49 C.F.R. PART 611—MAJOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROJECTS


Title 49 - Transportation


Title 49: Transportation

Browse Previous |  Browse Next

PART 611—MAJOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROJECTS

Section Contents
§ 611.1   Purpose and contents.
§ 611.3   Applicability.
§ 611.5   Definitions.
§ 611.7   Relation to planning and project development processes.
§ 611.9   Project justification criteria for grants and loans for fixed guideway systems.
§ 611.11   Local financial commitment criteria.
§ 611.13   Overall project ratings.
Appendix A to Part 611—Description of Measures Used for Project Evaluation.


Authority:  49 U.S.C. 5309; 49 CFR 1.51

Source:  65 FR 76880, Dec. 7, 2000, unless otherwise noted.

§ 611.1   Purpose and contents.
top

(a) This part prescribes the process that applicants must follow to be considered eligible for capital investment grants and loans for new fixed guideway systems or extensions to existing systems (“new starts”). Also, this part prescribes the procedures used by FTA to evaluate proposed new starts projects as required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(e), and the scheduling of project reviews required by 49 U.S.C. 5328(a).

(b) This part defines how the results of the evaluation described in paragraph (a) of this section will be used to:

(1) Approve entry into preliminary engineering and final design, as required by 49 U.S.C. 309(e)(6);

(2) Rate projects as “highly recommended,” “recommended,” or “not recommended,” as required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(6);

(3) Assign individual ratings for each of the project justification criteria specified in 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(1)(B) and (C);

(4) Determine project eligibility for Federal funding commitments, in the form of Full Funding Grant Agreements;

(5) Support funding recommendations for this program for the Administration's annual budget request; and

(6) Fulfill the reporting requirements under 49 U.S.C. 5309(o)(1), Funding Levels and Allocations of Funds, Annual Report, and 5309(o)(2), Supplemental Report on New Starts.

(c) The information collected and ratings developed under this part will form the basis for the annual reports to Congress, required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(o)(1) and (2).

§ 611.3   Applicability.
top

(a) This part applies to all proposals for Federal capital investment funds under 49 U.S.C. 5309 for new transit fixed guideway systems and extensions to existing systems.

(b) Projects described in paragraph (a) of this section are not subject to evaluation under this part if the total amount of funding from 49 U.S.C. 5309 will be less than $25 million, or if such projects are otherwise exempt from evaluation by statute.

(1) Exempt projects must still be rated by FTA for purposes of entering into a Federal funding commitment as required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(7). Sponsors who believe their projects to be exempt are nonetheless strongly encouraged to submit data for project evaluation as described in this part.

(2) Such projects are still subject to the requirements of 23 CFR part 450 and 23 CFR part 771.

(3) This part does not apply to projects for which a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) has already been executed.

(c) Consistent with 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(8)(B), FTA will make project approval decisions on proposed projects using expedited procedures as appropriate, for proposed projects that are:

(1) Located in a nonattainment area;

(2) Transportation control measures as defined by the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.); and

(3) Required to carry out a State Implementation Plan.

§ 611.5   Definitions.
top

The definitions established by Titles 12 and 49 of the United States Code, the Council on Environmental Quality's regulation at 40 CFR parts 1500–1508, and FHWA–FTA regulations at 23 CFR parts 450 and 771 are applicable. In addition, the following definitions apply:

Alternatives analysis is a corridor level analysis which evaluates all reasonable mode and alignment alternatives for addressing a transportation problem, and results in the adoption of a locally preferred alternative by the appropriate State and local agencies and official boards through a public process.

Baseline alternative is the alternative against which the proposed new starts project is compared to develop project justification measures. Relative to the no build alternative, it should include transit improvements lower in cost than the new start which result in a better ratio of measures of transit mobility compared to cost than the no build alternative.

BRT means bus rapid transit.

Bus Rapid Transit refers to coordinated improvements in a transit system's infrastructure, equipment, operations, and technology that give preferential treatment to buses on fixed guideways and urban roadways. The intention of Bus Rapid Transit is to reduce bus travel time, improve service reliability, increase the convenience of users, and ultimately, increase bus ridership.

Extension to existing fixed-guideway system means a project to extend an existing fixed guideway system.

FFGA means a Full Funding Grant Agreement.

