[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4864-4876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-870]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Part 611
[Docket No. FTA-2005-22841]
RIN 2132-AA81
Major Capital Investment Projects
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This advance notice of proposed rulemaking provides interested
parties with the opportunity to comment on the characteristics and
requirements proposed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for a
new capital investment program. This new program, ``Small Starts'', is
a discretionary grant program for public transportation capital
projects that run along a dedicated corridor or a fixed guideway, have
a total project cost of less than $250 million, and are seeking less
than $75 million in Small Starts program funding.
This Small Starts program is a component of the existing New Starts
program, but will offer project sponsors an expedited and streamlined
application and review process.
Consistent with the intent and provisions of the new public transit
statute, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation
Equity Act--A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), FTA hopes to simplify the
planning and project development process for proposed Small Starts
projects in a number of ways. In addition to the reduced number of
evaluation measures specified in SAFETEA-LU, the process may be further
simplified by allowing small projects to conduct alternatives analysis
with a reduced set of alternatives, allowing evaluation measures for
mobility and cost-effectiveness to be developed without having to rely
on complicated travel demand modeling procedures in some cases, and
possibly defining some classes of low-cost improvements that are pre-
approved as effective and cost-effective in certain contexts.
DATES: Comments must be received by March 10, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Written Comments: Submit written comments to the Dockets
Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Comments. You may submit comments identified by the docket number
(FTA-2005-22841) by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
Fax: 1-202-493-2478.
Mail: Docket Management System; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-001.
Hand Delivery: To the Docket Management System; Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
notice. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation
heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note
that all comments received will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov including any personal information provided. Please see the
Privacy Act heading under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to the
Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Fisher, Office of Planning and
Environment, telephone (202) 366-4033, Federal Transit Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. for FTA,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On August 10, 2005, President Bush signed the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act--A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU). Section 3011 of SAFETEA-LU made a number of changes to 49
U.S.C. 5309, which authorizes the Federal Transit Administration's
(FTA's) fixed guideway capital investment program known as ``New
Starts''. In addition to the changes made to the New Starts program,
for which FTA intends to issue separate policy guidance and a revised
regulation, section 5309 has been amended to add a new subsection (3)
containing a new capital investment program category for projects
requesting federal funding of less than $75,000,000 with a total
project cost of less than $250,000,000. That new capital investment
program, which will be referred to as the ``Small Starts'' program, is
the subject of this ANPRM. FTA plans to issue a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) in the near future that will address changes to the
existing New Starts program made by section 3011 of SAFETEA-LU, as well
as a proposal for the Small Starts program based on comments received
in response to this ANPRM.
SAFETEA-LU created the new Small Starts program category by
amending section 5309(e) of Chapter 53 of Title 49, United States Code.
At the same time, the current process for larger new fixed guideway and
extension (``New Starts'') projects was continued (with some
modifications) under section 5309(d). The conference report
accompanying SAFETEA-LU indicates the expectation that projects in this
new ``Small Starts'' category would be ``advanced through an expedited
and streamlined evaluation and rating process.''
The New Starts process now required under section 5309(d) for
larger new fixed guideway and extension projects has been in place for
some time and we believe represents the point of departure from which
the new Small Starts category should be developed. The New Starts
process was first outlined by a Statement of Policy in 1976 and was
refined in subsequent Statements of Policy in 1978, 1980, and 1984. In
the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of
1987, the process called for in the Statements of Policy was enacted
into law, and was subsequently modified by the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. A Statement of Policy in 1997
and further amendments in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century, enacted in 1998, culminated in the current Final rule on Major
Capital Investments (Title 49; Vol. 6 CFR611.1), issued in December
2000 and went into effect in April 2001.
Under the process laid out in statute and in the December 2000
Final Rule, New Starts projects, like all transportation investments in
metropolitan areas, must emerge from a
[[Page 4865]]
regional, multi-modal transportation planning process. Under the
process, local project sponsors are required to perform an alternatives
analysis that evaluates the mode and alignment options in the
community. Once local and regional decision makers select a locally
preferred alternative, and it is adopted by the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) into its long-range transportation plan, this phase
is complete and the project is ready to be approved by FTA to enter the
next phase--Preliminary Engineering (PE). During PE, local project
sponsors consider their design options to refine the locally preferred
alternative and complete the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process. Upon approval by FTA, the project may undertake Final Design,
which includes the preparation of final construction plans, detailed
specifications, construction cost estimates, and bid documents. A
project which meets the statutory criteria for funding is constructed
using a ``full funding grant agreement'' which defines the scope of the
project to be constructed, the schedule and costs, the source and
commitment of funds, and the amount and timing of Federal funds
committed to the project.
Section 5309(d) requires that larger New Starts projects (seeking
greater than $75 million in New Starts funds or greater than $250
million in total project costs) be evaluated and rated in terms of
project justification and local financial commitment. For project
justification, section 5309(d) requires an assessment of mobility
improvements, environmental benefits, cost effectiveness, operating
efficiencies, and transit supportive land use and future patterns. (The
SAFETEA-LU amendment to section 5309(d) added economic development
effects to the justification criteria. As noted above, this and other
changes made by SAFETEA-LU will be the subject of a subsequent
rulemaking.) For local financial commitment, assessments include the
proposed share of total project costs from sources other than New
Starts under section 5309, including federal transit formula and
flexible funds, the local match required by Federal law, and any
additional capital funding; the stability and reliability of the
proposed capital financing plan; and the ability of the sponsoring
agency to fund the operations and maintenance of the entire transit
system (including existing service) as planned, once the project is
built. To assign overall project ratings to each proposed New Starts
project, FTA considers the individual ratings for each of the project
justification and local financial commitment measures. FTA combines
this information into summary ``finance'' and ``project justification''
ratings for each prospective New Starts project. Individual measures
and summary ratings are designated as ``High,'' ``Medium-High,''
``Medium,'' ``Medium-Low'' or ``Low.'' These are then combined into a
single overall rating, which prior to enactment of SAFETEA-LU, was
either ``Highly Recommended,'' ``Recommended,'' or ``Not Recommended;''
under the changes made by SAFETEA-LU, the summary ratings will range
from ``High'' to ``Low.''
The statutory language in section 5309(e) for Small Starts projects
provides for some significant differences for the Small Starts program
in comparison to the requirements for larger New Starts projects in
section 5309(d). First, the eligibility for funding is broader,
including certain ``corridor-based bus capital projects,'' rather than
only new fixed guideway systems and extensions. Projects are limited to
those with a proposed section 5309 amount of less than $75,000,000 and
a total project cost of less than $250,000,000. The project
justification criteria are simplified, focusing on three criteria--
cost-effectiveness, public transportation supportive land use policies,
and effect on local economic development--rather than the more
extensive list provided for in section 5309(d). The criteria for local
financial commitment have been simplified to focus only on a shorter
term financial plan. The project development process has three steps--
alternatives analysis, project development, and construction--rather
than the four steps--alternatives analysis, preliminary engineering,
final design, and construction--in the section 5309(d) process.
