NPRM Overview, Subpart A and Discussion Items for Comment New/Small Starts Outreach Session Charlotte, NC October 9, 2007 Rich Steinmann Assistant to the Administrator

2 Outline for the Session Overview, Discussion Items, Subpart A - Brigid Hynes-Cherin Overview, Discussion Items, Subpart A - Brigid Hynes-Cherin Subpart B, New Starts – Rich Steinmann Subpart B, New Starts – Rich Steinmann Subparts C and D, Small Starts - Sean Libberton Subparts C and D, Small Starts - Sean Libberton Policy Guidance, Measures – Ron Fisher Policy Guidance, Measures – Ron Fisher

3 Overall Purpose of the Session Describe the key provisions of the NPRM and the policy guidance on measures Describe the key provisions of the NPRM and the policy guidance on measures Highlight proposed changes from the existing regulation and policy Highlight proposed changes from the existing regulation and policy Answer questions to clarify provisions and provide the underlying rationale Answer questions to clarify provisions and provide the underlying rationale Encourage substantive comments to the docket Encourage substantive comments to the docket – comments made at this session are not official – comments due November 1, 2007 – comments due November 1, 2007

4 Tips for Submitting Effective Comments Demonstrate an understanding of the FTA rationale for the proposed provision Demonstrate an understanding of the FTA rationale for the proposed provision Provide coherent discussion of reasons for supporting/opposing the provision Provide coherent discussion of reasons for supporting/opposing the provision Provide cogent description of any proposed changes to provision Provide cogent description of any proposed changes to provision OR suggest a different alternative OR suggest a different alternative

5 Underlying Principles Used to Develop the NPRM and Policy Guidance Projects admitted into PE have resolved all planning issues and have realistic and reliable forecasts of costs, benefits and impacts Projects admitted into PE have resolved all planning issues and have realistic and reliable forecasts of costs, benefits and impacts Measures are objective, based on established research, and respond to statutory criteria Measures are objective, based on established research, and respond to statutory criteria Project sponsors have the capability to generate information for measures Project sponsors have the capability to generate information for measures

6 Difference in Effect of NPRM versus Policy Guidance NPRM NPRM –Describes eligibility, criteria and key weights, ratings and project development process –Changes require an amendment to the rule Policy Guidance on Evaluation Measures Policy Guidance on Evaluation Measures –Describes weights and measures not referenced in NPRM and how they will be applied for ratings –Changes require notice and comment before issuing revised policy guidance

7 NPRM Contents Guidance on New Starts Policies and Procedures (issued Jan ‘06) Guidance on New Starts Policies and Procedures (issued Jan ‘06) –38 questions with comments, FTA responses and proposals ANPRM for Small Starts (issued Jan ‘06) ANPRM for Small Starts (issued Jan ‘06) –20 questions with comments, FTA responses and proposals Section-by-Section Analysis Section-by-Section Analysis Additional Discussion Items for Comments Additional Discussion Items for Comments NPRM Content NPRM Content

8 NPRM Organization Subpart A – General Provisions Subpart A – General Provisions - Purpose and contents - Applicability - Definitions - Measures of reliability in the Section 5309 capital investment evaluation and rating process

9 NPRM Organization Subpart B/C/D – New Starts/Small Starts/Very Small Starts Subpart B/C/D – New Starts/Small Starts/Very Small Starts - Eligibility - Project justification criteria - Local financial commitment criteria - Overall project ratings - Project development process

10 Discussion Item 1. Expand the definition of fixed guideway In addition to SAFETEA-LU changes, include facilities that achieve free-flow conditions through pricing, such as HOT lanes In addition to SAFETEA-LU changes, include facilities that achieve free-flow conditions through pricing, such as HOT lanes –If transit uses a barrier-separated ROW AND –95% of the transit vehicles using the facility will maintain an average speed of not less than 5 MPH below posted speed limit Funds could only be used to construct that portion of the facility that benefits transit and only if it meets New Starts criteria Funds could only be used to construct that portion of the facility that benefits transit and only if it meets New Starts criteria Definition does not alter “fixed guideway mile” for purposes of calculating distribution of funds under the formula program Definition does not alter “fixed guideway mile” for purposes of calculating distribution of funds under the formula program

11 Discussion Item 2. Cost effectiveness must include all “essential project elements” If all elements needed to generate forecast year demand are not included, FTA will not rate project, however If all elements needed to generate forecast year demand are not included, FTA will not rate project, however –What constitutes a “betterment” which is appropriately funded with local funds –Can improvements needed beyond the planning time frame be included in the financial plan and CE calculation but not the FFGA application (“rightsizing”)

