[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 106 (Thursday, June 3, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31383-31387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13423]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Part 611
[Docket No. FTA-2010-0009]
RIN 2132-AB02
Major Capital Investment Projects
AGENCIES: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeks
public comment regarding the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) New
Starts and Small Starts project justification criteria. In particular,
FTA seeks public input on how to improve its calculation of ``cost
effectiveness,'' including whether FTA should measure quantifiable
benefits other than reduced travel time. In addition, FTA seeks comment
on how it should evaluate environmental benefits and economic
development effects. Information gathered from this ANPRM will inform
FTA's broader effort, next year, to amend the regulations that govern
its New Starts and Small Starts programs.
DATES: Comments must be received by August 2, 2010. Late-filed comments
will be considered to the extent practicable. The public should know
the dates, times, and locations of the first two public outreach
sessions are as follows: (1) Monday, June 7, 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.,
EST, 500 South Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina (Raleigh
Convention Center); (2) Tuesday, June 8, 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., PST,
655 Burrard Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6C 2R7 (Hyatt
Regency Hotel).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Day, Office of Planning and
Environment, (202) 366-5159; for questions of a legal nature,
Christopher Van Wyk, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1733. FTA is
located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office
hours are from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., EST, Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number FTA-
2010-0009 by any of the following methods:
[[Page 31384]]
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments on the U.S.
Government electronic docket site.
2. Fax: 202-493-2251.
3. Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave.,
SE., Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
4. Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Ave., SE., Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: You must include the agency name (Federal Transit
Administration) and Docket number (FTA-2010-0009) for this notice at
the beginning of your comments. You should submit two copies of your
comments if you submit them by mail. If you wish to receive
confirmation that FTA received your comments, you must include a self-
addressed stamped postcard. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to www.regulations.gov including any personal
information provided and will be available to internet users. You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477). Docket: For access to the
docket to read background documents and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590 between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., EST, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
This ANPRM seeks new ideas through public comment on a funding
program for new or expanded transit systems that involves a large
amount of technical information and analysis. As such, this document is
being issued to provide a general overview of FTA's current approach to
evaluating and rating major capital investment projects (``New Starts''
and ``Small Starts'') in support of its funding decisions, and, to ask
questions that will assist FTA in its development of a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. Because this document avoids technical terminology
and detailed discussion, it is necessary to refer to other sources
where additional information can be obtained for commenters who would
like to know more of the details behind FTA's current process. To aid
in that effort, FTA will place all of the documents cited in this
notice in the public docket at www.regulations.gov under the docket
number for this rulemaking effort (FTA-2010-0009). Interested persons
may also consult the FTA public Web site, http://www.fta.dot.gov, for
further information on these subjects.
Background
The New Starts and Small Starts programs, established in Section
5309(d) and (e) of Title 49, U.S. Code, are FTA's primary capital
funding programs for new or extended transit systems across the
country, including rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, bus rapid
transit, and ferries. Under this discretionary program, proposed
projects are evaluated and rated as they seek FTA approval for a multi-
year federal funding commitment to finance project construction.
Currently, overall ratings for New Starts and Small Starts proposed
projects are based on summary ratings for two categories of criteria--
project justification and local financial commitment. Within these two
categories, projects are evaluated and rated against several individual
criteria specified in statute. Details on how projects are currently
evaluated and rated are set forth in the FTA regulations at 49 CFR Part
611, which can be found at the following web address: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/octqtr/49cfr611.htm.
Several statutory changes since 49 CFR part 611 was first written
have modified the evaluation process, including the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) enacted on August 10, 2005, and the SAFETEA-LU Technical
Corrections Act of 2008, signed on June 6, 2008. FTA's most recent
policy guidance on the evaluation process (issued to address the
SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act), was announced on July 29, 2009
and is available in the Federal Register at 74 FR 37763; it is also set
forth in Appendix B of FTA's ``FY 2011 Annual Report on Funding
Recommendations'' available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/publications/reports/reports_to_congress/publications_11092.html.
