[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 56 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13974-13978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4833]



[[Page 13973]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part IV





Department of Transportation





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Federal Transit Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Solicitation of Applications for Certain Funding Available in Fiscal 
Year 2007 Under the Federal Transit Administration's Section 5309 Bus 
and Bus-Related Facilities Discretionary Grant Program To Support Urban 
Partnerships; Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 56 / Friday, March 23, 2007 / 
Notices

[[Page 13974]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration


Solicitation of Applications for Certain Funding Available in 
Fiscal Year 2007 Under the Federal Transit Administration's Section 
5309 Bus and Bus-Related Facilities Discretionary Grant Program To 
Support Urban Partnerships

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (``FTA''), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of funding availability; solicitation for applications.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice solicits applications for a significant portion of 
funds not ``earmarked'' by law and otherwise available in Fiscal Year 
2007 under the Section 5309 Bus and Bus-Related Facilities 
Discretionary Grant Program (the ``Bus Program'') reserved by the 
Federal Transit Administration (``FTA'') for proposals selected in 
accordance with the terms of this notice. Under 49 U.S.C. 5309, the FTA 
Administrator, acting on behalf of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation 
(the ``Secretary''), has the discretion to award grants for bus and 
bus-related equipment and facilities. By this notice, the Department, 
acting through FTA, is seeking applications to the Bus Program that 
support the objectives of the National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on 
America's Transportation Network (the ``Congestion Initiative'') 
established in May 2006 by the U.S. Department of Transportation (the 
``Department''). This Notice is one of four solicitations issued by the 
Department to date in connection with the Urban Partnership Program as 
part of the Congestion Initiative. See below ``Supplementary 
Information: Coordination with Other Urban Partnership Program 
Solicitations.''

DATES: Applications must be submitted by May 22, 2007. Late-filed 
applications may be considered to the extent practical.

ADDRESSES: Applications may be submitted electronically to http://www.grants.gov (``Grants.Gov''). Grants.Gov allows organizations 
electrically to find and apply for competitive grant opportunities from 
all Federal grant-making agencies. Grants.Gov is the single access 
point for over 1,000 grant programs offered by the twenty-six grant-
making agencies of the U.S. Government. Any party wishing to apply to 
the Bus Program pursuant to this notice should immediately initiate the 
process of registering with Grants.Gov at http://www.grants.gov to 
ensure completion of registration before the deadline for submission of 
applications. Please confirm all Grants.Gov submissions by e-mailing 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#660413151614090114070b2602091248010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c3e292f2c2e333b2e3d311c383328723b332a">[email protected]</span></a>. Applications may also be submitted via e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ceacbbbdbebca1a9bcafa38eaaa1bae0a9a1b8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a7c5d2d4d7d5c8c0d5c6cae7c3c8d389c0c8d1">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please address questions concerning 
this notice to David B. Horner, Esq., Chief Counsel, Federal Transit 
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, via e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#afebced9c6cb81e7c0ddc1caddefcbc0db81c8c0d9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9edaffe8f7fab0d6f1ecf0fbecdefaf1eab0f9f1e8">[email protected]</span></a>. or to Thomas M. McNamara, Office of the 
Secretary, via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5c083433313d2f72113f123d313d2e3d1c383328723b332a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="db8fb3b4b6baa8f596b895bab6baa9ba9bbfb4aff5bcb4ad">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Coordination With Other Urban Partnership Program Solicitations.

    This solicitation is one of four solicitations issued to date by 
the Department in connection with the Urban Partnership Program. The 
other three solicitations are:
    (1) Solicitation for the Urban Partnership Agreement (``UPA''). The 
purpose of the UPA solicitation, published on December 8, 2006, in the 
Federal Register at 71 FR 71233, is to solicit proposals by 
metropolitan areas to enter into UPAs with the Department in order to 
demonstrate strategies with a combined track record of effectiveness in 
reducing traffic congestion.
    (2) Solicitation for the Value Pricing Pilot (``VPP'') Program. The 
VPP Program, as authorized by Section 1012(b) of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act (``ISTEA''), as amended (23 U.S.C. 149 
note), supports implementation of a variety of pricing-based approaches 
for managing congestion on highways. The solicitation for the VPP 
Program, published on December 22, 2006, in the Federal Register at 71 
FR 77084, aligns the program with the Congestion Initiative to support 
metropolitan areas in implementing broad congestion pricing strategies 
in the near term.
    (3) Solicitation for the Intelligent Transportation System 
Operational Testing to Mitigate Congestion Program (``ITS-OTMC''). The 
ITS Research and Development Program, as reauthorized in subtitle C of 
title 5 of SAFETEA-LU, supports the research, development and testing 
of ITS for a variety of purposes. The solicitation for the ITS-OTMC 
Program, published on December 18, 2006, in the Federal Register at 71 
FR 75806, supports the operational testing and evaluation of advanced 
technologies to reduce metropolitan congestion.

