[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 79 (Monday, April 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21695-21715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9591]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
[Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0076]
Interim Notice of Funding Availability for the Department of
Transportation's National Infrastructure Investments Under the
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for 2010; and Request for Comments
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation, DOT.
ACTION: Interim notice of funding availability, request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim notice announces the availability of funding and
requests proposals for the Department of Transportation's National
Infrastructure Investments. In addition, this interim notice announces
selection criteria and pre-application and application requirements for
the National Infrastructure Investments.
On December 16, 2009, the President signed the Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
for 2010 (Div. A of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L.
111-117, Dec. 16, 2009)) (``FY 2010 Appropriations Act''). The FY 2010
Appropriations Act appropriated $600 million to be awarded by the
Department of Transportation (``DOT'') for National Infrastructure
Investments. This appropriation is similar, but not identical to the
appropriation for the Transportation Investment Generating Economic
Recovery, or ``TIGER Discretionary Grant'', program authorized and
implemented pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (the ``Recovery Act''). Because of the similarity in program
structure, DOT is referring to the grants for National Infrastructure
Investments under the FY 2010 Appropriations Act as ``TIGER II
Discretionary Grants''. As with the TIGER program, funds for the TIGER
II program are to be awarded on a competitive basis for projects that
will have a significant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area or a
region. Through this notice, DOT is soliciting applications for TIGER
II Discretionary Grants. Because the TIGER II Discretionary Grant
program is a new program, this interim notice requests comments on the
proposed selection criteria and guidance for awarding funds. DOT will
take all comments into consideration and may publish a supplemental
notice revising some elements of this notice. If substantive changes to
this notice are necessary, DOT will publish a supplemental Federal
Register notice by no later than May 28, 2010. In the event that this
solicitation does not result in the award and obligation of all
available funds, DOT may decide to publish an additional
solicitation(s). DOT is particularly interested in receiving comments
on its intention to conduct a multi-agency evaluation and award process
with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (``HUD'') for
DOT's TIGER II Planning Grants (as defined below in Section VII (TIGER
II Planning Grants)), and HUD's Community Challenge Planning Grants,
which were also authorized under the FY 2010 Appropriations Act. HUD is
authorized to use $40 million for ``Community Challenge Planning
Grants'' to foster reform and reduce barriers to achieve affordable,
economically vital, and sustainable communities. This multi-agency
approach for planning awards would be consistent with DOT and HUD's
participation in the ``Partnership for Sustainable Communities'' with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') to help American
families in all communities--rural, suburban and urban--gain better
access to affordable housing, more transportation options, lower
transportation costs, and a cleaner environment.
DOT and HUD believe there is great value in issuing a joint
solicitation for the two planning grant programs in order to better
align transportation, housing, economic development, and land use
planning and to improve linkages between the three Partnership
agencies' programs. DOT and HUD also believe this proposal has the
potential to
[[Page 21696]]
encourage and reward more holistic planning efforts and result in
better projects being built with Federal dollars.
While the DOT and HUD planning grant programs have similar, related
purposes, there are differences in the activities that the two programs
can fund. DOT's program can fund planning activities that relate
directly to a future transportation capital investment, while HUD's
program can fund local planning activities that could support future
transportation investment.
Transportation planning activities that may be funded under the
TIGER II Discretionary Grant program include efforts related to
individual transportation projects, transportation corridors, or
regional transportation systems or networks. Activities eligible for
funding under HUD's program include, but are not limited to, the
development of master plans, zoning and building code reform
initiatives, including the development of inclusionary zoning
ordinances, corridor and district plans, and other strategies,
including land acquisition, designed to create walkable, mixed-use,
transit-oriented, and affordable communities for persons of all
incomes, especially those of low-, very low-, and extremely low-income
persons and families.
Additionally, the two programs can provide funding to different
applicants. DOT's TIGER II Planning Grants are available to any
Eligible Applicant, as defined below in Section I (Background) for
TIGER II Discretionary Grants. The HUD Community Challenge Grants are
potentially available to a broader range of applicants, including
nonprofit organizations. DOT and HUD would like to invite comments
about whether the differences in eligibility should be maintained and,
if so, how it might be managed in a joint selection process.
DOT and HUD would like to receive comments on the evaluation method
that should be used for a combined planning grant process, in terms of
selection criteria and goals. Also, feedback is invited on funding
categories and where the overlap between DOT and HUD's program might be
applied most effectively. To the extent DOT and HUD determine that a
joint solicitation is feasible and advisable, it would be published no
later than May 28, 2010, with the final notice of funding availability
for the TIGER II Discretionary Grant program.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 7, 2010, at 5 p.m. EST. Late-
filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable. Pre-
applications must be submitted by July 16, 2010, at 5 p.m. EST (the
``Pre-Application Deadline''). Final applications must be submitted
through Grants.gov by August 23, 2010, at 5 p.m. EST (the ``Application
Deadline''). The DOT pre-application system will open no later than
June 15, 2010 to allow prospective applicants to submit pre-
applications. Subsequently, the Grants.gov ``Apply'' function will open
on July 30, 2010, allowing applicants to submit applications. While
applicants are encouraged to submit pre-applications in advance of the
Pre-Application Deadline, pre-applications will not be reviewed until
after the pre-application deadline. Similarly, while applicants are
encouraged to submit applications in advance of the Application
Deadline, applications will not be evaluated, and awards will not be
made, until after the Application Deadline. Pursuant to the FY 2010
Appropriations Act, DOT will evaluate all applications and announce the
projects that have been selected to receive TIGER II Discretionary
Grants no sooner than September 15, 2010.
ADDRESSES: For Comments: You must include the agency name (Office of
the Secretary of Transportation) and the docket number DOT-OST-2010-
0076 with your comments. To ensure that your comments are not entered
into the docket more than once, please submit comments, identified by
the docket number DOT-OST-2010-0076, by only one of the following
methods:
Web site: The U.S. Government electronic docket site is
www.regulations.gov. Go to this Web site and follow the instructions
for submitting comments into docket number DOT-OST-2010-0076;
Fax: Telefax comments to 202-493-2251;
Mail: Mail your comments to U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Docket Operations, M-30, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590; or
Hand Delivery: Bring your comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 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 for submitting comments: You must include the agency
name (Office of the Secretary of Transportation) and Docket number DOT-
OST-2010-0076 for this notice at the beginning of your comments. You
should submit two copies of your comments if you submit them by mail or
courier. For confirmation that the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation has 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 April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit
www.regulations.gov.