This ANPRM seeks comment on three of the evaluation criteria under
the project justification category: Cost effectiveness, environmental
benefits, and economic development benefits. Although FTA also
evaluates other statutory criteria for projects, those other criteria
will be addressed in the notice of proposed rulemaking following this
ANPRM.
Cost Effectiveness
Since April of 2005, FTA has had in place a budget decision
approach that required at least a Medium rating on cost effectiveness
for a project to be considered for funding in the President's annual
budget.
Members of the transit community criticized FTA's approach on the
cost effectiveness criterion, and questioned the methodology FTA uses
to calculate cost effectiveness. Specifically, the transit community
expressed concern that receiving a Low- or Medium-low cost
effectiveness rating ``trumped'' other project justification criteria
established by law. Critics also noted that sometimes projects were
designed to achieve a Medium cost effectiveness rating to remain in the
funding pipeline while sacrificing other potentially important
considerations, such as station locations and/or design features to
accommodate ridership growth. On January 13, 2010, Secretary Ray LaHood
announced the end of that approach. This new direction presents FTA
with an opportunity to rethink how it evaluates cost effectiveness for
projects seeking New Starts and Small Starts funding.
While the other project justification criteria characterize the
effectiveness of projects in addressing the objectives identified by
the statute, cost effectiveness characterizes the extent to which
benefits are in scale with project costs. In its current cost
effectiveness measure, FTA includes the direct mobility benefits of the
project, expressed as time savings. FTA defines mobility benefits as
any measurable change in travel times, walking, waiting, transfers, and
other attributes of travel on the transportation system. FTA's
definition of mobility benefits includes time savings to highway users
caused by congestion relief but FTA has not as yet been able to accept
projections of highway time savings because of their unreliability and
inconsistency. Instead, in determining cost effectiveness ratings, FTA
credits all projects with an allowance for highway time savings that is
equal to 20 percent of the project-specific transit time savings. FTA
is sponsoring research on better methods to predict highway time
savings so that project-specific highway time savings can be included
in the mobility benefits that are compared to project costs.
FTA has not included other impacts among the project-specific
benefits used to compute the current cost effectiveness measure because
of the difficulties in summing, in a common
[[Page 31385]]
unit of measurement, the broad range of other benefits. Instead, in
determining cost effectiveness ratings, FTA credits all projects with
an allowance for other benefits that is equal to 100 percent of the
project-specific time savings. FTA is seeking comment in this ANPRM on
ways to quantify and value other benefits so that they can be included
as project-specific benefits, rather than a general allowance, in the
comparison against project costs.
For more information how FTA calculates cost effectiveness, see
Appendix B of FTA's ``FY 2011 Annual Report on Funding
Recommendations'' available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/publications/reports/reports_to_congress/publications_11092.html.
In general, quantitative measures require evaluating the
incremental (or added) benefits of implementing a proposed project
against some alternative. FTA is seeking comment on what the basis for
comparison should be. Currently, New Starts and Small Starts projects
are evaluated against a ``baseline alternative,'' which is defined as
the ``best that can be done'' to address identified transportation
needs in the corridor without a major capital investment in new
infrastructure. The baseline alternative generally includes lower cost
actions such as traffic engineering, enhanced bus service and other
transit operational changes, and modest capital improvements such as
reserved lanes, park-and-ride lots, and transit terminals. Although
less expensive than the proposed project, the baseline alternative may
still result in substantial costs, particularly in complex study areas
with significant transportation problems.
Consistent with current law, FTA will continue to use cost
effectiveness as one of the principal criteria for project
justification. FTA is open to new ideas, however, regarding the
direction the agency should take to improve how it evaluates cost
effectiveness, including whether and how non-mobility benefits should
be measured and how they could be calculated on a project-specific
basis as part of that criterion, as well as how determinations of a
baseline alternative could be improved if one continues to be used.