Finally, the instrument used for implementing these Small Starts
projects is a ``project construction grant agreement'' which is to be
structured as a streamlined version of the ``full funding grant
agreement'' required for larger New Starts projects under section
5309(d).
II. Purpose of This ANPRM
While we believe that the New Starts process represents a good
starting point for the development of the new Small Starts program, it
is clear from the statutory and report language that significant
simplification is contemplated. Indeed, the concept of Small Starts was
included in the Administration's reauthorization proposal because of
our belief that it is appropriate to apply a simpler process and more
streamlined evaluation approach for smaller projects seeking a more
limited amount of Federal assistance. While FTA believes a considerable
body of experience with the New Starts can be applied to enhance
development of the Small Starts program we believe that a fresh look
and early examination of key issues related to the process and criteria
is warranted before we develop a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. First,
the expanded definition of eligibility raises a number of questions.
Second, tailoring the project rating and evaluation process to the
smaller scale and different nature of the projects, which are likely to
be proposed for funding in this program deserves further attention.
Finally, the project development process should also be scaled to
properly reflect the size and nature of these projects.
Each of these issues is discussed below, in turn. In each section,
we describe the nature of the specific program issues which must be
addressed in a Final Rule, and we pose a series of questions, the
answers to which will help us frame our approach to the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. In addition to accepting written comments on these
issues, FTA plans to hold listening sessions in the following cities to
solicit input on the Small Starts and New Starts programs:
--San Francisco, CA--February 15-16, Hyatt Regency San Francisco
--Ft. Worth, TX--March 1-2, Radisson Plaza Hotel Forth Worth
--Washington, DC--March 9-10, Wardman Park Marriott Hotel
For more information, please contact Tonya Holland at 202-493-0283
or [email protected].
III. Small Starts Eligibility
SAFETEA-LU constrains eligibility of projects for Small Starts
funding by imposing limits of $75 million in section 5309 Small Starts
funds and $250 million for total project cost. However, it broadens
eligibility in terms of project definition by relaxing the existing
requirement that the project include a fixed guideway. With this
change, a project that would not meet the fixed-guideway criterion is
now eligible if it (1) includes a substantial portion that is in a
separate right-of-way, or (2) represents a substantial investment in
specific kinds of transit improvements in a defined corridor.
The eligibility provisions of the statute raise several issues: how
to define ``substantial portion in a separate right-of-way''; how to
define ``substantial investment''; the possibility
[[Page 4866]]
that project sponsors could divide traditional New Starts projects into
two or more Small Starts projects; and the possibility that a Small
Starts project might be proposed as the initial transit service in a
corridor.
(a) ``Separate Right-of-Way''
The characteristics that qualify a project as having ``a
substantial portion'' in separate right-of-way are not self-
explanatory. We might define ``substantial'' either as some minimum
fraction of the project length or as a performance based determination
of whether the separate right-of-way is substantial. We believe that
the purpose of a separate right-of-way is generally to reduce trip
times and improve reliability for transit passengers. Therefore, a
``substantial'' separate right-of-way could be defined as one that
results in a significant travel time reduction along the physical
extent of the project. For example, if end-to-end trip time is reduced
by some percentage, say 20 percent, the separate right-of-way could be
considered ``substantial'' and the project would be eligible no matter
what percent of the project was in a separate right-of-way.
(b) ``Substantial Investment''
It seems clear from the language of SAFETEA-LU, referring to a
``substantial investment'' and ``corridor'' that the Small Starts
program is not intended to fund single stations or buy a few additional
transit vehicles, but to fund corridor-based projects that are more
comprehensive in nature. A thoughtful definition here will be important
to prevent the Small Starts program from becoming an adjunct to the bus
and rail capital-grants programs that agencies use for routine
reinvestment in and expansion of transit systems. In response,
``substantial investment--might be defined as some minimum project cost
or cost per mile of the proposed project. An alternative strategy would
be to define it in terms of a minimum scope of the project--providing
for elements that together represent a comprehensive package of
improvements.
The statutory language specifically references a variety of project
features including park-and-ride lots, transit stations, bus arrival
and departure signage, traffic signal priority/pre-emption, off board
fare collection, and advanced bus technologies, among others, that
could indicate that a project constitutes a ``substantial'' investment.
One approach would be to determine whether a project contains several
of these project elements that have the effect of constituting a
comprehensive package of physical and service improvements in a defined
corridor, the project would be considered eligible. Since each of these
potential project elements has a different purpose and effect, we do
not believe that all Small Starts projects need to have all of the
specified elements. Rather, the mix of project elements should respond
specifically to the problems or opportunities presented in the
corridor. For instance, a project that is intended to speed up peak
period bus service in a congested corridor might be required to include
several improvements, such as signal priority/pre-emption, queue
jumpers, multi-door boarding and fare pre-payment, that effectively
result in faster bus speeds. Projects with other goals could have a
different mix of project elements as long as they represent a
comprehensive attempt to solve the problems or respond to the
opportunities presented in the corridor.
Another potential way to ensure that Small Starts projects contain
a comprehensive package of improvements would be to impose a multi-year
period from the date the project requests entry into project
development, in which the project sponsor could not request additional
Small Starts funds for the same corridor. This would prevent projects
from using the Small Starts program for miscellaneous bus system
improvements that do not represent a ``substantial'' corridor
investment and would also prevent the subdividing of New Starts
projects as discussed below.
A ``defined corridor'' might be defined as narrowly as a single
street or as broadly as a geographic section of the metropolitan area.
A more comprehensive definition might be derived from the travel
patterns established on the current transit system--as in ``the travel
corridor connecting residents of the northeastern suburbs to
downtown.'' Still another definition might be based on the bus route(s)
operating on a single arterial street or highway, or the rail line(s)
operating on a single right of way, along with their branches.
(c) Subdividing New Starts Projects
Project sponsors might elect to subdivide a traditional New Starts
project into two or more Small Starts projects in order to qualify for
the simplified evaluation and rating process. This possibility is not
addressed in the language of SAFETEA-LU, but the possibility clearly
exists for larger projects to be segmented or phased into development
as separate Small Starts projects. This may or may not be desirable. It
may be sensible to build some Small Starts projects in phases over a
longer period of time. If each of those phases represents a valid Small
Starts project, it may be justified that the Small Starts funding be
utilized. However, it is probably undesirable for large projects that
would otherwise be built entirely at the same time to be redefined as
several Small Starts projects. At least three reasons suggest that this
subdividing strategy is undesirable. First a small number of subdivided
New Starts projects could quickly deplete the Small Starts funding
allocation, thereby making the Small Starts option unavailable to
projects more consistent with the purpose of the Small Starts
allocation. Second, costly New Starts projects ought to undergo the
full New Starts evaluation rather than the simpler evaluation reserved
for smaller projects with lower costs and less risk. Third, FTA
oversight resources would be stretched even further by the
proliferation of artificially subdivided projects.