For Pre-Applications and Applications: Pre-applications must be
submitted electronically to DOT and applications must be submitted
electronically through Grants.gov. Only pre-applications received by
DOT and applications received through Grants.gov will be deemed
properly filed. Instructions for submitting pre-applications to DOT and
applications through Grants.gov are included in Section IX (Pre-
Application and Application Cycle).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning
this notice please contact the TIGER II Discretionary Grant program
manager via e-mail at [email protected], or call Robert Mariner at
202-366-8914. A TDD is available for individuals who are deaf or hard
of hearing at 202-366-3993. In addition, DOT will regularly post
answers to questions and requests for clarifications on DOT's Web site
at http://www.dot.gov/recovery/ost/TIGERII.
Table of Contents
I. Background
Tiger II Discretionary Grants
II. Selection Criteria and Guidance on Application of Selection
Criteria
III. Evaluation and Selection Process
IV. Grant Administration
V. Projects in Rural Areas
VI. TIGER II TIFIA Payments
VII. TIGER II Planning Grants
Application Requirements
VIII. Pre-Application and Application Cycle
IX. Project Benefits
X. Questions and Clarifications
Appendix A: Additional Information on Cost Benefit Analysis
Appendix B: Additional Information on Applying Through Grants.gov
I. Background
Recovery Act TIGER Discretionary Grants
On February 17, 2009, the President of the United States signed the
Recovery Act, which appropriated $1.5 billion of discretionary grant
funds to be awarded by DOT for capital investments in surface
transportation infrastructure. DOT refers to these grants as Grants for
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery or ``TIGER
[[Page 21697]]
Discretionary Grants''. DOT solicited applications for TIGER
Discretionary Grants through a notice of funding availability published
in the Federal Register on June 17, 2009 (an interim notice was
published on May 18, 2009). Applications for TIGER Discretionary Grants
were due on September 15, 2009 and over 1400 applications were received
with funding requests totaling almost $60 billion. Funding for 51
projects totaling nearly $1.5 billion was announced on February 17,
2010. Grant announcements ranged from $3.15 million to $105 million for
individual projects, with an average award size of approximately $30
million and the median project amount being $22 million. Less than
three percent of the applications (by dollar value) received any
funding. Projects were selected for funding based on their alignment
with the selection criteria specified in the June 17, 2009, Federal
Register notice for the TIGER Discretionary Grant program.
On December 16, 2009, the President signed the FY 2010
Appropriations Act. This Act appropriated $600 million to DOT for
National Infrastructure Investments using language that is similar, but
not identical to the language in the Recovery Act authorizing the TIGER
Discretionary Grants. DOT is referring to the grants for National
Infrastructure Investments as TIGER II Discretionary Grants.
TIGER II Discretionary Grants
Like the TIGER Discretionary Grants, TIGER II Discretionary Grants
are for capital investments in surface transportation infrastructure
and are to be awarded on a competitive basis for projects that will
have a significant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area, or a
region. Key requirements of the TIGER II Discretionary Grant program
are summarized below, and material differences from the TIGER
Discretionary Grant program are highlighted.
``Eligible Applicants'' for TIGER II Discretionary Grants are State
and local governments, including U.S. territories, tribal governments,
transit agencies, port authorities, metropolitan planning organizations
(MPOs), other political subdivisions of State or local governments, and
multi-State or multi-jurisdictional groups applying through a single
lead applicant (for multi-jurisdictional groups, each member of the
group, including the lead applicant, must be an otherwise eligible
applicant as defined in this paragraph).
Projects that are eligible for TIGER II Discretionary Grants under
the FY 2010 Appropriations Act (``Eligible Projects'') include, but are
not limited to: (1) Highway or bridge projects eligible under title 23,
United States Code; (2) public transportation projects eligible under
chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code; (3) passenger and freight
rail transportation projects; and (4) port infrastructure investments.
Federal wage rate requirements included in subchapter IV of chapter 31
of title 40, United States Code, apply to all projects receiving funds.
This description of Eligible Projects is, in practice, identical to the
description of eligible projects under the TIGER Discretionary Grant
program. (The Recovery Act provided further details elaborating on
project eligibility under categories (1), (2), and (4), as listed
above, for TIGER Discretionary Grants).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Consistent with the FY 2010 Appropriations Act, DOT will
apply the following principles in determining whether a project is
eligible as a capital investment in surface transportation: (1)
Surface transportation facilities generally include roads, highways
and bridges, ports, freight and passenger railroads, transit
systems, and projects that connect transportation facilities to
other modes of transportation; and (2) surface transportation
facilities also include any highway or bridge project eligible under
title 23, U.S.C., or public transportation project eligible under
chapter 53 of title 49, U.S.C. Please note that the Department may
use a TIGER II Discretionary Grant to pay for the surface
transportation components of a broader project that has non-surface
transportation components, and applicants are encouraged to apply
for TIGER II Discretionary Grants to pay for the surface
transportation components of these projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FY 2010 Appropriations Act requires a new solicitation of
applications and, therefore, any unsuccessful applicant for a TIGER
Discretionary Grant that wishes to be considered for a TIGER II
Discretionary Grant must reapply according to the procedures laid out
in this notice.
The FY 2010 Appropriations Act specifies that TIGER II
Discretionary Grants may be not less than $10 million and not greater
than $200 million. The comparable figures for TIGER Discretionary
Grants funded under the Recovery Act were $20 million and $300 million,
although the largest grant announced under the TIGER program was $105
million. Based on DOT's experience with the TIGER Discretionary Grant
program, it is unlikely that the $200 million maximum grant size for
the TIGER II Discretionary Grant program will be reached for any
project. The Recovery Act gave DOT discretion to waive the minimum
grant size for significant projects in smaller cities, regions, or
States. The FY 2010 Appropriations Act does not provide similar
authority to waive the minimum $10 million grant size for TIGER II
Discretionary Grants. However, for projects located in rural areas (as
defined in section V (Projects in Rural Areas)), the minimum TIGER II
Discretionary Grant size is $1 million. The term ``grant'' in the
provision of the FY 2010 Appropriations Act specifying a minimum grant
size does not include TIGER II TIFIA Payments, as defined below.