Questions on Cost Effectiveness
FTA seeks specific comment on the following questions:
1. How might FTA better evaluate cost effectiveness?
2. What, if any, additional benefits such as environmental
benefits, equity considerations (e.g., the social benefits of low
income ridership), and benefits of economic development attributed to a
specific project could FTA include in the measure of cost
effectiveness? What specific benefits should be included in the
calculation of cost effectiveness?
3. If you believe that FTA should include other benefits in the
measure of cost effectiveness, how can FTA best quantify those
benefits? Please include specifics on how FTA would quantify and
measure these benefits.
4. Are there simpler measures of cost effectiveness that FTA could
use? If so, what are they? Please be specific.
5. How should FTA evaluate projects across cities with varying
levels of transit service? In other words, should FTA continue to
compare projects against a ``baseline alternative''? Should FTA
consider additional benefit categories such as convenience for riders,
reduced congestion, reduced travel time as a result of reduced
congestion, reduction in the number of accidents due to reduced
congestion, fuel costs (or other variable cost) savings for individuals
who would be using the projects and/or the benefit to national security
of additional transportation options? If so, how should these be
measured?
6. Should FTA measure the benefits of projects based on the opening
year of those projects or retain the current methodology which is based
on the planning forecast year (which is approximately 20 years in the
future)? Please explain the rationale for your response. If 20-year
estimates are used, should FTA require project sponsors to support the
reasonableness of their land use forecasts 20 years into the future? If
so, how might project sponsors support their conclusions? Should FTA
consider using forecasting periods other than opening year or 20-year?
If so, what forecast year should FTA consider, and why?
Environmental Benefits
Since the environmental benefits criterion was first added as a
project justification criterion in the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, FTA has attempted through
various methods, with limited success, to meaningfully measure and
compare the environmental benefits of transit projects in different
environmental settings throughout the country.
For a number of years, FTA used an air quality approach based on a
regional forecast of the changes in vehicle miles of travel (VMT) for
the proposed project compared to the New Starts baseline alternative in
the forecast year. (See Appendix A in 49 CFR part 611 for more
explanation of the baseline alternative.) The results of that approach
proved unsatisfactory because any one project has only a minor effect
on total regional air quality. The results also did not take into
account the severity of the metropolitan area's air quality problems or
the size of the population exposed to polluted air.
Although FTA has focused solely on air quality for environmental
benefits, the statute is written broadly enough to allow FTA to take
into account other factors such as noise pollution, energy consumption,
reductions in local infrastructure costs achieved through compact land
use development, and the cost of suburban sprawl.
To gain a sharper perspective on the issue of environmental
benefits, FTA convened a two-day colloquium in October 2008 in which a
number of experts discussed different types of environmental benefits
associated with transit projects. The record of that meeting
(``Comparing the Environmental Benefits of Transit Projects:
Proceedings from a Colloquium--October 28 & 29, 2008'') is available at
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_EnvironmentalBenefitProceedings.pdf and on compact disc through the
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. FTA is also actively
participating in a Transit Cooperative Research Program study on the
environmental benefits of transit projects. This work has helped to
inform the questions posed below.
Moreover, the President recently signed Executive Order 13514
(``Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic
Performance''; October 5, 2009), which is germane to evaluating and
rating the environmental benefits of New Starts and Small Starts
projects. As part of a broad strategy, E.O. 13514 obliges Federal
agencies to advance integrated planning of infrastructure at regional
and local levels; align Federal policies to promote sustainable
technologies and opportunities for locally generated renewable energy;
and take a leadership role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. FTA
seeks to incorporate the goals and objectives of E.O. 13514 into the
New Starts and Small Starts programs to maximize the land use
efficiencies created through locating transit projects in areas that
facilitate sustainable development. The text of E.O. 13514 is available
at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-24518.pdf.
