December 2012

MAP-21 New Starts, Core Capacity and Small Starts

David Vozzolo Vice President, HDR, Inc. December, 2012

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) • Signed into law on July 6, 2012 • Effective on October 1, 2012 • Two Year Authorization thru September 30, 2014 • Maintains comparable program funding level • Consolidates and streamlines certain transit programs • New reporting requirements and performance measures

Aaaaaa

Aaaaaa

Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants • Maintains New Starts and Small Starts, and Introduces Core Capacity Improvement Projects. No specific funding allocation to these three programs. • Changes Some Definitions and Eligibility Requirements (BRT, Corridor Bus) • Simplified Project Approval and Advancement Process • Opportunities such as Program of Interrelated Projects • Rule on Evaluation and Rating Process due in one year and Policy Guidance within 180 days

New Fixed Guideway Capital Project (New Starts) • New Fixed Guideway Project continues to be defined as minimum operable segment or an extension to an existing fixed guideway system. • Includes Fixed Guideway Bus Rapid Transit Projects:

- Majority operates in separated right-of-way dedicated for transit use during peak periods - Substantial investment in single route in defined corridor or subarea - Includes features that emulate services provided by rail (defined stations, traffic signal priority, short bi-directional headways, and other features)

Core Capacity Improvement Project • Introduces new set of eligible projects. Defined as a substantial corridor-based capital investment in an existing investment in an existing fixed guideway system that increases the capacity of a corridor by not less than 10% • Does not include State of Good Repair elements for an existing fixed guideway system • Eligible corridor must be at or over capacity or projected to be at or over capacity within next 5 years

Small Start Project • Continues to be defined as a New Fixed Guideway Capital Project or Corridor-Based Bus Rapid Transit Project which: - Section 5309 funding less than $75 million, and - Total estimated net capital cost is less than $250 million.

• Corridor-Based Bus Rapid Transit Project defined as:

- Substantial investment in defined corridor - Includes features that emulate services provided by rail (defined stations, traffic signal priority, short bi-directional headways) and other features that support a long term corridor investment) - Majority of which does not operate in a separated right-of-way dedicated for transit use during peak periods.

Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants Definitions and Eligibility New Starts and Small Starts • How should FTA define “short headway” for BRT projects? • How should FTA define “substantial part of weekdays and weekend days”? • Will some form of “Very Small Starts” eligibility and advancement continue? Core Capacity Improvement Projects Eligibility and Definitions • How should FTA differentiate core capacity elements from state of good repair elements? • How should FTA determine whether a corridor is at capacity today or will be in 5 years? • How should FTA determine whether a project will increase capacity by 10%?

MAP-21 New Starts Process MAP-21

• No AA required. Letter request to Secretary • No evaluation and rating for entry into Project Development • Project Development to complete NEPA, refine costs, finance plan. Activities to obtain project rating must be completed within 2 years • Rating applied for approval to initiate Engineering

System Planning Letter Request

FTA acceptance into Project Development

Project Development and NEPA

FTA approval into Engineering

Engineering

Full Funding Grant Agreement

FFGA

MAP-21 Core Capacity Process SAFETEA

• Identical process as applied for New Starts projects

MAP-21 Letter Request

FTA acceptance into Project Development

Project Development and NEPA

FTA approval into Engineering

Engineering

Full Funding Grant Agreement

FFGA

MAP-21 Small Starts Process MAP-21

• No AA required. Letter request to Secretary • No evaluation and rating for entry into Project Development • Project Development to complete NEPA, refine costs, finance plan. • Rating on Federal funding amount (not total project cost) and applied prior to FTA funding decision. • No PCGA – either in single grant or “expedited grant agreement”

System Planning Letter Request

FTA acceptance into Project Development

Project Development and NEPA

Full Funding Single Grant or Grant Agreement Expedited Grant Agreement

FFGA

Project Development and Advancement • What type of information and level of detail will FTA require in the letter from project sponsors requesting Project Development approval? • What level of design/engineering is appropriate for the Project Development phase? • What activities may be eligible for Federal reimbursement in Project Development and Engineering? • What milestones specifically trigger the beginning and completion of the required 2-year time period for the Project Development phase (in New Starts and Core Capacity projects) • What level of design/engineering is appropriate for the newly defined Engineering phase? • How and when will FTA apply project management oversight and risk analyses, when will FTA “lock in” the requested amount of Section 5309 funding? • How much risk is the project sponsor willing to accept, and when?

Project Evaluation and Rating • Project rating not applied until approval to initiate Engineering for New Starts and Core Capacity, and not until funding decision for Small Starts • Based on project justification, land use policies and patterns and local financial commitment for New Starts and Small Starts. Capacity Needs rated for Core Capacity Projects. • Ratings based on 5-point scale with comparable weight to each criterion. Note specific language that medium rating not required for any single criterion. • Detailed definitions, procedures and rating thresholds to be determined by FTA. Note cost effectiveness defined in statute as cost per rider.