Pursuant to the FY 2010 Appropriations Act, no more than 25 percent
of the funds made available for TIGER II Discretionary Grants (or $150
million) may be awarded to projects in a single State. The comparable
figure for TIGER Discretionary Grants was 20 percent (or $300 million).
The FY 2010 Appropriations Act directs that not less than $140
million of the funds provided for TIGER II Discretionary Grants is to
be used for projects located in rural areas. There was no comparable
amount set aside for rural areas under the Recovery Act for TIGER
Discretionary Grants. In awarding TIGER II Discretionary Grants
pursuant to the FY 2010 Appropriations Act, DOT must take measures to
ensure an equitable geographic distribution of grant funds, an
appropriate balance in addressing the needs of urban and rural areas
and the investment in a variety of transportation modes. The Recovery
Act provided a similar provision for the TIGER Discretionary Grant
program, but with no language on ensuring investments in a variety of
transportation modes.
TIGER II Discretionary Grants may be used for up to 80 percent of
the costs of a project, but priority must be given to projects for
which Federal funding is required to complete an overall financing
package and projects can increase their competitiveness by
demonstrating significant non-Federal contributions. The Recovery Act
included a similar priority for TIGER Discretionary Grants, but allowed
DOT to fund up to 100 percent of the costs of a project. For TIGER II
Discretionary Grants, DOT may increase the Federal share above 80
percent only for projects located in rural areas, in which case DOT may
fund up to 100 percent of the costs of a project. However, the
statutory requirement to give priority to projects that use Federal
funds to complete an overall financing package applies to projects
located in rural areas as well, and projects located in rural areas can
increase their competitiveness for purposes of the TIGER II program by
demonstrating significant non-Federal financial contributions.
The Recovery Act required DOT to give priority to projects that
were expected to be completed by February 17, 2012. The FY 2010
Appropriations Act does not include any similar
[[Page 21698]]
requirements for the TIGER II Discretionary Grants, although TIGER II
funds are only available for obligation through September 30, 2012.
The Recovery Act emphasizes the generation of near-term economic
effects from expenditures on project costs, such as construction job
creation, as a fundamental goal of the TIGER Discretionary Grant
program. However, the FY 2010 Appropriations Act does not include
explicit emphasis on job creation and instead focuses more broadly on
the impact of projects on the Nation, a metropolitan area, or a region
including the medium and long-term benefits that would accrue post-
project completion. Therefore, in all cases, TIGER II Discretionary
Grant applications will need to be competitive on the merits of the
medium to long-term impacts of the projects themselves, as demonstrated
by a project's alignment with the Long-Term Outcomes selection
criterion described in Section II(A) (Selection Criteria) below.
However, because communities nationwide continue to face difficult
economic times, the Department will also continue to incorporate near
term impacts like job creation in its evaluation of TIGER II
applications, as demonstrated by a project's alignment with the Job
Creation & Economic Stimulus selection criterion described in Section
II(A) below. Consideration of near-term benefits will apply
particularly in the case of projects that will employ people in
Economically Distressed Areas as discussed in more detail in Section
II(A) below.
The FY 2010 Appropriations Act allows for an amount not to exceed
$150 million of the $600 million to be used to pay the subsidy and
administrative costs of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act of 1998 (``TIFIA'') program, a Federal credit assistance
program, if it would further the purposes of the TIGER II Discretionary
Grant program. DOT is referring to these payments as ``TIGER II TIFIA
Payments.'' The Recovery Act authorized DOT to use up to $200 million
of the amount available for TIGER Discretionary Grants for similar
purposes.
Based on the subsidy amounts required for projects in the TIFIA
program's existing portfolio, DOT estimates that $150 million of TIGER
II TIFIA Payments could support approximately $1.5 billion in TIFIA
credit assistance. The amount of budget authority required to support
TIFIA credit assistance is calculated on a project-by-project basis.
Applicants for TIGER II TIFIA Payments should submit an application
pursuant to this notice and a separate TIFIA letter of interest, as
described below in Section VI (TIGER II TIFIA Payments). Unless
otherwise noted, or the context requires otherwise, references in this
notice to TIGER II Discretionary Grants include TIGER II TIFIA
Payments.
DOT reserves the right to offer a TIGER II TIFIA Payment to an
applicant that applied for a TIGER II Discretionary Grant even if DOT
does not choose to fund the requested TIGER II Discretionary Grant and
the applicant did not specifically request a TIGER II TIFIA Payment.
Therefore, as described below in Section VI (TIGER II TIFIA Payments),
applicants for TIGER II Discretionary Grants, particularly applicants
that require a substantial amount of funds to complete a financing
package, should indicate whether or not they have considered applying
for a TIGER II TIFIA Payment. To the extent an applicant thinks that
TIFIA may be a viable option for the project, applicants should provide
a brief description of a project finance plan that includes TIFIA
credit assistance and identifies a source of revenue which may be
available to support the TIFIA credit assistance.
The FY 2010 Appropriations Act also permits DOT to use an amount
not to exceed $35 million of the available TIGER II funds for the
planning, preparation, or design of Eligible Projects (``TIGER II
Planning Grants''). TIGER II Planning Grants may be awarded to Eligible
Applicants. The Recovery Act did not explicitly provide funding for
similar activities under the TIGER Discretionary Grant program. Unless
otherwise noted, or the context requires otherwise, references in this
notice to TIGER II Discretionary Grants includes TIGER II Planning
Grants.
The FY 2010 Appropriations Act provides that the Secretary of
Transportation may retain up to $25 million of the $600 million to fund
the award and oversight of TIGER II Discretionary Grants. Portions of
the $25 million may be transferred for these purposes to the
Administrators of the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal
Transit Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the
Federal Maritime Administration.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit applications for TIGER II
Discretionary Grants.