Questions on Environmental Benefits
FTA seeks specific comment on the following questions:
1. How might FTA better measure environmental benefits?
2. In measuring environmental benefits, should FTA consider a broad
[[Page 31386]]
definition of environment, as does the National Environmental Policy
Act, which includes consideration of both the human and natural
environment? Or, should FTA focus on the environmental performance in
specific areas such as air quality emissions, energy use, greenhouse
gas emissions, or water quality? Should FTA look at project-specific
environmental benefits such as change in energy use and/or pollutant
emissions? Should FTA consider other characteristics such as assessing
the degree to which a proposed New Starts project fits into a State or
Regional Sustainability Plan or whether a transit agency's capital
program is operating under an official Environmental Management System
(EMS) or has attained the EMS certification of the International
Standards Organization (ISO 14001)? Would it be best to have a
combination? Please be specific in what metrics you think should be
considered.
3. Should the environmental benefits evaluation consider the steps
a project sponsor takes to mitigate the construction impacts of New
Starts projects in addition to the environmental effects of their
operation? Should the origin and methods to obtain construction or
vehicle materials; energy type and use; and water consumption be
considered in the overall evaluation of environmental benefits?
4. Should FTA consider the reduction in single occupant vehicle
usage as part of its evaluation of environmental benefits? What method
should be used to measure the changes in vehicle miles travelled
resulting from implementation of a project? Please be specific about
how FTA should measure this.
5. Should FTA consider certification of the planned facility
through the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green
Building Rating System; low impact development of transit facilities;
or energy production with windmills or solar panels?
6. In measuring the environmental benefits of a project, how might
FTA take into account the goals and objectives of Executive Order
13514? Should a project be evaluated and rated on how well it maximizes
the land use efficiencies created through locating the project in areas
that facilitate sustainable development?
7. To what extent, if any, can technology improvements--lower
carbon transport technologies, the use of emerging light weight
materials, improved engine designs, or bio-fuel applications, for
example--be said to reflect environmental benefits of transit
proposals? How would such improvements be measured and compared?
8. Should environmental benefits be included in the cost
effectiveness measure? How can environmental benefits be compared
across projects, and incorporated into FTA funding decisions?
Economic Development Benefits
FTA has defined economic development as the extent to which a
proposed New Starts or Small Starts project is likely to enhance
additional, transit-supportive development. Currently, FTA rates the
economic development effects of major transit investments on the basis
of the transit-supportive plans and policies in place and the
demonstrated performance and impact of those policies. These ``on the
ground'' indicators characterize the environment in which a project
would be built and are not intended to predict future development
outcomes.
In order to guide future research in this area, FTA convened a
panel of experts in late 2007 to consider the potential methodologies
available for measuring the economic development effects of New Starts
and Small Starts projects. Some experts on the panel noted that FTA may
be able to achieve this goal in two ways: (1) Through the use of
quantitative models to estimate the impacts of transit projects on land
values; and (2) through the use of integrated transportation/land-use
models to predict changes in land-use patterns that might result from
transit projects and the various benefits associated with those
changes. The record of that meeting (``Measuring the Economic
Development Benefits of Transit Projects: Proceedings of an Expert
Panel Workshop,'' March 2008) is available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Econ_Dev_Expert_Panel_Report.pdf. FTA is sponsoring two
ongoing Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) projects (Reference
numbers H-39 and SH-12) to study the impact of transit on economic
development.
FTA also issued a discussion paper on new, alternative ways of
evaluating economic development effects in a Federal Register notice
published on January 26, 2009. This paper (``Discussion Paper on the
Evaluation of Economic Development,'' October 2008) is available at
http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/newstarts/planning_environment_5615.html. FTA received comments on the discussion paper from eleven
respondents and has considered those comments in formulating the
questions listed below.
Questions on Economic Development Effects
FTA seeks specific comment on the following questions:
1. How might FTA better measure the impact of transit on local land
use patterns and/or economic development?
2. Should FTA continue to use its current approach for evaluating
the economic development effects of major transit investments?
3. Should FTA define economic development differently? If so, how?
4. Should FTA use either a qualitative or a quantitative approach
(or both) for evaluating the economic development effects of New Starts
and Small Starts projects? Should FTA consider a qualitative approach
for evaluating land use policies or a quantitative approach for
predicting changes in land use values and patterns (or both) as a proxy
for evaluating economic development benefits?
5. What scale should be used to measure economic development? At a
corridor level or at the metropolitan area level?
6. How should FTA distinguish between the land use effects and the
economic development effects of a proposed project? How should they be
measured?
7. Can a New Starts or Small Starts project generate new economic
development that would otherwise not have occurred in the surrounding
area? If so, how might that economic development be measured? Should
FTA consider the overall economic health of a metropolitan area when
estimating the potential for a New Starts or Small Starts project to
foster economic development?
8. How should FTA assess whether the plans, policies, and
incentives intended to promote economic development would lead to
transit oriented development that provides jobs and services within the
corridor? Should FTA consider the economic development effects of the
project on adjacent corridors? Should FTA consider commitments by
developers or funding offered by developers as evidence of future
economic development benefits? What time horizon should be used for
considering economic development effects?
9. Should FTA consider changes in land values as evidence of
potential economic growth in a station area or project corridor? How
would FTA quantify recent and future changes in land values? How can
FTA avoid double counting benefits given that changes in land values
may be caused in part by the improved accessibility from the
[[Page 31387]]
project that FTA already measures as part of cost effectiveness? Should
FTA consider the extent to which existing affordable housing and
commercial space can be maintained in the corridor after implementation
of a transit project there?
10. Should economic development be a part of the cost effectiveness
measure?
Public Outreach Sessions
The meetings listed below are the first two in a series of outreach
sessions that will provide a forum for FTA staff to make oral
presentations on this ANPRM and allow meeting attendees an opportunity
to pose questions to the speakers. Additionally, the sessions are
intended to encourage interested parties and stakeholders to submit
their comments directly to the official docket per the instructions
found in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Further outreach
sessions, once scheduled, will be announced in a subsequent Federal
Register notice.
The dates, times, and locations of the first two public outreach
sessions are: (1) Monday, June 7, 4:30 pm to 6:30 pm, EST, 500
Fayetteville Street, Raleigh, NC 27601 (Marriott City Center Hotel),
concurrent with the conference on ``Environment and Energy: Better
Delivery of Better Transportation Solutions,'' sponsored by the
Transportation Research Board; (2) Tuesday, June 8, 2:30 pm to 4:30 pm,
PST, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 655 Burrard Street,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6C 2R7 (Hyatt Regency Hotel),
concurrent with the ``2010 Rail Conference'' sponsored by the American
Public Transportation Association. All locations are ADA-accessible.
Individuals attending a meeting who are hearing or visually impaired
and have special requirements, or a condition that requires special
assistance or accommodations, should call Elizabeth Day, Office of
Planning and Environment, at (202) 366-5159.
Regulatory Notices
All comments received on this ANPRM will be available for
examination in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking is a significant regulatory action pursuant to
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.
Executive Order 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.'' Because this
ANPRM does not contain specific proposals, it is not possible at this
time to perform a cost-benefit analysis.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), FTA 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. Because this ANPRM does not contain specific
proposals, it is not possible to perform that analysis at this time.
This ANPRM does, however, seek input from the public, including small
entities, on the implementation of the New Starts and Small Starts
programs, including what, if any, significant economic impacts might
result.
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. This ANPRM asks questions about FTA's
implementation of the New Starts and Small Starts programs, and FTA
specifically invites State and local governments with an interest in
this rulemaking to provide feedback on those questions.
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The U.S. DOT 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.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 1st day of June, 2010.
Peter Rogoff,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-13423 Filed 6-1-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P