†
876
HR 3 EAS
conditions, requirements, and provisions as a
subrecipient of assistance under section 5310.
‘‘(D) 
STATEWIDE
TRANSIT
PROVIDER
GRANTEES.—A statewide transit provider that
receives a grant under this section shall be sub-
ject to the terms, conditions, requirements, and
provisions of this section or section 5311, con-
sistent with the scope and purpose of the grant
and the location of the project.’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(3) CERTIFICATION.—An applicant that has
submitted the certifications required under subpara-
graphs (A), (B), (C), and (H) of section 5307(d)(1)
shall be deemed to have provided sufficient informa-
tion upon which the Secretary may make the findings
required under this subsection.’’.
(c) DEFINED TERM.—Section 5309(b) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(b) DEFINED TERM.—As used in this section, the
term ‘alternatives analysis’ means a study conducted as
part of the transportation planning process required under
sections 5303 and 5304, which includes—
‘‘(1) an assessment of a wide range of public
transportation alternatives designed to address a
transportation problem in a corridor or subarea;
†
877
HR 3 EAS
‘‘(2) sufficient information to enable the Sec-
retary to make the findings of project justification
and local financial commitment required under this
section;
‘‘(3) the selection of a locally preferred alter-
native; and
‘‘(4) the adoption of the locally preferred alter-
native as part of the long-range transportation plan
required under section 5303.’’.
(d) GRANT
REQUIREMENTS.—Section 5309(d) is
amended to read as follows:
‘‘(d) GRANT REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary may not
approve a grant for a project under this section unless the
Secretary determines that—
‘‘(1) the project is part of an approved transpor-
tation plan and program of projects required under
sections 5303, 5304, and 5306; and
‘‘(2) the applicant has, or will have—
‘‘(A) the legal, financial, and technical ca-
pacity to carry out the project, including safety
and security aspects of the project;
‘‘(B) satisfactory continuing control over
the use of the equipment or facilities; and
‘‘(C) the capability and willingness to
maintain the equipment or facilities.’’.
†
878
HR 3 EAS
(e) MAJOR
CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
PROJECTS
OF
$75,000,000 OR MORE.—Section 5309(e) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(e) MAJOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROJECTS
OF
$75,000,000 OR MORE.—
‘‘(1) FULL FUNDING GRANT AGREEMENT.—The
Secretary shall enter into a full funding grant agree-
ment, based on the evaluations and ratings required
under this subsection, with each grantee receiving not
less than $75,000,000 under this subsection for a new
fixed guideway capital project that—
‘‘(A) is authorized for final design and con-
struction; and
‘‘(B) has been rated as medium, medium-
high, or high, in accordance with paragraph
(5)(B).
‘‘(2) DETERMINATIONS.—The Secretary may not
award a grant under this subsection for a new fixed
guideway capital project unless the Secretary deter-
mines that the proposed project is—
‘‘(A) based on the results of an alternatives
analysis and preliminary engineering;
‘‘(B) justified based on a comprehensive re-
view of its mobility improvements, environ-
mental benefits, cost-effectiveness, operating effi-
†
879
HR 3 EAS
ciencies, economic development effects, and public
transportation supportive land use patterns and
policies; and
‘‘(C) supported by an acceptable degree of
local financial commitment, including evidence
of stable and dependable financing sources to
construct the project, and maintain and operate
the entire public transportation system, while
ensuring that the extent and quality of existing
public transportation services are not degraded.
‘‘(3) EVALUATION OF PROJECT JUSTIFICATION.—
In making the determinations under paragraph
(2)(B) for a major capital investment grant, the Sec-
retary shall analyze, evaluate, and consider—
‘‘(A) the results of the alternatives analysis
and preliminary engineering for the proposed
project;
‘‘(B) the reliability of the forecasts of costs
and utilization made by the recipient and the
contractors to the recipient;
‘‘(C) the direct and indirect costs of relevant
alternatives;
‘‘(D) factors such as—
‘‘(i) congestion relief;
‘‘(ii) improved mobility;
†
880
HR 3 EAS
‘‘(iii) air pollution;
‘‘(iv) noise pollution;
‘‘(v) energy consumption; and
‘‘(vi) all associated ancillary and miti-
gation costs necessary to carry out each al-
ternative analyzed;
‘‘(E) reductions in local infrastructure costs
achieved through compact land use development
and positive impacts on the capacity, utiliza-
tion, or longevity of other surface transportation
assets and facilities;
‘‘(F) the cost of suburban sprawl;
‘‘(G) the degree to which the project in-
creases the mobility of the public transportation
dependent population or promotes economic de-
velopment;
‘‘(H) population density and current tran-
sit ridership in the transportation corridor;
‘‘(I) the technical capability of the grant re-
cipient to construct the project;
‘‘(J) any adjustment to the project justifica-
tion necessary to reflect differences in local land,
construction, and operating costs; and
†
881
HR 3 EAS
‘‘(K) other factors that the Secretary deter-
mines to be appropriate to carry out this chap-
ter.
