Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 New Starts Criteria

[Download Microsoft Word Version]

[Download Adobe Acrobat Version]

July 2009

Prepared by:
Federal Transit Administration
Office of Planning and Environment
US Department of Transportation

Table of Contents

Additional materials and guidance documents related to major investment planning and the New Starts program are available at FTA’s website for New Starts Project Planning and Development, or by contacting your FTA Regional Office or the FTA Office of Planning and Environment.

FTA evaluates each project sponsor’s submittal of information addressing specific project justification and local financial commitment criteria, which are defined by law.  The ratings assigned to these criteria are used by FTA to develop overall project ratings, make decisions for advancing proposed projects in the New Starts project development process, and for recommending projects for funding.

 FTA considers the following criteria contained in SAFETEA-LU in its evaluation of proposed New Starts projects:

• Mobility improvements;
• Environmental benefits;
• Cost-effectiveness;
• Operating efficiencies;
• Economic development effects; and
• Public transit supportive land use policies and future patterns.

Section VI Project Justification Criteria, describes each of these measures in detail.

Section 5309(d)(2)(C) of SAFETEA-LU requires that proposed projects be supported by an acceptable degree of local financial commitment, including evidence of stable and dependable financing sources to construct, maintain and operate the project, and to maintain and operate the entire public transportation system without requiring a reduction in existing public transportation services or level of service to operate the proposed project.  The criteria used in making this determination are:

• The proposed share of total project costs from sources other than Section 5309 New Starts funding;
• The strength of the proposed capital funding plan; and
• The strength of the proposed operating funding plan.

Section VII Local Financial Commitment Criteria describes each of these measures in detail.

As projects develop, estimates of costs, benefits, and impacts are refined.  FTA’s evaluation process reflects these changes and updates ratings to reflect new and improved information. A brief overview of the evaluation and rating process is presented below. For a full discussion, please see FTA’s New Starts and Small Starts Evaluation and Rating Process document, of which an updated version should be available here later this summer after the public comment period on the additional proposed guidance has ended and final guidance is adopted.

Each project receives an overall rating, based on ratings for project justification and local financial commitment, as required in statute.

FTA uses the project justification and local financial commitment ratings to determine an overall project rating of “High,” “Medium-High,” “Medium,” Medium-Low” or “Low” for each proposed New Starts project.  This overall project rating is the average of the ratings for project justification and local financial commitment, which follow the same “High”-to-“Low” rating scale.  When the average between the project justification and local financial commitment ratings is not clear (e.g. “Medium-High” rating for project justification and “Medium” rating for local financial commitment), the overall rating is determined by rounding up the average rating (e.g. “Medium-High” rating for project justification and “Medium” rating for local financial commitment yields an overall rating of “Medium-High”).  In addition, the following decision rules apply to the determination of a project’s overall rating:

• A “Medium” overall project rating requires a rating of at least “Medium” for project justification and for local financial commitment, and 
• If a project receives a “Low” rating for either project justification or local financial commitment, it will receive a “Low” overall rating.

Per direction in SAFETEA-LU, a project must receive an overall rating of at least “Medium” to be admitted into preliminary engineering or final design, or receive an FFGA.

FTA weighs the proposed non-New Starts share as 20 percent of the summary financial rating; the strength and reliability of the capital plan counts as 50 percent of the rating; and the strength and reliability of the operating plan accounts for 30 percent of the rating.  However, failure to achieve at least a “Medium” rating on both the capital and the operating plan will result in an overall financial rating of not greater than “Medium-Low.”

In developing a summary project justification rating for a New Starts project, FTA assigns the following weights to the criteria: cost effectiveness, 20 percent; transit-supportive land use, 20 percent; economic development effects, 20 percent; mobility improvements, 20 percent; operating efficiencies, 10 percent; and environmental benefits, 10 percent.

It is important to note that project ratings are distinct from project funding recommendations.  An overall project rating of “High”, “Medium-High”, or “Medium” does not translate directly into a funding recommendation or commitment.  FTA must also consider the amount of New Starts funding available on an annual basis and the phase of project development of candidate New Starts projects. To be included in FTA’s annual budget request, proposed New Starts must also be sufficiently developed for consideration of a Federal Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) – FTA’s funding mechanism for supporting the multi-year capital needs of project construction.

The following general principles are applied when determining proposed annual funding allocations among proposed New Starts projects:

• Any project recommended for new funding commitments should meet the project justification, local financial commitment, and process criteria established by Sections 5309(d) and 5309(e) and be consistent with Executive Order 12893, Principles for Federal Infrastructure Investments, issued January 26, 1994.
• Existing FFGA commitments should be honored before any additional funding recommendations are made.
• The FFGA and Project Construction Grant Agreement (PCGA) define the terms of the Federal commitment to a specific project, including funding.  Upon completion of an FFGA or PCGA, the Federal funding commitment has been fulfilled.  Additional project funding will not be recommended.  Any additional costs beyond the scope of the Federal commitment are the responsibility of the grantee, although FTA works closely with grantees to identify and implement strategies for containing capital costs at the level included in the FFGA or PCGA at the time it was executed.
• Firm funding commitments, embodied in FFGAs or PCGAs, will not be made until projects demonstrate that they are ready for such an agreement, i.e. the project’s development and design has progressed to the point where its scope, costs, benefits, and impacts are considered firm and final. This does not usually occur until NEPA work has been completed and the project is in or nearing entry into final design.
• Funding should be provided to the most worthy investments to allow them to proceed through the process on a reasonable schedule, to the extent that funds can be obligated to such projects in the upcoming fiscal year.  Funding decisions will be based on the results of the project evaluation process and resulting project justification, local financial commitment, and overall project ratings.

The Annual Report on Funding Recommendations describes in detail the principles which guide funding recommendations.

FTA strives to create a “level playing field” upon which a wide variety of candidate projects compete for funding. This section summarizes FTA’s key policy and planning principles intended to ensure such competition. Please visit FTA’s website for New Starts Project Planning and Development for additional guidance on the planning and development of major transit capital investments.

This section describes the basic technical approach related to the definition of both the New Starts “Build” and “Baseline” alternatives; travel forecasting assumptions needed to model these alternatives; and the self-certification that FTA requires of each sponsoring agency.

Ideally, the information FTA needs to fairly evaluate and rate projects would be a standard part of the planning and project development process. When it is not, FTA strongly encourages project sponsors to recognize and address the substance of the information presented here at the earliest stages of corridor planning. Failing to do so will likely result in additional time and expense incurred before project sponsors can submit their requests to enter preliminary engineering or certify that they have followed these guidelines.

Please discuss any methods and assumptions that differ from those described in this section with FTA before using such methods in corridor planning studies.  The intent is not to uniformly preclude approaches that depart from FTA’s guidance, but for FTA and project sponsors to reach a mutual decision on approaches that may vary from these instructions.

Defining alternatives for study in an alternatives analysis is an important element in the development of major transit capital projects.  Please refer to FTA’s detailed guidance entitled Procedures and Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning, which describes in detail the key principles to be followed when defining alternatives.

In almost every case, the New Starts Baseline alternative shares its definition with that of the transportation system management (TSM) alternative: that is, the “best that can be done” to improve transit service in the project corridor without a major capital investment in new guideway infrastructure. (The rare exception to this rule occurs in highly developed transit corridors where the No-Build condition already represents the “best that can be done”). Generally, the TSM alternative emphasizes upgrades in transit service through operational and small physical improvements, plus selected highway upgrades through intersection improvements, minor widenings, and other focused traffic engineering actions.  A TSM alternative might include such features as bus route restructuring, shortened bus headways, expanded use of articulated buses, reserved bus lanes, contra-flow lanes for buses and HOVs on freeways, special bus ramps on freeways, expanded park/ride facilities, express and limited-stop service, signalization improvements, and timed-transfer operations.