    Please note: Applicants for funding under the UPA, ITS-OTMC and/
or VPP Programs that also wish to apply for funding under this 
announcement must respond to each solicitation separately. However, 
the Department will accept identical copies of a single application 
as long as it satisfies the requirements of each relevant 
solicitation.

B. Background

    Solicitation. In service on U.S. streets today are approximately 
50,000 transit buses which have been purchased in part with funds 
distributed by the Federal Transit Administration (``FTA''). On 
average, FTA grantees purchase each year more than 4,000 buses, of 
which approximately 20% are acquired in part with Federal assistance 
provided under the Section 5309 Bus and Bus-Related Facilities 
Discretionary Grant Program (the ``Bus Program'').
    By this notice, the Department, acting through FTA, is seeking 
applications to the Bus Program that support the objectives of the 
National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America's Transportation 
Network (the ``Congestion Initiative''). For this purpose, FTA will 
reserve a significant portion of the funds not ``earmarked'' by law and 
otherwise available in Fiscal Year 2007 under the Bus Program for 
projects selected in accordance with this notice. By separate notice to 
be published in the Federal Register, FTA will solicit proposals for 
use of those funds not distributed pursuant to this notice and not 
earmarked by law to support other critical investment needs in both 
rural and urban areas.
    Crisis of Congestion. Traffic congestion affects people in nearly 
every aspect of their daily lives--where they live, where they work, 
where they shop, and how much they pay for goods and services. 
According to 2003 figures, in certain metropolitan areas the average 
rush hour driver loses as many as ninety-three hours per year to travel 
delay--the equivalent of more than two weeks of work that amounts 
annually to a ``congestion tax'' as high as $1,598 per traveler in 
wasted time and fuel.\1\ Nationwide, congestion imposes costs on the 
economy of at least $63 billion per year.\2\ The costs of congestion 
are higher when taking into account the significant cost of 
unreliability to drivers and businesses, the environmental impacts of 
idle-related auto emissions, increased gasoline prices and the 
immobility of labor markets that result from congestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Texas Transportation Institute (``TTI''), 2005 Urban 
Mobility Report, May 2005 (http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility_report_2005.pdf), Tables 1 and 2.
    \2\ TTI, 2005 Urban Mobility Report, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Traffic congestion also has a substantial negative impact upon the 
quality of life of many American families. In a 2005 survey, for 
example,

[[Page 13975]]

