Click on any of the questions below to find FTA’s response. If you have additional questions not answered here, please use FTA’s Contact Us tool to submit a question.
Should I begin or complete the alternatives analysis I have been conducting since MAP-21 no longer requires that an alternatives analysis be completed?
SAFETEA-LU required that an alternatives analysis (AA) be completed before a project sponsor could apply to the FTA Capital Investment Grant program, also known as the New and Small Starts program. MAP-21 eliminates this stand alone AA requirement under Section 5309 and instead relies on the evaluation of options that may occur during the metropolitan planning process and the review of alternatives that occurs to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Project sponsors may still conduct a stand-alone AA separate from the NEPA review if they wish. This may ultimately streamline the environmental review process because the results of prior planning work evaluating alternatives may be incorporated into the NEPA review. If a sponsor chooses to do a separate AA to help inform the NEPA process, FTA’s involvement would be minimal compared to what it had been under SAFETEA-LU. FTA would not comment on the adequacy of the AA or the alternatives covered in it, other than identifying its sufficiency for incorporation into the NEPA process. As general good planning practice, FTA would suggest sponsors look at a range of alternatives and consider carefully the evaluation criteria that will be used to choose among alternatives. FTA is available for technical assistance if requested.
Early scoping is another option. It is an optional early NEPA planning step that precedes formal NEPA scoping. FTA encourages the use of early scoping as a way to start the NEPA process when a proposed action (a locally preferred alternative, for example) has not yet been identified and a large number of transit mode and alignment alternatives in a broad study area are under consideration. Early scoping activities can include public meetings, newspaper advertisements, and meetings with Federal, state and local agencies and non-government to government tribal outreach that may have an interest in the outcome of the study. Early scoping can also help streamline the NEPA process.
If early scoping is intended to result in screening of alternatives for future study, the process would need to comply with the requirements for linking planning and NEPA if the elimination of alternatives is to be given credit in the NEPA process.
The decision of whether to begin or complete an AA already underway is a local one. FTA will offer technical advice if requested.
For further guidance on the current requirements related to the analysis of alternatives in NEPA and linking planning and NEPA please review:
Will New and Small Starts projects currently in the program have to reapply or will they be grandfathered?
New Starts and Small Starts projects already in receipt of a construction grant agreement will not be subject to the MAP-21 requirements.
New Starts projects approved into final design and Small Starts projects approved into project development prior to October 1, 2012 (the effective date of MAP-21) will not have to reapply. New Starts projects previously in Final Design will be considered to be in the new “engineering” phase. Small Starts projects previously in project development will remain in the new MAP-21 project development phase. These New and Small Starts projects will need to be re-rated prior to receipt of a construction grant agreement as required by law, but the rating can be based on the old process rather than the new MAP-21 process unless a project sponsor requests to be evaluated under the new process and procedures.
Projects in New Starts preliminary engineering that had completed the environmental review process prior to October 1, 2012, will be considered to be in the new “engineering” phase created by MAP-21 and will not need to reapply. (FTA must have issued a categorical exclusion, a finding of no significant impact, or a record of decision for the project for the environmental review process to be complete.) These projects can continue to be covered by the SAFETEA-LU evaluation approach during engineering unless the project sponsor requests to be covered by the new MAP-21 evaluation approach or there are material changes to the project scope or cost. If there are material changes, the project will need to be re-rated under the MAP-21 evaluation approach. When these projects seek a full funding grant agreement, the projects will be rated under the new MAP-21 evaluation approach. This allows project sponsors time during engineering to complete any analyses needed to develop the new MAP-21 criteria.
Projects in New Starts preliminary engineering that had not completed the environmental review process prior to October 1, 2012 will be considered to be in the new “project development” phase created by MAP-21 and will not need to reapply. They will need to be rated under the MAP-21 evaluation approach to be admitted into engineering after the completion of the environmental review process. If these projects have a material change in cost or scope during engineering and when they seek to move from engineering to a full funding grant agreement, they will be re rated under the MAP-21 evaluation approach. The MAP-21 evaluation approach is outlined in the final rule published by FTA on January 9, 2013 found at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-09/pdf/2012-31540.pdf.
What should I submit to FTA if I wish to apply for entry into the project development phase as described in MAP-21?
Project sponsors wishing to enter the “project development” phase as a New Starts project, a Small Starts project, or a Core Capacity project should submit a letter to FTA as outlined in MAP-21. FTA suggests that the letter include the following basic information:
FTA has not yet released any information on how it will implement the Core Capacity provisions of MAP-21, but I want to ensure my project is not delayed. How can I keep the project moving forward prior to FTA releasing guidance on the program?
Project sponsors who are eager to move forward on their proposals need to keep in mind the following basics about Core Capacity:
To be eligible for funding, core capacity projects must: 1) be substantial corridor-based investments in existing fixed guideway systems and must be located in a corridor that is at or over capacity or will be in five years; 2) increase capacity by 10%; 3) not include project elements designed to maintain a state of good repair; and 4) not include elements to improve general station facilities or parking or acquisition of rolling stock alone. Projects may include: acquisition of real property and right of way, double tracking, signalization improvements, electrification, expanding system platforms, acquisition of rolling stock for increasing capacity, infill stations.
Project Sponsors should begin taking the steps necessary to ensure that they will be able to complete the Project Development phase within a two-year timeframe as specified in law. This includes completing the NEPA process, selecting a locally preferred alternative (LPA), getting the project adopted into the fiscally constrained long range plan, and preparing the information needed by FTA to evaluate and rate the project according to the statutory criteria. In other words, sponsors should do work now in advance of applying to FTA for entry so that they can time their application to enter Project Development when the activities mentioned above will be completed within two years. Project sponsors are encouraged to coordinate closely with FTA regional offices on the NEPA process prior to the request for entry into Project Development.
While conducting NEPA and arriving at a LPA, sponsors should be determining a financial plan to pay for the project and specifically from where the state/local matching funds will come. Project sponsors and their state/local funding partners will be expected to provide stable and reliable matching funds as required in law. After determining what sources of state/local funding to pursue, sponsors should begin the process of obtaining those commitments.
FTA encourages Core Capacity project sponsors to also discuss with the Metropolitan Planning Organization in their area what will be necessary to get the project adopted into the fiscally constrained long range plan and how long that will take so as to ensure it can be completed within the two year window of entry into Project Development.
Taking these steps now, that may take a fair amount of time to complete, will prepare projects sponsors to be competitive for Core Capacity funding when the program requirements are fully defined by FTA. Additionally, by engaging in these steps in advance of FTA guidance and rulemaking, project sponsors will be well positioned to offer FTA valuable insights and comments as we conduct those efforts.
FTA indicated in its recently published Final Rule that it is developing a simplified national model that can be used by project sponsors to estimate trips on a project. When will this tool be available? Are sponsors required to use it?
FTA has developed a simplified national model called “Simplified Trips-on-Projects Software” or STOPS, using detailed transit data and actual ridership experiences from more than 20 transit projects around the country. Compared to traditional travel forecasting methods, STOPS can significantly shorten the length of time required to develop ridership estimates. STOPS requires fairly simple inputs of population and employment, existing transit ridership and transit networks, highway travel speeds, and census journey to work data. Use of STOPS is optional and not required. If project sponsors wish to instead continue to use their local travel models to estimates ridership, they may do so. STOPS is currently being tested on a limited number of projects currently in Project Development. It will be made more widely available in the near future.