The purpose of the New Starts Baseline alternative is to provide a basis of comparison to isolate the costs and benefits of the proposed major transit investment relative to what would occur without the investment. To make this comparison fairly, the New Starts Build and the New Starts Baseline alternatives should be “consistent” with each other, though each should be “optimized” to represent its transit technology in the most favorable way.  Consistency requires that underlying assumptions – land use and development, parking availability and cost, fare levels, vehicle loading standards, highway networks, and the like – should be comparable. Optimization requires defining and redefining each alternative such that supply meets demand. Though service strategies for the New Starts Build and New Starts Baseline alternatives may initially be the same, the final operating plans may reflect different assumptions due to inherent differences in mode, alignment, speed, dwell times, and vehicle capacity. For example, a New Starts Baseline alternative may include a combination of skip-stop, express, and other services in the corridor, which are developed with the intent of optimizing performance in terms of both cost and travel time.  Consequently, the New Starts Build and the New Starts Baseline alternatives may differ not only in terms of the presence or absence of a guideway but also in terms of:

1. Vehicle miles and hours of service;
2. Location of stations or stops;
3. The amount of redundant local bus that is replaced by higher order services; and
4. Final headways and park-and-ride capacities that have been equilibrated against predicted transit demand.

In the past, New Starts project sponsors have varied widely in their assumptions regarding the costs of the New Starts Baseline alternative.  To assist in developing capital cost assumptions, the Standard Cost Categories (SCC) worksheets define prototypical capital costs for specific elements in New Starts Baseline alternatives.  These cost parameters are shown in Table 1 below.  Costs for roadway improvements, stations, sitework, systems, and buses were derived from actual costs incurred by local transit agencies that have implemented TSM improvements in Los Angeles, Kansas City, and Boston.  If local circumstances require deviating from these assumptions, please discuss the proposed deviation with FTA prior to formally submitting cost estimates.

The New Starts Final Rule requires FTA to approve the New Starts Baseline alternative before approving projects to advance to preliminary engineering.  This approval is based upon a review of the operating plans, travel forecasts, scope definition, capital costs, and operating costs for the proposed New Starts Baseline alternative.  Sponsors of local alternatives analysis studies that are considering a potential New Starts project should engage FTA early in the process of defining and analyzing alternatives to determine an appropriate New Starts Baseline.  Defining a New Starts Baseline may require iterative analysis and discussions with FTA over a period of time.  FTA commits to the provision of timely technical assistance in the development of alternatives.
 
Table 1: New Starts Baseline Prototypical Costs for Specific Elements -- Please see the Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version of the document to view Table 1

The Build alternative is the project the sponsoring agency is, or will be, seeking FTA New Starts funding to construct.  In some instances, the preferred multi-modal alternative that is adopted into the MPO’s long range transportation plan following a corridor study will include a variety of infrastructure elements, such as highway and HOV improvements, in addition to transit improvements.  When addressing the New Starts criteria, elements of the preferred alternative not proposed for New Starts funding are treated as separate and distinct projects from the New Starts project.  This allows FTA to identify the transit benefits attributable to the New Starts project.

If the project sponsor intends to build the New Starts project in phases, starting with an initial  operable segment (IOS), then it is the IOS that should be evaluated using the New Starts criteria and advanced through New Starts project development.  Local project sponsors considering implementation of an IOS should discuss this with their FTA Regional Office and the FTA Office of Planning and Environment.

FTA notes that the capital costs of any feeder bus services, right-of-way, or other project elements that contribute to the performance of the Build alternative, but are outside of the scope to be funded under a Full Funding Grant Agreement, must be included in the calculation of project cost effectiveness.

When Build alternatives include highway and/or high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) infrastructure, the project sponsor must define the New Starts Baseline alternative such that the benefits of the New Starts project are isolated from the highway investments. This typically involves including the highway and HOV elements in the New Starts Baseline alternative.

There is significant variability in the travel forecasting models maintained by agencies across the country; inputs and model assumptions are different in different places.  Nevertheless, good practice requires using assumptions both in the definition of alternatives and well as in the travel forecasting models that do not arbitrarily favor a particular alternative.  By following this important and overarching principal, FTA expects forecasts to reliably convey the transportation benefits and impacts of the alternatives, rather than the alternatives’ underlying fare, service, and/or other policy assumptions.

FTA’s evaluation of New Starts and Small Starts projects requires estimates of ridership and user benefits. These estimates are often generated by regional travel demand models, which attempt to represent existing travel patterns and choices in order to predict future travel patterns and choices. Under the right circumstances, quality data paired with straightforward analysis can provide a more direct representation of travel than a regional model.

The following paragraph gives a broad description and example of the “right circumstances” in which data-driven approaches may be preferable to a regional-model-based approach. Approaches outside the broad guidelines presented here may also be appropriate. Project sponsors should contact FTA’s Office of Planning and Environment to discuss potential analytical techniques when beginning an alternatives analysis.

Data-driven analytical techniques first require quality data. Further, the corridor should be served by a mature transit system in which existing riders exhibit a variety of behaviors, including travelers choosing transit when a reasonable automobile option is available (so-called “choice riders”).  Extensions of existing rail projects typically offer an excellent opportunity to use data-driven, incremental techniques. For example, a two-mile extension of a heavy rail line from the outer-most suburban station.  If a large number of transit riders currently travel to the existing outer-most station by bus from the surrounding neighborhood and by car from more distant suburbs, an extension of the rail system would likely represent an incremental improvement to the transit trips in these two well-established travel markets. An incremental, data-driven approach might well be preferred over a regional model-based approach under these types of circumstances. Several Small Starts projects have already used simplified, data-driven analytical techniques to estimate ridership and user benefits.  FTA welcomes New Starts project sponsors to use similar techniques as appropriate.

New Starts project sponsors that do use regional travel models should use a 2030 horizon year  for the development of travel forecasts and systemwide operating and maintenance costs used in the calculation of the project justification criteria.  For New Starts projects located in areas whose metropolitan planning organization (MPO) uses a planning horizon different from 2030, the project sponsor should extrapolate its land use forecasts to 2030.  Where such extrapolation occurs, the process for determining the resulting land use forecasts must be endorsed by the MPO.

Beginning in 2007, FTA adopted a method for crediting projects with mobility benefits associated with project attributes that are not recognized by conventional travel models.  The approach recognizes three categories of attributes that are not included in current travel models:  guideway-like characteristics, span of good service, and passenger amenities.  Depending on the characteristics of a project in each of these three categories, FTA assigns a lump-sum credit – expressed as equivalent minutes of travel time savings – to each trip on the project and a discount on the weight used to describe the onerousness of each minute of in-vehicle time on the project.  The maximum values of these adjustments are 15 minutes of time savings for each project rider and a 20 percent discount on the travel time weight.  Proposed projects that have few of these attributes are assigned smaller adjustments.  Whatever the adjustments for a particular project, the approach makes the full adjustments for guideway-only trips and reduced adjustments for guideway trips that depend on local buses for either access or egress.  These adjustments are made after the forecasts are derived from local travel models.  Consequently, they yield additional user benefits for the riders predicted to use the proposed project, but do not change the predicted number of riders.

Implementation of this approach requires that: (1) the project sponsor documents carefully the attributes of both the build and baseline alternatives in terms of the three categories of unrecognized characteristics; (2) FTA determines the appropriate adjustments for the two alternatives based on their attributes; and (3) the project sponsor applies the adjustments to the existing forecasts for the two alternatives.

The specific application of this general approach for an individual project will reflect the structure of the local travel models, the computer software used to apply those models, and the nature of the guideway components of the build and baseline alternatives.  In general, application of the adjustments requires four pieces of information for each trip predicted to use the guideway components:  (1) the locations (“zones”) of both ends of the trip, (2) the access mode (walk or drive), (3) travel time on the guideway, and (4) travel time on local buses.  The adjustments will result in zone-to-zone estimates of additional user benefits for the build alternative that will be included in the Summit reporting (both tables and maps) of the forecasts.

Because this policy applies to the few projects that seek to introduce new transit modes to an area, FTA provides case-by-case technical assistance on its implementation.  Sponsors of starter projects who want to take advantage of the policy should contact the FTA Office of Planning and Environment for assistance.