If it is determined that separate phases of larger projects should
not be able to use Small Starts funds, we could introduce an
eligibility requirement that all potential Small Starts projects in a
single corridor be considered simultaneously for eligibility. We could
ensure that even if a Small Starts project is to be built in stages,
the comprehensive plan for the corridor meets the eligibility criteria
for a Small Starts project and be evaluated and rated as a
comprehensive program of improvements. If the comprehensive corridor
improvement plan exceeds the Small Starts cost criterion, the project
should then be evaluated and rated as a traditional New Starts project.
(d) Small Starts as the Initial Service Offering
Given the relatively low cost of Small Starts projects, some
project sponsors might propose a Small Starts project as a way of
initiating transit service in previously unserved areas. That strategy
increases risk, however, if the transit market has not yet been
sufficiently developed in the planned service area. Further, the
strategy seems inconsistent with the purpose of the Small Starts
program--to provide higher-quality service than is available from
conventional bus routes. Consequently, we might establish a minimum-
current-ridership requirement--say 1,000 riders per average weekday in
the immediate corridor--to screen out proposals for corridors where
transit markets are not yet sufficiently developed.
[[Page 4867]]
Questions
We invite comment on our current thinking regarding the project
eligibility for the Small Starts category of the New Starts program:
1. What portion of the project should be in a separate right-of-way
to qualify for funding under the Small Starts eligibility criteria?
Should this determination be based on length or on performance?
2. How might we interpret the requirement that a project represent
a ``substantial investment''?
3. How might we ensure that a Small Starts project be in a
``defined corridor''?
4. Should we try to prevent traditional New Starts projects from
being divided into two or more Small Starts projects? If so, in what
ways might we prevent this from happening?
5. Should we establish a minimum ridership requirement to ensure
that Small Starts projects are used to improve the quality of service
for existing transit markets rather than represent the first transit
service offered to potentially new transit markets? If not, how can a
project demonstrate need for investment?
IV. Evaluation and Ratings
SAFETEA-LU section 3011(e)(2) requires that the Secretary of
Transportation provide funding assistance to a proposed project under
this new Small Starts category only if the Secretary finds that the
project is:
(A) Based on the results of planning and alternatives analysis;
(B) Justified based on a review of its public transportation
supportive land use policies, cost effectiveness, and effect on local
economic development; and
(C) Supported by an acceptable degree of local financial
commitment.
The statute expands on the justification required in paragraph (B),
requiring that the Secretary make the following determinations:
The degree to which the project is consistent with local
land use policies and is likely to achieve local development goals;
The cost effectiveness of the project at the time of the
initiation of revenue service;
The degree to which a project will have a positive effect
on local economic development;
The reliability of the forecasting methods used to
estimate costs and ridership associated with the project; and
Any other factors that the Secretary determines
appropriate to make funding decisions.
The SAFETEA-LU provisions for the evaluation of proposed Small
Starts projects raise several issues. These include the framework for
the evaluation; the specific measures used in the evaluation; and
scaling of the evaluation approach for Small Starts projects of
different size, cost, and complexity.
(a) Evaluation Framework
At least two options exist for the framework used to organize the
evaluation measures and synthesize the findings for individual
projects. The first would be an extension of the framework used for New
Starts projects described in the December 2000 Final Rule on Major
Capital Investment Projects (Title 49; Vol 6; 49 CFR 611.1), adjusted
to add and delete the specific measures listed in SAFETEA-LU. The
second would adopt a framework designed both to implement the Small
Starts evaluation criteria specified by SAFETEA-LU and to organize the
measures in a way which we believe supports an informative, analytical
discussion of the project and its merits for Small Starts funding.
Option 1--Extension of the Evaluation Framework for New Starts
The framework that we currently use to evaluate New Starts projects
considers each candidate project from two separate perspectives: the
project's ``justification'' and local financial commitment proposed by
its sponsor. Figure 1 illustrates one way in which the current
framework could be adapted to the evaluation of Small Starts.
Currently, ``justification'' considers a broad array of criteria but is
based chiefly on two: cost effectiveness (50 percent of the
justification rating) and land use (50 percent). Cost effectiveness
addresses the trade-off between the capital, operating, and maintenance
costs of the project and the mobility benefits that it is expected to
produce. Land use addresses the extent to which the land-use setting
for the project would promote a successful project--both in terms of
the transit orientation of current land use and the policies adopted
locally to foster transit orientation in future development. For Small
Starts, we might respond to SAFETEA-LU direction by simply adding an
economic-development criterion and a forecast-reliability criterion to
the existing definition of the justification perspective. As we do
currently for New Starts projects, we could assign a rating for each of
the now four components (cost effectiveness, land use, economic
development, and forecast reliability) and compute an overall
justification rating as a weighted average of the individual ratings.
Given that we expect far more applications than awards and the intense
scrutiny and interest in cost-effectiveness of recommended projects
among various participants in federal funding recommendations (e.g.,
Congress, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the General
Accounting Office (GAO), and others), it may be desirable to continue
to assign roughly half of the ``justification'' weighting to the cost-
effectiveness component, perhaps allocating the other half equally
across the land use, economic development, and reliability criteria.
[[Page 4868]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JA06.004
Currently, local financial commitment is defined for New Starts in
terms of the strength of the financial plan for the capital costs of
the proposed project (50 percent of the financial rating), the strength
of the financial plan for operating and maintaining the entire transit
system including the proposed project (30 percent), and the level of
non-New-Starts funding proposed by the sponsor (20 percent). We compute
an overall rating on local financial commitment as the weighted average
of the individual ratings on these three criteria. Application of these
three criteria, augmented by a new measure to reflect the reliability
of the revenue and cost forecasts, might provide a sufficient framework
for the evaluation of Small Starts as well.
Option 2--Development of a Broader Framework
For some time, we have been considering ways to provide a better
framework for the assessment of major investment projects. The current
approach, while consistent with current laws, tends to focus attention
on the measures themselves, rather than promoting a thoughtful
consideration of project merit. To address these concerns, a second
option would be to broaden the perspectives we use to evaluate proposed
projects, re-organize the evaluation criteria within these
perspectives, and add a brief, clearly written narrative that
synthesizes the insights available from various measures into the best
possible case for the project as a candidate for Small Starts funding.
Together, the evaluation measures and the narrative case for the
project might consider:
The nature of the problem/opportunity--because meritorious
transit projects emerge from efforts to solve transportation problems
and respond to important opportunities to improve mobility and support
economic development;
The effectiveness of the project as a response--because
meritorious transit projects increase mobility for existing and new
transit riders, preserve and expand mobility for transit dependents,
and support economic development;
The cost-effectiveness of the required investment--because
meritorious projects generate benefits that are commensurate with their
capital, operating, and maintenance costs;
The strength of the local financial commitment--because
financially sound projects draw on capital and operating funding
sources that are readily available given reasonable expectations of
revenue streams and acknowledgment of competing uses for the funds; and
Risk in the forecasts and in the evaluation measures--
because informed decision-making requires an understanding of any major
uncertainties in information used to evaluate the project including
land use forecasts, land use policy intentions, ridership forecasts,
cost estimates, and other assumptions and forecasts.