Tiger II Discretionary Grants
II. Selection Criteria and Guidance on Application of Selection
Criteria
This section specifies the criteria that DOT will use to evaluate
applications for TIGER II Discretionary Grants. The criteria
incorporate the statutory eligibility requirements for this program,
which are specified in this notice as relevant. This section is split
into two parts. Part A (Selection Criteria) specifies the criteria that
DOT will use to rate projects. Additional guidance about how DOT will
apply these criteria, including illustrative metrics and examples, is
provided in Part B (Additional Guidance on Selection Criteria).
A. Selection Criteria
TIGER II Discretionary Grants will be awarded based on the
selection criteria as outlined below. There are two categories of
selection criteria, ``Primary Selection Criteria'' and ``Secondary
Selection Criteria.''
The Primary Selection Criteria include (1) Long-Term Outcomes and
(2) Job Creation & Economic Stimulus. The Secondary Selection Criteria
include (1) Innovation and (2) Partnership. The Primary Selection
Criteria are intended to capture the primary objective of the TIGER II
provisions of the FY 2010 Appropriations Act, which is to invest in
infrastructure projects that will have a significant impact on the
Nation, a metropolitan area, or a region. The Secondary Selection
Criteria are intended to capture the benefits of new and/or innovative
approaches to achieving this programmatic objective.
1. Primary Selection Criteria
(a) Long-Term Outcomes
DOT will give priority to projects that have a significant impact
on desirable long-term outcomes for the Nation, a metropolitan area, or
a region. Applications that do not demonstrate a likelihood of
significant long-term benefits in this criterion will not proceed in
the evaluation process. The following types of long-term outcomes will
be given priority:
(i) State of Good Repair: Improving the condition of existing
transportation facilities and systems, with particular emphasis on
projects that minimize life-cycle costs.
(ii) Economic Competitiveness: Contributing to the economic
competitiveness of the United States over the medium- to long-term.
(iii) Livability: Fostering livable communities through place-based
policies and investments that increase transportation choices and
access to transportation services for people in communities across the
United States.
(iv) Environmental Sustainability: Improving energy efficiency,
reducing dependence on oil, reducing greenhouse
[[Page 21699]]
gas emissions and benefitting the environment.
(v) Safety: Improving the safety of U.S. transportation facilities
and systems.
(b) Job Creation & Economic Stimulus
While the TIGER II Discretionary Grant program is not a Recovery
Act program, job creation and economic stimulus remain a top priority
of this Administration; therefore, DOT will give priority (as it did
for the TIGER Discretionary Grant program) to projects that are
expected to quickly create and preserve jobs and stimulate rapid
increases in economic activity, particularly jobs and activity that
benefit economically distressed areas as defined by section 301 of the
Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended (42
U.S.C. 3161) (``Economically Distressed Areas''). \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ While Economically Distressed Areas are typically identified
under the Public Works and Economic Development Act at the county
level, for the purposes of this program DOT will consider regions,
municipalities, smaller areas within larger communities, or other
geographic areas to be Economically Distressed Areas if an applicant
can demonstrate that any such area otherwise meets the requirements
of an Economically Distressed Area as defined in section 301 of the
Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Secondary Selection Criteria
(a) Innovation
DOT will give priority to projects that use innovative strategies
to pursue the long-term outcomes outlined above.
(b) Partnership
DOT will give priority to projects that demonstrate strong
collaboration among a broad range of participants and/or integration of
transportation with other public service efforts.
B. Additional Guidance on Selection Criteria
The following additional guidance explains how DOT will evaluate
each of the selection criteria identified above in Section II(A)
(Selection Criteria). Applicants are encouraged to demonstrate the
responsiveness of a project to any and all of the selection criteria
with the most relevant information that applicants can provide,
regardless of whether such information has been specifically requested,
or identified, in this notice. Any such information shall be considered
part of the application, not supplemental, for purposes of the
application size limits specified below in Section IX(D) (Length of
Application).
1. Primary Selection Criteria
(a) Long-Term Outcomes
In order to measure a project's alignment with this criterion, DOT
will assess the public benefits generated by the project, as measured
by the extent to which a project produces one or more of the following
outcomes.
(i) State of Good Repair: In order to determine whether the project
will improve the condition of existing transportation facilities or
systems, including whether life-cycle costs will be minimized, DOT will
assess (i) whether the project is part of, or consistent with, relevant
State, local or regional efforts and plans to maintain transportation
facilities or systems in a state of good repair, (ii) whether an
important aim of the project is to rehabilitate, reconstruct or upgrade
surface transportation assets that, if left unimproved, threaten future
transportation network efficiency, mobility of goods or people, or
economic growth due to their poor condition, (iii) whether the project
is appropriately capitalized up front and uses asset management
approaches that optimize its long-term cost structure, and (iv) the
extent to which a sustainable source of revenue is available for long-
term operations and maintenance of the project. The application should
include any quantifiable metrics of the facility or system's current
condition and performance and, to the extent possible, projected
condition and performance, with an explanation of how the project will
improve the facility or system's condition, performance and/or long-
term cost structure, including calculations of avoided operations and
maintenance costs and associated delays.
(ii) Economic Competitiveness: In order to determine whether a
project promotes the economic competitiveness of the United States, DOT
will assess whether the project will measurably contribute over the
long-term to growth in employment, production or other high value
economic activity, including the efficient movement of both workers and
goods. For purposes of aligning a project with this outcome, applicants
should provide evidence of the long-term economic benefits that are
provided by the completed project, not the near-term economic benefits
of construction that are captured in the Job Creation & Economic
Stimulus criterion. In weighing long-term employment benefits,
applicants should describe how the project's mobility benefits support
long-term efficiency and growth in employment including a description
of the quality of jobs and number of workers likely to be supported as
well as whether these jobs are expected to provide employment in
Economically Distressed Areas.