A project’s capital cost estimate includes costs for planning, design and construction.  It includes labor and material for construction of the improvement – guideways, stations, support facilities, sitework, special conditions, systems – as well as costs for vehicle design and procurement, right-of-way acquisition, relocation of existing households and businesses, planning, facility design, construction management, project administration, finance charges, and contingencies.

FTA expects that cost estimates for both the build and baseline alternatives be up-to-date, based on unit costs that apply to expected conditions during construction, and specifically identify remaining uncertainties in those unit costs.  Similarly, estimates of operations and maintenance costs should be based on current local experience, adjusted for differences in vehicle and service characteristics, and, for any transit modes new to the system, are consistent with experience in similar settings elsewhere.

The use of consistent and defensible measures, data inputs, and analytical assumptions is intended to improve the information provided by project sponsors and support FTA's decision-making process.  Therefore, project sponsors must include with their submission a statement certifying that the technical approaches and assumptions used in the analysis were in accordance with the principles outlined in IV.1 Key Policy and Planning Principles of these instructions, as well as other FTA guidance and best professional practices.

The statement reflects not only assumptions supporting the project’s travel forecasts but also the estimation of capital and operating costs.  The statement further requests that any deviation from these instructions and/or FTA guidance and procedures be identified and discussed with FTA in advance of FTA’s acceptance of the New Starts project justification criteria for evaluation.  Finally, the project sponsor is asked to complete the statement with dates regarding the collection of data which support the travel forecasts.

The Certification of Technical Methods, Planning Assumptions for New Starts projects is provided below; Small Starts projects must also complete a certification, which will be included in the updated version of the Interim Guidance on Small Starts.  The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the sponsoring agency signs the certification statement.  FTA strongly encourages both the agency CEO and his/her staff to carefully read the certification and understand the items to which it attests.  Any questions regarding the certification statement should be directed to the FTA Office of Planning and Environment.

Figure 1: New Starts Certification of Technical Methods and Planning Assumptions (2 pages) -- Please see the Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version of the document to view Figure 1
 

This section summarizes the general information which must accompany and support the submission of the specific New Starts criteria and measures.  This information provides FTA with an understanding of: a) the scope of the proposed New Starts project; b) the need for and benefits of the project; and c) the underlying policy and technical basis upon which each of the New Starts criteria is developed.

Submit information electronically on CDs. Please transmit files in both their original format (Excel/Microsoft Word/etc.) and as PDF files.

The following subsections summarize the requested information that provides FTA with a general understanding of the project, its planning context, and how (and why) it addresses the identified transportation problems in the corridor.

Project sponsors must provide descriptive information on the proposed New Starts project and the regional public transportation system.  FTA uses the project description to understand the project, to develop a project profile for the Annual Report on Funding Recommendations, and to establish a database of project characteristics and local contact information.  The Project Description Template (available here) should be used for reporting this information.  FTA notes that all New Starts project sponsors, even those of projects requesting less than $25 million in Section 5309 New Starts funding (thus exempt from the New Starts criteria) must submit this template to FTA.

FTA currently requires project sponsors to submit an approximately 5-page narrative that succinctly describes the benefits of the proposed investment, particularly in comparison to the New Starts Baseline (and other lower cost) alternative(s).  Under current procedures, this document is evaluated and rated and considered as an “Other Factor”.  However, FTA issued additional proposed policy guidance in July 2009 that proposes making submittal of the Case for the Project document voluntary. Under this proposal, if a project sponsor submits a Case for the Project document, it would not be formally rated but would still be considered under “Other Factors” when developing the project justification rating.  Final guidance on whether the Case for the Project will be required or voluntary should be published in late August or early September 2009.

The Case for the Project document should describe key, substantiated project outcomes that justify the proposed New Starts investment.  These outcomes should be drawn from the alternatives analysis or other studies performed by the project sponsor that were used as the basis for selecting the proposed project seeking advancement through the New Starts project development process.

Importantly, the Case for the Project should identify substantive benefits backed by demonstrable analytical results – not assertions.  Reasons for benefits should be explained, and evidence for such conclusions provided.  The analysis should extend beyond a justification for why a given corridor is in need of improvement to why the proposed New Starts project is better than any other reasonable transportation investment in the corridor.

Below is an outline of what the Case for the Project should contain.

• Project Identification.  In two or three short sentences, provide the essential characteristics of the proposed project: its location, length, termini, number of stations, hours of service, and frequency by time period.  This information should fit within a single paragraph of two or three short sentences.
• Setting.  Along with a good map of the corridor, in a few paragraphs describe the key elements of the setting; include the major activity centers within the corridor, significant highway facilities, existing transit facilities like fixed-guideways and transfer centers, and, to illustrate how these features relate to the project, the alignment of the proposed project.
• Current Conditions.  Important conditions are: the population and employment of the corridor and any major activity centers within the corridor; congestion levels and travel times on important highway facilities; travel times on the principal transit services in the corridor; and transit shares, ridership volumes, and any key attributes (capacity issues, rider characteristics, etc.) that are important to the case for the project.  Highlight the principal functions of transit services in the corridor, focusing on whatever limitations exist on the performance of the transit system.  Focus on the corridor itself, rather than the metropolitan area. A focused presentation of corridor-level information, including numbers embedded in the text to quantify the key characteristics, might require most of a page for a good presentation.  Avoid using figures, tables, bar charts, or other graphics.
• Conditions in 2030 (Small Starts projects can skip this section).  Describe the anticipated changes in key corridor characteristics between today and the 2030 horizon – absent significant transit improvements in the corridor.  Particularly in rapidly growing corridors, the crucial role of this section is to highlight major changes in demographics, travel patterns, volumes and speeds on major highway facilities, the service quality and capacity of transit services, and anticipated transit ridership.  The discussion should make clear the key functions of the transit system in the corridor and highlight whatever limitations are anticipated on its performance.  As with the discussion of current conditions, this section must focus on the key characteristics of the corridor itself rather than aggregate information on broader geographical areas.  The discussion might require most of a page for a good presentation.
• Purpose of the Project.  In no more than a paragraph of modest length, describe the specific ways that a major transit investment intends to address the problems identified in the discussions of Current Conditions and Conditions in 2030.  The section needs to be specific – to the travel markets, problems, and necessary performance of a transit improvement.
• Merits of the Project.  Describe how the project addresses the Purpose of the Project more effectively and at reasonable costs compared to other alternatives. Discuss the Baseline alternative’s ability to meet the project purpose: its costs and cost-effectiveness versus the No-Build, and the limitations that prevent it from succeeding fully.  If applicable, also discuss lower-cost guideway alternatives’ performance and limitations.  Conclude with the proposed project, including additional detail on its scope, the specific ways that it would successfully address the purpose, and its costs and cost-effectiveness versus the Baseline alternative.  These sections might require most of a page. 
• Uncertainties.  Present the principal uncertainties in costs and ridership; summarize the conditions and/or management strategies that mitigate the uncertainties; and – where they are available – presents the upper and lower bounds for the forecasts of costs and ridership.  Be specific.  Identify specific scope uncertainties – unclear availability of right-of-way, possible variations in the vertical alignment, potential need for additional grade separations, and major environmental mitigation elements, for example.  This section might require much of a page for a thoughtful presentation.
• Summary.  In one paragraph draw together the key points made in the document. Highlight the conditions that motivate consideration of a major transit improvement, the specific purpose of the project, and the ways that the project succeeds in addressing the purpose where lower-cost alternatives cannot.

Sponsors of exempt projects are not be expected to present the same level of analysis as non-exempt New Starts projects.  However, a thoughtful summary, using available quantitative data, of how such improvements meet local goals and objectives enhances FTA’s understanding of exempt projects.

FTA includes maps for each of the proposed New Starts projects in the Annual Report on Funding Recommendations.  All New Starts sponsors must submit electronic maps of their proposed projects.  To ensure compatibility, maps should be created in a geographic information system (GIS) program such as Map Info, Arc Info, Maptitude, or TransCAD.  In lieu of a GIS formatted map, a clearly legible “hardcopy” map of the project may be submitted.  To ensure consistency, maps must focus on the proposed New Starts investment and its relation to other major transportation facilities and major trip generators.  Maps should be in black and white, and include a legend, compass and scale.  Maps should fit on 8.5 by 11 inch paper, with one inch margins.