We believe that an evaluation framework comprising these five
perspectives would provide a natural and logical place for each of the
criteria specified in SAFETEA-LU. Cost effectiveness and local
financial commitment are themselves two of the perspectives. Economic
development would be a principal component of the effectiveness
perspective. Land use policies and the reliability of ridership and
cost forecasts would be central elements of the uncertainties
perspective.
[[Page 4869]]
Figure 2 provides an overview of the framework presented as Option
2 for the evaluation of Small Starts projects. The framework could
examine separately the merits and the financial plan for the proposed
project, as well as factor in the risks associated with the reliability
of the data. Project merit could depend on the weighted results of
project evaluation from three distinct perspectives: The nature of the
problems/opportunities, the effectiveness of the project in addressing
the problems/opportunities, and the cost-effectiveness of the necessary
investment in capital, operating, and maintenance costs. Given that we
expect far more applications than awards and the intense scrutiny and
interest at the federal level in funding cost-effective projects, it
may be desirable to continue to assign roughly half of the project-
merit weighting to the cost-effectiveness component, perhaps allocating
the other half equally across the problems/opportunities and
effectiveness criteria.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JA06.005
In the evaluation of effectiveness and cost effectiveness, the
basis for comparison for a proposed project might appropriately depend
on the nature of the proposal. For projects that do not involve
construction of a new guideway, the baseline might be current transit
services in the corridor. For projects that include a new guideway, the
baseline might be similar service levels provided by buses operating on
the same or nearby streets and/or highways, and serving a comparable
set of stations. Regardless of the specifics, the timeframe for the
comparison of ridership, mobility benefits, and cost-effectiveness
would be the year of opening of the proposed Small Starts project.
Financial capacity could depend on the weighted results of
financial analysis from three perspectives--the soundness of the
capital funding plan, the soundness of the operating/maintenance
funding plan, and the proposed non-New-Starts share of the project--
with weights equal to those used currently for New Starts evaluations.
Risk could reflect the levels of uncertainty present in the
information used to develop each of the component ratings for project
merit and local financial commitment. Consequently, each component
rating would be accompanied by an indicator of its reliability. The
risk measures might be based on (1) the comparability of cost estimates
and ridership forecasts to peer projects both locally and nationally,
(2) the steps that the project sponsor has taken--including data
collection, sensitivity testing, and peer reviews--to identify and
minimize uncertainties, and (3) the performance of the project sponsor
in delivering previous transit projects that met forecasts of costs and
ridership.
The evaluation framework might include an analytical discussion of
the project and its performance against the evaluation criteria,
providing direct answers to several key questions:
What is the problem?
What project is proposed in response?
What are its costs?
How well does it address the problem?
Is it worth the investment?
Can the project sponsor and other funding sources afford
it?
What are the trade-offs versus other alternatives?
Where are the large uncertainties?
This discussion would ensure that the evaluation rested as much on
well stated insights into the merits of the project as on the mechanics
of the evaluation measures themselves. We
[[Page 4870]]
might use the case for the project to support project advancement or
funding decisions for marginally rated projects.
Baseline Alternative
Virtually from the beginning of the New Starts program, FTA has
required that the benefits and costs of the proposed New Starts project
be assessed versus a baseline alternative defined as the best that can
be done without building a new fixed guideway. The purpose of the
baseline alternative has been to distill the benefits (and costs) of
the proposed New Starts project from the benefits achieved through low-
cost improvements such as route realignments, increases in service
frequency, park-and-ride lots, signal preemption and other low-cost
improvements that could have significant benefits, but which could be
achieved without the significant cost of a New Starts project's
infrastructure. The baseline alternative has proven to be essential in
properly accounting for benefits and costs of traditional New Starts
projects. A secondary benefit is that it allows FTA to better evaluate
projects fairly. In essence, a consistently defined baseline
alternative prevents regions with good existing transit service from
being disadvantaged relative to areas with poor existing service in the
competition for New Starts funds.
For the Small Starts program, a baseline alternative may be less
important in both accurately determining the costs and benefits of some
projects and establishing a level playing field for evaluations across
the country. History has shown the need for a baseline for larger
projects now eligible for Small Starts funding, but a baseline
alternative may not be necessary for certain kinds of projects based on
their costs or other characteristics.
(b) Specific Evaluation Measures
Regardless of the framework that emerges, each criterion will
require specific evaluation measures. In principle, the measures should
be accurate indicators of the performance of proposed projects, be
readily computed by project sponsors, be transit-mode-neutral, and be
free of inherent biases that would distort the level playing field that
we try to maintain for all project sponsors.
A particular challenge is the appropriate inclusion of land use in
the evaluation. Land use might usefully play a role in two parts of the
evaluation framework: as part of the economic-development criterion and
as part of the risk assessment. Our current evaluation of New Starts
projects employs land use measures (current land use, plans and
policies, and the track record of those plans and policies) that
effectively address the risk perspective: The measures indicate the
transit-friendliness of the project corridor, both now and in the
future, to indicate the extent to which the proposed project would be
implemented in a setting conducive to its success. However, because
current land use and plans/policies do not measure the benefits
generated by the proposed project, they do not address the anticipated
development benefits from the project. The absence of measures of
economic-development benefits is the result of our continuing
difficulties in finding methods for predicting development impacts with
sufficient reliability for use in New Starts evaluation. These
difficulties extend to Small Starts evaluation as well. Further,
because SAFETEA-LU introduces a separate economic-development
criterion, the potential role for land use as a measure of development
benefits becomes even less evident. A distinction between land-use
development and economic development seems elusive. Consequently, an
appropriate strategy might be to define ``land-use/economic
development'' as a measure of project effectiveness and to define
``transit-orientation of land use'' as a measure of risk inherent in
both the mobility benefits and the land-use/economic development
benefits.
Nature of the Problem/Opportunity
New Starts projects are almost always intended to solve specific
transportation problems, or take advantage of opportunities to improve
transportation services, or support economic development. For this
reason, the most useful starting point for evaluation of proposed
transportation investments may be the nature and severity of the
problems/opportunities the proposed projects are designed to address.
Such a criterion might rate very highly projects designed to address
clearly identifiable and particularly severe mobility problems, while
rating more moderately those projects that take advantage of specific
opportunities to improve service, but are not in corridors with a
particular mobility problem.
An immediate question, then, is what kinds of problems/
opportunities is the Small Starts program intended to address. Both the
New Starts program and the SAFETEA-LU provisions for Small Starts both
emphasize cost effectiveness and support for economic/land use
development. Mobility benefits are implicit in cost effectiveness
because our cost effectiveness measure has, since its inception,
compared costs with some indicator of mobility benefits (initially new
transit trips and, since 2001, user benefits). Consequently, measures
to represent the nature of the problem or opportunity addressed by a
proposed Small Starts project ought to reflect economic development and
mobility. Useful measures for economic development might include
vacancy rates, the value of land parcels compared to the value of
current improvements on those parcels, and similar measures of
development conditions in the corridor of interest. Useful measures for
mobility might include current bus travel speeds in the immediate
corridor, current highway speeds on principal arterials in the
corridor, and projected speeds in the future--perhaps in 10 years.