12 Discussion Item 3. Use an extremely simplified evaluation framework for Small Starts Use financial commitment as a readiness condition, not a rating factor Use financial commitment as a readiness condition, not a rating factor Rate projects as high, medium or low for project justification (PJ) Rate projects as high, medium or low for project justification (PJ) Assess both CE and economic development /land use as either “pass” or “fail” Assess both CE and economic development /land use as either “pass” or “fail” Two “pass” ratings yield high PJ rating, CE “pass” yields medium, CE “fail” or two “fails” yield low Two “pass” ratings yield high PJ rating, CE “pass” yields medium, CE “fail” or two “fails” yield low PJ rating modified by reliability rating to get five tier overall rating PJ rating modified by reliability rating to get five tier overall rating Less able to distinguish between projects although identifies projects with most potential Less able to distinguish between projects although identifies projects with most potential

13 Discussion Item 4. Federal investments should contribute to reducing congestion Ratings will take into account whether Ratings will take into account whether –the project is supported by a variable pricing strategy –there are any measurable highway travel time savings –there is improved mobility (reduction in highway VMT weighted by a factor for highway congestion) Need input on Need input on –Implications for transit of measuring congestion reduction benefits –Ways to measure highway benefits and improved mobility –Improving current travel models to produce better results and more consistent estimates

14 Discussion Item 5. Incentives to increase the use of PPPs Ratings take into account Ratings take into account –Innovative contractual arrangements to reduce operating costs Need input on Need input on –Assuming an otherwise acceptable cost effectiveness rating, should “betterments” funded by private sector (not “in kind contribution” but private equity) be excluded from cost effectiveness measure? –Examples include additional station entrances additional station entrances improvements to station design beyond standards improvements to station design beyond standards changes in vertical or horizontal alignment changes in vertical or horizontal alignment –Alternatively, should all private capital be excluded from the cost effectiveness measure?

15 Discussion Item 6. Include measures in the final rule If measures are included in the rule instead of a separate policy guidance than any change in measures would require an amendment to the rule in order to change the measures If measures are included in the rule instead of a separate policy guidance than any change in measures would require an amendment to the rule in order to change the measures –Can we develop better measures over time that should be implemented in a timely manner? –Are we better served by stability in the measures?

16 Discussion Item 7. Better quantify project benefits What methodology would forecast the benefits that accrue from the interaction of the proposed project and road pricing? What methodology would forecast the benefits that accrue from the interaction of the proposed project and road pricing? What methodology could be deployed to quantify any additional economic development/land benefits resulting from the project, that are not already included in the user benefits, and what would it measure? What methodology could be deployed to quantify any additional economic development/land benefits resulting from the project, that are not already included in the user benefits, and what would it measure?

17 Discussion Item 7. (continued) Current Land Use (LU) measures Current Land Use (LU) measures –Likelihood of additional development –Likelihood of project achieving ridership forecasts –Magnitude of local support as reflected in plans, policies and past performance Combined EconDev/LU Measures Combined EconDev/LU Measures –Extent current land use is ripe for development –Transit-oriented plans and policies –Economic development climate in the corridor –Increased transit accessibility of the project –Economic lifespan of the project

18 Discussion Item 7 (continued) Benefits not currently measured Benefits not currently measured –Forecast of projected development –The trip not taken and/or shorter trips –Economic/Social effects of TOD –Reduction in the cost of delivery of other public services, e.g. more compact utility location How to quantify measures How to quantify measures –Ability to include in cost effectiveness

19 Subpart A: General Provisions Purpose and content on Part 611 Purpose and content on Part 611 Applicability of Part 611 Applicability of Part 611 Definition of terms Definition of terms Consideration of measures of reliability Consideration of measures of reliability

20 Subpart A: Applicability Part 611 applies to all projects seeking New Starts/Small Starts funds unless at the time the final rule is issued : Part 611 applies to all projects seeking New Starts/Small Starts funds unless at the time the final rule is issued : –The project has been approved into FD, and there are no major project changes –The project was an exempt project ($25M or less) and requests funds appropriated prior to the final rule, as long as all other grant requirements are met

21 Subpart A: Key Definitions Fixed Guideway System: – or rail for exclusive use by public transportation or high occupancy vehicles for at least 50% of its length NEW! OR – facility in separate ROW or rail for exclusive use by public transportation or high occupancy vehicles for at least 50% of its length NEW! OR – uses ROW usable by other forms of transportation but has a fixed catenary system OR – is a corridor based bus (for Small Starts), having at least 50% of its length as fixed guideway during peak periods OR

22 Subpart A: Key Definitions Fixed Guideway System (con’t) – represents a substantial investment in a defined corridor OR – uses a barrier-separated ROW and 95% of the transit vehicles using the facility will maintain an average speed of not less than 5 MPH below posted speed limit. (definition does not alter that for “fixed guideway mile” for the formula program) NEW!