Final Design is the final phase of project development, and includes (but is not limited to) the preparation of final construction plans (including construction management plans), detailed specifications, construction cost estimates, and bid documents.

Fixed guideway system means a mass transportation facility which utilizes and occupies a separate right-of-way, or rail line, for the exclusive use of mass transportation and other high occupancy vehicles, or uses a fixed catenary system and a right of way usable by other forms of transportation. This includes, but is not limited to, rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, automated guideway transit, people movers, ferry boat service, and fixed-guideway facilities for buses (such as bus rapid transit) and other high occupancy vehicles. A new fixed guideway system means a newly-constructed fixed guideway system in a corridor or alignment where no such system exists.

FTA means the Federal Transit Administration.

Full Funding Grant Agreement means an instrument that defines the scope of a project, the Federal financial contribution, and other terms and conditions.

Major transit investment means any project that involves the construction of a new fixed guideway system or extension of an existing fixed guideway system for use by mass transit vehicles.

NEPA process means those procedures necessary to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), at 23 CFR part 771; the NEPA process is completed when a Record of Decision (ROD) or Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is issued.

New start means a new fixed guideway system, or an extension to an existing fixed guideway system.

Preliminary Engineering is the process by which the scope of the proposed project is finalized, estimates of project costs, benefits and impacts are refined, NEPA requirements are completed, project management plans and fleet management plans are further developed, and local funding commitments are put in place.

Secretary means the Secretary of Transportation.

TEA–21 means the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.

§ 611.7   Relation to planning and project development processes.
top

All new start projects proposed for funding assistance under 49 USC 5309 must emerge from the metropolitan and Statewide planning process, consistent with 23 CFR part 450. To be eligible for FTA capital investment funding, a proposed project must be based on the results of alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering.

(a) Alternatives Analysis. (1) To be eligible for FTA capital investment funding for a major fixed guideway transit project, local project sponsors must perform an alternatives analysis.

(2) The alternatives analysis develops information on the benefits, costs, and impacts of alternative strategies to address a transportation problem in a given corridor, leading to the adoption of a locally preferred alternative.

(3) The alternative strategies evaluated in an alternatives analysis must include a no-build alternative, a baseline alternative, and an appropriate number of build alternatives. Where project sponsors believe the no-build alternative fulfills the requirements for a baseline alternative, FTA will determine whether to require a separate baseline alternative on a case-by-case basis.

(4) The locally preferred alternative must be selected from among the evaluated alternative strategies and formally adopted and included in the metropolitan planning organization's financially-constrained long-range regional transportation plan.

(b) Preliminary Engineering. Consistent with 49 USC 5309(e)(6) and 5328(a)(2), FTA will approve/disapprove entry of a proposed project into preliminary engineering within 30 days of receipt of a formal request from the project sponsor(s).

(1) A proposed project can be considered for advancement into preliminary engineering only if:

(i) Alternatives analysis has been completed

(ii) The proposed project is adopted as the locally preferred alternative by the Metropolitan Planning Organization into its financially constrained metropolitan transportation plan;

(iii) Project sponsors have demonstrated adequate technical capability to carry out preliminary engineering for the proposed project; and

(iv) All other applicable Federal and FTA program requirements have been met.

(2) FTA's approval will be based on the results of its evaluation as described in §§611.9–611.13.

(3) At a minimum, a proposed project must receive an overall rating of “recommended” to be approved for entry into preliminary engineering.

(4) This part does not in any way revoke prior FTA approvals to enter preliminary engineering made prior to February 5, 2001.

(5) Projects approved to advance into preliminary engineering receive blanket pre-award authority to incur project costs for preliminary engineering activities prior to grant approval.

(i) This pre-award authority does not constitute a commitment by FTA that future Federal funds will be approved for this project.

(ii) All Federal requirements must be met prior to incurring costs in order to retain eligibility of the costs for future FTA grant assistance.

(c) Final Design. Consistent with 49 USC 5309(e)(6) and 5328(a)(3), FTA will approve/disapprove entry of a proposed project into final design within 120 days of receipt of a formal request from the project sponsor(s).

(1) A proposed project can be considered for advancement into final design only if:

(i) The NEPA process has been completed;

(ii) Project sponsors have demonstrated adequate technical capability to carry out final design for the proposed project; and

(iii) All other applicable Federal and FTA program requirements have been met.