Effectiveness
Small Starts projects are likely to produce a wide variety of
benefits that are candidate measures of their performance. SAFETEA-LU
calls out two kinds of benefits: economic/land-use development
specifically and mobility improvement implicitly through cost-
effectiveness.
Predicting economic development impacts of transit improvements--
particularly the types of improvements anticipated to be funded through
the Small Starts program--is a particular challenge. No predictive
tools are available in standard practice and development of new tools
is infeasible in the short run. Consequently, the best-available
measures of likely economic development/land-use benefits may be
derived from the circumstances in which the projects would be
implemented rather than from forecasts of their specific development
impacts. A survey of available research on the development impacts of
transit suggests that increased accessibility and permanence of the
transit investment are the primary transit-related drivers of
development. Those project-related characteristics, plus indicators of
the availability of land for development or redevelopment, may provide
a workable representation of likely development benefits. Specific
measures might be (1) current land-use conditions, (2) development
plans and policies, (3) the economic development climate in the
corridor and region, (4) the project-related change in transit
accessibility for developable areas in the corridor, and (5) the
economic lifespan of new transit facilities proximate to those
developable areas.
The measure of mobility benefits ought to capture as many benefits
as
[[Page 4871]]
possible. Currently for New Starts projects, we define ``user
benefits'' to include all changes in mobility that are measured by
local ridership-forecasting methods and define the scope of those
benefits to include both existing and new transit riders. (The
definition also includes benefits to users of the highway system but
measurement of those benefits has been precluded by the insufficient
state of the practice for predicting changes in highway speeds.)
Consequently, the user-benefits measure credits transit projects with
reductions in transit travel times (including time spent walking,
waiting, transferring, and riding in transit vehicles), any other
service characteristics (such as the number of transfers) included in
local forecasting methods, and the availability of multiple competitive
travel options, again as represented by local forecasting methods. The
user-benefits measure is also defined to give appropriate credit for
other project characteristics that improve the quality of transit
service including changes in reliability, span of service, safety and
security, passenger stations, passenger information, permanence of the
facilities, and other characteristics not represented by travel times
and costs. Unfortunately, these harder-to-measure impacts of transit
improvements are rarely measured explicitly in local travel models and
are instead represented--very roughly--as lump-sum differences
(transit-mode-specific ``constants'') in the attractiveness of
different transit modes (bus, light rail, express bus, commuter rail,
and so forth). Further, the state of the practice in ridership
forecasting makes difficult the task of quantifying these effects in
urban areas where a variety of transit modes exists today and provides
no information on these effects in urban areas where the transit system
includes bus service only. Most unfortunately, these hard-to-measure
effects may be central to the merits of smaller projects that may not
produce large changes in travel times. For example, we may specify
standard values for the benefits generated by the various non-travel-
time improvements introduced by a proposed Small Starts project. For
example, we might define passenger stations to provide the equivalent
of M minutes of travel time savings for each rider, an exclusive
guideway N minutes per passenger-mile of equivalent savings, and all-
day high-quality service P minutes per rider. We would then employ
these standard values as default measures of benefits for metropolitan
areas introducing a new transit mode. To maintain a level playing field
for project evaluation, we might also use the standard values as limits
on the estimated values of these benefits in metropolitan areas that
already have the mode in question. FTA's ``Dear Colleague'' letter
dated April 29, 2005, which addressed changes in New Starts ratings,
stated that FTA had decided to postpone the introduction of mode-
specific constants for new guideway modes to an area. The creation of
the Small Starts program has prompted reconsideration of the
application of these constants.
Given the key role that transit plays in the lives of travelers who
rely on it for basic mobility, we might also include an indicator of
the extent to which a proposed project improves mobility for transit
dependent residents of the urban area. A straightforward measure might
be the fraction of total mobility benefits that accrues to travelers in
the lowest economic stratum (usually household income or auto-
ownership) used in the local ridership-forecasting methods, normalized
by the fraction of all trips made by residents of that stratum.
Cost-Effectiveness
Since the inception of the transit major capital investment
program, we have employed a cost effectiveness measure and have
translated its computed value for a project into a cost-effectiveness
rating for that project using a set of breakpoints (that is, a computed
value between X and Y obtains a ``Medium'' rating). Traditionally, we
have computed the cost-effectiveness of New Starts projects as
annualized capital, operating, and maintenance costs of the project per
unit of transportation benefits, all compared to a non-guideway
baseline alternative. We currently use the transit-user-benefits
measure to capture the full range of quantifiable transportation
benefits of proposed projects. A broader cost-effectiveness measure
might add non-transportation benefits--economic development/land-use
and mobility benefits to transit dependents, for Small Starts--to the
effectiveness side of the calculation. In addition to the difficulty in
quantifying non-transportation benefits such as economic development
and land use, another complication is the need to avoid double-counting
in the calculation of benefits applied in the cost effectiveness
measure.
Its role is to compare a careful accounting of costs with a careful
accounting of benefits. The inclusion of measures that represent
different manifestations of the same benefit would distort the benefits
accounting. This problem occurs for mobility improvements and economic
development/land-use: a review of the available research shows that
transit-related changes in land values and consequent increases in
development are largely the result of the accessibility improvements
and apparent degree of permanence of a transit project. We contend that
these impacts are already counted in the user benefits measure of
mobility improvements and that they should not be counted a second time
in the form of consequent economic development/land-use impacts. To the
extent that some economic development/land-use benefits are independent
of mobility and permanence, large uncertainties would occur in attempts
to include those benefits in the cost-effectiveness calculation while
avoiding double-counting of the main effects. Consequently, a more
tractable approach might be to make allowances for these uncounted
development benefits in the way that we translate values of the cost-
effectiveness measure into cost-effectiveness ratings for projects. For
example, if adding a new class of benefits to the cost-effectiveness
measure proves unworkable, we could adjust the cost-effectiveness
breakpoints to account for the existence and likely magnitude of those
benefits.
Local Financial Commitment
The financial evaluation measures currently used for New Starts
projects provide a useful starting point for consideration of possible
Small Starts measures. The New Starts measures include the strength of
the financial plan for non-New Starts funding of the project's capital
costs, the strength of the financial plan for non-New Starts funding of
the entire local transit system once the project is in place, and the
non-New Starts funding proposed by the project sponsor. SAFETEA-LU
specifies that financial commitment for Small Starts projects shall be
evaluated ``within the project timetable.'' Therefore, a possible
adaptation of the current measures might be to adjust the New Starts
financial evaluation measures for Small Starts to reflect the shorter
timeframe ending with the opening year of the proposed project.