52% of Northern Virginia commuters reported that their travel times to 
work had increased in the past year,\3\ leading 70% of working parents 
to report having insufficient time to spend with their children and 63% 
of respondents to report having insufficient time to spend with their 
spouses.\4\ Nationally, in a 2005 survey conducted by the National 
League of Cities, 35% of U.S. citizens reported traffic congestion as 
the most deteriorated living condition in their cities over the past 
five years; 85% responded that traffic congestion was as bad as, or 
worse than, it was in the previous year.\5\ Similarly, in a 2001 survey 
conducted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 79% of Americans from ten 
metropolitan areas reported that congestion had worsened in the prior 
five years; 50% believe it has become ``much worse.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance 2005 Survey 
(http://www.nvta.org/content.asp?contentid=1174).
    \4\ Virginia Department of Transportation.
    \5\ National League of Cities survey of cities (2005).
    \6\ U.S. Conference of Mayors survey on traffic congestion 
(2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Congestion Initiative & Urban Partnership Agreement. In May 
2006, in response to the ``crisis of congestion,'' the Department 
announced the Congestion Initiative and its intention to enter into 
``Urban Partnership Agreements'' (or ``UPAs'') with qualified 
metropolitan areas (or ``urban partners'') in order to implement 
strategies with a proven track-record of effectiveness in reducing 
traffic congestion. On December 8, 2006, the Department published in 
the Federal Register at 71 FR 71233 its official solicitation of urban 
partners. Under UPAs, as described in the solicitation, the Department 
and its urban partners would agree to pursue four strategies to reduce 
traffic congestion, known as the ``Four Ts:''
    (1) Tolling: Implementing a broad congestion pricing or variable 
toll demonstration;
    (2) Transit: Creating or expanding express bus services, bus rapid 
transit (``BRT'') or other innovative commuter transit services, which 
would benefit from the free-flow traffic conditions generated by 
pricing;
    (3) Telecommuting: Securing agreements from major area employers to 
establish or expand telecommuting and flex scheduling programs; and
    (4) Technology & operations: Using cutting-edge technological and 
operational approaches to improve transportation system performance.
    In return for their commitment to adopt innovative, system-wide 
solutions to traffic congestion, the Department, to the maximum extent 
possible, would support its urban partners with the Department's 
financial resources (including a combination of grants, loans, and 
borrowing authority), regulatory flexibility and dedicated expertise 
and personnel.
    Congestion Pricing. The most innovative component of the UPA is 
congestion pricing. Congestion pricing leverages the principles of 
supply and demand to manage traffic. It does this by charging drivers a 
user fee that varies by traffic volumes or time of day, thus managing 
highway resources in a manner that promotes free-flow traffic 
conditions on highways at all times. Congestion pricing achieves free-
flow conditions by shifting purely discretionary rush hour highway 
travel to other transportation modes or to off-peak periods, taking 
advantage of the fact that many rush hour drivers on a typical urban 
highway are not commuters. By removing a fraction of the vehicles from 
a congested rush hour roadway, congestion pricing enables the system to 
flow much more efficiently by allowing more cars to move through the 
same physical space. Similar variable charges have been successfully 
used in other industries (airline tickets, cell phone rates, and 
electricity, for example), and a consensus exists among economists that 
congestion pricing represents the single most viable approach to 
reducing traffic congestion.
    Congestion pricing can be implemented using various methods, 
including corridor pricing, cordon pricing, and area pricing systems. A 
corridor pricing system charges drivers when they use certain roads or 
corridors during peak congestion periods. For example, under a corridor 
pricing system, drivers may be charged for using all corridors leading 
into a central business district during peak congestion periods, but 
would not be charged for entering the central business district itself 
or for any movement while in the central business district. In 
contrast, a cordon pricing system charges drivers when they enter a 
specific area during peak congestion periods. For example, under a 
cordon pricing system, a driver may be charged only when entering a 
central business district during peak congestion periods, but not 
charged for using corridors into the central business district or for 
any movement within the central business district. In further contrast, 
an area pricing system charges drivers for all trips made within a 
specific area during peak congestion periods. For example, under an 
area pricing system, a driver could be charged for all trips made 
within a central business district during peak congestion periods.
    In all its forms, congestion pricing benefits drivers and 
businesses by reducing delays and stress, increasing the predictability 
of trip times, and allowing for more deliveries per hour. It benefits 
public transportation by improving transit speeds and the reliability 
of transit service, increasing transit ridership and lowering costs per 
traveler for transit providers. It benefits State and local government 
by improving the quality of transportation services without tax 
increases or large capital expenditures, providing additional revenues 
for funding transportation, retaining businesses and expanding the tax 
base. It saves lives by shortening incident response times for 
emergency responders. And it benefits society as a whole by reducing 
fuel consumption and vehicle emissions, allowing for more efficient 
land use decisions, reducing housing market distortions, and increasing 
time available for participation in civic life.
    Congestion pricing is no longer simply a theory; it has 
demonstrated positive results both in the U.S. and around the world. 
Successful American applications of congestion pricing include 
California's SR-91 between Anaheim and Riverside, portions of I-15 
outside of San Diego, and Express Lanes on I-394 between downtown 
Minneapolis and its western suburbs, all of which have enabled 
congestion-free rush hour commuting and proven popular with drivers of 
all income levels. Internationally, congestion pricing has yielded 
dramatic reductions in traffic congestion and increases in travel 
speeds in Singapore, London, and Stockholm. Notably, a small reduction 
in vehicles can yield dramatic improvements in traffic, as demonstrated 
by a British study, which projected that a 9% drop in traffic could 
yield a 52% drop in congestion delay.\7\ This same dynamic plays out in 
metropolitan areas every August, as family vacations lead to a minor 
decrease in rush hour drivers, which substantially reduces area traffic 
congestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Department of Transport, U.K., Feasibility Study of Road 
Pricing in the U.K.: A Report to the Secretary of State for 
Transport, Road Price Steering Group, Chapter 4, Figure 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transit. Another critical congestion-reducing strategy to be 
incorporated into UPAs is increasing the quality and capacity of peak-
period transit service in order to offer a more attractive alternative 
to automobile travel and to accommodate peak-period commuters who elect 
to switch to transit in