(2) FTA's approval will be based on the results of its evaluation as described in Parts §§611.9–611.13 of this Rule.

(3) At a minimum, a proposed project must receive an overall rating of “recommended” to be approved for entry into final design.

(4) Consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, project sponsors seeking FFGAs shall submit a complete plan for collection and analysis of information to identify the impacts of the new start project and the accuracy of the forecasts prepared during development of the project.

(i) The plan shall provide for: Collection of “before” data on the current transit system; documentation of the “predicted” scope, service levels, capital costs, operating costs, and ridership of the project; collection of “after” data on the transit system two years after opening of the new start project; and analysis of the consistency of “predicted” project characteristics with the “after” data.

(ii) The “before” data collection shall obtain information on transit service levels and ridership patterns, including origins and destinations, access modes, trip purposes, and rider characteristics. The “after” data collection shall obtain analogous information on transit service levels and ridership patterns, plus information on the as-built scope and capital costs of the new start project.

(iii) The analysis of this information shall describe the impacts of the new start project on transit services and transit ridership, evaluate the consistency of “predicted” and actual project characteristics and performance, and identify sources of differences between “predicted” and actual outcomes.

(iv) For funding purposes, preparation of the plan for collection and analysis of data is an eligible part of the proposed project.

(5) Project sponsors shall collect data on the current system, according to the plan required under §611.7(c)(4) as approved by FTA, prior to the beginning of construction of the proposed new start. Collection of this data is an eligible part of the proposed project for funding purposes.

(6) This part does not in any way revoke prior FTA approvals to enter final design that were made prior to February 5, 2001.

(7) Projects approved to advance into final design receive blanket pre-award authority to incur project costs for final design activities prior to grant approval.

(i) This pre-award authority does not extend to right of way acquisition or construction, nor does it constitute a commitment by FTA that future Federal funds will be approved for this project.

(ii) All Federal requirements must be met prior to incurring costs in order to retain eligibility of the costs for future FTA grant assistance.

(d) Full funding grant agreements. (1) FTA will determine whether to execute an FFGA based on:

(i) The evaluations and ratings established by this rule;

(ii) The technical capability of project sponsors to complete the proposed new starts project; and

(iii) A determination by FTA that no outstanding issues exist that could interfere with successful implementation of the proposed new starts project.

(2) An FFGA shall not be executed for a project that is not authorized for final design and construction by Federal law.

(3) FFGAs will be executed only for those projects which:

(i) Are rated as “recommended” or “highly recommended;”

(ii) Have completed the appropriate steps in the project development process;

(iii) Meet all applicable Federal and FTA program requirements; and

(iv) Are ready to utilize Federal new starts funds, consistent with available program authorization.

(4) In any instance in which FTA decides to provide financial assistance under section 5309 for construction of a new start project, FTA will negotiate an FFGA with the grantee during final design of that project. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the FFGA:

(i) A maximum level of Federal financial contribution under the section 5309 new starts program will be fixed;

(ii) The grantee will be required to complete construction of the project, as defined, to the point of initiation of revenue operations, and to absorb any additional costs incurred or necessitated;

(iii) FTA and the grantee will establish a schedule for anticipating Federal contributions during the final design and construction period; and

(iv) Specific annual contributions under the FFGA will be subject to the availability of budget authority and the ability of the grantee to use the funds effectively.

(5) The total amount of Federal obligations under Full Funding Grant Agreements and potential obligations under Letters of Intent will not exceed the amount authorized for new starts under 49 U.S.C. §5309.

(6) FTA may also make a “contingent commitment,” which is subject to future congressional authorizations and appropriations, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5309(g), 5338(b), and 5338(h).

(7) Consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), the FFGA will require implementation of the data collection plan prepared in accordance with §611.7(c)(4):

(i) Prior to the beginning of construction activities the grantee shall collect the “before” data on the existing system, if such data has not already been collected as part of final design, and document the predicted characteristics and performance of the project.

(ii) Two years after the project opens for revenue service, the grantee shall collect the “after” data on the transit system and the new start project, determine the impacts of the project, analyze the consistency of the “predicted” performance of the project with the “after” data, and report the findings and supporting data to FTA.

(iii) For funding purposes, collection of the “before” data, collection of the “after” data, and the development and reporting of findings are eligible parts of the proposed project.