Risk
There is inherent risk and uncertainty in project evaluation. The
ratings assigned to a project are based on information, assumptions and
forecasts that often include uncertainty in the predictions of eventual
project performance. The statutory language makes it clear that the
evaluation of Small Starts projects is to consider the reliability of
the forecasting methods
[[Page 4872]]
used to estimate costs and ridership (note that SAFETEA-LU also
included this language for New Starts projects). Since SAFETEA-LU
requires that the financial and cost-effectiveness measures be
evaluated based on near term forecasts for Small Starts projects, some
of the forecasting risk may be reduced. Uncertainties clearly remain,
however. Therefore, in principle, the evaluation framework would
include a specific risk indicator for each evaluation criterion. Some
options for incorporating risk and uncertainty are described below.
The risk associated with measures related to the nature and
severity of the problem or opportunity could be based on an evaluation
of peer projects--projects that have been implemented in similar
conditions and their apparent success in addressing similar problems
and/or seizing the opportunities that motivated project sponsors.
The risk inherent in measures of project merit could be evaluated
based on (1) the current land use and land-use policies, (2) the
soundness of forecasting tools and data used to predict ridership and
mobility benefits including steps to reduce uncertainty through peer
reviews and other quality control procedures, (3) comparisons of
ridership forecasts against peer projects--similar projects in similar
settings, with particular risk assigned to projects without any peers,
and (4) the track record of the project sponsor with benefits forecasts
for previous transit projects.
The risk associated with a cost-effectiveness measure would
necessarily include the uncertainties in both the project-effectiveness
measures and the cost estimates. The effectiveness risk could be
quantified with the measures outline above. The cost risk could be
based on (1) the soundness of cost-estimating procedures including
steps to reduce risk through peer reviews and other quality-control
efforts, (2) comparisons of the cost estimates against peer projects,
and (3) the track record of the project sponsor with cost estimates for
previous transit projects.
A project finance risk measure could be based on apparent
availability of non-federal funds and the ability of the financial plan
to withstand a specific percentage increase in capital costs of the
project. This type of evaluation is currently included within the
financial evaluation of New Starts projects, but may be better as a
separate financial risk measure.
(c) Project Ratings
SAFETEA-LU specifies that projects are to be rated as high, medium-
high, medium, medium-low, and low, based on the analysis of both
project merit and local financial commitment and that to receive a
funding recommendation, projects should be both meritorious and have an
acceptable degree of local financial commitment.
Currently for New Starts projects, we develop separate ratings for
project merit (``justification'') and local financial commitment, and
then derive from these component ratings an overall project rating
using decision rules. These decision rules ensure that a project does
not get a very high or an acceptable rating unless the ratings for both
project merit (``justification'') and financial commitment are high or
acceptable respectively. A similar rating process could be developed
for Small Starts.
Because risk may be an important element of ratings for Small
Starts projects, a strategy may be needed to incorporate risk measures
into the ratings process. It seems clear that each risk measure ought
to be associated as directly as possible with the evaluation measure to
which it applies; uncertainties in the cost estimate, for example,
ought to affect whichever evaluation criteria rely on measures computed
from the cost estimate. A variety of strategies might be used to adjust
the rating for each criterion to reflect the risk measure--including
probability weightings and Monte Carlo simulations analogous to those
used currently in FTA-sponsored ``risk assessments'' of the capital
cost estimates for New Starts projects. A simpler strategy, however,
might be to use the risk indicators to decide the outcome for ratings
at the margins: a project rating whose measures produce a result at the
breakpoint between Medium and Medium-High, for example, might be rated
Medium if the associated risk indicator suggests large uncertainties
and Medium-High if the risk indicator suggests minimal uncertainties.
(d) Scaling the Evaluation for Projects of Different Size
Small Starts projects may range in size from non-guideway
improvements costing $20 million, or perhaps less, to new guideways
costing just under $250 million. Given this relatively wide range of
cost and potential for complexity and risk, different approaches might
be appropriate for projects of different scale. We recognize that the
effort expended by project sponsors to develop the necessary
information--and by FTA to ensure the reliability of that information--
should be matched to the size and complexity of the proposed project.
Sponsors of relatively simple projects with very low costs--
particularly those with no guideway construction like arterial BRT or
commuter rail service on an existing high quality rail line, for
example--should be able to make the case for their projects with less
effort than sponsors of relatively more complex and expensive Small
Starts projects. Lower levels of effort should result from lower levels
of complexity, detail, and rigor but not from a reduced ability to
address the full range of evaluation criteria.
Given the relatively straightforward nature of the financial
measures, most of the differences in evaluation methods might occur in
the evaluation of project merit (justification)--particularly in the
methods used to compute mobility benefits and, therefore, cost-
effectiveness. Several options are available for evaluation of project
merit for Small Starts proposals: (1) Application of the same
evaluation methods for all projects regardless of scale; (2)
development of simplified analytical procedures for smaller projects;
and (3) defining for small projects a set of conditions--effectively
``warrants'' based on project scope and implementation setting--within
which proposals are automatically deemed to have acceptable levels of
project merit.
Option 1--Same Methods, Regardless of Scale
A travel forecasting capability is available in most metropolitan
areas, usually including a forecasting component for transit ridership.
In many urban areas with recent experience in forecasting for New
Starts projects, these forecasting procedures are ready for use in
ridership forecasting for Small Starts planning. The procedures
consider project impacts on all travelers in the region, predict
changes in both travel mode and transit routing, and provide forecasts
for individual travel markets. In areas that do not have ridership
forecasting procedures of acceptable quality, the necessary refinements
can be done with appropriate data within a year or so. Therefore, one
available option is to require that the benefits of all Small Starts
proposals, regardless of cost or complexity, are forecast with
traditional methods that attempt to capture the full range of impacts
that a project would have on the quality of transit service in a
corridor.
Option 2--Simplified Methods Where Possible
At least some Small Starts proposals are likely to affect only a
very specific set of travelers and may therefore not require the
comprehensive analysis of
[[Page 4873]]
transportation impacts provided by traditional ridership forecasting
methods. For these proposals, a simplified analysis may be sufficient
to quantify the mobility benefits and provide insights into the merits
of the project. A simplified analysis might rest on data rather than
models, spreadsheet computations rather than sophisticated software,
and limited geographic scope rather than region-wide analysis. For
example, a very simple Small Starts project might be the conversion of
an existing bus route into a streetcar line with passenger stations,
dynamic passenger information, off-board fare collection, traffic
signal priorities, some reservation of existing traffic lanes, and
headway improvements. A sufficient analysis of the mobility benefits of
this project might be based on on/off counts, a limited on-board
survey, an estimate of stop-to-stop reductions in wait times and travel
times, and a spreadsheet-based calculation of travel-time savings (and
whatever representation we determine is appropriate of the hard-to-
quantify benefits of better passenger facilities, schedule information,
and other project elements). To the extent that this limited analysis
identifies mobility benefits sufficient for the project to compete well
for Small Starts funding, the approach may be all that is needed to
quantify those benefits. To the extent that another project has a
broader set of impacts--because of service changes on a large number of
bus routes throughout a corridor, for example--then the project sponsor
might elect to use the traditional forecasting methods to capture the
broader set of benefits.