[[Page 13976]]

response to the adoption of congestion pricing.
    Congestion pricing and public transportation benefit each other: 
Road pricing benefits public transportation by improving transit speeds 
and the reliability of transit service, increasing transit ridership, 
lowering costs per traveler for transit providers, and expanding the 
source of revenue that may be used for transit; while public 
transportation benefits road pricing by absorbing commuters who shift 
their travel from automobile to bus or rail. By replacing congested 
traffic with free-flowing conditions on major routes, congestion 
pricing will improve the speed and productivity of current express bus 
services, making them more attractive to commuters while reducing their 
operating costs per traveler. Reducing congestion will also facilitate 
rapid deployment of innovative, high-performance BRT operations in 
major corridors, which require only modest investments in new vehicles 
and passenger facilities that may be eligible for financial support 
through the Department's various funding mechanisms. Improving the 
performance and variety of peak-period transit commuting options 
through a combination of congestion pricing and limited capital 
investment will provide significant benefits to current transit riders, 
while improving transit's effectiveness in reducing peak-period auto 
travel and providing the expanded passenger-carrying capacity necessary 
to accommodate shifts to transit commuting induced by the adoption of 
congestion pricing.
    Telecommuting. The third critical congestion-reducing strategy for 
urban partners to adopt is promoting increased use of telecommuting and 
flexible work scheduling, in order to reduce peak-period commuting and 
shift some commuting travel to ``shoulder'' or off-peak hours. 
Telecommuting can eliminate some peak-period commuting travel by using 
computer and electronic communications technology to enable certain 
employees to work from their homes or nearby telecommuting centers on 
predetermined (often regularly scheduled) workdays, or in some cases on 
a full-time basis. Flexible work schedules allow employees to shift 
their commute trips from the peak period to less congested hours. The 
most promising means to achieve these objectives is for public 
officials representing urban partners to secure agreements from major 
employers in their metropolitan areas to establish or expand 
telecommuting programs, and to offer flexible work schedules to the 
maximum number of their employees. The Department and local 
transportation planning agencies can offer technical and logistical 
support to employers for designing, implementing, and monitoring the 
effectiveness of telecommuting programs and flexible work scheduling.
    Technology. Technology makes possible congestion pricing, which 
differs from traditional tolling in two material respects: (1) Instead 
of charging a fixed fee, congestion pricing manages traffic by charging 
drivers a user fee that varies by traffic volumes or time of day, thus 
balancing supply and demand; and (2) unlike traditional tolling, 
congestion fees are collected electronically at highway speeds. With 
variable pricing, technology affords highway managers the flexibility 
of setting user fees by time of day or ``dynamically,'' at three minute 
intervals in some cases, by increasing or decreasing fees automatically 
depending on traffic volumes to maximize throughput and the free flow 
of traffic. Technology facilitates this variability by enabling the 
collection of user fees at highway speeds through the use of 
transponders, Global Positioning Systems (``GPS''), or cameras. With 
transponders, or ``tags,'' tolls may be collected as vehicles pass 
under overhead antennae. With GPS technology, like that used on 
Germany's autobahns, an in-vehicle device records charges based on the 
vehicle's location, and periodically uploads a summary of charges to a 
processing center along with payments. And with cameras, highway 
managers can record the license tags of vehicles that are not equipped 
with a transponder or GPS unit and charge what is called a ``video 
toll.''
    In addition, technological advancements may enhance the quality of 
transit service deployed to reduce urban congestion. These technology-
based improvements may include lane-keeping devices or longitudinal 
control designed to enhance spatial efficiency on existing highways, 
precision docking, signal priority systems for buses, contactless fare 
collection, real-time travel information (bus arrival times, schedules, 
etc.), advanced traveler information systems, parking alerts and 
automatic vehicle locator systems.
    Other technological innovations that may help reduce congestion 
include:
    <bullet> Telecommuting technology, including high-speed wireless 
internet service to allow download of large files, called ``WiMax.''
    <bullet> Traffic management technology, including adaptive traffic 
signal control systems and the use of cameras to provide real-time 
information to first responders that will help them determine what 
equipment they will need before they arrive at the site of an accident 
or incident.
    <bullet> Advanced traveler information systems that include web or 
wireless access to route-specific travel time and toll information; 
route planning assistance using historical records of congestion by 
time of day; and communications technologies that gather traffic- and 
incident-related data from a few vehicles traveling on a roadway and 
then publish that information to drivers via mobile phones, in-car 
units or dynamic message signs.