(8) This part does not in any way alter, revoke, or require re-evaluation of existing FFGAs that were issued prior to February 5, 2001.

§ 611.9   Project justification criteria for grants and loans for fixed guideway systems.
top

In order to approve a grant or loan for a proposed new starts project under 49 U.S.C. 5309, and to approve entry into preliminary engineering and final design as required by section 5309(e)(6), FTA must find that the proposed project is justified as described in section 5309(e)(1)(B).

(a) To make the statutory evaluations and assign ratings for project justification, FTA will evaluate information developed locally through alternatives analyses and refined through preliminary engineering and final design.

(1) The method used to make this determination will be a multiple measure approach in which the merits of candidate projects will be evaluated in terms of each of the criteria specified by this section.

(2) The measures for these criteria are specified in Appendix A to this rule.

(3) The measures will be applied to the project as it has been proposed to FTA for new starts funding under 49 U.S.C. 5309.

(4) The ratings for each of the criteria will be expressed in terms of descriptive indicators, as follows: “high,” “medium-high,” “medium,” “low-medium,” or “low.”

(b) The criteria are as follows:

(1) Mobility Improvements.

(2) Environmental Benefits.

(3) Operating Efficiencies.

(4) Transportation System User Benefits (Cost-Effectiveness).

(5) Existing land use, transit supportive land use policies, and future patterns.

(6) Other factors. Additional factors, including but not limited to:

(i) The degree to which the programs and policies (e.g., parking policies, etc.) are in place as assumed in the forecasts,

(ii) Project management capability, including the technical capability of the grant recipient to construct the project, and

(iii) Additional factors relevant to local and national priorities and relevant to the success of the project.

(c) In evaluating proposed new starts projects under these criteria:

(1) As a candidate project proceeds through preliminary engineering and final design, a greater degree of certainty is expected with respect to the scope of the project and a greater level of commitment is expected with respect to land use.

(2) For the criteria under §611.9(b)(1)–(4), the proposed new start will be compared to the baseline alternative.

(d) In evaluating proposed new starts projects under these criteria, the following factors shall be considered:

(1) The direct and indirect costs of relevant alternatives;

(2) Factors such as congestion relief, improved mobility, air pollution, noise pollution, energy consumption, and all associated ancillary and mitigation costs necessary to carry out each alternative analyzed, and recognize reductions in local infrastructure costs achieved through compact land use development;

(3) Existing land use, mass transportation supportive land use policies, and future patterns;

(4) The degree to which the project increases the mobility of the mass transportation dependent population or promotes economic development;

(5) Population density and current transit ridership in the corridor;

(6) The technical capability of the grant recipient to construct the project;

(7) Differences in local land, construction, and operating costs; and

(8) Other factors as appropriate.

(e) FTA may amend the measures for these criteria, pending the results of ongoing studies regarding transit benefit evaluation methods.

(f) The individual ratings for each of the criteria described in this section will be combined into a summary rating of “high,” “medium-high,” “medium,” “low-medium,” or “low” for project justification. “Other factors” will be considered as appropriate.

§ 611.11   Local financial commitment criteria.
top

In order to approve a grant or loan under 49 U.S.C. 5309, FTA must find that the proposed project is supported by an acceptable degree of local financial commitment, as required by section 5309(e)(1)(C). The local financial commitment to a proposed project will be evaluated according to the following measures:

(a) The proposed share of project capital costs to be met using funds from sources other than the section 5309 new starts program, including both the non-Federal match required by Federal law and any additional capital funding (“overmatch”), and the degree to which planning and preliminary engineering activities have been carried out without funding from the section 5309 new starts program;

(b) The stability and reliability of the proposed capital financing plan for the new starts project; and

(c) The stability and reliability of the proposed operating financing plan to fund operation of the entire transit system as planned over a 20-year planning horizon.

(d) For each proposed project, ratings for paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section will be reported in terms of descriptive indicators, as follows: “high,” “medium-high,” “medium,” “low-medium,” or “low.” For paragraph (a) of this section, the percentage of Federal funding sought from 49 U.S.C. §5309 will be reported.

(e) The summary ratings for each measure described in this section will be combined into a summary rating of “high,” “medium-high,” “medium,” “low-medium,” or “low” for local financial commitment.