Option 3--Development of ``Warrants'' for Smaller Projects
We are considering specifying a class of low-cost improvements that
are ``warranted'' to be cost effective based on their definition and
the environment in which they are to be applied. This strategy would be
for us to distinguish and evaluate differently those projects that are
very low cost and that employ only those elements that are demonstrably
effective and cost-effective within specified maximum prices and
minimum usage (ridership). Justification for these ``Very Small
Starts'' would be based simply on the scope/cost of the project and
salient characteristics of the setting in which it would be
implemented. Justification would require documentation only of (1) the
scope elements of the project, (2) the unit costs for each scope
element, (3) total cost, and (4) existing ridership in the immediate
corridor. This strategy would avoid a requirement that project sponsors
attempt to quantify benefits for low-cost projects comprising only
those elements that have been demonstrated elsewhere to be effective
and cost-effective transit improvements.
This concept might be extended to Small Starts projects that add a
new guideway along with the low-cost elements that would otherwise
qualify a project for Very Small Starts treatment. A low-cost guideway
project, for example, might also include the stations, signal pre-
emption, ``branding,'' and other elements whose benefits are difficult
to quantify. Again, this strategy would avoid the substantial
difficulties inherent in attempting to calculate the benefits of low-
cost project elements with real but hard-to-quantify impacts on the
quality and attractiveness of transit services.
Questions
6. How should the evaluation framework for New Starts be changed or
adapted for Small Starts projects?
7. How should the baseline alternative be defined?
8. How might FTA evaluate economic development and land use as
distinct and separate measures?
9. Are there other measures of effectiveness that should be
considered?
10. Is it desirable for FTA to attempt to incorporate other
measures of effectiveness besides mobility when evaluating cost-
effectiveness? If so, what measures might be incorporated and in what
manner?
11. Should mode-specific constants be allowed in the travel
forecasts? If so, how should they be applied?
12. How might FTA incorporate risk and uncertainty into project
evaluation for Small Starts?
13. What weights should FTA apply to each measure?
14. Should the FTA make a distinction in the way we evaluate Small
Starts projects of different total project costs and scope?
V. Procedures for Planning and Project Development
SAFETEA-LU specifies some different procedures to be used by Small
Starts projects in the planning and project development process
compared to New Starts projects. Similar to the requirement for
traditional New Starts, funding for Small Starts requires the Secretary
to find that the project has been based on the results of planning and
an alternatives analysis. Unlike traditional New Starts, Small Starts
need only be approved to advance from planning and alternatives
analysis to project development and construction; no approval to enter
final design is required. A project construction grant agreement can be
used to provide funding for the Small Start for future years. The main
issues addressed in this section include defining alternatives analysis
in a way that is appropriate to the scale of small projects, the basis
for our decision to allow entry into project development, and linking
alternatives analysis and the environmental process.
Alternatives Analysis
While larger projects require a number of alternatives to be
considered in an alternatives analysis to assess the numerous tradeoffs
in costs, benefits, and impacts, the consideration of Small Starts
often implies that fewer useful alternatives exist and in some cases,
there may only be two alternatives, one representing the Small Start
and the other today's service levels. Nevertheless, the number of
alternatives considered must continue to meet the requirements of NEPA,
good planning practices, and proper identification of project costs and
benefits for funding recommendations.
Just as there could be a simpler evaluation approach applied to
simpler projects described as Very Small Starts in the evaluation
section above, a very simple alternatives analysis and subsequent
evaluation process could be used when Very Small Starts are being
considered. Projects that are Very Small Starts could be able to
utilize a very simple project definition-based alternatives analysis
process. The key elements of the highly simplified AA report could be:
Clear description and assessment of the opportunity to
improve transportation service in the corridor.
Clearly defined proposed project description designed to
take advantage of the opportunity to improve transit service in the
corridor, including a clearly defined scope, list of project elements,
their associated costs and expected effect on transit service in the
corridor.
Comparison of the Very Small Start only to conditions
today for a subset of the required measures. Mobility benefits and
cost-effectiveness could be assumed to be met if the proposed project
only includes pre-approved elements.
A determination of whether or not the project sponsor can
afford the capital and operating costs of the alternatives.
A well supported explanation for the choice of a proposed
project that includes an analysis of the likelihood of the proposed
project achieving the project goals and any risks.
A plan for implementing and operating the proposed project
that
[[Page 4874]]
addresses the project sponsor's technical capability to build, operate
and maintain the proposed project.
Where the proposed New Starts project fits the eligibility criteria
for a Small Start but cannot qualify as a Very Small Starts project, a
simplified alternatives analysis could be allowed. Compared to Very
Small Starts this type of alternatives analysis would include a more
detailed analysis of the mobility benefits and cost-effectiveness of
the proposed project. They could also entail consideration of a broader
range of alternatives because project alternatives could cost as much
as $250 million. As costs rise, considerations of different length
alternatives may give insights into what could be significant
differences in the tradeoffs of costs, benefits and impacts. Even
without other build alternatives, examination of an alternative other
than existing system service could be required if the Small Starts
project is proposed where no transit service currently exists, so that
the benefits of the investment itself can be distinguished from the
simple realignment of service. Similarly, assessing a third alternative
with the non-fixed-guideway elements of a fixed guideway project would
permit the proper identification of the benefits and costs accruing
from the guideway investment itself.
The features of this simplified AA report could be:
Clear description and assessment of the opportunity to
improve transportation service in the corridor.
Clearly defined set of transportation alternatives to take
advantage of the opportunity to improve transit service. In cases where
the proposed project does not involve a new fixed guideway, the
alternatives analysis could consider a minimum of two alternatives as
follows: (1) The no-build (existing conditions), (2) a Very Small
Starts alternative if the proposed project includes a guideway or there
is no existing service in the corridor, (3) the proposed Small Start,
and (4) any useful length alternatives to the proposed project.
Analysis of the effectiveness of the alternatives.
Comparison of the benefits and costs of the alternatives.
A determination of whether or not the project sponsor can
afford the costs of the alternatives.
A well supported choice of a proposed project that
includes an analysis of the likelihood of the proposed project
achieving the project goals and any risks.
A plan for implementing and operating the proposed project
that addresses the project sponsor's technical capability to build,
operate and maintain the proposed project.
We would use the alternatives analysis report or subsequent AA/DEIS
to rate and evaluate the proposed Small Starts projects.
Another type of alternatives analysis could occur when a
traditional New Starts project is one of the alternatives and the
locally preferred alternative is eligible for Small Starts funds.
Projects that result from a traditional alternatives analysis will have
to adjust their evaluation measures to reflect opening year rather than
the forecast year.
Entry Into Project Development
We currently envision reviewing the following items soon after they
are developed during the alternatives analysis in order to support a
decision to allow entry into project development:
Alternatives analysis initiation report that includes a
clear and concise description of the problem or opportunity to improve
service in the corridor, the initial list of alternatives and their key
elements, and the proposed approach to evaluating the alternatives.