New Starts Project Rating Framework MAP-21

Summary Rating

Project Justification Rating

Environmental Mobility Benefits Improvements

Congestion Relief

Land Use

Land Use Policies and Patterns

Economic Development

Cost Effectiveness

Financial Rating

Availability of Contingency

Stability, Reliability, Availability of Sources

Resources to Recapitalize, Operate, Maintain System

15

Core Capacity Improvement Project Rating Framework MAP-21

Summary Rating

Project Justification Rating

Environmental Mobility Benefits Improvements

Congestion Relief

Land Use

Capacity Needs of the Corridor

Economic Development

Cost Effectiveness

Financial Rating

Availability of Contingency

Stability, Reliability, Availability of Sources

Resources to Recapitalize, Operate, Maintain System

16

Small Start Project Rating Framework MAP-21 Summary Rating

Project Justification Rating

Environmental Congestion Mobility Relief Benefits Improvements

Economic Development

Land Use Policies and Patterns

Land Use

Cost Effectiveness

Financial Rating

Stability, Reliability, Availability of Sources

17

Project Evaluation and Rating • MAP-21 seems to add significance and a unique summary rating to “Land Use Policies and Patterns” for New Starts and Small Starts projects, while continuing to list land use and economic development as criteria to be addressed under Project Justification. How will this be addressed? • How should FTA measure “congestion relief” introduced in Project Justification for New Starts, Core Capacity and Small Starts? • What measures should FTA use for the evaluation criteria for core capacity projects? • How should FTA measure “Capacity Needs of the Corridor” specifically highlighted for a unique summary rating for Core Capacity projects?

Warrants • Special “Warrants” may be applied for project justification (for New Starts and Core Capacity) if: – – – –

New Starts funding less than $100M or 50% of total project cost Applicant requests use of warrants Demonstrated State of Good Repair Other requirements determined by Secretary

Conceptual Warrants Based Approach (this is illustrative concept only – not produced by FTA) New Line Haul Service

Bus Corridor Enhancements

Urban Circulator

Effectiveness Pop & Empl

x

x

x

Transit Market

x

x

x

Service Levels

x

x

x

VMT Reduction

x

x

x

Project Cost

x

x

x

x

x

x

Opportunities

x

x

x

Activity

x

x

x

Land Use Plans & Policies Econ. Develop.

20

Programs of Interrelated Projects (PoP) • Federally funded project within PoP follows MAP-21 rating and project advancement process. • FTA evaluates and rates all projects in the PoP as one applicant, including non-Federally funded projects. • Non-Federally funded projects in a PoP do not need to meet Federal requirements that would otherwise not apply (e.g., NEPA) • FTA annual review of program implementation and applicant must repay all Federal funds if PoP not implemented within reasonable time.

Programs of Interrelated Projects (PoP) • Federally funded project in a Pop may advance into Engineering phase if: – Project selected as LPA in NEPA and adopted into Metropolitan Plan – Projects in PoP have logical connectivity to one another – PoP evaluated as whole meets project justification rating requirements – PoP supported by project implementation plan and construction will begin for all projects in reasonable timeframe – Pop supported by acceptable degree of local financial commitment.

Programs of Interrelated Projects (PoP) • Will Small Starts projects also be eligible? • How will FTA define the “logical connectivity” ? • Can unique phases or segments within a single corridor be considered as an eligible program of projects? • How will FTA define the program implementation plan required to demonstrate that construction will begin on each of the projects in the program within a reasonable time frame? • How will FTA annually review the program implementation plan to determine whether the program of interrelated projects is adhering to its schedule and whether to impose penalties?

Expedited Technical Capacity Review • Expedited FTA review for applicants that have recently and successfully completed at least one New Start or one Core Capacity project, if: – Budget, cost and ridership consistent with or better than projections, and – Continued staff expertise and other resources to implement a new project

Expedited Technical Capacity Review and Pilot Projects • In the Pilot Program for Expedited Project Delivery Program, what should determine a “recently and successfully completed” project? And, how to demonstrate the project achieved ridership outcomes consistent with or better than projections? • How should FTA define the new TOD Pilot Program?

Additional Provisions • Before and After Studies • Letters of Intent and Early Systems Work Agreements • Federal Share and Undertaking Projects in Advance • Pilot Program for Expedited Project Delivery

Interim Guidance Projects Currently in AA • Basic intent and scope of an alternatives analysis planning study is still very relevant. • A current AA may choose to continue or to wrap alternatives analysis efforts into NEPA, at the project’s discretion. • AA scopes will no longer need to address the FTA New Starts/Small Starts requirements, such as development and evaluation of the baseline alternative, but should focus on information for local decision-making. • FTA staff has indicated that all previous grant agreements will continue in place. Some specifics on scope, etc may be adjusted in current Section 5339 AA Discretionary Grants reflecting the MAP-21 changes. • FTA has indicated that the current outstanding Section 5339 competitive grant announcement may not be funded, though no formal announcement has been made.

Interim Guidance Projects Currently in New Starts PE • Assumed that projects currently in PE will be grandfathered into the New Starts Project Development phase. • Assumed that these projects will not be subject to the 2-year requirement to complete the “Project Development” phase, as required in the MAP-21 process. • APTA has proposed that costs incurred should be considered as eligible expenses for reimbursement under Section 5309. • FTA staff have indicated to some projects well advanced in PE that they will be automatically approved into the MAP-21 Engineering phase. • It is unclear when FTA will consider that the requested Section 5309 New Starts funding amount is “locked in”.

Interim Guidance Projects Currently in New Starts Final Design • MAP-21 Section 5309(j) directs that projects already approved into New Starts Final Design are “grandfathered” under previous project definitions and process. • These projects are then considered in the Engineering phase and progressing toward a Full Funding Grant Agreement.

Interim Guidance Projects Currently in Small Starts Project Development • Assumed that projects currently in Small Starts Project Development are considered grandfathered into the MAP-21 Small Starts Project Development phase. • APTA has proposed that costs incurred should be considered as eligible expenses for reimbursement under Section 5309. • Still unclear whether projects applying for Small Starts Project Development are to apply under SAFETEA-LU process or MAP-21 process.

Thanks for your interest. Any questions or comments? David Vozzolo Vice President, HDR, Inc. [email protected]