§ 611.13   Overall project ratings.
top

(a) The summary ratings developed for project justification local financial commitment (§§611.9 and 611.11) will form the basis for the overall rating for each project.

(b) FTA will assign overall ratings of “highly recommended,” “recommended,” and “not recommended,” as required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(6), to each proposed project.

(1) These ratings will indicate the overall merit of a proposed new starts project at the time of evaluation.

(2) Ratings for individual projects will be updated annually for purposes of the annual report on funding levels and allocations of funds required by section 5309(o)(1), and as required for FTA approvals to enter into preliminary engineering, final design, or FFGAs.

(c) These ratings will be used to:

(1) approve advancement of a proposed project into preliminary engineering and final design;

(2) Approve projects for FFGAs;

(3) Support annual funding recommendations to Congress in the annual report on funding levels and allocations of funds required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(o)(1); and

(4) For purposes of the supplemental report on new starts, as required under section 5309(o)(2).

(d) FTA will assign overall ratings for proposed new starts projects based on the following conditions:

(1) Projects will be rated as “recommended” if they receive a summary rating of at least “medium” for both project justification (§611.9) and local financial commitment (§611.11);

(2) Projects will be rated as “highly recommended” if they receive a summary rating higher than “medium” for both local financial commitment and project justification.

(3) Projects will be rated as “not recommended” if they do not receive a summary rating of at least “medium” for both project justification and local financial commitment.

Appendix A to Part 611—Description of Measures Used for Project Evaluation.
top

Project Justification

FTA will use several measures to evaluate candidate new starts projects according to the criteria established by 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(1)(B). These measures have been developed according to the considerations identified at 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(3) (“Project Justification”), consistent with Executive Order 12893. From time to time, FTA has published technical guidance on the application of these measures, and the agency expects it will continue to do so. Moreover, FTA may well choose to amend these measures, pending the results of ongoing studies regarding transit benefit evaluation methods. The first four criteria listed below assess the benefits of a proposed new start project by comparing the project to the baseline alternative. Therefore, the baseline alternative must be defined so that comparisons with the new start project isolate the costs and benefits of the major transit investment. At a minimum, the baseline alternative must include in the project corridor all reasonable cost-effective transit improvements short of investment in the new start project. Depending on the circumstances and through prior agreement with FTA, the baseline alternative can be defined appropriately in one of three ways. First, where the adopted financially constrained regional transportation plan includes within the corridor all reasonable cost-effective transit improvements short of the new start project, a no-build alternative that includes those improvements may serve as the baseline. Second, where additional cost-effective transit improvements can be made beyond those provided by the adopted plan, the baseline will add those cost-effective transit improvements. Third, where the proposed new start project is part of a multimodal alternative that includes major highway components, the baseline alternative will be the preferred multimodal alternative without the new start project and associated transit services. Prior to submittal of a request to enter preliminary engineering for the new start project, grantees must obtain FTA approval of the definition of the baseline alternative. Consistent with the requirement that differences between the new start project and the baseline alternative measure only the benefits and costs of the project itself, planning factors external to the new start project and its supporting bus service must be the same for both the baseline and new start project alternatives. Consequently, the highway and transit networks defined for the analysis must be the same outside the corridor for which the new start project is proposed. Further, policies affecting travel demand and travel costs, such as land use, transit fares and parking costs, must be applied consistently to both the baseline alternative and the new start project alternative. The fifth criterion, “existing land use, transit supportive land use policies, and future patterns,” reflects the importance of transit-supportive local land use and related conditions and policies as an indicator of ultimate project success.

(a) Mobility Improvements.

(1) The aggregate travel time savings in the forecast year anticipated from the new start project compared to the baseline alternative. This measure sums the travel time savings accruing to travelers projected to use transit in the baseline alternative, travelers projected to shift to transit because of the new start project, and non-transit users in the new start project who would benefit from reduced traffic congestion.

(i) After September 1, 2001, FTA will employ a revised measure of travel benefits accruing to travelers.

(ii) The revised measure will be based on a multi-modal measure of perceived travel times faced by all users of the transportation system.

(2) The absolute number of existing low income households located within 1/2-mile of boarding points associated with the proposed system increment.

(3) The absolute number of existing jobs within 1/2-mile of boarding points associated with the proposed system increment.

(b) Environmental Benefits.