23 Subpart A: Key Definitions TSM alternative : – …”At a minimum it must be more cost effective as compared to the no build alternative than the New or Small Start project compared to the no build alternative”…. NEW! – …”At a minimum it must be more cost effective as compared to the no build alternative than the New or Small Start project compared to the no build alternative”…. NEW!–

24 Subpart A: Measures of reliability in the evaluation and rating process Measures and their ratings will be applied to each project justification and local financial commitment criterion rating increasing or decreasing the criterion rating Measures and their ratings will be applied to each project justification and local financial commitment criterion rating increasing or decreasing the criterion rating Reliability measures are identified in the policy guidance Reliability measures are identified in the policy guidance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – New Starts Ron Fisher Director, Office of Project Planning Office of Planning and Environment

26 NPRM Topics To Be Covered Eligibility Eligibility Project justification Project justification Local financial commitment Local financial commitment Overall project rating Overall project rating Project development Project development

27 New Starts Eligibility Project is based on the results of an alternatives analysis Project is based on the results of an alternatives analysis Total project cost ≥ $250M OR New Starts Funding ≥ $75M Total project cost ≥ $250M OR New Starts Funding ≥ $75M At least 50% of the project length operating on a fixed guideway in the peak period NEW! At least 50% of the project length operating on a fixed guideway in the peak period NEW! May not be subdivided into Small or Very Small Starts NEW! May not be subdivided into Small or Very Small Starts NEW!

28 New Starts Project Justification Rating Cost Effectiveness (50%)Effectiveness (50%) Mobility 40% Transit Dep. Mobility 10% Env. Benefits 10% Econ Dev / Land Use 40% Project Justification Other Factors MTC Cong. Pricing

29 New Starts Project Justification Rating Cost Effectiveness (CE) Definition Definition Annualized Capital and Operating Costs Annualized Capital and Operating Costs Transportation System User Benefits Transportation System User Benefits Breakpoints for ratings adjusted annually in the Reporting Instructions Breakpoints for ratings adjusted annually in the Reporting Instructions Operating efficiencies no longer explicit evaluation criteria; inherent in CE Operating efficiencies no longer explicit evaluation criteria; inherent in CE

30 New Starts Project Justification Rating Effectiveness – Mobility (40%) NEW! Mobility for general population, including congestion relief Mobility for general population, including congestion relief Congestion relief based on degree to which project reduces highway travel demand and the relative level of congestion in the corridor based on estimated delay Congestion relief based on degree to which project reduces highway travel demand and the relative level of congestion in the corridor based on estimated delay

31 New Starts Project Justification Rating Effectiveness – Econ. Dev / Land Use (40%) NEW! Extent to which current land use is ripe for development Extent to which current land use is ripe for development Transit-oriented plans and policies Transit-oriented plans and policies Economic development climate in the project corridor Economic development climate in the project corridor Increase in transit accessibility offered by the project Increase in transit accessibility offered by the project Economic lifespan of the project Economic lifespan of the project

32 New Starts Project Justification Rating Other Factors Make the Case always rated Make the Case always rated Project is a principle element in a congestion management/pricing strategy Project is a principle element in a congestion management/pricing strategy Additional Factors Additional Factors –Any factor the project sponsor believes not captured elsewhere in project justification criteria –Any factors the Secretary decides important

33 New Starts Local Financial Commitment Rating Capital Finance Plan (50%) Operating Finance Plan (50%) Local Financial Commitment

34 5 Level Rating Scale: High, Medium-High, Medium, Medium-Low, and Low 5 Level Rating Scale: High, Medium-High, Medium, Medium-Low, and Low Ratings will be given: Ratings will be given: –When the project moves from one step to the next –OR– –If the project has experienced significant changes for the Annual report –OR– –If the project is being considered for a funding recommendation Must receive at least a “medium” to move from one step to the next or to receive a funding recommendation Must receive at least a “medium” to move from one step to the next or to receive a funding recommendation Both the project justification and local financial commitment rating must be a “high, medium-high, or medium” in order to achieve an overall project rating of a “high, medium-high, or medium” NEW! Both the project justification and local financial commitment rating must be a “high, medium-high, or medium” in order to achieve an overall project rating of a “high, medium-high, or medium” NEW! New Starts Overall Project Rating

35 Application Evaluation / Review Time Upon receipt of a complete formal request… PE PE –FTA will complete an application evaluation within 30 days FD FD –FTA will complete an application evaluation within 120 days New Starts Project Development Process

36 Definition of Preliminary Engineering: Finalization of project scope, cost and financial plan so that: NEPA is concluded NEPA is concluded Design is sufficient to obviate significant unknown costs Design is sufficient to obviate significant unknown costs Cost estimate supports financial plan Cost estimate supports financial plan Credible, relevant, identifiable and cost effective industry practices can be applied in FD Credible, relevant, identifiable and cost effective industry practices can be applied in FD New Starts Project Development Process

