Large Starts Issues for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

1
Large Starts Issues for the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking

• New Starts/Small Starts Listening Session and
  Seminar
• San Francisco, CA
• February 15-16, 2006

2
Large Starts Issues and Possible Direction

• Topics
• Eligibility
• Project Evaluation and Ratings
• Project Development Procedures

3
Eligibility SAFETEA-LU Definition

• Fixed guideway means
• Using and occupying a separate right-of-way or
  rail for the exclusive use of public
  transportation and other high occupancy vehicles
  or
• Using a fixed catenary system and a right-of-way
  usable by other forms of transportation

4
Eligibility Issues for BRT

• Use the percentage of project in fixed guideway
  and if so, how should project be defined?
• Use percentage change in travel time?

5
Project Evaluation and Ratings SAFETEA-LU Key
Changes
NEW

• Measures of Project Justification
• Mobility
• Economic Development
• Land-Use
• Reliability of Forecasting Methods (Cost
  Ridership)
• Environmental benefits
• Operating Efficiencies
• Cost-Effectiveness
• Measures of Local Financial Commitment
• Stability/Reliability of Capital Funding
• Stability/Reliability of Operating Funding
• New Starts Share
• Other Measures Secretary Deems Appropriate

6
Project Evaluation and Ratings Option 1
Framework

• New project justification criteria
• - economic development impacts
• - reliability of forecasting methods for costs
  and ridership
• Existing project justification criteria
• - transit supportive land use policies and
  future patterns -- mobility improvements
• - environmental benefits
• - operating efficiencies
• - cost effectiveness
• Existing financial commitment criteria

7
Project Evaluation and Ratings Option 2
Develop New Framework

• Organize measures into the following categories
• Nature of the problem or opportunity
• Effectiveness of the project as a response
• Cost effectiveness
• Financial capability
• Risk and uncertainty
• Current land use and plans and polices
• Reliability of forecasting methods (ridership,
  costs, funding)

8
Project Evaluation and Ratings - Option 2
Develop New Framework
9
Project Evaluation and Ratings - Land-Use vs.
Economic Development

• Land Use
• Conduciveness of project corridor to achieving
  effectiveness goals
• Essentially indicates the uncertainty in
  forecasts of mobility benefits similar to other
  external factors like parking costs, gas prices
  and CBD growth
• NOT impact of the project
• Economic Development
• Impact of Project on Land Use and Economic Growth
• Project benefit measure

10
Project Evaluation and Ratings - Option 2
Possible Measures

• Nature of the problem/opportunity
• Purpose To clearly characterize the purpose of
  the proposed project in terms of specific
  problems or opportunities in the corridor
• Bus travel speeds
• Current highway speeds compared to projected
  future speeds Vacancy rates
• Ratio of land value to current development
• Vacancy rates

11
Project Evaluation and Ratings - Option 2
Possible Measures

• Mobility
• Purpose Indicate how much the average traveler
  benefits and whether many benefit
• User Benefits per passenger mile
• Projected transit ridership in corridor

12
Project Evaluation and Ratings - Option 2
Possible Measures

• Mobility for Transit Dependents
• Purpose Indicate how much transit dependents
  benefit
• Share of user benefits to lowest income strata
  households/share of lowest strata households in
  region

13
Project Evaluation and Ratings - Option 2
Possible Measures

• Economic Development
• Purpose Determine the extent to which the
  project will contribute to economic development
• Current land use in the corridor
• Development plans and policies
• Economic development climate
• Project accessibility benefits
• Permanence of the proposed investment

14
Project Evaluation and Ratings - Option 2
Possible Measures

• Environmental Benefits
• Purpose Indicate how much emissions and energy
  consumption is reduced
• - Tons of emissions
• - BTUs

15
Project Evaluation and Ratings - Option 2
Possible Measures

• Operating Efficiencies
• Remove as separate measure because it is
  addressed in cost effectiveness

16
Project Evaluation and Ratings - Option 2
Possible Measures

• Cost-Effectiveness
• Purpose To determine whether the benefits are
  commensurate with the costs to achieve them

17
Project Evaluation and Ratings - Option 2
Possible Measures

• Financial Capability
• Purpose To ensure that the project sponsor has
  the funds to construct the proposed project
• Capital funding
• OM funding
• Non-New Starts share

18
Project Evaluation and Ratings - Option 2
Possible Measures

• Risk and Uncertainty
• Purpose To support informed decision-making by
  understanding the uncertainty in evaluation
  measures
• Land use - current vs. plans and policies
• Forecasting methods - ridership and costs
• Peer project experience
• Funding reliability/ability to absorb cost
  increases or funding shortfalls

19
Project Development Procedures

• Local Endorsement of the Financial Plan
• Sponsoring agency proposes specific funding
  sources, amounts and strategies to obtain funding
• Funding agencies endorse pursuit of funding with
  timeframe
• Rationale
• Strengthens commitments to financial plan

20
Project Development Procedures

• Approval of the Baseline Alternative
• Baseline defined as the best that can be done
  without building a fixed guideway
• FTA concurs with the set of detailed alternatives
• FTA approves the baseline when final alternatives
  developed
• Rationale
• Clarify baseline definition and approval process

21
Project Development Procedures

• On-Board Transit Survey
• Require recent (5 years?) on-board survey for PE
  approval
• Rationale
• Support reliable forecasts of transportation
  benefits
• Support identification of purpose and need

22
Project Development Procedures

• Preliminary Engineering Purpose and Exit Criteria
• Sufficient to complete NEPA
• Firm cost estimate without significant unknown
  impacts
• Cost sufficient to support financing strategy
• Guidance on activities completed at PE completion
  
• Rationale
• Defines PE
• Supports policy of fixing new starts amount
• Minimizes possibility of wasted resources due to
  increasing capital cost estimate in FD

23
Project Development Procedures

• New Starts Funding Share Incentive
• Higher share of funding available if projects
  cost is not more than 10 higher and ridership
  not less than 90 of those estimates when project
  admitted into PE
• Rationale
• Incentive for good planning estimates