Interim report that specifies the alternatives to be
evaluated and the methods that were used to forecast the mobility
benefits.
Final report and choice of locally preferred alternative.
Local adoption of the proposed project and financial plan
into the fiscally constrained, conforming (if in a non-attainment or
maintenance area) plan and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Projects that are eligible for Small Starts funds and achieve
acceptable ratings for the Small Starts criteria could be admitted into
project development. We are considering including the before and after
study requirement in the construction grant agreement as a pre-
requisite for receiving funding for Small Starts projects. Like
traditional New Starts, documenting the predicted and actual scope,
cost, and ridership of projects built using Small Starts funds will
allow us as well as project sponsors to evaluate this information and
develop in the future better approaches to forecast the costs and
benefits of Small Starts. The results of before and after studies would
also assist us in responding to the requirement in SAFETEA-LU that we
consider the reliability of forecasting methods used to estimate
ridership and costs when we consider funding proposed Small Starts
projects.
Linking Alternatives Analysis to the Environmental Process
Currently alternatives analyses can be conducted concurrently with
NEPA or in advance of formal NEPA activities that begin with a Notice
of Intent. Problems have arisen when alternatives analyses are
conducted in advance of formal NEPA processes for a variety of reasons,
including the lack of proper consideration of environmental factors and
lack of response by resource agencies. Alternatives analyses conducted
concurrently with NEPA sometimes do not have the level of detail
necessary for mitigation of impacts, requiring a supplemental document.
An option that we are considering that could address these problems by
efficiently and effectively linking alternatives analyses to NEPA is a
recognized procedure known as ``early scoping.'' The concept of early
scoping was explained by the President's Council on Environmental
Quality in its ``40 Questions'' guidance, as follows:
``Use of Scoping Before Notice of Intent to Prepare EIS. Can the
scoping process be used in connection with preparation of an
environmental assessment, i.e., before both the decision to proceed
with an EIS and publication of a notice of intent?
A. Yes. Scoping can be a useful tool for discovering
alternatives to a proposal, or significant impacts that may have
been overlooked. In cases where an environmental assessment is being
prepared to help an agency decide whether to prepare an EIS, useful
information might result from early participation by other agencies
and the public in a scoping process.
The regulations state that the scoping process is to be preceded
by a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS. But that is only the
minimum requirement. Scoping may be initiated earlier, as long as
there is appropriate public notice and enough information available
on the proposal so that the public and relevant agencies can
participate effectively.
However, scoping that is done before the assessment, and in aid
of its preparation, cannot substitute for the normal scoping process
after publication of the NOI, unless the earlier public notice
stated clearly that this possibility was under consideration, and
the NOI expressly provides that written comments on the scope of
alternatives and impacts will still be considered.''
Council on Environmental Quality, Forty Most Asked Questions
Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46
FR 18026, 18030 (1981) (Answer to Question No. 13).
Projects developed through the Small Starts program are not likely
to generate significant effects on the quality of the human
environment. Nevertheless, potential environmental effects associated
with Small Starts proposals cannot be overlooked. In order to
[[Page 4875]]
accommodate applicable environmental review requirements and to
integrate such requirements efficiently into Small Starts proposals, we
are considering requiring the use of ``early scoping'' as an adjunct to
Alternatives Analysis. Although early scoping is not a substitute for
the standard scoping process, in combination with required notification
initiating the environmental review process, early scoping would serve
to signal the beginning of the NEPA process and provide a forum in
which participating and cooperating agencies, as well as the public,
could be actively and purposefully engaged.
Early scoping links transportation planning (Alternatives Analysis)
with the National Environmental Policy Act process in a way that
promotes consideration of required environmental factors without pre-
determining the kind of documentation that has to be prepared. This
approach is entirely consistent with regulations implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act, as well as the planning and
environmental review provisions of SAFETEA-LU.
It is likely that many Very Small Starts proposals will qualify as
Categorical Exclusions, in which case sponsors may petition to be
exempted from the early scoping requirement. A Small Starts sponsor may
still choose to avail itself of the practice of combining traditional
``scoping'' (following issuance of a Notice of Intent) with
Alternatives Analysis when preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement is anticipated.
Questions
15. Should there be a distinction in the alternatives analysis
requirements for Small Starts compared to traditional New Starts?
16. Should there be a distinction in the alternatives analysis
requirements for Very Small Starts compared to larger projects that
qualify as Small Starts?
17. Within an alternatives analysis, what other alternatives should
be considered in addition to the Small Start and the existing service
alternatives?
18. What should be the key elements or features of a highly
simplified or simplified alternatives analysis?
19. Should Small Starts projects also be required to perform a
Before and After study?
20. Should FTA mandate an early scoping approach for those
alternatives analyses that are not being conducted concurrently with
the formal NEPA process? Are there other approaches that should be
considered for better linking alternatives analysis and NEPA?
VI. Regulatory Notices
A. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and
timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that may have a substantial, direct effect on the
states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. We invite State and local governments
with an interest in this rulemaking to comment on the effect that
adoption of specific Small Starts proposals may have on State or local
governments.
B. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and
timely input from Indian tribal government representatives in the
development of rules that ``significantly or uniquely affect'' Indian
communities and that impose ``substantial and direct compliance costs''
on such communities. We invite Indian tribal governments to provide
comments on the effect that adoption of specific small starts proposals
may have on Indian communities.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), we must consider whether a proposed rule would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
``Small entities'' include small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations under 50,000. If your business or organization is a small
entity and if adoption of specific small starts proposals could have a
significant economic impact on your operations, please submit a comment
to explain how and to what extent your business or organization could
be affected.
D. National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires
Federal agencies to consider the consequences of major Federal actions
and that they prepare a detailed statement on actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment. Interested parties are
invited to address the potential environmental impacts of the small
starts proposals contained in this ANPRM. We are particularly
interested in comments about the costs and benefits that specific small
starts proposals may have on the human and natural environment, or on
alternative actions the agency could take that would provide beneficial
impacts.
E. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking
This rulemaking is issued under authority of section 3011 of the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act--A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which requires the Secretary of
Transportation to prescribe regulations for capital investment projects
funded under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 5309 with a federal share of less than
$75,000,000 and a total cost of less than $250,000,000.
F. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking will likely be considered a significant regulatory
action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory
Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR
11032). This ANPRM was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
E.O. 12866 requires agencies to regulate in the ``most cost-
effective manner,'' to make a ``reasoned determination that the
benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,'' and to develop
regulations that ``impose the least burden on society.'' We therefore
request comments, including specific data if possible, concerning the
costs and benefits of the specific small starts proposals contained in
this ANPRM.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB
control number. This ANPRM does not propose any new information
collection burdens.
H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN
number contained in the heading of this document may be used to cross-
reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
I. Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the electronic form for all comments
[[Page 4876]]
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comments (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
Issued in Washington, DC this 24th day of January, 2006.
Sandra K. Bushue,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.
[FR Doc. 06-870 Filed 1-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-U