rogers  | Region IX Administrator | 7/26/2006 |
|  | Rick Krochalis  | Region X Administrator | 7/25/2006 |
|  | Ken Sheldon | Region X  | 7/25/2006 |
|  | John Whitmer | Region X  | 7/25/2006 |

## Completed Interviews – External Stakeholders

| Organization | Name | Title / Group | Date Completed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| APTA Leadership | Daniel Duff | Chief Counsel & Vice President - Government Affairs | 8/7/2006 |
|  | Robert Healy | Director of Government Relations | 7/26/2006 |
|  | Richard Weaver | Planning & Policy Staff | 8/7/2006 |
| APTA Major Capital Investment Committee | Mike Allegra | Utah Transit Authority | 9/26/2006 |
|  | Steve Beard | SR Beard | 9/29/2006 |
| Other APTA | Diana Mendes | DMJM Harris | 8/7/2006 |
|  | Jayne Whitney | Transportation Dev Commission of Hampton Rhodes | 10/10/2006 |
|  | Richard Brandman | Metro Portland | 10/13/2006 |
|  | Sarah Rios | New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority  | 10/19/2006 |
|  | Susan Jurman | New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority  | 10/19/2006 |
|  | Naomi Renek | Assistant Director, MTA Grant Management | 10/19/2006 |
|  | Ronald Tober | Charlotte Area Transit System | 9/8/2006 |
| GAO | Kate Siggarud | Director of Physical Infrastructure Team | 8/9/2006 |
|  | Nikki Clowers | Assistant Director | 8/9/2006 |

## Completed Interviews – External Stakeholders (Cont’d)

| Organization | Name | Title / Group | Date Completed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Other | Beth Boehlert | Blank Rome Government Relations | 8/24/2006 |
|  | Peter Peyser | Blank Rome Government Relations | 8/24/2006 |
|  | Mariia Zimmerman | Re-Connecting America | 8/7/2006 |
|  | Frank J. Wilson | President & Chief Financial Officer - Houston Metro | 10/24/2006 |
|  | Edie Lowry | Director, Grant Programs - Houston Metro | 10/24/2006 |
|  | Shelley Poticha | Re-Connecting America | 9/15/2006 |
| New Starts Working Group | Jeff Boothe  | Holland and Knight | 9/15/2006 |
|  |  Various | Approximately 20 members of the New Starts Working Group  | 7/26/2006 |
| Congressional Staff | Sherry Little | Senate BHUA Committee - Majority | 7/27/2006 |
|  | Sarah Kline | Senate BHUA Committee- Minority | 7/27/2006 |
|  | Joyce Rose | House T&I Committee - Majority | 7/27/2006 |

## Completed Interviews – Case Studies

| Case Study | Name | Title / Company | Date Completed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Dallas NW/SE LRT
  | Stephan Salin, AICP | Assistant Vice President, Capital Planning & Development | 8/3/2006 |
|  | Timothy Mckay, P.E. | Senior Vice President, Project Management | 8/4/2006 |
|  | Kay Shelton, AICP | Project Manager, Corridor & Environmental Planning | 8/3/2006 |
|  | Brad Johnson | DMJM Harris | 8/4/2006 |
|  | Phil Johnson | Modeler | 8/3/2006 |
|  | Gail Lyssy | Region VI Staff | 8/2/2006 |
|  | Peggy Crist | Region VI Staff | 8/4/2006 |
|  | Blas Uribe | Region VI Staff | 8/2/2006 |

## Completed Interviews – Case Studies (Cont’d)

| Case Study | Name | Title / Company | Date Completed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Charlotte South LRT | Jennifer A. Green | Community Relations Manager South and Northeast Corridors | 9/6/2006 |
|  | Dee P. Pereira | Chief Financial OfficerManager of Transit Administration | 9/7/2006 |
|  | John M. Muth, P.E. | Deputy Director, Chief Development | 9/6/2006 |
|  | David Leard | Senior Project Manager South Corridor | 9/7/2006 |
|  | Ron Tober | Chief Executive Officer, Director of Public Transit | 9/8/2006 |
|  | David McDonald, II, P.E. | Transit Planning Manager | 9/8/2006 |
|  | Joseph W. McLelland, AICP | Senior Transportation Planner | 9/8/2006 |
|  | Norman Steinman, AICP | Division Manager Transportation Planning | 9/8/2006 |
|  | Anna H. Gallup, P.E.  | Transportation Planner | 9/8/2006 |