C. Applications to the Bus Program

    Overview. The purpose of this notice is to solicit applications by 
eligible parties for a significant portion of funds not ``earmarked'' 
by law and otherwise available in Fiscal Year 2007 under the Bus 
Program reserved by FTA for proposals selected in accordance with the 
terms of this notice. Under 49 U.S.C. 5309, the Administrator of FTA, 
acting on behalf of the Secretary, is authorized to make grants to 
provide capital assistance for the acquisition of buses and bus-related 
equipment and facilities. By this notice, the Department is seeking 
applications to the Bus Program that supports the objectives of the 
Congestion Initiative. This section sets forth the criteria that FTA 
will apply to select proposals for funding pursuant to this notice.
    Applicant Eligibility. To be eligible to apply for funding pursuant 
to this notice, an applicant must satisfy the following conditions:
    (1) The applicant is a state or public body or agency or 
subdivision thereof, or a public corporation, board or commission 
established under state or local law for transportation purposes, in 
each case duly recognized by FTA as a grantee; \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Private operators may now receive FTA funds, through 
eligible recipients, without competition if they are included in a 
program of projects submitted by the designated public authority 
acting as the primary recipient of a grant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The applicant is located within a Metropolitan Statistical Area 
or Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined by the U.S. 
Census Bureau, which has (A) a travel-time index of 1.25 or greater, as 
reported by the Texas Transportation Institute (``TTI'') in its 2005 
Annual Urban Mobility Report, or (B) an annual congestion cost per 
traveler of $600 or greater, as reported by TTI in its 2005 Urban 
Mobility Report, or (C) a number of hours of congestion per day of 
seven hours or greater, as reported by TTI in

[[Page 13977]]