37 Preliminary Engineering Entry Requirements: AA is complete AA is complete FTA has approved the baseline alternative FTA has approved the baseline alternative Project sponsors must demonstrate adequate technical capacity to carry out PE Project sponsors must demonstrate adequate technical capacity to carry out PE NEPA scoping complete NEPA scoping complete Proposed project adopted into regional transportation plan Proposed project adopted into regional transportation plan Before and After Study Requirements: Develop preliminary plan to conduct Before and After Study Develop preliminary plan to conduct Before and After Study AA data and an analysis of uncertainties required for Before and After Study must be submitted AA data and an analysis of uncertainties required for Before and After Study must be submitted Identify entity responsible for each forecast or estimate Identify entity responsible for each forecast or estimate Note: Funding for collection and analysis of data related to the Before and After Study may be included (up to 80%) in the project’s eligible funding expenses. New Starts Project Development Process

38 NEW! Preliminary Engineering Entry Requirements: Independent endorsement received from potential funding partners Independent endorsement received from potential funding partners Travel demand models validated against a survey of transit riders not more than 5 years old Travel demand models validated against a survey of transit riders not more than 5 years old Execute project development agreement (PDA) with FTA Execute project development agreement (PDA) with FTA New Starts Project Development Process

39 Final Design Entry Requirements: NEPA process complete NEPA process complete All conditions for completion of PE met All conditions for completion of PE met If significant changes to project definition or cost have occurred in PE, the project must be reaffirmed in the regional plan NEW! If significant changes to project definition or cost have occurred in PE, the project must be reaffirmed in the regional plan NEW! FTA and project sponsor have agreed on exact amount of funding sought NEW! FTA and project sponsor have agreed on exact amount of funding sought NEW! Before and After Study Requirements: Project data through end of PE must be submitted to FTA Project data through end of PE must be submitted to FTA Finalize plan to conduct Before and After Study NEW! Finalize plan to conduct Before and After Study NEW! Any changes in scope, costs, service levels, or ridership from AA estimates should be analyzed and documented in a memo. Any changes in scope, costs, service levels, or ridership from AA estimates should be analyzed and documented in a memo. Identify entity responsible for each forecast or estimate Identify entity responsible for each forecast or estimate New Starts Project Development Process

40 Full Funding Grant Agreement: Projects that meet or exceed requirements are eligible but not guaranteed to receive a funding recommendation Projects that meet or exceed requirements are eligible but not guaranteed to receive a funding recommendation Incentive Clause NEW! – FTA will process an amendment for incentive funds AFTER project is complete and operating IF: Incentive Clause NEW! – FTA will process an amendment for incentive funds AFTER project is complete and operating IF: –Actual opening year ridership no less than 90% of forecast AND actual capital costs are not more than 110% of that estimated upon entry into PE No outstanding issues exist that may interfere with successful implementation of the project No outstanding issues exist that may interfere with successful implementation of the project At least medium cost effectiveness rating to be recommended for funding At least medium cost effectiveness rating to be recommended for funding New Starts Project Development Process

41 Full Funding Grant Agreement (Con’t): Before and After Study Requirements: Prior to construction activities, collect before data if not collected as part of final design Prior to construction activities, collect before data if not collected as part of final design Two years after project opens for revenue service, collect after data Two years after project opens for revenue service, collect after data Submit report analyzing findings and include supporting data no later than 30 months after project opened for revenue service NEW! Submit report analyzing findings and include supporting data no later than 30 months after project opened for revenue service NEW! New Starts Project Development Process

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – Small and Very Small Starts Sean Libberton Chief, Analysis Division Office of Planning and Environment

43 FTA’s Proposed Approach to Small and Very Small Starts Adopt a Simplified Version of existing New Starts process for Small Starts Adopt a Simplified Version of existing New Starts process for Small Starts Implement a “Warrants” system for Very Small Starts Implement a “Warrants” system for Very Small Starts

44 FTA’s Proposed Approach to Small and Very Small Starts How Small and Very Small Starts differ from New Starts: AA could contain few alternatives, use forecasts of transportation benefits with simplified methods and address project opening, not 20-year forecasts (Small Starts only) AA could contain few alternatives, use forecasts of transportation benefits with simplified methods and address project opening, not 20-year forecasts (Small Starts only) Land use submission reduced for project justification (Small Starts only) Land use submission reduced for project justification (Small Starts only) No final design approval No final design approval Simplified PMP and cost reviews Simplified PMP and cost reviews Simplified PCGA Simplified PCGA

45 NPRM Topics To Be Covered Eligibility Eligibility Project justification Project justification Local financial commitment Local financial commitment Overall project rating Overall project rating Project development Project development

46 Small Starts Eligibility Project is based on the results of an alternatives analysis Project is based on the results of an alternatives analysis Total cost < $250M AND request for Small Starts funding < $75M Total cost < $250M AND request for Small Starts funding < $75M May not be part of a larger New Starts project; all potential Small Starts envisioned for a corridor will be considered as a single project. May not be part of a larger New Starts project; all potential Small Starts envisioned for a corridor will be considered as a single project.

