FTA’s Small Starts Program Charlotte, North Carolina October 11, 2007

2 Small Starts Program Overview Program funding at $200m/yr Simplified Process Alternatives Analysis Project Development Construction Simplified Project Construction Grant Agreement Scope Cost Schedule Federal Funding Maximum Amount and Schedule Local Funding Sources

3 Eligibility - Costs Total cost < $250 million Small Starts share < $75 million Exempt projects (< $25 million New Starts share) may: –Remain exempt until Final Rule – then be evaluated and rated if construction not started or –Be evaluated and rated now as Small Starts

4 Program Goal Fund meritorious projects Develop reliable information on project benefits and costs Ensure projects treated equitably nationally Facilitate communication between FTA, transit industry and Congress

5 Guiding Principles for Development of Small Starts Interim Guidance Evaluation process should not change dramatically from existing process to minimize rating changes given those anticipated in the NPRM Requirements should ensure level playing field for all projects Requirements should be mode-neutral Costs, benefits and impacts should be developed using established methodologies

6 Eligibility - Project Definition Project a fixed guideway for 50% or more of its length during peak, or Project a corridor bus project including at least: –Transit stations –Traffic signal priority or pre-emption –Low floor buses or level boarding –Premium service branding –10 min peak/15 min off-peak headways at least 14 hours a day

7 Eligibility – Additional Features for Very Small Starts Simple, low-cost projects that qualify for streamlined process Very Small Starts eligibility criteria: –Existing daily riders over 3,000 –Total cost under $50 million –Under $3 million per mile, excluding rolling stock

8 Interim Guidance Evaluation of Small Starts Project Justification Subset of Existing New Starts Criteria: -Land-use -Cost-effectiveness -Other factors, including economic development, congestion and pricing strategies, and the case for the project

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

10 Simplification of Small Starts Program Requirements Compared to New Starts Very Small Starts –AA could contain two alternatives and require no more information than developed for a project funded only with local funds –Project justification evaluation requires meeting easily developed information on costs and existing ridership –Local financial commitment evaluation could require meeting 3 easily demonstrated conditions; otherwise financial plan extends only to opening year –No final design approval –Simplified PMP and cost reviews –Simplified PCGA

11 Simplification of Small Starts Program Requirements Compared to New Starts Small Starts –AA could contain few alternatives, use forecasts of transportation benefits with simplified methods and address project opening, not 20-year forecasts –Land use submission reduced for project justification –Local financial commitment evaluation could require meeting 3 easily demonstrated conditions; otherwise financial plan extends only to opening year –No final design approval –Simplified PMP and cost reviews –Simplified PCGA

12 Projects in Project Development Los Angeles Metro Rapid Bus Closure Kansas City Troost Corridor BRT Springfield (OR) Pioneer Parkway BRT King Co (WA) Pacific Highway South BRT Portland Streetcar Loop

13 Pending Project Development Requests Projects Mason (CO) Transportation Corridor BRT Fitchburg (MA) Commuter Rail South Corridor BRT in Grand Rapids, MI Perris Valley (CA) Metrolink Commuter Rail Extension Others in St. Petersburg, Sarasota, Tucson, San Diego, San Francisco, Oakland, Reno, Des Moines, and Aspen Common Issues AA not completed Finances not identified Project not in metro plan

14 Planned Schedule for Rulemaking July 2007: Publication of the Notice of Propose Rulemaking for New and Small Starts July 2007: Publication of Measures document for NPRM Early Summer 2008: Publication of the Final Rule for New and Small Starts Early Summer 2008: Publication of Weights and Measures document for Final Rule

15 No Longer FTA’s Presentation! David Vozzolo, HDR October 11, 2007

16 Emerging Industry Comments Due Nov 1 (yikes!) Working Draft comments by APTA, Community Streetcar Coalition, New Starts Working Group Encourage comments from individual agencies and organizations! Volume does matter! Comments also set stage for New Authorization in 2009.

17 Emerging Industry Comments Suggest a more simplified project rating and project development process Increased consideration of land use and economic development benefits Reduced (or no) consideration of user benefits - travel time savings measures Reduced time and cost required for project milestones and grant agreement