‘‘(4) EVALUATION OF LOCAL FINANCIAL COMMIT-
MENT.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In evaluating a project
under paragraph (2)(C), the Secretary shall re-
quire that—
‘‘(i) the proposed project plan provides
for the availability of contingency amounts
that the Secretary determines to be reason-
able to cover unanticipated cost increases;
‘‘(ii) each proposed local source of cap-
ital and operating financing is stable, reli-
able, and available within the proposed
project timetable; and
‘‘(iii) local resources are available to
recapitalize and operate the overall pro-
posed public transportation system, includ-
ing essential feeder bus and other services
necessary to achieve the projected ridership
levels, while ensuring that the extent and
quality of existing public transportation
services are not degraded.
†
882
HR 3 EAS
‘‘(B) EVALUATION CRITERIA.—In assessing
the stability, reliability, and availability of pro-
posed sources of local financing under paragraph
(2)(C), the Secretary shall consider—
‘‘(i) the reliability of the forecasts of
costs and utilization made by the recipient
and the contractors to the recipient;
‘‘(ii) existing grant commitments;
‘‘(iii) the degree to which financing
sources are dedicated to the proposed pur-
poses;
‘‘(iv) any debt obligation that exists, or
is proposed by the recipient, for the pro-
posed project or other public transportation
purpose; and
‘‘(v) the extent to which the project has
a local financial commitment that exceeds
the required non-Federal share of the cost of
the project, provided that if the Secretary
gives priority to financing projects that in-
clude more than the non-Federal share re-
quired under subsection (h), the Secretary
shall give equal consideration to differences
in the fiscal capacity of State and local gov-
ernments.
†
883
HR 3 EAS
‘‘(5) PROJECT ADVANCEMENT AND RATINGS.—
‘‘(A) PROJECT ADVANCEMENT.—A proposed
project under this subsection shall not advance
from alternatives analysis to preliminary engi-
neering or from preliminary engineering to final
design and construction unless the Secretary de-
termines that the project meets the requirements
of this section and there is a reasonable likeli-
hood that the project will continue to meet such
requirements.
‘‘(B) RATINGS.—In making a determina-
tion under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall
evaluate and rate the project on a 5-point scale
(high, medium-high, medium, medium-low, or
low) based on the results of the alternatives anal-
ysis, the project justification criteria, and the de-
gree of local financial commitment, as required
under this subsection. In rating the projects, the
Secretary shall provide, in addition to the over-
all project rating, individual ratings for each of
the criteria established by regulation.
‘‘(6) APPLICABILITY.—This subsection shall not
apply to projects for which the Secretary has issued
a letter of intent or entered into a full funding grant
†
884
HR 3 EAS
agreement before the date of enactment of the Federal
Public Transportation Act of 2005.
‘‘(7) RULEMAKING.—Not later than 240 days
after the date of enactment of the Federal Public
Transportation Act of 2005, the Secretary shall issue
regulations on the manner by which the Secretary
shall evaluate and rate projects based on the results
of alternatives analysis, project justification, and
local financial commitment, in accordance with this
subsection.
‘‘(8) POLICY GUIDANCE.—
‘‘(A) PUBLICATION.—The Secretary shall
publish policy guidance regarding the new starts
project review and evaluation process—
‘‘(i) not later than 120 days after the
date of enactment of the Federal Public
Transportation Act of 2005; and
‘‘(ii) each time significant changes are
made by the Secretary to the new starts
project review and evaluation process and
criteria, but not less frequently than once
every 2 years.