47 Small Starts Eligibility At least 50% of the project length operating on a fixed guideway in the peak period –OR– At least 50% of the project length operating on a fixed guideway in the peak period –OR– Be a corridor based bus project with the following elements: Be a corridor based bus project with the following elements: –Substantial transit stations –Traffic signal priority / pre-emption –Low floor buses or level boarding –Branding of the proposed service –10 min peak / 15 min off-peak headways for at least 14 hours a day

48 Very Small Starts Eligibility Must Meet All of the Preceding Requirements Plus: Total cost of less than $50 million Total cost of less than $50 million Less than $3 million/mile (exclusive of rolling stock) Less than $3 million/mile (exclusive of rolling stock) Ridership of 3,000 or more on an average weekday Ridership of 3,000 or more on an average weekday May not be part of a larger New Starts project; all potential Very Small Starts in a corridor will be considered as a single project. May not be part of a larger New Starts project; all potential Very Small Starts in a corridor will be considered as a single project.

49 Small Starts Project Justification Rating Cost Effectiveness (50%)Effectiveness (50%) Mobility 40% Econ dev/LU 60% Other Factors: 1.MTC 2.Cong Pricing Project Justification

50 Small Starts Project Justification Rating Cost Effectiveness (CE) Definition Definition Annualized Capital and Operating Costs Annualized Capital and Operating Costs Transportation System User Benefits Transportation System User Benefits Breakpoints for ratings adjusted annually in the Reporting Instructions Breakpoints for ratings adjusted annually in the Reporting Instructions

51 Small Starts Project Justification Rating Effectiveness – Mobility (40%) NEW! Mobility for general population, including congestion relief Mobility for general population, including congestion relief Congestion relief based on degree to which project reduces highway travel demand and the relative level of congestion in the corridor based on estimated delay Congestion relief based on degree to which project reduces highway travel demand and the relative level of congestion in the corridor based on estimated delay

52 Small Starts Project Justification Rating Effectiveness – Econ. Dev / Land Use (60%) NEW! Extent to which current land use is ripe for development Extent to which current land use is ripe for development Transit-oriented plans and policies Transit-oriented plans and policies Economic development climate in the project corridor Economic development climate in the project corridor Increase in transit accessibility offered by the project Increase in transit accessibility offered by the project Economic lifespan of the project Economic lifespan of the project

53 Small Starts Project Justification Rating Other Factors Make the Case always rated Make the Case always rated Project is a principle element in a congestion management plan with pricing as a strategy Project is a principle element in a congestion management plan with pricing as a strategy Any factor the project sponsor believes not captured elsewhere in project justification criteria Any factor the project sponsor believes not captured elsewhere in project justification criteria Any factors the Secretary decides important Any factors the Secretary decides important

54 Small and Very Small Starts Local Financial Commitment Rating Capital Finance Plan (50%) Operating Finance Plan (50%) Local Financial Commitment

55 Small Starts Overall Project Rating Overall Project Rating: Overall Project Rating: –Project Justification Rating (50%) –Local Financial Commitment (50%) 5 Level Rating Scale: High, Medium-High, Medium, Medium-Low, and Low 5 Level Rating Scale: High, Medium-High, Medium, Medium-Low, and Low Both the project justification and local financial commitment rating must be a “high, medium- high, or medium” in order to achieve an overall project rating of a “high, medium-high, or medium” Both the project justification and local financial commitment rating must be a “high, medium- high, or medium” in order to achieve an overall project rating of a “high, medium-high, or medium”

56 Small Starts Overall Project Rating OPTION 2 FRAMEWORK INITIAL RATINGEVALUATIONREADINESSFINAL RATINGFILTER Financial Plan, Technical and Legal Capacity, Status in LRTP Cost Effectiveness Ec Dev / Land Use BOTH PASS BOTH FAIL High Rating Medium Rating Low Rating Reliability Overmatch Problem or Opportunity High Rating High-Med Rating Medium Rating Med-Low Rating Low Rating ONLY COST - EFFECTIVENESS PASSES

57 Ratings given for: Ratings given for: –Requests to enter project development–OR– –Annual Report if project has experienced significant changes –OR– –Project considered for a funding recommendation Must receive at least a “medium” to advance into project development or receive a funding recommendation Must receive at least a “medium” to advance into project development or receive a funding recommendation Small Starts Overall Project Rating