The following summarizes the specific documentation that must be submitted to FTA in support of the travel forecasts and related information.

The Travel Forecasts Template is the single-location point of entry for all travel forecast information used in the calculation of the mobility improvements and cost effectiveness criteria.  This information is transferred automatically through spreadsheet links between the templates to simplify the calculation of the measures and avoid any double-entries of the same information.

The Travel Forecasts Template includes three major sections.  The first is for entry of trip-purpose-specific information taken from the Summit reports of forecasts prepared by conventional travel-forecasting models.  The second is for entries of market-specific information prepared “off-model” for special markets (such as air passengers, travelers to sports venues and other special events, and any other markets not considered by the local travel-forecasting procedures).  The third is for entry of system-wide and project-wide information from both the conventional travel models and the “off-model” analyses.  Computation of several quality-control statistics for each of these sections is an integral part of the template.

The three sections of travel forecasting information are described below:

• Entries of trip-purpose-specific information (lines 1 through 13 of the template).  This block is for information taken directly from Summit reports, with separate columns for the individual trip purposes considered by the local travel forecasting procedures.  Where these procedures consider more than eight trip purposes (because they are stratified by time period, for example), FTA asks that the forecasts be aggregated rationally to eight categories.  Project sponsors should change the column headings (Purpose 1, etc.) to an appropriate label for each trip purpose (i.e. HBW, NHB, HBO, etc).  The first five lines are table totals that can be found in the table summary section of any Summit report file.  Figure 2 illustrates the locations of this information.  The sixth line is taken from the summary of capping effects reported in any Summit report file (also illustrated in Figure 2).  The final line in the block is for entries from the district-to-district table produced by the standard Summit New Starts set-up that reports the share of user benefits accruing to transit dependents.  FTA asks that sponsors use the lowest socio-economic category considered by the local travel models (usually either income or auto-ownership) as a proxy for transit dependency.  Obviously, this information is available only for trip purposes that are stratified by socio-economic category in the local travel models.  For non-stratified trip purposes, no entry is required.  In this block of trip-purpose specific information, entries of user-benefits forecasts are in hours and therefore require re-scaling from the Summit reports to user benefits in minutes.  Hence, the template indicates when you should divide by 60 (lines 8 through 10).   
• Entries of market-specific information for special markets (lines 14 through 20 of the template).  This block is for information prepared “off model” for travel markets not considered by the local travel models.  Project sponsors should change the column headings to an appropriate label for each special market.  The first and second lines of the block ask for trips on the project and user benefits, respectively, for each travel market, per-event or per-day.  Per-event markets include sports venues, concerts, and other intermittent activities.  Per-day markets include air passengers, circulation travel, and other markets that are present every day.  The third line asks for the market-specific annualization factors used to estimate annual totals from the per-event and per-day estimates.  A venue for major league baseball, for example, would have an annualization factor of 81.
• Entries of general information (lines 21 through 31 of the template).  The general information comprises single-number characteristics of the predicted ridership for the build alternative.

o Annualization factor: the factor needed to compute annual totals from the daily estimates provided by the conventional travel models.  Because ridership generated by the special markets is annualized separately, the annualization factor reported under the general information block must exclude the effects of special markets.
o Daily project trips, no special markets: the trips using any part of the proposed fixed guideway, excluding trips from special markets.  For most projects, this number is equal to the number of daily boardings at stations/stops on the project.  Please contact FTA’s Office of Planning and Environment with questions regarding the counting of project trips.
o Daily project trips, transit dependents: the subset of daily project trips that is made by transit dependents (as represented by the lowest socio-economic stratum of the local travel model).  This information is available from an analogous “assignment” of forecast transit trips to the transit network – but only those trips made by transit dependents.  As for the overall reporting of trips by transit dependents, this information can be reported only for trip purposes that are stratified by socio-economic class.  This measure supports quantification of the mobility criteria for transit dependents.
o Daily project passenger-miles, no special markets: the passenger-miles on the proposed fixed guideway project (not the entire system), excluding trips from special markets.  This information is also available from the “assignment” of transit trips, perhaps most readily as the summation of [link trips x link distance] for the set of transit links that represent the proposed project.
o Daily project passenger-miles, transit dependents: the subset of daily passenger-miles that is made by transit dependents.  This information is available from the “assignment” of transit-dependent trips – from the trip purposes stratified by socio-economic class – and calculation of [link trips x link distance] for the project links.  This measure supports quantification of the mobility criteria for transit dependents.
o Person-trips by transit dependents: the total number of daily trips made by transit dependents (again, for the trip purposes that are stratified by socio-economic class in the local travel models).  This information is available from the trip-generation component of the forecasts.
o Person-trips by all travelers: the total number of daily trips made across all trip purposes in the local travel models.  This information is available from the trip-generation component off the forecasts.

The quality-control measures in the template provide local sponsors and FTA with a way to identify any characteristics of the travel forecasts that merit further explanation, rather than as an indication of an obvious problem.  Consequently, project sponsors should view the measures as a way of highlighting needs for back-up information on the reasonableness of the forecasts – and NOT necessarily as a cause for revision of forecasts that reflect some characteristic of transit travel patterns that is unique to an individual metropolitan area.

 Quality control (QC) measures for each of the three sections of the Travel Forecasts Template are as follows:

• QC measures for trip-purpose-specific information.  The QC measures for the model-based forecasts focus on the distribution of ridership changes and user benefits across the various trip purposes.  Where substantial differences occur among the distributions, some explanation should be available of the characteristics of the build alternative that cause differential service improvements across the trip purposes.  Useful comparisons can be made between the distributions for: (1) transit trips in the Baseline alternative and new transit trips in the Build alternative; and (2) new transit trips and user benefits.  The QC measures also include the percent of user benefits lost to capping.  Losses greater than 20 percent may be an indication that the cap is eliminating legitimate benefits (and therefore should be reset to a higher value with FTA concurrence) or that there are problems in the travel models.
• QC measures for special-markets information.  The QC measures for the off-model forecasts also consider the distribution of new trips and user benefits across the various special markets, and add the minutes of user benefits per trip on the proposed project.  This last measure is a check on the reasonableness of the user-benefits estimate; large per-trip impacts should have a ready explanation of the service impacts on specific markets introduced by the Build alternative.      
• QC measures for general information.  The final set of QC measures provides a variety of checks on the forecasts.  The minutes of user benefits per project trip is another test of reasonableness on the user-benefits forecast; the resulting value should have a clear explanation in terms of the service changes introduced by the Build alternative.  The percent of user benefits that are coverage related should be small (usually under 10 percent); otherwise, an explanation will be needed of the reasons that the coverage provided by the transit system is greater in the Build alternative than in the Baseline alternative.  The percent of user benefits that are from special markets should have a clear explanation in cases where special markets represent more than 10 percent of the benefits.  The percent of trips using the project that are (implicitly) new to transit should be consistent with experience (30 to 40 percent) or have a ready explanation; otherwise, higher values will raise concerns on the adequacy of the Baseline alternative.  The average trip distance on the project provides some insight into the nature of its riders; average trip distances that appear very short compared to the length of the project may indicate problems with the ridership forecasts.

As a test of their usefulness, FTA is accumulating across projects nationally the values of the four remaining general QC test measures.  The intention is that these measures will provide an indicator of the intensity of each project’s impact on mobility and ridership that is related to the character of the areas that it serves.  These measures are computed from information needed for other calculations and, therefore, require no additional entries in the template.

FTA does not require back-up materials that provide explanations for QC measures that appear to have unexpected values.  Project sponsors may choose to include those materials in their submissions, or may wait to respond to specific FTA questions on the QC measures.

The Travel Forecasts Template is available here.