its 2005 Urban Mobility Report; (Please note: A table of jurisdictions 
sorted by the foregoing metrics is attached as Appendix A of this 
notice); \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See U.S. Census Bureau, Current List of Metropolitan and 
Micropolitan [sic] Statistical Areas and Definitions, available at 
http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metroarea.html (last 
visited January 24, 2007); Timothy Lomax and David Schrank. Texas 
Transportation Institute. ``The 2005 Urban Mobility Report.'' May 
2005. (http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility_report_2005.pdf) 
(last visited January 24, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) The applicant can demonstrate, either by a motion from its 
board of directors or letter from an authorizing authority, that it is 
located within a jurisdiction that has adopted, or proposes to adopt 
within two years after the date of this notice, a congestion reduction 
demonstration; \10\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ FTA has elected to not define the term ``congestion 
reduction demonstration'' but strongly encourages applicants to 
adopt congestion reduction demonstrations that incorporate each of 
the ``Four Ts'' or similar strategies to reduce traffic congestion. 
See the section of this notice entitled ``Background.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) The applicant proposes to use the funds applied for to improve 
existing transit service or to provide new transit service in a 
corridor, cordon or area \11\ that is part of a congestion reduction 
demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For a summary of congestion pricing strategies as they 
relate to ``corridors,'' ``cordons'' or ``areas,'' please see the 
section of this notice entitled ``Background.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Project Eligibility. Only capital projects eligible under the 
Section 5309 Bus Program and that improve existing transit service or 
provide new transit service in a corridor, cordon or area that is part 
of a congestion reduction demonstration shall be eligible for funding 
pursuant to this notice.
    Eligible Costs. Eligible costs of a project funded under the 
Section 5309 Bus Program include the acquisition of buses for fleet and 
service expansion, bus maintenance and administrative facilities, 
transfer facilities, bus malls, transportation centers, intermodal 
terminals, park-and-ride stations, acquisition of replacement vehicles, 
bus rebuilds, passenger amenities such as passenger shelters and bus 
stop signs, accessory and miscellaneous equipment such as mobile radio 
units, supervisory vehicles, fare boxes, computers and shop and garage 
equipment.
    Selection Criteria. To select applicants for funding and to 
determine amounts awarded pursuant to this notice, FTA will consider 
the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the congestion reduction demonstration is 
reasonably projected to reduce congestion from current levels on major 
highways and arterial facilities within the demonstration area, as 
measured by projected travel speeds, ``levels of service'' or other 
objective measures of performance during the hours when the congestion 
reduction demonstration is in effect;
    (2) The extent to which the congestion reduction plan is reasonably 
projected to enable improvements in transit service on major highways 
and arterial facilities within the demonstration area, as measured by 
projected reductions from current levels in scheduled running times or 
intervals between departures or other objective measures of performance 
during the hours when the congestion reduction plan is in effect;
    (3) The extent to which the acquisition or improvement of transit 
assets deployed within the demonstration area is necessary to enable 
improvements in transit service within the demonstration area, as 
measured by qualitative benefits to transit users, including, without 
limitation, amenities such as high-quality seating, on-board electric 
power sources, wireless computer connections, interior vehicle lighting 
or enclosed or sheltered waiting areas; and
    (4) The extent to which the acquisition or improvement of transit 
assets deployed within the demonstration area is necessary to enable 
improvements in transit service described in subsections (1), (2) and 
(3) above.
    Grant Requirements. Applicants must address FTA's standard 
requirements for an application for Section 5309 capital program 
assistance found in FTA's Circular C 9300.1A ``Capital Program: Grant 
Application Instructions'' \12\ and FTA's Circular C 5010.1C ``Grant 
Management Guidelines.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See http://www.fla.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financing_3557.html.
    \13\ See http://www.fta.dot.gov/laws/circulars/leg_reg_4114.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contents of Application

    (1) Applicant Information. Applicants for funding under this 
announcement must designate a point of contact and provide their name 
and contact information, including phone number, mailing address and e-
mail address.
    (2) Project Description. Applicants should address each of the 
selection criteria set forth in ``Selection Criteria'' above. 
Applicants should also briefly describe, with respect to the 
metropolitan area in which the applicant is located, (i) why the area's 
traffic congestion is severe, (ii) the local public's acknowledgement 
of the problem, (iii) the readiness of the area's political leadership 
to solve the problem, and (iv) a proposed solution to congestion that 
may incorporate the Four Ts. The application should not exceed twenty-
five pages in length, including both the proposal details and appendix 
materials. Appendix materials may include maps of roadways and other 
affected facilities (such as bridges and parallel routes), maps of BRT 
routes and other transit services or facilities that are directly 
involved and a list of possible local employers that might endorse new 
or expanded telecommuting and flextime policies for their employees.
    (3) Congestion reduction demonstration. An application should 
generally describe the metropolitan area's proposed congestion 
reduction demonstration, and explain how different parts of that 
strategy, if any, would interact to reduce congestion.
    (4) Congestion Pricing Measures and Affected Areas. An application 
should describe the role pricing would play in the congestion reduction 
strategy. To the extent practical, an application should indicate, in 
specific terms, how traffic would be affected, what areas or routes 
would be priced, how congestion prices would be determined, and which 
vehicle categories would be affected (e.g., single occupant vehicles or 
all vehicles). If the proposed congestion pricing configuration 
contemplates a cordon or area pricing system, then the application 
should specify the approximate area (e.g., ten square miles surrounded 
by certain highways or natural boundaries).
    (5) Transit Services. An application should describe transit 
services, including BRT and other commuter transit services that are to 
be provided or supplemented, and the expected impacts of the expanded 
transit services on congestion. The application should also describe 
transit fare pricing policies to be adopted with the objective of 
increasing traveler throughput during peak traffic periods, while 
avoiding excessive congestion in the transit system.
    (6) Financial Plan. An applicant shall (i) describe in reasonable 
detail, including in the form of itemized costs where appropriate, the 
proposed uses of funding requested pursuant to this notice and (ii) 
identify the source of local financing required for the ``local match'' 
required under the Section 5309 Bus Program to the extent required.
    Dates. Applicants wishing to apply for funding in Fiscal Year 2007 
under this announcement must submit their applications on or before May 
22, 2007. Selected applicants will be informed of