58 Alternatives Analysis (AA) An AA must develop information on a project’s: An AA must develop information on a project’s: –Benefits –Costs –How well it addresses a transportation problem or opportunity in a corridor Must include a no-build, at least one TSM, and as many build options as appropriate Must include a no-build, at least one TSM, and as many build options as appropriate –The no-build can serve as the baseline alternative if LPA fits the definition of TSM –If LPA is a fixed guideway, TSM is the Small Starts baseline The LPA must be selected from the evaluated alternatives and formally adopted and included in the metropolitan transportation plan The LPA must be selected from the evaluated alternatives and formally adopted and included in the metropolitan transportation plan Small and Very Small Starts Project Development Process

59 Project Development Entry Requirements: AA is complete AA is complete FTA has approved the baseline alternative FTA has approved the baseline alternative Project sponsors must demonstrate adequate technical capacity to design and construct the project Project sponsors must demonstrate adequate technical capacity to design and construct the project NEPA scoping complete NEPA scoping complete Proposed project adopted into regional transportation plan Proposed project adopted into regional transportation plan Overall rating at least “medium” Overall rating at least “medium” NOTE: Project Development is the only phase requiring FTA approval Small and Very Small Starts Project Development Process

60 NEW! Project Development (PD) Entry Requirements: Independent endorsement has been received from potential funding partners Independent endorsement has been received from potential funding partners Travel demand models validated against a survey of transit riders (Not applicable to Very Small Starts) Travel demand models validated against a survey of transit riders (Not applicable to Very Small Starts) Small and Very Small Starts Project Development Process

61 PD Entry Requirements for Before/After Study: Develop preliminary plan to conduct Before and After Study Develop preliminary plan to conduct Before and After Study Submit initial information on project scope, service levels, capital costs, O&M costs, and ridership projected during AA and discussion of uncertainties Submit initial information on project scope, service levels, capital costs, O&M costs, and ridership projected during AA and discussion of uncertainties Identify entity responsible for each forecast or estimate of above Identify entity responsible for each forecast or estimate of above Note: Funding for collection and analysis of data related to the Before and After Study may be included (up to 80%) in the project’s eligible funding expenses. Small and Very Small Starts Project Development Process

62 Definition of Project Development: Finalization of project scope, cost and financial plan so that: NEPA is concluded NEPA is concluded Design sufficient obviating significant unknown costs Design sufficient obviating significant unknown costs Cost estimate supports financial plan Cost estimate supports financial plan Credible, relevant, identifiable and cost effective industry practices FD Credible, relevant, identifiable and cost effective industry practices FD Small and Very Small Starts Project Development Process

63 Project Construction Grant Agreement (PCGA): NEPA process is complete NEPA process is complete Project reaffirmed in metropolitan plan if significant changes to scope or costs occurred since AA Project reaffirmed in metropolitan plan if significant changes to scope or costs occurred since AA No outstanding issues exist that may interfere with successful implementation of the project No outstanding issues exist that may interfere with successful implementation of the project Overall project rating at least a “medium” Overall project rating at least a “medium” Cost effectiveness rating at least “medium” Cost effectiveness rating at least “medium” Small and Very Small Starts Project Development Process

64 PCGA Requirements for Before/After Study: Complete Before and After Study plan Complete Before and After Study plan Changes from AA should be analyzed and documented in a memo Changes from AA should be analyzed and documented in a memo Project data through end of PD must be submitted to FTA Project data through end of PD must be submitted to FTA Identify entity responsible for forecasts and estimates Identify entity responsible for forecasts and estimates Prior to construction, collect before data if not collected as part of project development Prior to construction, collect before data if not collected as part of project development Collect After Data Collect After Data –Small Starts: Two years after project opens for revenue service –Very Small Starts: One year after project opens for revenue service Submit report analyzing findings and include supporting data Submit report analyzing findings and include supporting data –Small Starts: 30 months after project opens for revenue service –Very Small Starts: 18 months after project opens for revenue service Small and Very Small Starts Project Development Process

Proposed Policy Guidance on Evaluation Measures for New/Small Starts Ron Fisher Director, Office of Project Planning Office of Planning and Environment

66 Approach to Documents NPRM NPRM –Includes information on eligibility, criteria and key weights, ratings and project development Policy Guidance on Evaluation Measures for New/Small Starts Policy Guidance on Evaluation Measures for New/Small Starts –Describes measures not referenced in NPRM and how they will be applied for ratings

67 New Starts Project Justification Measures Cost Effectiveness (50%)Effectiveness (50%) Mobility 40% Transit Dep. Mobility 10% Env. Benefits 10% Econ Dev / Land Use 40% Project Justification Other Factors MTC Cong. Pricing Reliability