FTA has developed and made available a software tool, called Summit, for analyzing travel forecasts.  Summit also computes and reports user benefits used in the mobility and cost effectiveness measures.  Implementing Summit generally requires some software changes to regional travel forecasting models to write out files of information needed by Summit for the calculation of user benefits.  Specifications on the files needed by Summit and detailed Summit documentation are available from the FTA Office of Planning and Environment.

Project sponsors must transmit to FTA, in advance of the formal submission of New Starts project justification measures, a series of reports and maps produced by Summit to summarize the forecasts for the No Build, New Starts Baseline, and New Starts Build alternatives.  This information provides both project sponsors and FTA with insights into the reasonableness of the forecasts of ridership and mobility benefits.  The specific information requested by FTA includes:

• All files produced by Summit including:

o Report files (“.rpt” file extension):

# The individual report files produced by Summit for each market segment considered in separate applications of the mode choice model (for each trip purpose – home-based work, home-based-other, etc. – and sometimes also stratified by time period and/or socio-economic segment).  If the forecasts include stratifications within each trip purpose, FTA requests a summary “roll-up” report for each trip purpose in addition to the individual report for each stratification.
# The “roll-up” report file that sums across all trip purposes.

• Trip length frequency files (“.tlf” file extension) – one for each market segment considered in separate applications of the mode choice model.
• Row-and-column-sum files (“.rcu” and “.rcs” file extensions) – one each for each market segment considered in separate applications of the mode choice model.
• A map in PDF format showing the boundaries of summary districts, the name and/or number of each district, and the alignment and station locations of the New Starts project.
• Thematic maps in PDF format that display separately the user benefits accruing to (1) trips produced in, and (2) trips attracted to each travel analysis zone.  One pair of maps is necessary for each market segment considered in separate applications of the mode choice model, for any aggregations to trip-purpose subtotals, and for the overall grand totals of user benefits.  The thematic maps should also display the alignment and station locations of the New Starts project, district boundaries, and legends that define the thematic categories.   Specifications for the shading of the individual zones in the thematic maps are:

o Three shades of green represent net-positive user benefits for individual zones, with the darkest shade representing the largest benefits.  Breakpoints for the three categories should be set so that the darkest shade applies to zones that, in total, represent the top 40 percent of positive user benefits, the medium shade represents the next 30 percent of positive user benefits, and the lightest shade represents the next 10 percent of positive user benefits.
o Similarly, three shades of red represent net-negative user benefits for individual zones, with the darkest shade representing the largest dis-benefits.  Breakpoints for the three categories are symmetric with the breakpoints derived for the positive benefits, rather than independently derived from the distribution of negative benefits.  So, for example, if the derived breakpoint between the light-green and medium-green categories of positive benefits is 500 minutes, then the breakpoint between the light-red and medium-red categories of negative benefits is set to -500 minutes.
o All remaining zones with (small) positive or negative user benefits are unshaded.

• The files written by the project sponsor’s travel model and read by Summit for the information needed in the calculation and reporting of user benefits.

Figure 2: Locations of Key Items in a Summit Report -- Please see the Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version of the document to view Figure 2

The service annualization factor is used to convert estimates of average weekday ridership and travel time benefits to an annual total, and is reported in the Travel Forecasts Template.  Justification for the annualization factor used in the calculation of project cost effectiveness should be provided to FTA in advance of the formal submission of New Starts criteria.  The annualization factor should be consistent with local experience, and in most cases will be the same for both Build and Baseline alternatives.  If the annualization factor assumed for the New Starts project ridership is different from the transit systemwide figure, justification for the difference must be provided.

The Operating Efficiencies Template requires two pieces of information from the Travel Forecasts: total systemwide annual passenger miles for both the Baseline and Build alternatives. This information is available from the transit “assignment” module of the travel demand model (link trips x link distance).

Systemwide operations and maintenance costs are an input to the calculations of cost effectiveness and operating efficiencies.  The cost tables used for these cost computations, including the productivity factors used for each cost line item, should be submitted to FTA in advance of the formal submission of the New Starts criteria.

The following provides information on the Standard Cost Categories (SCC) format and general guidelines for when project cost estimates should be updated.

The SCC establishes a consistent format for the reporting of capital cost and schedule information.  The SCC structure accommodates all project elements within ten major cost categories. The SCC worksheets and guidance are located here. Project sponsors are required to submit capital cost information in the SCC format in Excel, electronically, and in hard copy as part of the New Starts information submittal. As you complete the worksheets please refer to two additional worksheets at the SCC web location:

• SCC Definitions.  These definitions broaden the meaning of the individual line items and help achieve consistency of use by all parties.  Contact the FTA Office of Engineering if you have questions or would like to comment on the definitions.
• TEAM Scopes and Activity Line Items (ALIs). When you apply for a grant in TEAM (any grant, e.g. CMAQ, 5307, 5309, etc) for your New Starts project, use the 14-Series Scopes and ALIs shown on this worksheet to input your grant budget.  The 14-Series matches the SCC Categories.

 The following worksheets are to be submitted:

• Build Main (Note – Show allocated contingency amounts.)
• Project Description
• Inflation (Note – Compare last year’s and this year’s submissions and provide a brief explanation for major differences between the two.  The inflation rates shown in the SCC worksheet are provided only as an example.  The project sponsor should input inflation rates representative of conditions in their area.)
• Schedule
• Build Annualized
• Funding Sources by Cost Category
• Funding Sources by Year
• Baseline Main
• Baseline Annualized

• Schedule changes

o Schedule has slipped or been extended by six months, resulting in additional cost for labor, materials, and/or inflation; this could result from extended community input, project review, funding disapproval, labor disputes, etc.
o The project requests entry to a new phase or for funding.

• Cost changes

o The costing methodology has changed as a natural part of project development, for example, from a parametric estimate to a detailed labor and materials quantity take-off.
o A funding source or financing method has changed causing modification of scope, schedule or cost.

The following summarizes the information necessary to support the project justification criteria first presented in Section II.1 Project Justification Criteria.  Reporting templates are available on FTA’s website for New Starts Project Planning and Development.  Any questions regarding these criteria, their associated measures, and/or the calculation of the measures should be directed to the FTA Office of Planning and Environment.

Five measures are applied to estimate mobility improvements: (1) the number of transit trips using the project; (2) their user benefits per passenger mile on the project; (3) the number of trips by transit dependent riders using the project; (4) their user benefits per passenger mile on the project; and (5) the share of user benefits received by transit dependents compared to the share of transit dependents in the region.  These measures are combined into a general Mobility Improvements rating.

The number of transit trips on the project indicates whether or not the project provides benefits for a large number of users.  All else being equal, projects that benefit more trips are more effective mobility improvements than projects that benefit fewer trips.  The value of this measure is taken from line 22 of the Travel Forecasts Template.

User benefits quantify traveler mobility benefits for all users of the transit system, expressed in units of travel time savings.  These benefits are divided by the annual passenger miles traveled on the proposed New Starts project.  These values are taken from lines 4 and 24, respectively, of the Travel Forecasts Template.

The number of trips by transit dependent riders indicates whether or not the project provides benefits for a large number of transit dependent people.  All else being equal, projects that benefit more transit dependent people are more effective mobility improvements for transit dependents than projects that benefit fewer transit dependent people.  The value of this measure is taken from line 23 of the Travel Forecasts Template.

This measure indicates whether the New Starts project would result in significant benefits for the average transit dependent passenger.  User benefits to transit dependents are quantified automatically in Summit as the user benefits for the lowest socio-economic stratum.  For calculation of the measure, transit-dependent user benefits from line 7 of the Travel Forecasts Template are divided by the project passenger miles for transit dependents from line 25 in the Travel Forecasts Template.

This measure indicates whether or not a project is in a relatively transit dependent corridor for the particular metropolitan area.  It is calculated automatically.  The numerator is calculated by taking the amount of user benefits received by the lowest socio-economic stratum and dividing by the total amount of user benefits for the project.  The denominator is calculated by taking the number of person-trips made by the lowest socio-economic stratum and dividing by the total, regional number of person-trips.  All data used in the calculations come from the Travel Forecasts Template.