‘‘(B) PUBLIC COMMENT AND RESPONSE.—
The Secretary shall—
†
885
HR 3 EAS
‘‘(i) invite public comment to the pol-
icy guidance published under subparagraph
(A); and
‘‘(ii) publish a response to the com-
ments received under clause (i).’’.
(f) MAJOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROJECTS OF LESS
THAN $75,000,000.—Section 5309(f) is amended to read as
follows:
‘‘(f) MAJOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROJECTS OF LESS
THAN $75,000,000.—
‘‘(1) PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION
GRANT
AGREE-
MENT.—
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—The Secretary shall
enter into a project construction grant agree-
ment, based on evaluations and ratings required
under this subsection, with each grantee receiv-
ing less than $75,000,000 under this subsection
for a new fixed guideway or corridor improve-
ment capital project that—
‘‘(i) is authorized by law; and
‘‘(ii) has been rated as medium, me-
dium-high, or high, in accordance with
paragraph (3)(B).
‘‘(B) CONTENTS.—
†
886
HR 3 EAS
‘‘(i) 
IN
GENERAL.—An 
agreement
under this paragraph shall specify—
‘‘(I) the scope of the project to be
constructed;
‘‘(II) the estimated net cost of the
project;
‘‘(III) the schedule under which
the project shall be constructed;
‘‘(IV) the maximum amount of
funding to be obtained under this sub-
section;
‘‘(V) the proposed schedule for ob-
ligation of future Federal grants; and
‘‘(VI) the sources of non-Federal
funding.
‘‘(ii) 
ADDITIONAL
FUNDING.—The
agreement may include a commitment on
the part of the Secretary to provide funding
for the project in future fiscal years.
‘‘(C) FULL FUNDING GRANT AGREEMENT.—
An agreement under this paragraph shall be con-
sidered a full funding grant agreement for the
purposes of subsection (g).
‘‘(2) SELECTION PROCESS.—
†
887
HR 3 EAS
‘‘(A) SELECTION CRITERIA.—The Secretary
may not award a grant under this subsection for
a proposed project unless the Secretary deter-
mines that the project is—
‘‘(i) based on the results of planning
and alternatives analysis;
‘‘(ii) justified based on a review of its
public transportation supportive land use
policies, cost effectiveness, and effect on local
economic development; and
‘‘(iii) supported by an acceptable de-
gree of local financial commitment.
‘‘(B) PLANNING
AND
ALTERNATIVES.—In
evaluating a project under subparagraph (A)(i),
the Secretary shall analyze and consider the re-
sults of planning and alternatives analysis for
the project.
‘‘(C) PROJECT JUSTIFICATION.—In making
the determinations under subparagraph (A)(ii),
the Secretary shall—
‘‘(i) determine the degree to which local
land use policies are supportive of the pub-
lic transportation project and the degree to
which the project is likely to achieve local
developmental goals;
†
888
HR 3 EAS
‘‘(ii) determine the cost effectiveness of
the project at the time of the initiation of
revenue service;
‘‘(iii) determine the degree to which the
project will have a positive effect on local
economic development;
‘‘(iv) consider the reliability of the
forecasts of costs and ridership associated
with the project; and
‘‘(v) consider other factors that the Sec-
retary determines to be appropriate to
carry out this subsection.
‘‘(D) LOCAL FINANCIAL COMMITMENT.—For
purposes of subparagraph (A)(iii), the Secretary
shall require that each proposed local source of
capital and operating financing is stable, reli-
able, and available within the proposed project
timetable.
‘‘(3) ADVANCEMENT OF PROJECT TO DEVELOP-
MENT AND CONSTRUCTION.—
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—A proposed project
under this subsection may not advance from the
planning and alternatives analysis stage to
project development and construction unless—
†
889
HR 3 EAS
‘‘(i) the Secretary finds that the project
meets the requirements of this subsection
and there is a reasonable likelihood that the
project will continue to meet such require-
ments; and
‘‘(ii) the metropolitan planning orga-
nization has adopted the locally preferred
alternative for the project into the long-
range transportation plan.
‘‘(B) EVALUATION.—In making the findings
under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall
evaluate and rate the project as high, medium-
high, medium, medium-low, or low, based on the
results of the analysis of the project justification
criteria and the degree of local financial commit-
ment, as required under this subsection.