Priority consideration will be given to projects that: (i) Improve
long-term efficiency, reliability or cost-competitiveness in the
movement of workers or goods, or (ii) make improvements that increase
the economic productivity of land, capital or labor at specific
locations, particularly Economically Distressed Areas. Applicants may
propose other methods of demonstrating a project's contribution to the
economic competitiveness of the country and such methods will be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Economic competitiveness may be demonstrated by the project's
ability to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the
transportation system through integration or better use of all existing
transportation infrastructure (which may be evidenced by the project's
involvement with or benefits to more than one mode and/or its
compatibility with and preferably augmentation of the capacities of
connecting modes and facilities), but only to the extent that these
enhancements lead to the economic benefits that are identified in the
opening paragraph of this section.
For purposes of demonstrating economic impacts, applicants should
estimate National-level or region-wide economic impacts on productivity
and production, and should net out those benefits most likely to result
in transfers of economic activity from one localized area to another.
Therefore, in estimating local and regional impacts, applicants should
consider net increases in economic productivity and benefits, and
should take care not to include economic benefits that are being
shifted from one location in the United States to another location.
Applicants may also estimate economic impacts that an investment will
have at a concentrated local or regional level but should distinguish
such benefits from those that enhance National or regional productivity
as described above. Highly localized benefits will receive the most
consideration under circumstances where such benefits are most likely
to improve an Economically Distressed Area (as defined herein) or
otherwise improve access to employment opportunities for under-employed
and disadvantaged populations.
Finally, the TIGER II program strives to promote long-term economic
growth in a manner that will be sustainable for generations to come.
Therefore, for projects designed to enhance economic
[[Page 21700]]
competitiveness, applicants should also provide evidence that the
project will achieve the goals of this outcome in an environmentally
sustainable manner. To satisfy this condition, applicants should
reference the fourth criterion in this Section II(B) ``Environmental
Sustainability'' for more information on what features promote
sustainable growth and be sure to address the extent to which
sustainability features are incorporated into the proposed project's
economic impact.
(iii) Livability: Livability investments are projects that not only
deliver transportation benefits, but are also designed and planned in
such a way that they have a positive impact on qualitative measures of
community life. This element of long-term outcomes delivers benefits
that are inherently difficult to measure. However, it is implicit to
livability that its benefits are shared and therefore magnified by the
number of potential users in the affected community. Therefore,
descriptions of how projects enhance livability should include a
description of the affected community and the scale of the project's
impact as measured in person-miles traveled or number of trips
affected. In order to determine whether a project improves the quality
of the living and working environment of a community, DOT will consider
whether the project furthers the six livability principles developed by
DOT with HUD and EPA as part of the Partnership for Sustainable
Communities, which are listed fully at http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot8009.htm. For this criterion, the Department will give particular
consideration to the first principle, which prioritizes the creation of
affordable and convenient transportation choices.\3\ Specifically, DOT
will qualitatively assess whether the project:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In full, this principle reads: ``Provide more transportation
choices. Develop safe, reliable and economical transportation
choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our
nation's dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and promote public health.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Will significantly enhance or reduce the average cost of user
mobility through the creation of more convenient transportation options
for travelers;
(2) will improve existing transportation choices by enhancing
points of modal connectivity, increasing the number of modes
accommodated on existing assets, or reducing congestion on existing
modal assets;
(3) will improve accessibility and transport services for
economically disadvantaged populations, non-drivers, senior citizens,
and persons with disabilities, or will make goods, commodities, and
services more readily available to these groups; and/or
(4) is the result of a planning process which coordinated
transportation and land-use planning decisions and encouraged community
participation in the process.
Livability improvements may include projects for new or improved
biking and walking infrastructure. Particular attention will be paid to
the degree to which such projects contribute significantly to broader
traveler mobility through intermodal connections, enhanced job
commuting options, or improved connections between residential and
commercial areas. Projects that appear designed primarily as isolated
recreational facilities and do not enhance traveler mobility as
described above will not be funded.
(iv) Environmental Sustainability: In order to determine whether a
project promotes a more environmentally sustainable transportation
system, DOT will assess the project's ability to:
(1) Improve energy efficiency, reduce dependence on oil and/or
reduce greenhouse gas emissions; applicants are encouraged to provide
quantitative information regarding expected reductions in emissions of
CO2 or fuel consumption as a result of the project, or
expected use of clean or alternative sources of energy; projects that
demonstrate a projected decrease in the movement of people or goods by
less energy-efficient vehicles or systems will be given priority under
this factor; and
(2) Maintain, protect or enhance the environment, as evidenced by
its avoidance of adverse environmental impacts (for example, adverse
impacts related to air or water quality, wetlands, and endangered
species) and/or by its environmental benefits (for example, improved
air quality, wetlands creation or improved habitat connectivity).
Applicants are encouraged to provide quantitative information that
validates the existence of substantial transportation-related costs
related to energy consumption and adverse environmental effects and
evidence of the extent to which the project will reduce or mitigate
those costs.
(v) Safety: In order to determine whether the project improves
safety, DOT will assess the project's ability to reduce the number,
rate and consequences of surface transportation-related crashes, and
injuries and fatalities among drivers and/or non-drivers in the United
States or in the affected metropolitan area or region, and/or the
project's contribution to the elimination of highway/rail grade
crossings, the protection of pipelines, or the prevention of unintended
release of hazardous materials.
Evaluation of Expected Project Costs and Benefits: DOT believes
that benefit-cost analysis (``BCA''), including the monetization and
discounting of costs and benefits in a common unit of measurement in
present-day dollars, is an important discipline. For BCA to yield
useful results, full consideration of costs and benefits is necessary.
These include traditionally quantified fuel and travel time savings as
well as reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, water quality impacts,
public health effects, and other costs and benefits that are more
indirectly related to vehicle-miles or that are harder to measure. In
addition, BCA should attempt to measure the indirect effects of
transportation investments on land use and on the portions of household
budgets spent on transportation. The systematic process of comparing
expected benefits and costs helps decisionmakers organize information
about, and evaluate trade-offs between, alternative transportation
investments. DOT has a responsibility under Executive Order 12893,
Principles for Federal Infrastructure Investments, 59 FR 4233, to base
infrastructure investments on systematic analysis of expected benefits
and costs, including both quantitative and qualitative measures.