Each of the above mobility improvement measures are calculated automatically on the Mobility and Cost Effectiveness Template from the information input into the Travel Forecasts Template.  The templates are available here.

Project sponsors are required to submit two measures of cost effectiveness.  The first measure, which FTA uses in its evaluation, is defined as incremental cost divided by user benefits.  The second measure is defined as incremental cost per incremental passenger, and is reported for informational purposes only.

The measure used by FTA in its evaluation of candidate New Starts projects is the incremental project cost between the New Starts Baseline and Build alternatives divided by the incremental user benefits between the New Starts Baseline and Build alternatives.  The inputs to calculate this measure are produced as a matter of course in the development of travel forecasts for the proposed project.

The user benefit calculation expressed in time equivalent units (hours) serves as the denominator of the cost-effectiveness measure.  The numerator is annualized capital and operating costs, resulting in a cost effectiveness measure of dollars per hour of user benefits. Table 2 presents the breakpoints for this year’s ratings.

Table 2: FY 2011 Cost Effectiveness Breakpoints

High	$12.49 and under
Medium-High	$12.50 - $15.99
Medium	$16.00 - $24.99
Medium-Low	$25.00 - $30.99
Low	$31.00 and over

The second cost effectiveness measure is defined as the incremental cost per incremental passenger in the forecast year. This measure uses the forecast change in annual transit system ridership measured in LINKED trips (Linked trips refer to trips that begin at the trip origin and end at the final destination. One linked trip could include several unlinked trips, such as driving to a park and ride, riding a commuter train, and taking a bus to the final destination; this sequence represents one linked trip, bus is made up of three unlinked trips and two transit system boardings.), comparing the New Starts project to the New Starts Baseline, as the denominator of the cost-effectiveness measure.  The numerator remains the annualized capital and operating costs.

Both numerators are calculated automatically in the Mobility and Cost Effectiveness Template from information reported in the Travel Forecasts Template.  Instructions for estimating and reporting the annualized capital and operating costs are provided below.

• Key Assumptions and Data Sources

o Capital costs in constant or base year dollars are estimated for both the New Starts Build and New Starts Baseline alternatives during the New Starts planning and project development process. Capital costs are annualized for input to the calculation of cost effectiveness based on FTA’s assumptions on the useful life of specific cost components and an established discount rate. 
o Where new feeder bus service is necessary to make the New Starts Build or New Starts Baseline alternatives viable, the cost for this feeder bus service should be included in the calculation of annualized cost.  Note that the cost of this feeder bus service must be added to the annualized cost worksheet, as it is not included in the Main Worksheet and it is not an eligible cost under an FFGA. 
o The New Starts Build and New Starts Baseline Annualized Cost worksheets provide the project sponsor with the opportunity to claim 12 to 18 years for the estimated useful life for buses.  If the project sponsor claims a useful life longer than 12 years, the project sponsor must submit supporting documentation for the reasonability of such a claim.  
o Some New Starts projects sponsors assume only the number of vehicles needed for the opening year in the Build Main Worksheet, since this is all that is anticipated to be funded under the FFGA.  However, the Build Alternative Annualized Cost worksheet must contain the full number of vehicles needed for the operating plan in the forecast year, since these vehicles are necessary to realize the projected ridership and user benefits that are used in the cost-effectiveness calculation.  (Similarly, the financial plan cash flow statement must include the full number of vehicles needed for the forecast year, so that FTA can be assured the project sponsor has the financial capacity to acquire all the vehicles necessary to realize the projected user benefits.)

• Calculation and Reporting Method

o BUILD and BASELINE Annualized Cost worksheets are located within the Standard Cost Categories (SCC) workbook. 
o For each line item within the SCC, a useful life in years is identified, allowing for a more accurate annualized capital cost total.
o Base Year costs are automatically populated in the worksheet from the Main Worksheet, except for the costs for new feeder bus service where it is required to make the alternative viable.  Where new feeder bus service is required, enter the quantity (or increase in quantity) of buses and the total base year cost for buses on this worksheet.  Spread the Unallocated Contingency across the line items according to perceived risks.  The annualized capital cost of the alternative will automatically calculate.
o Annualized costs for the New Starts Build and Baseline alternatives are entered into the Mobility and Cost Effectiveness Template.

• Instructions for Reporting Systemwide Build and Baseline Operations and Maintenance Costs

o System-wide, service area, and route level operating cost data (and factors) are typically available as part of ongoing operations planning.  Forecast year estimates of operating costs for the New Starts Baseline and Build alternatives are included in the financial feasibility analyses completed as part of the New Starts planning and project development process.
o The latest available cost estimates, accurately reflecting the definition of alternatives, should be applied in the calculation.
o The cost tables used for these cost computations, including the productivity factors used for each cost line item, should be submitted to FTA in advance of the formal submission of the New Starts criteria.

The rating for operating efficiencies is based on the difference between the ratios of systemwide operating and maintenance costs and systemwide passenger miles calculated for the Build and Baseline alternatives. The systemwide operating and maintenance cost is taken directly from the Mobility and Cost Effectiveness Template, as described above. The systemwide passenger-miles are computed by the regional travel demand model and input into the Operating Efficiencies Template.

Per the July 2009 Final Policy Guidance, to avoid requiring new information from project sponsors until such time as FTA develops more robust measures, the economic development effects rating will be based on two of the three subfactors previously used to rate public transportation supportive land use – transit supportive plans and policies, and performance and impact of policies. The remaining land use subfactor previously used – existing land use – will be the basis for the public transportation supportive land use rating. Each of these three subfactors, although separated into two separate measures, will be evaluated and rated as they were previously.

FTA staff, with assistance from designated contractors, gathers and reviews summary information, supporting documentation, and quantitative data prepared by local agencies to assess the existing land use, transit supportive land use policies, and future patterns associated with proposed New Starts projects.  This guidance intends to assist local agencies in the preparation and submission of the materials that FTA uses to assess and rate a proposed project's transit supportive land use and economic development effects.

FTA does not require project sponsors to resubmit land use information annually for re-evaluation and rating.  Instead, at their discretion, project sponsors may submit information and request that FTA re-evaluate the project for the Annual Report on Funding Recommendations if they believe that new information would result in higher land use or economic development effects ratings.  At a minimum, FTA will evaluate and rate land use and economic development twice during project development – at the points at which a project sponsor requests entry into preliminary engineering and final design.

The criteria and factors use to evaluate them are listed below:

• Land Use Evaluation:

o Existing Land Use

 • Economic Development Evaluation:

o Transit Supportive Plans and Policies – Includes the following factors:

# Growth Management;
# Transit Supportive Corridor Policies;
# Supportive Zoning Regulations Near Transit Stations; and
# Tools to Implement Land Use Policies.

o Performance and Impacts of Policies – Includes the following factors:

# Performance of Land Use Policies; and
# Potential Impact of Transit Project on Regional Land Use.

Local agencies may also report “other land use considerations” in the case of unusually exceptional land use characteristics or benefits, which are not otherwise captured under the categories presented above.  Other land use considerations may include historic or culturally sensitive areas, community preservation efforts, brownfields redevelopment, designated Federal enterprise zone or empowerment community, etc.
Each of the factors listed above also has associated “supporting factors.”  These supporting factors are considered individually in developing overall category ratings, and are used to help project sponsors structure the information that they submit.  Table 3 provides guidance on the type of information and supporting documentation that should be provided for each supporting factor.

In general, local agencies are not expected to generate additional analyses, documents, or quantitative data in order to satisfy the reporting requirements for the Land Use and Economic Development Effects criteria.  In most instances, agencies will be able to rely on readily available materials that have been prepared in conjunction with other studies and analyses.

Local agencies, municipalities, regional planning and governmental agencies, neighborhood organizations, and the private sector prepare information and documents useful for meeting the reporting requirements.  These materials are developed routinely in conjunction with local and regional land use plans, livable communities initiatives, and economic development activities, as well as in feasibility studies, alternatives analyses, major investment studies, corridor studies, environmental analyses, and other planning efforts for transit New Starts investments.