68 New Starts Project Justification Measures Effectiveness Addresses the magnitude of various benefits of a project without regard to cost Addresses the magnitude of various benefits of a project without regard to cost Benefit measures should be scaled to the project so they don’t always favor large projects Benefit measures should be scaled to the project so they don’t always favor large projects Projects can be effective but rate poorly on cost effectiveness and vice versa Projects can be effective but rate poorly on cost effectiveness and vice versa Cost Effectiveness Addresses the question of how project benefits compare to costs Addresses the question of how project benefits compare to costs

69 New Starts Project Justification Measures Effectiveness General Mobility Average project weekday ridership Average project weekday ridership User benefits per passenger mile on the project User benefits per passenger mile on the project Severity of the current congestion in the project corridor Severity of the current congestion in the project corridor - percent average deviation in peak period average speeds vs free flow - person hours of delay - level of service in corridor - ratio of daily miles to lane miles

70 New Starts Project Justification Measures Effectiveness (con’t) Economic Development / Land Use Economic Development / Land Use –The extent to which proposed station areas can be further developed –The extent to which plans and policies encourage transit-oriented development –Local economic conditions –Increased accessibility of the project –Permanence of the project

71 New Starts Project Justification Measures Effectiveness (con’t) Mobility for Transit Dependents Mobility for Transit Dependents –Share of the project’s user benefits for transit dependents, normalized by the share of the metropolitan area’s population found in the lowest income/auto-ownership stratum –Number of transit dependent riders on the project –User benefits of transit dependents per project passenger-mile

72 New Starts Project Justification Measures Effectiveness (con’t) Environmental Benefits Environmental Benefits –ISO Certification –EPA ratings for the most recent NEPA document –Person-days of exposure to “bad air” within the service area

73 New Starts Project Justification Measures Cost Effectiveness Mobility-Focused measure Mobility-Focused measure

74 New Starts Project Justification Measures Reliability Transit-orientation of existing and future land use plans and policies Transit-orientation of existing and future land use plans and policies Project sponsor experience with implementing previous projects Project sponsor experience with implementing previous projects Industry experience with the proposed project type in similar settings Industry experience with the proposed project type in similar settings Reliability of forecasting methods Reliability of forecasting methods The degree to which future ridership projections depend on substantial population and employment growth beyond the opening year The degree to which future ridership projections depend on substantial population and employment growth beyond the opening year Use of innovative contractual agreements for operations Use of innovative contractual agreements for operations Mitigation actions taken by project sponsor Mitigation actions taken by project sponsor NOTE: The reliability measure will be used to raise or lower the rating for the criteria affected by reliability

75 New Starts Project Justification Measures Other Factors: If a proposed project is a principle element of a congestion management strategy, in general, and a pricing strategy, in particular If a proposed project is a principle element of a congestion management strategy, in general, and a pricing strategy, in particular The degree to which a New Starts project addresses significant problems or opportunities in a corridor and the appropriateness of the preferred alternative as a response by reviewing the “make-the-case” document The degree to which a New Starts project addresses significant problems or opportunities in a corridor and the appropriateness of the preferred alternative as a response by reviewing the “make-the-case” document NOTE: Other factors could increase the project justification rating one level if near a breakpoint

76 New Starts Project Justification Measures Other Factors: Make-the-Case Identification of nature, extent and timing of problem including: Identification of nature, extent and timing of problem including: –Roadway congestion including travel markets affected –Effects of congestion on transit performance –Impacts of congestion and other accessibility problems on economic development plans –Extent to which problems are current vs forecast Effectiveness of project in addressing problems including: Effectiveness of project in addressing problems including: –Improvements in quality of transit service in terms of reduced travel and wait times, improved reliability –Ridership response and economic development impacts

77 New Starts Local Financial Commitment Rating Capital Finance Plan (50%) Operating Finance Plan (50%) Capacity / Estimates / Assumptions – 50% Condition – 25% Commitment – 25% Local Financial Commitment Other Factors Overmatch Innovative Contract. Agreements

78 New Starts Local Financial Commitment Rating Other Factors: Overmatch Requested New Starts share is less than 50% of the total project cost –AND– Requested New Starts share is less than 50% of the total project cost –AND– Overall local financial commitment rating is “medium” or “medium- high”, –THEN– Overall local financial commitment rating is “medium” or “medium- high”, –THEN– Overall local financial commitment rating will be raised one level. Overall local financial commitment rating will be raised one level. Innovative Contractual Agreements If the project sponsor can demonstrate that they have provided the opportunity for the operation and maintenance of the project to be contracted out –AND– If the project sponsor can demonstrate that they have provided the opportunity for the operation and maintenance of the project to be contracted out –AND– Overall local financial commitment rating is “medium” or “medium- high”, –THEN– Overall local financial commitment rating is “medium” or “medium- high”, –THEN– Overall local financial commitment rating will be raised one level. Overall local financial commitment rating will be raised one level.