## Completed Interviews – Case Studies (Cont’d)

| Case Study | Name | Title / Company | Date Completed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cleveland Euclid Corridor BRT | Joseph A. Calabrese | CEO, General Manager / Secretary-Treasurer | 9/12/2006 |
|  | Michael J. Schipper, P.E. | Deputy General Manager, Engineer & Project Management | 9/12/2006 |
|  | Michael C. York | Deputy General Manager, Operations | 9/13/2006 |
|  | Grace Galluci | Executive Director, Office of Management & Budget  | 9/13/2006 |
|  | Maryann Merce | Project Assistant | 9/13/2006 |
|  | Maribeth Feke | Director of Programming and Planning | 9/14/2006 |

## Completed Interviews – Case Studies (Cont’d)

| Case Study | Name | Title / Company | Date Completed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Los Angeles Eastside Metro Gold Line Extension | Brian Boudreau | Deputy Executive Officer, Project Control & Administration | 9/20/2006 |
|  | Dennis S. Mori, AIA | Executive Officer, Project Management | 9/20/2006 |
|  | Rick Wilson | Project Control Manager, Construction Project Management Div. | 9/20/2006 |
|  | Ronald L. Smith, AICP | Transportation Funding Manager Programming & Policy Analysis | 9/20/2006 |
|  | Steve Brye | Planning Mgr. Central Area Team | 9/21/2006 |
|  | Diego Cardoso | Director Central Team | 9/21/2006 |
|  | Thomas L. Jenkins, P.E. | Vice President, Principal Professional Associate - Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. | 9/20/2006 |
|  | Anthony A. Anderson | Legal Consultant - Thompson Coburn | 9/20/2006 |
|  | Chaushie Chu, Ph.D. | Director, Systems Analysis & Research Countywide Planning & Development | 9/21/2006 |

## Completed Interviews – Case Studies (Cont’d)

| Case Study | Name | Title / Company | Date Completed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Weber County –Salt Lake City Commuter Rail | Mike Allegra | Chief Capital Development Officer | 9/26/2006 |
|  | Steve Meyer, P.E. | Manager Commuter Rail Engineering  & Construction | 9/26/2006 |
|  | Hal Johnson, AICP | Project Manager | 9/25/2006 |
|  | Ralph E. Jackson  | Deputy Chief - Major Program Development | 9/25/2006 |
|  | Mick Crandall | Deputy Chief - Planning & Programming | 9/25/2006 |
|  | Mary DeLoretto, P.E. | Environmental Studies Manager | 9/25/2006 |
|  | Doug Hattery | Transportation Planning Manager - Wasatch Front Regional Council | 9/25/2006 |
|  | Ned Hacker | Transportaion Engineer - Wasatch Front Regional Council | 9/25/2006 |
|  | Michael Robertson | Consultant | 9/26/2006 |
|  | Mike Grodner | Consultant | 9/26/2006 |

## Completed Interviews – Case Studies (Cont’d)

| Case Study | Name | Title / Company | Date Completed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Phoenix CP/EV LRT | Eric Anderson | Transportation Director, Maricopa Association of Goverments | 9/28/2006 |
|  | Steve Beard | Senior Vice President, HDR / S.R. Beard & Associates | 9/29/2006 |
|  | John Farry | Valley METRO Staff | 9/28/2006 |
|  | Wulf Grote | Director, Project Development, Valley METRO | 9/27/2006 |
|  | Marc Soronson | Vice President, HDR / S.R. Beard & Associates | 9/27/2006 |
|  | Holly Hassett | Manager, Travel Forecasting, Valley Metro | 9/28/2006 |
|  | Michael J. Ladino | General Counsel, Valley METRO | 9/27/2006 |
|  | Jim Mathien, AICP | Planning Project Manager, Valley METRO | 9/28/2006 |
|  | Rick Simonetta | Chief Executive Officer, Valley METRO | 9/27/2006 |