 To assist in the development of accurate project ratings, FTA requests that project sponsors submit full or relevant portions, as appropriate, of corridor and station area maps, local comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances, local and regional policies and agreements regarding land use planning, documentation of station area planning efforts, and documentation of other tools, incentives, and programs affecting corridor and station area land use.  Additional descriptions of the information requested are provided in Table 3.

Quantitative data on population and employment served by a proposed New Starts project are critical inputs to the assessment of existing and future land use conditions.  Key indicators include total employment in the Central Business District (CBD), employment served by the system as a whole, and population and employment densities in the corridor and in station areas. Appendix A provides a sample methodology for estimating station area population, households, and employment.  FTA requests that sponsoring agencies follow this methodology in order to ensure consistent reporting of quantitative data among New Starts applicants.

FTA recognizes that some agencies may have to utilize additional data sources, beyond those described above, to provide the quantitative data requested in the Quantitative Land Use Information Template.  Likely sources are additional reports and data from the Census, MPOs, and local planning agencies.  FTA intends to use these data to arrive at a more complete understanding of proposed projects and to develop more thorough information about population and employment densities and development forecasts and proposals.  It is hoped that, in cases where agencies have not prepared these data previously, the development of this information will be as useful for agency planning and analysis as it is for FTA's New Starts project review.

Upon request from FTA, local agencies will submit written summaries and supporting materials to contractors employed by FTA to assist in information gathering during the New Starts review process.  Information on should be organized as follows:

• Table of Contents: Local agencies should provide a Table of Contents at the beginning of their submission, summarizing all provided materials.
• Project Description:  Applicants are required to submit the Project Description Template as part of their full New Starts application.  Applicants should include a copy of this worksheet with their land use submittal.
• Maps: Project maps should be submitted that clearly indicate the location of the project and all stations, with reference to:  1) the major highway network; 2) other major transit connections; 3) the CBD and other major activity centers; 4) boundaries of local jurisdictions; and 5) boundaries of the project study corridor.
• Summary Information (Qualitative Data):  The Qualitative Land Use Information Template is the reporting format for providing summary qualitative information on each of the rating categories:  (1) Existing Land Use; (2) Transit Supportive Land Use Plans and Policies; (3) Performance and Impacts of Policies; and (4) Other Land Use Considerations (optional).  This template allows local agencies to provide written statements to highlight or expand upon information for specific factors.  Local agencies may also provide specific references to existing maps, plans, or other documentation attached with the submittal that address the specific factor and type of information requested by FTA. 
• Quantitative Data:  The Quantitative Land Use Information Template is the reporting format for quantitative data.  The objective of gathering these data is to better understand base year and forecast year information about population, housing units, and employment associated with the project.  These subjects are addressed in various combinations at the metropolitan, CBD, corridor, and station area levels.  Appendix A provides a sample methodology for estimating station area population, households, and employment.  This guidance is intended to assist local agencies with providing quantitative data at the station area level in a uniform manner.
• Supporting Documentation:  Agencies should provide full or relevant portions of supporting documentation referenced in their submission.  Some particularly helpful pieces of supporting documentation are described below.
• Visual aids (maps, photographs, and illustrations):  The characteristics of existing land use, as well as planned future development, can be most readily communicated through information that is visual or graphical in nature.  Some recommended types of visual and graphical information to include with the submission are:

o Maps of station areas showing the street network, existing land uses, planned land uses, and zoning;
o Aerial and ground-level photographs of station areas;
o Maps showing existing and forecast population and employment densities in the corridor; and
o Photographs or illustrations of existing transit supportive station area development that has taken place around any existing transit stations or corridors in the region.

• Planning documents:  Land use plans, policies, and reports developed by local and regional agencies represent a key source of information on the potential for future transit supportive development.  Some examples from which to provide either full documents or relevant excerpts include:

o Regional growth management policies and agreements;
o Local comprehensive plans, small-area or station area plans, zoning ordinances, and design guidelines relevant to station areas;
o Station area planning documents (conceptual plans, land inventories, market studies);
o Analysis of land development trends and market potential for transit supportive development within the region and station areas;
o Descriptions of the corridor and station area physical environment from environmental review documents;
o Descriptions of other tools and incentives available for influencing development; and
o Site plans or descriptions of station area development proposals.

Agencies that fully reported land use and economic development information for a recent preliminary engineering or final design approval or for a previous Annual Report on Funding Recommendations, need not resubmit information unless a project sponsor believes that new information would result in a higher rating.  Unless indicated to the applicant by FTA, prior year submissions remain available in FTA’s files.

It is important for sponsoring agencies to consider that ratings assigned by FTA will be directly related to the ability of FTA and its reviewers to readily identify, locate, review, and assess locally provided documentation.  A well-organized submittal is to the advantage of the local agency.

Following are several suggestions for improving agency submissions of information:

• Project sponsors should provide documentation to substantiate qualitative information rather than rely solely upon reference.
• To the extent possible, sponsors should quantify data, e.g., density, employment, trip generators, etc.
• Sponsors should provide detailed documentation and maps, including approved policies and plans, market studies and economic analyses, etc.  Where appropriate, maps and graphics should be used to supplement data; for example, the reporting of development and pedestrian amenities via maps and/or aerial photos is helpful.
• Submissions should be brief and precise, but thorough, in providing explanatory statements; important information should not be omitted for the sake of brevity.
• Brief descriptions of anticipated development and implemented projects, rather than simply a list, are helpful.
• Submissions should provide an explanation of the impact of transit supportive land use policies and how implementation would be achieved, particularly when significant changes are anticipated.
• Submissions should distinguish between existing conditions and those expected from the implementation of land use policies and development practices.
• Submissions should distinguish between station area, corridor, municipality, and regional transit supportive policies and plans.
• Information submitted should identify the mix of land uses within the corridor.
• Submissions should address parking policies and pricing strategies.

In addition, project sponsors are reminded of the importance of providing FTA adequate time to evaluate and rate the materials provided.  Please comply with the specified timeframe for submitting information.
 
 
Table 3: Assessment of Land Use and Economic Development Effects: Guidance on Documentation and Information to be Submitted -- Please see the Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version of the document to view Table 3

The environmental benefits rating is based on the current air quality designation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Specifically, projects in so-called “non-attainment” areas for any transportation-related pollutant (ozone, carbon monoxide, particular matter) receive a “High” rating; all other projects receive a “Medium” rating. This information is readily available from EPA and does not need to be submitted by project sponsors.

This criterion presents local agencies with an opportunity to provide FTA with information regarding other factors that may contribute to the overall success of the proposed New Starts investment.  FTA may consider these factors if they are well documented and convincingly demonstrate benefits which are not otherwise captured by the other project justification criteria and measures.

In its Additional Proposed Policy Guidance published in July 2009, FTA proposed to be less prescriptive on the items considered under the “Other Factors” criterion so as to better accommodate all of the unique project characteristics or circumstances that may justify special treatment in the evaluation of a project.  Other factors could include, but are not limited to:

• Environmental justice considerations and equity issues;
• Opportunities for increased access to employment for low-income persons, and welfare to work initiatives;
• Evidence that the proposed New Starts project is a principle element of a congestion management strategy in general, and an auto pricing strategy, in particular;
• Any other factor which the project sponsor believes articulates the benefits of the proposed major transit capital investment but which is not captured within the other project justification criteria; and
• Reliability of the data supporting the evaluation criteria.

SAFETEA-LU requires FTA ensure that proposed New Starts projects are supported by an acceptable degree of local financial commitment and resources, including evidence of stable and dependable funding sources to construct, maintain, and operate the fixed guideway capital investment, as well as the rest of the transit system.  Project sponsors submit financial plans, project finance templates, and supporting documentation to FTA and selected contractors.  FTA evaluates the sponsor’s financial condition and local financial commitment based on the financial submission.  This assessment is used to report specific measures from which a rating is assigned.

FTA uses three measures to determine local financial commitment:

• The proposed share of total project costs from sources other than Section 5309 New Starts, including Federal formula and flexible funds, the local match required by Federal law, and any additional capital funding;
• The strength of the proposed capital funding plan; and
• The ability of the sponsoring agency to fund operation and maintenance of the entire transit system as planned once the guideway is built.