79 New Starts Local Financial Commitment Rating Other Factors (continued): Additional Considerations… If either of a proposed project’s capital or operating finance plans receives a Medium ‑ Low or Low rating, the overall local financial commitment rating cannot be higher than a Medium-Low If either of a proposed project’s capital or operating finance plans receives a Medium ‑ Low or Low rating, the overall local financial commitment rating cannot be higher than a Medium-Low To receive an overall local financial commitment rating of Medium-High, both the capital and operating finance plans must be rated at least Medium-High To receive an overall local financial commitment rating of Medium-High, both the capital and operating finance plans must be rated at least Medium-High

80 Small Starts Project Justification Rating Cost Effectiveness (50%)Effectiveness (50%) Mobility 40% Land Use 60% Other Factors (Econ Development) Project Justification Reliability

81 Small Starts Project Justification Measures Effectiveness General Mobility General Mobility –Number of average weekday riders on the project –User benefits per passenger mile on the project –Severity of the current congestion in the project corridor

82 Small Starts Project Justification Measures Effectiveness (continued) Economic Development / Land Use Economic Development / Land Use –The extent to which proposed station areas can be further developed –The extent to which plans and policies encourage transit-oriented development –Local economic conditions –Increased accessibility of the project –Permanence of the project

83 Small Starts Project Justification Measures Cost Effectiveness Mobility-Focused measure Mobility-Focused measure

84 Small Starts Project Justification Measures Reliability Transit-orientation of existing and future land use plans and policies Transit-orientation of existing and future land use plans and policies Project sponsor experience with implementing previous projects Project sponsor experience with implementing previous projects Industry experience with the proposed project type in similar settings Industry experience with the proposed project type in similar settings Reliability of forecasting methods Reliability of forecasting methods The degree to which future ridership projections depend on substantial population and employment growth beyond the opening year The degree to which future ridership projections depend on substantial population and employment growth beyond the opening year Use of innovative contractual agreements for operations Use of innovative contractual agreements for operations Mitigation actions taken by project sponsor Mitigation actions taken by project sponsor NOTE: The reliability measure will be used to raise or lower the rating for the criteria affected by reliability

85 Small Starts Project Justification Measures Other Factors: If a proposed project is a principle element of a congestion management strategy, in general, and a pricing strategy, in particular If a proposed project is a principle element of a congestion management strategy, in general, and a pricing strategy, in particular FTA proposes to rate the degree to which a Small Starts project addresses significant problems or opportunities in a corridor and the appropriateness of the preferred alternative as a response by reviewing the “make-the-case” document FTA proposes to rate the degree to which a Small Starts project addresses significant problems or opportunities in a corridor and the appropriateness of the preferred alternative as a response by reviewing the “make-the-case” document NOTE: Other factors will increase the project justification rating one level if near a breakpoint

86 Small Starts Local Financial Commitment Rating Capital Finance Plan (50%) Operating Finance Plan (50%) Capacity / Estimates / Assumptions – 50% Condition – 25% Commitment – 25% Local Financial Commitment Other Factors Overmatch Innovative Contract. Agreements

87 Small Starts Local Financial Commitment Rating Other Factors: Overmatch Requested Small Starts share is less than 50% of the total project cost –AND– Requested Small Starts share is less than 50% of the total project cost –AND– Overall local financial commitment rating is “medium” or “medium- high”, –THEN– Overall local financial commitment rating is “medium” or “medium- high”, –THEN– Overall local financial commitment rating will be raised one level. Overall local financial commitment rating will be raised one level. Innovative Contractual Agreements If the project sponsor can demonstrate that they have provided the opportunity for the operation and maintenance of the project to be contracted out –AND– If the project sponsor can demonstrate that they have provided the opportunity for the operation and maintenance of the project to be contracted out –AND– Overall local financial commitment rating is “medium” or “medium- high”, –THEN– Overall local financial commitment rating is “medium” or “medium- high”, –THEN– Overall local financial commitment rating will be raised one level. Overall local financial commitment rating will be raised one level.

88 Small Starts Local Financial Commitment Rating Other Factors (continued): Additional Considerations… If either of a proposed project’s capital or operating finance plans receives a Medium ‑ Low or Low rating, the overall local financial commitment rating cannot be higher than a Medium-Low If either of a proposed project’s capital or operating finance plans receives a Medium ‑ Low or Low rating, the overall local financial commitment rating cannot be higher than a Medium-Low To receive an overall local financial commitment rating of Medium-High, both the capital and operating finance plans must be rated at least Medium-High To receive an overall local financial commitment rating of Medium-High, both the capital and operating finance plans must be rated at least Medium-High