[[Page 13978]]

their selection by notice to be published in the Federal Register.
    The Administrator, acting on behalf of the Secretary, may amend, 
revise, waive or modify the terms for funding set forth in this notice 
at any time, unless otherwise prohibited under 49 U.S.C. 5309 or other 
relevant law.

    Issued on March 12, 2007.
James S. Simpson,
Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.

APPENDIX A

                                         Rating of U.S. Metropolitan Areas by Alternative Measures of Congestion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2003 Population                                                      Annual congestion cost
   Census Bureau Metropolitan            State(s)        ---------------------- Travel time index above    More than 7.0 daily        above $600 per
     Statistical Area (MSA)                                 (000)       Rank             1.25?             hours of congestion?          traveler?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York-Newark................  NY-NJ-CT...............     17,700          1  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa     CA.....................     12,500          2  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
 Ana.
Chicago........................  IL-IN..................      8,125          3  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Philadelphia...................  PA-NJ-DE-MD............      5,285          4  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Miami..........................  FL.....................      5,100          5  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington....  TX.....................      4,300          6  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Washington.....................  DC-VA-MD...............      4,270          7  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
San Francisco-Oakland..........  CA.....................      4,125          8  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Detroit........................  MI.....................      4,050          9  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Boston.........................  MA-NH-RI...............      3,990         10  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Houston........................  TX.....................      3,750         11  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Atlanta........................  GA.....................      3,005         12  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Phoenix........................  AZ.....................      3,005         12  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Seattle........................  WA.....................      2,900         14  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
San Diego......................  CA.....................      2,870         15  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Minneapolis-St. Paul...........  MN.....................      2,475         16  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
St. Louis......................  MO-IL..................      2,075         18  No.....................  Yes....................  No.
Baltimore......................  MD.....................      2,310         17  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Denver-Aurora..................  CO.....................      2,050         19  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Tampa-St. Petersburg...........  FL.....................      2,050         19  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
San Jose.......................  CA.....................      1,675         23  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Riverside-San Bernardino.......  CA.....................      1,670         24  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Portland.......................  OR-WA..................      1,670         24  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Sacramento.....................  CA.....................      1,655         26  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Las Vegas......................  NV.....................      1,360         31  Yes....................  Yes....................  No.
Orlando........................  FL.....................      1,260         33  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Indianapolis...................  IN.....................      1,035         39  No.....................  Yes....................  Yes
Nashville-Davidson.............  TN.....................        960         41  No.....................  No.....................  Yes.
Salt Lake City.................  UT.....................        920         43  Yes....................  Yes....................  No.
Louisville.....................  KY-IN..................        890         45  No.....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Bridgeport-Stamford............  CT-NY..................        860         47  Yes....................  Yes....................  No.
Austin.........................  TX.....................        855         48  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Charlotte......................  NC-SC..................        725         52  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Tucson.........................  AZ.....................        720         53  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
Oxnard-Ventura.................  CA.....................        575         65  No.....................  Yes....................  No.
Sarasota-Bradenton.............  FL.....................        575         65  No.....................  Yes....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E7-4833 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>