Table 4 provides an overview of the measures used to compute each measure.

Table 4: Local Financial Commitment Criteria and Measures

Share of Non-Section 5309 New Starts Funds

• Share of other Federal funds, including formula and flexible funds;
• Required local match; and
• Additional capital funding.

Strength of Capital Funding Plan

• Capital financial condition of the sponsoring agency and funding partners;
• Commitment and availability of Non-Section 5309 New Starts funds for construction of the project; and
• Reasonability of capital planning assumptions (including rehabilitation and replacement costs for the existing system) and capital cost estimates and financial capacity to cover capital cost increases or funding shortfalls.

Strength of Operating Funding Plan

• Operating financial condition;
• Commitment of O&M funds needed to fund the transit system’s subsidy; and
• Reasonability of operating planning assumptions and O&M cost estimates and financial capacity to operate and maintain all proposed, existing and planned transit services.

The evaluation of each measure results in FTA assigning a summary financial rating of “High,” “Medium-High,” “Medium,” “Medium-Low,” or “Low” to reflect FTA’s assessment of the sponsoring agency’s ability and commitment to meet the funding requirements of the New Starts project.  As a project proceeds through the project development process, it is expected that project cost estimates and local funding sources will become more refined and committed.  Consequently, projects in or requesting entrance into final design must meet a higher rating threshold than projects in preliminary engineering.

Sponsoring agencies will submit documentation of local financial commitment to FTA and the designated contractor.  FTA needs all of the following items to evaluate and rate the project sponsor’s local financial commitment:

• a completed Finance Template;
• a comprehensive financial plan;
• supporting documentation; and
• a completed financial submittal checklist.

These items are described in detail in the next sections.

All project sponsors must provide all of the required information included in the Guidance for Transit Financial Plans.  Failure to include any of the elements required for the financial review will adversely impact the project’s financial rating and may result in a “Low” financial rating.  A “Low” rating for the project finance criteria ensures a “Low” project rating, which will prevent a project from moving forward in the New Starts project development process.

All sponsoring agencies – including sponsors of projects which are exempt from the New Starts criteria – must complete the Finance Template.  Project sponsors are encouraged to work closely with FTA staff and FTA contractors to ensure that the most appropriate and up-to-date information is applied in the assessment.  For non-exempt projects, FTA staff and FTA contractors will review information in order to assess each measure and assign ratings.  The Finance Template is designed to provide a uniform reporting method for the basic financial information and transit system characteristics necessary for FTA to assess the local financial commitment for the proposed New Starts project.  It is not intended as a substitute for a financial plan.  A written explanation should be provided for not submitting any requested or current data.  Failure to adequately justify any non-compliance will adversely impact the project’s financial rating.

Please note that finance charges, whether incurred by the sponsoring agency or one or more of the project funding partners, must be accounted for and included in the capital cost estimate of all New Starts projects.  Specifically, only finance charges that are expected to occur prior to either the revenue operations date or the fulfillment of the Section 5309 New Starts funding commitment should be included.  In addition, the costs of preliminary engineering and final design should also be included in the capital cost estimate.

All sponsoring agencies must submit to FTA a financial plan for their proposed project.  FTA evaluates the financial plan to ensure that the agency has the financial capacity to construct and operate the proposed New Starts project as well as operate and maintain the rest of the transit system.  FTA has developed guidance on the content and format of financial plans for transit agencies.  In addition to FTA’s long-standing Guidance for Transit Financial Plans (June 2000), FTA has updated the financial planning chapter to its Procedures and Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning, which is available on FTA’s web site for New Starts Project Planning and Development. Both documents specify the contents and format of an acceptable financial plan.  All agencies submitting information for evaluation and rating are required to submit financial plans that adhere to these guidelines.  Failure to provide a complete financial plan will adversely impact the project’s financial rating.

The supporting documentation provided by sponsoring agencies to FTA staff and contractors should be developed as part of the New Starts planning and project development process (alternatives analysis, preliminary engineering, environmental impact statement, and final design).  Documentation for each of the funding sources must be provided.  All underlying financial assumptions should be identified in the project finance plan and reflect capital financing strategies, projected rehabilitation and replacement costs for the existing system, operations and maintenance costs for the proposed project and the existing system, revenue stream assumptions, and cash flow projections.

Figure 3 on the following page provides a summary of typical supporting documentation for New Starts financial plans.  It is important for sponsoring agencies to understand that the ratings assigned by FTA are directly related to the ability of reviewers to readily identify, locate, review, and assess the provided documentation.  A concise, well-organized submittal is to the advantage of the sponsoring agency.
 

Figure 3: Examples of Financial Plan Supporting Documentation

General Documentation

• Background information and description of the transit agency, including organizational structure and an outline of any other significant capital projects underway (e.g., annual audits and annual reports for past three years, current budget).
• Background information and description of the New Starts fixed guideway project, including project status (e.g., project pamphlets, planning and engineering reports used to select and define the project).
• Information describing current and forecast economic conditions in the region (e.g., regional socioeconomic reports, regional planning estimates of socioeconomic growth used in the development of the financial and ridership estimates).

Financial Documentation

• Agency capital and operating cash flow analysis for the 20-year period (in year of expenditure dollars) as required by planning guidelines. The cash flow analysis should include expenses and revenues for the proposed project as a separate line item from expenses and revenues for the rest of the system.
• A description of the types and amounts of funds (in year of expenditure dollars) for the transit system and proposed project (e.g., local, state, Federal, sales tax, bonds, flexible funding, other funding sources).
• Operations and maintenance cost estimates (in year of expenditure dollars) for the entire planned transit system, including the proposed project.
• Capital cost estimates (in year of expenditure dollars) for the proposed project, broken out by major cost categories, including contingencies.
• Capital cost estimates (in year of expenditure dollars) for rehabilitation and replacement needs for the existing system broken out by major categories.
• Description of innovative financing techniques (e.g., innovative funding sources or financing techniques to be used to support the project or to be implemented as part of a larger system-wide program).
• Latest bonding prospectus, capital and operating financing plans, and other reports.
• Commitment letters, contracts, agreements, legislative referendums, joint development agreements, or other documentation evidencing commitment of funds
• Correspondence or other documentation indicating local source’s “intent to commit” if no formal commitment or programming of local funding is yet in place.

Additional Documentation

• Regional Long Range Transportation Plan
• Regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
• Major Investment Study (MIS) or Alternatives Analysis (AA), Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), if applicable
• Independent Audit Reports
• Rail vehicle and bus fleet management plans

Table 5 below presents a checklist of information that should be submitted to FTA.  The project sponsor must complete the checklist and include it with the financial submittal.  If the checklist is not provided, the submittal will be considered incomplete.  Insufficient or incomplete information supporting a project's local financial commitment criteria may result in a “Low” rating.  Project sponsors are encouraged to pay careful attention to the reporting requirements specified in FTA guidance.

Table 5: Local Financial Commitment Checklist -- Please see the Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version of the document to view Table 5

Instructions and Quality Control Checks for Completing the New Starts Project Finance Template

• The capital costs reported on this template should match what is reported in the Main Worksheet of the Standard Cost Categories and the Project Description Template.
• Financing costs should be reported if applicable and included in the total capital cost of the project, whether they are incurred by the sponsoring agency or one or more of the funding partners.
• Verify that the total project cost in constant or base year 2009 dollars reported on the New Starts Project Finance Template differs from that shown on the Build Alternative Annualized Capital Cost worksheet in the SCCs only because the annualized cost does not include finance charges.
• If the capital cost of the project has changed significantly from last year, please provide an explanation.
• Total Federal funding for the project (New Starts plus other Federal sources) should not exceed 80 percent.
• The sum of all proposed sources of operating funds reported on the New Starts Project Finance Template should equal the total transit system annual operating cost in the forecast year.
• The type of funding sources should be identified for each capital and operating revenue source.

 Please see the Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version of the document to view Appendix A