13974 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 56 / Friday, March 23, 2007 / Notices 

1Texas Transportation Institute (‘‘TTI’’), 2005 

Urban Mobility Report, May 2005 (http:// 

tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility_report_2005.pdf), 

Tables 1 and 2. 

2TTI, 2005 Urban Mobility Report, p. 1. 

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 BusRelated 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 

busprogram@dot.gov. Applications may 

also be submitted via e-mail at 

busprogram@dot.gov. 

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 

David.Horner@dot.gov. or to Thomas M. 

McNamara, Office of the Secretary, via 

e-mail at Thomas.McNamara@dot.gov. 

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. 

Traffic congestion also has a 

substantial negative impact upon the 

quality of life of many American 

families. In a 2005 survey, for example, 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 56 / Friday, March 23, 2007 / Notices 13975 

3Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance 2005 

Survey (http://www.nvta.org/ 

content.asp?contentid=1174). 

4 Virginia Department of Transportation. 

5National League of Cities survey of cities (2005). 

6U.S. Conference of Mayors survey on traffic 

congestion (2001). 

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. 

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

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 offpeak 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. 

Transit. Another critical congestionreducing 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 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
13976 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 56 / Friday, March 23, 2007 / Notices 

8Private 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. 

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 freeflowing 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, highperformance 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 peakperiod commuting and shift some 

commuting travel to ‘‘shoulder’’ or offpeak 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 technologybased improvements may include lanekeeping devices or longitudinal control 

designed to enhance spatial efficiency 

on existing highways, precision 

docking, signal priority systems for 

buses, contactless fare collection, realtime 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: 

• Telecommuting technology, 

including high-speed wireless internet 

service to allow download of large files, 

called ‘‘WiMax.’’ 

• 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. 

• 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

(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 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 56 / Friday, March 23, 2007 / Notices 13977 

9See 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). 

10FTA 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.’’ 

11For a summary of congestion pricing strategies 

as they relate to ‘‘corridors,’’ ‘‘cordons’’ or ‘‘areas,’’ 

please see the section of this notice entitled 

‘‘Background.’’ 

12See http://www.fla.dot.gov/funding/grants/ 

grants_financing_3557.html. 

13See http://www.fta.dot.gov/laws/circulars/ 

leg_reg_4114.html. 

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

(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 

(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. 

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 highquality 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

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 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
13978 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 56 / Friday, March 23, 2007 / Notices 

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

Census Bureau Metropolitan Statistical 

Area (MSA) State(s) 

2003 Population Travel time 

index above 

1.25? 

More than 7.0 

daily hours of 

congestion? 

Annual congestion cost above 

$600 per 

traveler? (000) Rank 

New York-Newark ........................................ NY-NJ-CT ......... 17,700 1 Yes ................... Yes ................... Yes. 

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana .......... CA .................... 12,500 2 Yes ................... Yes ................... Yes. 

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 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC74 with NOTICES