## Completed Interviews – Case Studies (Cont’d)

| Case Study | Name | Title / Company | Date Completed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| St. Louis Cross-County MetroLink Extension | Jerry Blair | Director of Transportation Planning | 10/2/2006 |
|  | Donna L. Day | Manager of Transportation, Corridor Improvement Group | 10/2/2006 |
|  | Stephen G Knobbe, P.E. | Senior Vice President, Engineering & New System Development | 10/2/2006 |
|  | Christopher B. Rimsky | Deputy Project Director, Cross County Metrolink | 10/2/2006 |
|  | Thomas R. Shrout, Jr. | Executive Director, Citizens for Modern Transit | 10/2/2006 |
|  | Tom Curran | Transportation & Redevelopment  Policy Administrator, Office of County Executive | 10/2/2006 |
|  | Susan A. Stauder | Vice President, Infrastructure and Public Policy | 10/2/2006 |
|  | Les Sterman | Executive Director | 10/3/2006 |

## Completed Interviews – Case Studies (Cont’d)

| Case Study | Name | Title / Company | Date Completed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Portland Airport Extension LRT | David Unsworth | Project Development Manager, Capital Projects & Facilities Division | 10/12/2006 |
|  | Alan Lehto | Manager of Transit Corridor Planning, Capital Projects Facilities Division | 10/12/2006 |
|  | Daniel W. Blocher, P.E. | Director, Project Operations, Capital Projects & Facilities Division | 10/12/2006 |
|  | Richard Brandman | Deputy Planning Director, Planning - Metro | 10/13/2006 |
|  | Joe Walsh | Project Director - Airport and Washington County Commuter Rail  | 10/12/2006 |
|  | Sandy Bradley | Director Program Management  | 10/12/2006 |

## Completed Interviews – Case Studies (Cont’d)

| Case Study | Name | Title / Company | Date Completed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| NJ Transit Southern New Jersey River Line Light Rail | Peter J. Garino | Senior Director Capital Funding, Capital Planning and Programs | 9/5/2006 |
|  | Steven H. Santoro | Chief, Capital Project Management, Capital Planning & Programs | 9/5/2006 |
|  | Richard T. Roberts | Chief Planner, Capital Planning and Program | 9/5/2006 |
|  | Karen F. Schrempp | Director, Grant Administration and Compliance, Capital Program Administration Department | 9/5/2006 |

## Member of

- Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, a Swiss Verein, its member firms, and their respective subsidiaries and affiliates. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu is an organization of member firms around the world devoted to excellence in providing professional services and advice, focused on client service through a global strategy executed locally in nearly 150 countries. With access to the deep intellectual capital of 120,000 people worldwide, Deloitte delivers services in four professional areas — audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services — and serves more than one-half of the world’s largest companies, as well as large national enterprises, public institutions, locally important clients, and successful, fast-growing global growth companies. Services are not provided by the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Verein, and, for regulatory and other reasons, certain member firms do not provide services in all four professional areas.
- As a Swiss Verein (association), neither Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu nor any of its member firms has any liability for each other’s acts or omissions. Each of the member firms is a separate and independent legal entity operating under the names “Deloitte,” “Deloitte & Touche,” “Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu,” or other related names.
- In the U.S., Deloitte & Touche USA LLP is the member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, and services are provided by the subsidiaries of Deloitte & Touche USA LLP (Deloitte & Touche LLP, Deloitte Consulting LLP, Deloitte Tax LLP, and their subsidiaries) and not by Deloitte & Touche USA LLP. The subsidiaries of the U.S. member firm are among the nation’s leading professional services firms, providing audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services through nearly 30,000 people in more than 80 cities. Known as employers of choice for innovative human resources programs, they are dedicated to helping their clients and their people excel. For more information, please visit the U.S. member firm’s website at _[www.deloitte.com/us.](http://www.deloitte.com/us.%0B%5BNOTE:%20I%20MOVE)_

**Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu**