Appendix A to Part 611 - Description of Measures Used for Project Evaluation
49:7.1.2.1.7.5.1.1.37 : Appendix A
Appendix A to Part 611 - Description of Measures Used for Project
Evaluation Project Justification New Starts New Starts Project
Justification
FTA will evaluate candidate New Starts projects according to the
six project justification criteria established by 49 U.S.C.
5309(d)(2)(A)(iii). From time to time, but not less frequently than
every two years as directed by 49 U.S.C. 5309(g)(5), FTA publishes
for public comment policy guidance on the application of these
measures, and the agency expects it will continue to do so.
Moreover, FTA may choose to amend these measures, pending the
results of ongoing studies regarding transit benefit and cost
evaluation methods. In addition, FTA may establish warrants for one
or more of these criteria through which an automatic rating would
be assigned based on the characteristics of the project and/or its
corridor. FTA will develop these warrants based on analysis of the
features of projects and/or corridor characteristics that would
produce satisfactory ratings on one or more of the criteria. Such
warrants would be included in policy guidance issued for public
comment before being finalized.
(a) Definitions. In this Appendix, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Enrichments mean certain improvements to the transit
project desired by the grant recipient that are non-integral to the
basic functioning of the project, whose benefits are not captured
in whole by other criteria, and are carried out simultaneous with
grant execution and may be included in the Federal grant.
Enrichments include but are not limited to artwork, landscaping,
and bicycle and pedestrian improvements such as sidewalks, paths,
plazas, site and station furniture, site lighting, signage, public
artwork, bike facilities, and permanent fencing. Enrichments also
include sustainable building design features of up to 2.5 percent
of the total cost of the facilities (when such facilities are
designed to achieve a third-party certification or to optimize a
building's design to use less energy, water and reduce greenhouse
gas emissions that may not lead directly to an official
certification).
(2) Transit dependent person as used in this context
means either a person from a household that owns no cars or a
person whose household income places them in the lowest income
stratum of the local travel demand model. For those project
sponsors choosing to use the simplified national model “transit
dependent persons” will be defined as individuals residing in
households that do not own a car. Project sponsors that choose to
continue to use their local travel model rather than the FTA
developed simplified national model to estimate trips will define
transit dependent persons as individuals in the lowest
socioeconomic stratum as defined in the local model, which is
usually either households with no cars or households in the lowest
locally defined income bracket.
(3) Trips mean linked trips riding on any portion of the
New Starts or Small Starts project.
(b) Mobility Improvements. (1) The total number of trips
using the proposed project. Extra weight may be given to trips that
would be made on the project by transit dependent persons in the
current year, and, at the discretion of the project sponsor, in the
horizon year. The method for assigning extra weight is set forth in
policy guidance.
(2) If the project sponsor chooses to consider project trips in
the horizon year in addition to the current year, trips will be
based on the weighted average of current year and horizon year.
(c) Environmental Benefits. (1) The monetized value of
the anticipated direct and indirect benefits to human health,
safety, energy, and the air quality environment that are expected
to result from implementation of the proposed project compared
to:
(i) The existing environment with the transit system in the
current year or, (ii) at the discretion of the project sponsor,
both the existing environment with the transit system in the
current year and the no-build environment and transit system in the
horizon year. The monetized benefits will be divided by the
annualized capital and operating cost of the New Starts project,
less the cost of enrichments.
(2) Environmental benefits used in the calculation would
include:
(i) Change in air quality criteria pollutants,
(ii) Change in energy use,
(iii) Change in greenhouse gas emissions and
(iv) Change in safety,
.(3) If the project sponsor chooses to consider environmental
benefits in the horizon year in addition to the current year,
environmental benefits will be based on the weighted average of
current year and horizon year.
(d) Congestion Relief. [Reserved]
(e) Cost-effectiveness. (1) The annualized cost per trip
on the project, where cost includes changes in capital, operating,
and maintenance costs, less the cost of enrichments, compared
to:
(i) The existing transit system in the current year, or
(ii) At the discretion of the project sponsor, both the existing
transit system in the current year and the no-build transit system
in the horizon year.
(2) If the project sponsor chooses to consider
cost-effectiveness in the horizon year in addition to the current
year, cost-effectiveness will be based on the weighted average of
current year and horizon year.
(f) Existing Land Use. (1) Existing corridor and station
area development;
(2) Existing corridor and station area development
character;
(3) Existing station area pedestrian facilities, including
access for persons with disabilities;
(4) Existing corridor and station area parking supply; and
(5) Existing affordable housing in the project corridor.
(g) Economic Development. (1) The extent to which a
proposed project is likely to enhance additional,
transit-supportive development based on a qualitative assessment of
the existing local plans and policies to support economic
development proximate to the project including:
(i) Growth management plans and policies;
(ii) Local plans and policies in place to support maintenance of
or increases to affordable housing in the project corridor; and
(iii) Demonstrated performance and impact of policies.
(2) At the option of the project sponsor, an additional
quantitative analysis (scenario-based estimate) of indirect changes
in VMT resulting from changes in development patterns that are
anticipated to occur with implementation of the proposed project.
The resulting environmental benefits from the indirect VMT would be
calculated, monetized, and compared to the annualized capital and
operating cost of the New Starts project in a manner similar to
that under the environmental benefits criterion. Such benefits are
not included in the environmental benefits measure.
New Starts Local Financial Commitment
From time to time, but not less than frequently than every two
years as directed by U.S.C. 5309(g)(5), FTA publishes policy
guidance on the application of these measures, and the agency
expects it will continue to do so. Moreover, FTA may choose to
amend these measures, pending the results of ongoing studies. In
addition, FTA may establish warrants for one or more of these
criteria through which an automatic rating would be assigned based
on the characteristics of the project and/or its corridor. FTA will
develop these warrants based on analysis of the features of
projects and/or corridor characteristics that would produce
satisfactory ratings on one or more of the criteria. Such warrants
would be included in draft policy guidance issued for comment
before being finalized.
FTA will use the following measures to evaluate the local
financial commitment of a proposed New Starts project:
(a) The proposed share of total project costs from sources other
than New Starts funds, including other Federal transportation funds
and the local match required by Federal law;
(b) The current financial condition, both capital and operating,
of the project sponsor;
(c) The commitment of funds for both the proposed project and
the ongoing operation and maintenance of the existing transit
system once the project is built including consideration of private
contributions.
(d) The reasonableness of the financial plan, including planning
assumptions, cost estimates, and the capacity to withstand funding
shortfalls or cost overruns.
Small Starts Small Starts Project Justification
FTA will evaluate candidate Small Starts projects according to
the six project justification criteria established by 49 U.S.C.
5309(h)(4), From time to time, but not less than frequently than
every two years as directed by 49 U.S.C. 5309(g)(5), FTA publishes
for public comment policy guidance on the application of these
measures. Moreover, FTA may choose to amend these measures, pending
the results of ongoing studies regarding transit benefit and cost
evaluation methods. In addition, FTA may establish warrants for one
or more of these criteria through which an automatic rating would
be assigned based on the characteristics of the project and/or its
corridor. Such warrants would be included in the policy guidance so
that they may be subject to public comment.
(a) Mobility Improvements. (1) The total number of trips
using the proposed project with extra weight given to trips that
would be made on the project by transit dependent persons in the
current year, and, at the discretion of the project sponsor, in the
horizon year.
(2) If the project sponsor chooses to consider project trips in
the horizon year in addition to the current year, trips will be
based on the weighted average of current year and horizon year.
(b) Environmental Benefits. (1) The monetized value of
the anticipated direct and indirect benefits to human health,
safety, energy, and the air quality environment that are expected
to result from implementation of the proposed project compared
to:
(i) The existing environment with the transit system in the
current year or,
(ii) At the discretion of the project sponsor, both the existing
environment with the transit system in the current year and the
no-build environment and transit system in the horizon year. The
monetized benefits will be divided by the annualized federal share
of the project.
(2) Environmental benefits used in the calculation would
include:
(i) Change in air quality criteria pollutants,
(ii) Change in energy use,
(iii) Change in greenhouse gas emissions, and
(iv) Change in safety.
(3) If the project sponsor chooses to consider environmental
benefits in the horizon year in addition to the current year,
environmental benefits will be based on the weighted average of
current year and horizon year.
(c) Congestion Relief. [Reserved]
(d) Cost-effectiveness. (1) The annualized federal share
per trip on the project where federal share includes funds from the
major capital investment program as well as other federal funds,
compared to:
(i) The existing transit system in the current year, or
(ii) At the discretion of the project sponsor, both the existing
transit system in the current year and the no-build transit system
in the horizon year.
(2) If the project sponsor chooses to consider
cost-effectiveness in the horizon year in addition to the current
year, cost-effectiveness will be based on the weighted average of
current year and horizon year.
(e) Existing Land Use. (1) Existing corridor and station
area development;
(2) Existing corridor and station area development
character;
(3) Existing station area pedestrian facilities, including
access for persons with disabilities;
(4) Existing corridor and station area parking supply; and
(5) Existing affordable housing in the project corridor.
(f) Economic Development. (1) The extent to which a
proposed project is likely to enhance additional,
transit-supportive development based on the existing plans and
policies to support economic development proximate to the project
including:
(i) Growth management plans and policies;
(ii) Policies in place to support maintenance of or increases to
the share of affordable housing in the project corridor; and
(iii) Demonstrated performance and impact of policies.
(2) At the option of the project sponsor, an additional
quantitative analysis (scenario-based estimate) to estimate
indirect changes in VMT resulting from changes in development
patterns that are anticipated to occur with implementation of the
proposed project. The resulting environmental benefits would be
calculated, monetized, and compared to the annualized federal share
of the project.
Small Starts Local Financial Commitment
If the Small Starts project sponsor can demonstrate the
following, the project will qualify for a highly simplified
financial evaluation:
(a) A reasonable plan to secure funding for the local share of
capital costs or sufficient available funds for the local
share;
(b) The additional operating and maintenance cost to the agency
of the proposed Small Starts project is less than 5 percent of the
project sponsor's existing operating budget; and
(c) The project sponsor is in reasonably good financial
condition, as demonstrated by the past three years' audited
financial statements.
Small Starts projects that meet these measures and request
greater than 50 percent Small Starts funding would receive a local
financial commitment rating of “Medium.” Small Starts projects that
request 50 percent or less in Small Starts funding would receive a
“High” rating for local financial commitment.
FTA will use the following measures to evaluate the local
financial commitment to a proposed Small Starts project if it
cannot meet the conditions listed above:
(a) The proposed share of total project costs from sources other
than Small Starts funds, including other Federal transportation
funds and the local match required by Federal law;
(b) The current financial condition, both capital and operating,
of the project sponsor;
(c) The commitment of funds for both the proposed project and
the ongoing operation and maintenance of the project sponsor's
system once the project is built.
(d) The reasonableness of the financial plan, including planning
assumptions, cost estimates, and the capacity to withstand funding
shortfalls or cost overruns.