Therefore, applicants for TIGER II Discretionary Grants are
generally required to identify, quantify, and compare expected benefits
and costs, subject to the following qualifications:
All applicants will be expected to prepare an analysis of benefits
and costs; however, DOT understands that the level of expense that can
be expected in these analyses for surveys, travel demand forecasts,
market forecasts, statistical analyses, and so on will be less for
smaller projects than for larger projects. Smaller projects will
therefore be given greater latitude to estimate benefits subjectively.
However, even smaller projects will be expected to quantify these
subjective estimates of benefits and costs, and to provide whatever
evidence they have available to lend credence to their subjective
estimates. Estimates of benefits should be presented in monetary terms
whenever possible; if a monetary estimate is not possible, then at
least a quantitative estimate (in physical, non-monetary terms, such as
ridership estimates, emissions levels, etc.) should be provided.
The requirement to conduct an economic analysis is not applicable
to applicants seeking TIGER II Planning Grants; however, such
applicants
[[Page 21701]]
should describe the expected benefits of the underlying project(s) that
the planning activities will help advance.
The lack of a useful analysis of expected project benefits and
costs may be the basis for denying an award of a TIGER II Discretionary
Grant to an applicant. If it is clear to DOT that the total benefits of
a project are not reasonably likely to outweigh the project's costs,
DOT will not award a TIGER II Discretionary Grant to the project.
Consistent with the broader goals of DOT and the FY 2010 Appropriations
Act, DOT can consider some factors that do not readily lend themselves
to quantification or monetization, including equitable geographic
distribution of grant funds and an appropriate balance in addressing
the needs of urban and rural areas and investment in a variety of
transportation modes.
Detailed guidance for the preparation of benefit-cost analyses is
provided in Appendix A. Benefits should be presented, whenever
possible, in a tabular form showing benefits and costs in each year for
the useful life of the project. Benefits and costs should both be
discounted to the year 2010 and present discounted values of both the
stream of benefits and the stream of costs should be calculated. If the
project has multiple parts, each of which has independent utility, the
benefits and costs of each part should be estimated and presented
separately. A project component has independent utility if the
component itself is an Eligible Project and provides benefits that
satisfy the selection criteria specified in this notice, as described
further in Section III(B) (Evaluation of Eligibility) below.
DOT recognizes that some categories of costs and benefits are more
difficult to quantify or monetize than others. In presenting benefit-
cost analyses, applicants should include qualitative discussion of the
categories of benefits and costs that they were not able to quantify,
noting that these benefits and costs are in addition to other benefits
and costs that were quantified. However, in the event of an
unreasonable absence of data and analysis, or poor applicant effort to
put forth a robust quantification of benefits and costs, the
application is unlikely to receive further consideration. In general,
the lack of a useful analysis comparing benefits and costs for any such
project is ground for denying the award of a TIGER II Discretionary
Grant.
Evaluation of Project Performance: Each project selected for TIGER
II Discretionary Grant funding will be required to work with DOT on the
development and implementation of a plan to collect information and
report on the project's performance with respect to the relevant long-
term outcomes that are expected to be achieved through construction of
the project.
(b) Job Creation & Economic Stimulus
In order to measure a project's alignment with this criterion, DOT
will assess whether the project promotes the short- or long-term
creation or preservation of jobs and whether the project rapidly
promotes new or expanded business opportunities during construction of
the project or thereafter. Demonstration of a project's rapid economic
impact is critical to a project's alignment with this criterion.
Applicants are encouraged to provide information to assist DOT in
making these assessments, including the total amount of funds that will
be expended on construction and construction-related activities by all
of the entities participating in the project and, to the extent
measurable, the number and type of jobs to be created and/or preserved
by the project by calendar quarters during construction and annually
thereafter. Applicants should also identify any business enterprises to
be created or benefited by the project during its construction and once
it becomes operational.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Executive Office of the President, Council of Economic
Advisers, issued a memorandum in May 2009 on ``Estimates of Job
Creation from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.''
The memorandum is available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/Estimate-of-Job-Creation/. Table 5 of this
memorandum provides a simple rule for estimating job-years created
by government spending, which is that $92,000 of government spending
creates one job-year. Of this, 64% of the job-year estimate
represents direct and indirect effects and 36% of the job-year
estimate represents induced effects. Applicants can use this
estimate as an appropriate indicator of direct, indirect and induced
job-years created by TIGER II Discretionary Grant spending, but are
encouraged to supplement or modify this estimate to the extent they
can demonstrate that such modifications are justified. However,
since the May 2009 memorandum makes job creation purely a function
of the level of expenditure, applicants should also demonstrate how
quickly jobs will be created under the proposed project. Projects
that generate a given number of jobs more quickly will have a more
favorable impact on economic recovery. A quarter-by-quarter
projection of the number of direct job-hours expected to be created
by the project is useful in assessing the impacts of a project on
economic recovery. Furthermore, applicants should be aware that
certain types of expenditures are less likely to align well with the
Job Creation & Economic Stimulus criterion. These types of
expenditures include, among other things, engineering or design work
and purchasing existing facilities or right-of-way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the Recovery Act, the Updated Implementing Guidance
for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 issued by the
Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') on April 3, 2009 (the ``OMB
Guidance''), each of which DOT is applying as a matter of policy, and
consistent with applicable Federal laws, applicants are encouraged to
provide information to assist DOT in assessing (1) whether the project
will promote the creation of job opportunities for low-income workers
through the use of best practice hiring programs and utilization of
apprenticeship (including pre-apprenticeship) programs; (2) whether the
project will provide maximum practicable opportunities for small
businesses and disadvantaged business enterprises, including veteran-
owned small businesses and service disabled veteran-owned small
businesses; (3) whether the project will make effective use of
community-based organizations in connecting disadvantaged workers with
economic opportunities; (4) whether the project will support entities
that have a sound track record on labor practices and compliance with
Federal laws ensuring that American workers are safe and treated
fairly; and (5) whether the project implements best practices,
consistent with our Nation's civil rights and equal opportunity laws,
for ensuring that all individuals--regardless of race, gender, age,
disability, and national origin--benefit from TIGER II grant funding.