(1) The forecast change in criteria pollutant emissions and in greenhouse gas emissions, ascribable to the proposed new investment, calculated in terms of annual tons for each criteria pollutant or gas (forecast year), compared to the baseline alternative;

(2) The forecast net change per year (forecast year) in the regional consumption of energy, ascribable to the proposed new investment, expressed in British Thermal Units (BTU), compared to the baseline alternative; and

(3) Current Environmental Protection Agency designations for the region's compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

(c) Operating Efficiencies. The forecast change in operating cost per passenger-mile (forecast year), for the entire transit system. The new start will be compared to the baseline alternative.

(d) Transportation System User Benefits (Cost-Effectiveness).

(1) The cost effectiveness of a proposed project shall be evaluated according to a measure of transportation system user benefits, based on a multimodal measure of perceived travel times faced by all users of the transportation system, for the forecast year, divided by the incremental cost of the proposed project. Incremental costs and benefits will be calculated as the differences between the proposed new start and the baseline alternative.

(2) Until the effective date of the transportation system user benefits measure of cost effectiveness, cost effectiveness will be computed as the incremental costs of the proposed project divided by its incremental transit ridership, as compared to the baseline alternative.

(i) Costs include the forecast annualized capital and annual operating costs of the entire transit system.

(ii) Ridership includes forecast total annual ridership on the entire transit system, excluding transfers.

(e) Existing land use, transit supportive land use policies, and future patterns. Existing land use, transit-supportive land use policies, and future patterns shall be rated by evaluating existing conditions in the corridor and the degree to which local land use policies are likely to foster transit supportive land use, measured in terms of the kinds of policies in place, and the commitment to these policies. The following factors will form the basis for this evaluation:

(1) Existing land use;

(2) Impact of proposed new starts project on land use;

(3) Growth-management policies;

(4) Transit-supportive corridor policies;

(5) Supportive zoning regulations near transit stations;

(6) Tools to implement land use policies;

(7) The performance of land use policies; and

(8) Existing and planned pedestrian facilities, including access for persons with disabilities.

(f) Other factors. Other factors that will be considered when evaluating projects for funding commitments include, but are not limited to:

(1) Multimodal emphasis of the locally preferred investment strategy, including the proposed new start as one element;

(2) Environmental justice considerations and equity issues,

(3) Opportunities for increased access to employment for low income persons, and Welfare-to-Work initiatives;

(4) Livable Communities initiatives and local economic activities;

(5) Consideration of alternative land use development scenarios in local evaluation and decision making for the locally preferred transit investment decision;

(6) Consideration of innovative financing, procurement, and construction techniques, including design-build turnkey applications; and

(7) Additional factors relevant to local and national priorities and to the success of the project, such as Empowerment Zones, Brownfields, and FTA's Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Program.

Local Financial Commitment

FTA will use the following measures to evaluate the local financial commitment to a proposed project:

(a) The proposed share of project capital costs to be met using funds from sources other than the 49 U.S.C. 5309 new starts program, including both the local match required by Federal law and any additional capital funding (“overmatch”). Consideration will be given to:

(i) The use of innovative financing techniques, as described in the May 9, 1995, Federal Register notice on FTA's Innovative Financing Initiative (60 FR 24682);

(ii) The use of “flexible funds” as provided under the CMAQ and STP programs;

(iii) The degree to which alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering activities were carried out without funding from the §5309 new starts program; and

(iv) The actual percentage of the cost of recently-completed or simultaneously undertaken fixed guideway systems and extensions that are related to the proposed project under review, from sources other than the section 5309 new starts program (FTA's intent is to recognize that a region's local financial commitment to fixed guideway systems and extensions may not be limited to a single project).

(b) The stability and reliability of the proposed capital financing plan, according to:

(i) The stability, reliability, and level of commitment of each proposed source of local match, including inter-governmental grants, tax sources, and debt obligations, with an emphasis on availability within the project development timetable;

(ii) Whether adequate provisions have been made to cover unanticipated cost overruns and funding shortfalls; and

(iii) Whether adequate provisions have been made to fund the capital needs of the entire transit system as planned, including key station plans as required under 49 CFR 37.47 and 37.51, over a 20-year planning horizon period.

(c) The stability and reliability of the proposed operating financing plan to fund operation of the entire transit system as planned over a 20-year planning horizon.

Browse Previous |  Browse Next

chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com