‘‘(4) IMPACT REPORT.—
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—Not later than 240
days after the date of enactment of the Federal
Public Transportation Act of 2005, the Federal
Transit Administration shall submit a report on
the methodology to be used in evaluating the
land use and economic development impacts of
non-fixed guideway or partial fixed guideway
projects to—
†
890
HR 3 EAS
‘‘(i) the Committee on Banking, Hous-
ing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate; and
‘‘(ii) the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Rep-
resentatives.
‘‘(B) CONTENTS.—The report submitted
under subparagraph (A) shall address any quali-
tative and quantitative differences between fixed
guideway and non-fixed guideway projects with
respect to land use and economic development
impacts.
‘‘(5) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 120 days
after the date of enactment of the Federal Public
Transportation Act of 2005, the Secretary shall issue
regulations establishing an evaluation and rating
process for proposed projects under this subsection
that is based on the results of project justification and
local financial commitment, as required under this
subsection.’’.
(g) FULL FUNDING GRANT AGREEMENTS.—Section
5309(g)(2) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(C) BEFORE AND AFTER STUDY.—
‘‘(i) IN
GENERAL.—Each full funding grant
agreement shall require the applicant to conduct a
study that—
†
891
HR 3 EAS
‘‘(I) describes and analyzes the impacts of
the new start project on transit services and
transit ridership;
‘‘(II) evaluates the consistency of predicted
and actual project characteristics and perform-
ance; and
‘‘(III) identifies sources of differences be-
tween predicted and actual outcomes.
‘‘(ii) INFORMATION COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
PLAN.—
‘‘(I) SUBMISSION
OF
PLAN.—Applicants
seeking a full funding grant agreement shall sub-
mit a complete plan for the collection and anal-
ysis of information to identify the impacts of the
new start project and the accuracy of the fore-
casts prepared during the development of the
project. Preparation of this plan shall be in-
cluded in the full funding grant agreement as an
eligible activity.
‘‘(II) CONTENTS OF PLAN.—The plan sub-
mitted under subclause (I) shall provide for—
‘‘(aa) the collection of data on the cur-
rent transit system regarding transit service
levels and ridership patterns, including ori-
†
892
HR 3 EAS
gins and destinations, access modes, trip
purposes, and rider characteristics;
‘‘(bb) documentation of the predicted
scope, service levels, capital costs, operating
costs, and ridership of the project;
‘‘(cc) collection of data on the transit
system 2 years after the opening of the new
start project, including analogous informa-
tion on transit service levels and ridership
patterns and information on the as-built
scope and capital costs of the new start
project; and
‘‘(dd) analysis of the consistency of
predicted project characteristics with the
after data.
‘‘(D) COLLECTION OF DATA ON CURRENT SYSTEM.—
To be eligible for a full funding grant agreement, recipients
shall have collected data on the current system, according
to the plan required, before the beginning of construction
of the proposed new start project. Collection of this data
shall be included in the full funding grant agreement as
an eligible activity.
‘‘(E) PUBLIC
PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIP
PILOT
PRO-
GRAM.—
†
893
HR 3 EAS
‘‘(i) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary may es-
tablish a pilot program to demonstrate the advantages
of public-private partnerships for certain fixed guide-
way systems development projects.
‘‘(ii) 
IDENTIFICATION
OF
QUALIFIED
PROJECTS.—The Secretary shall identify qualified
public-private partnership projects as permitted by
applicable State and local enabling laws and work
with project sponsors to enhance project delivery and
reduce overall costs.’’.
(h) GOVERNMENT SHARE OF NET PROJECT COST.—
Section 5309(h) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(h) GOVERNMENT
SHARE
OF
ADJUSTED
NET
PROJECT COST.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall estimate
the net project cost based on engineering studies, stud-
ies of economic feasibility, and information on the ex-
pected use of equipment or facilities.
‘‘(2) ADJUSTMENT
FOR
COMPLETION
UNDER
BUDGET.—The Secretary may adjust the final net
project cost of a major capital investment project
evaluated under subsections (e) and (f) to include the
cost of eligible activities not included in the originally
defined project if the Secretary determines that the