To the extent possible, applicants should indicate whether the
populations most likely to benefit from the creation or preservation of
jobs or new or expanded business opportunities are from Economically
Distressed Areas. In addition, to the extent possible, applicants
should indicate whether the project's procurement plan is likely to
create follow-on jobs and economic stimulus for manufacturers and
suppliers that support the construction industry. A key consideration
in assessing projects under this criterion will be how quickly jobs are
created.
In evaluating a project's alignment with this criterion, DOT will
assess whether a project is ready to proceed rapidly upon receipt of a
TIGER II Discretionary Grant, as evidenced by:
(i) Project Schedule: A feasible and sufficiently detailed project
schedule demonstrating that the project can begin construction quickly
upon receipt of a TIGER II Discretionary Grant and that the grant funds
will be spent steadily and expeditiously once construction starts; the
schedule should show how many direct, on-project jobs are expected to
be created or sustained during each calendar quarter after the project
is underway;
(ii) Environmental Approvals: Receipt (or reasonably anticipated
receipt) of all environmental approvals necessary for
[[Page 21702]]
the project to proceed to construction on the timeline specified in the
project schedule, including satisfaction of all Federal, State and
local requirements and completion of the National Environmental Policy
Act (``NEPA'') process; DOT will not evaluate applications from
applicants that have not initiated the NEPA process for their project
by the Pre-Application Deadline, as evidenced by the identification of
and engagement with the appropriate Federal/State lead agency for the
NEPA review and preparation of draft NEPA documentation; relevant NEPA
documentation must be provided with the application--preferably by way
of a Web site link--for Departmental review;
(iii) Legislative Approvals: Receipt of all necessary legislative
approvals (for example, legislative authority to charge user fees or
set toll rates), and evidence of support from State and local elected
officials; evidence of support from all relevant State and local
officials is not required, however, the evidence should demonstrate
that the project is broadly supported;
(iv) State and Local Planning: The inclusion of the project in the
relevant State, metropolitan, and local planning documents, or a
certification from the appropriate agency that the project will be
included in the relevant planning document prior to award of a TIGER II
Discretionary Grant;\5\ any MPO that is applying for a TIGER II
Discretionary Grant should provide evidence that the owner of the
project supports the application and will cooperate in carrying out the
activities to be supported by the TIGER II Discretionary Grant;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ All regionally significant projects requiring an action by
the FHWA or the FTA must be in the metropolitan transportation plan,
TIP and STIP. Further, in air quality non-attainment and maintenance
areas, all regionally significant projects, regardless of the
funding source, must be included in the conforming metropolitan
transportation plan and TIP. To the extent a project is required to
be on a metropolitan transportation plan, TIP and/or STIP it will
not receive a TIGER II Discretionary Grant until it is included in
such plans. Projects that are not required to be in long range
transportation plans, STIPs and TIPs will not need to be included in
such plans in order to receive a TIGER II Discretionary Grant.
Freight and passenger rail projects are not required to be on the
State Rail Plans called for in the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act of 2008. This is consistent with the exemption for
high speed and intercity passenger rail projects under the Recovery
Act. However, applicants seeking funding for freight and passenger
rail projects are encouraged to demonstrate that they have done
sufficient planning to ensure that projects fit into a prioritized
list of capital needs and are consistent with long-range goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(v) Technical Feasibility: The technical feasibility of the
project, including completion of substantial preliminary engineering
work; and
(vi) Financial Feasibility: The viability and completeness of the
project's financing package (assuming the availability of the requested
TIGER II Discretionary Grant funds), including evidence of stable and
reliable financial commitments and contingency reserves, as
appropriate, and evidence of the grant recipient's ability to manage
grants.
DOT reserves the right to revoke any award of TIGER II
Discretionary Grant funds and to award such funds to another project to
the extent that such funds are not timely expended and/or construction
does not begin in accordance with the project schedule. Because
projects have different schedules DOT will consider on a case-by-case
basis how much time after award of a TIGER II Discretionary Grant each
project has before funds must be obligated and construction started.
This deadline will be specified for each TIGER II Discretionary Grant
in the project-specific grant agreements signed by the grant recipients
and will be based on critical path items identified by applicants in
response to items (i) through (vi) above. For example, if an applicant
reasonably anticipates that NEPA requirements will be completed and
final documentation received within 30 to 60 days of award of a TIGER
II Discretionary Grant, this timeframe will be taken into account in
evaluating the application, but also in establishing a deadline for
obligation of funds and commencement of construction. DOT's ability to
obligate funds for TIGER II Discretionary Grants expires on September
30, 2012.
2. Secondary Selection Criteria
(a) Innovation
In order to measure a project's alignment with this criterion, DOT
will assess the extent to which the project uses innovative technology
(including, for example, intelligent transportation systems, dynamic
pricing, rail wayside or on-board energy recovery, smart cards, real-
time dispatching, active traffic management, radio frequency
identification (RFID), or others) to pursue one or more of the long-
term outcomes outlined above and/or to significantly enhance the
operational performance of the transportation system. DOT will also
assess the extent to which the project incorporates innovations that
demonstrate the value of new approaches to, among other things,
transportation funding and finance, contracting, project delivery,
congestion management, safety management, asset management, or long-
term operations and maintenance. The applicant should clearly
demonstrate that the innovation is designed to pursue one or more of
the long-term outcomes outlined above and/or significantly enhance the
transportation system.
Innovative, multi-modal projects are often difficult to fund under
traditional transportation programs. DOT will consider the extent to
which innovative projects might be difficult to fund under other
programs and will give priority to projects that align well with the
Primary Selection Criteria but are unlikely to receive funding under
traditional programs.
(b) Partnership
(i) Jurisdictional & Stakeholder Collaboration: In order to measure
a project's alignment with this criterion, DOT will assess the
project's involvement of non-Federal entities and the use of non-
Federal funds, including the scope of involvement and share of total
funding. DOT will give priority to projects that receive financial
commitments from, or otherwise involve, State and local governments,
other public entities, or private or nonprofit entities, including
projects that engage parties that are not traditionally involved in
transportation projects, such as nonprofit community groups. Pursuant
to the OMB Guidance, DOT will give priority to projects that make
effective use of community-based organizations in connecting
disadvantaged people with economic opportunities.
In compliance with the FY 2010 Appropriations Act, DOT will give
priority to projects for which a TIGER II Discretionary Grant will help
to complete an overall financing package. An applicant should clearly
demonstrate the extent to which the project cannot be readily and
efficiently completed without Federal assistance, and the extent to
which other sources of Federal assistance are or are not readily
available for the project. DOT will assess the amount of private debt
and equity to be invested in the project or the amount of co-investment
from State, local or other non-profit sources.
DOT will also assess the extent to which the project demonstrates
collaboration among neighboring or regional jurisdictions to achieve
National, regional or metropolitan benefits. Multiple States or
jurisdictions may submit a joint application and should identify a lead
State or jurisdiction as the primary point of contact. Where multiple
States or jurisdictions are submitting a joint application, the
application should demonstrate how the project costs are
[[Page 21703]]
apportioned between the States or jurisdictions to assist DOT in making
the distributional determinations described below in Section III(C)
(Distribution of Funds).
(ii) Disciplinary Integration: In order to demonstrate the value of
partnerships across government agencies that serve various public
service missions and to promote collaboration on the objectives
outlined in this notice, DOT will give priority to projects that are
supported, financially or otherwise, by non-transportation public
agencies that are pursuing similar objectives. For example, DOT will
give priority to transportation projects that create more livable
communities and are supported by relevant public housing agencies or
are consistent with State or local efforts or plans to promote economic
development, revitalize communities, or protect historic or cultural
assets; similarly, DOT will give priority to transportation projects
that encourage energy efficiency or improve the environment and are
supported by relevant public agencies with energy or environmental
missions.
III. Evaluation and Selection Process
A. Evaluation Process
TIGER II Discretionary Grant applications will be evaluated in
accordance with the below discussed evaluation process. DOT will
establish a pre-application evaluation team to review each pre-
application that is received by DOT on or prior to the Pre-Application
Deadline. This evaluation team will be organized and led by the Office
of the Secretary and will include members from the relevant modal
administrations in DOT with the most experience and/or expertise in the
relevant project areas (the ``Cognizant Modal Administrations''). These
representatives will include technical and professional staff with
relevant experience and/or expertise. This evaluation team will be
responsible for analyzing whether the pre-application satisfies the
following key threshold requirements:
1. The project is an Eligible Project or a DOT Eligible Planning
Activity;
2. NEPA has been initiated, as described above in Section
II(B)(2)(b)(ii) (Environmental Approvals); and
3. Local matching funds to support 20 percent or more of the costs
for the project are identified and committed; this requirement is not
applicable to projects located in rural areas, however, applications
for projects in rural areas will be more competitive to the extent they
include non-Federal financial contributions.
To the extent the pre-application evaluation team determines that a
pre-application does not satisfy these key threshold requirements, DOT
will inform the project sponsor that an application for the project
will not be reviewed unless the application submitted on or prior to
the Application Deadline can demonstrate that the requirement has been
addressed.
DOT will establish application evaluation teams to review each
application that is received by DOT prior to the Application Deadline.
These evaluation teams will be organized and led by the Office of the
Secretary and will include members from each of the Cognizant Modal
Administrations. These representatives will include technical and
professional staff with relevant experience and/or expertise. The
evaluation teams will be responsible for evaluating and rating all of
the projects and making funding recommendations to the Secretary. The
evaluation process will require team members to evaluate and rate
applications individually before convening with other members to
discuss ratings. The composition of the evaluation teams will be
finalized after the Pre-Application Deadline, based on the number and
nature of pre-applications received.
DOT will not assign specific numerical scores to projects based on
the selection criteria outlined above in Section II(A) (Selection
Criteria). Rather, ratings of ``highly recommended,'' ``recommended,''
``not recommended'', or ``negative'' will be assigned to projects for
each of the selection criteria. DOT will award TIGER II Discretionary
Grants to projects that are well-aligned with one or more of the
selection criteria, with projects that are well-aligned with multiple
selection criteria being more likely to receive TIGER II Discretionary
Grants. In addition, DOT will consider whether a project has a negative
effect on any of the selection criteria, and any such negative effect
may reduce the likelihood that the project will receive a TIGER II
Discretionary Grant. To the extent the initial evaluation process does
not sufficiently differentiate among highly rated projects, DOT will
use a similar rating process to re-assess the projects that were highly
rated and identify those that should be most highly rated.
DOT will give more weight to the two Primary Selection Criteria
(Long-Term Outcomes and Job Creation & Economic Stimulus) than to the
two Secondary Selection Criteria (Innovation and Partnership). Projects
that are unable to demonstrate a likelihood of significant long-term
benefits in any of the five long-term outcomes identified in Section
II(A)(1)(a) (Long-Term Outcomes) will not proceed in the evaluation
process. A project need not be well aligned with each of the long-term
outcomes in order to be successful in the long-term outcomes criterion
overall. However, projects that are strongly aligned with multiple
long-term outcomes will be the most successful in this criterion.
Furthermore, a project that has a negative effect on safety or
environmental sustainability will need to demonstrate significant
merits in other long-term outcomes in order to be selected for funding.
For the Job Creation & Economic Stimulus criterion, projects need
not receive a rating of ``highly recommended'' in order to be
recommended for funding, although a project that is not ready to
proceed quickly, as evidenced by the items requested in Section
II(B)(1)(b)(i)-(vi) (Project Schedule, Environmental Approvals,
Legislative Approvals, State and Local Planning, Technical Feasibility,
and Financial Feasibility), is less likely to be successful in this
criterion.
DOT will give less weight to the two Secondary Selection Criteria
(Innovation and Partnership) than to the two Primary Selection Criteria
(Long-Term Outcomes and Job Creation & Economic Stimulus). The two
Secondary Selection Criteria will be rated equally.
The following table summarizes the weighting of the selection
criteria, as described in the preceding paragraphs:
Long-Term Outcomes........... DOT will give more weight to this
criterion than to either of the
Secondary Selection Criteria. In
addition, this criterion has a minimum
threshold requirement. Projects that are
unable to demonstrate a likelihood of
significant long-term benefits in any of
the five long-term outcomes identified
in this criterion will not proceed in
the evaluation process.
Job Creation & Economic DOT will give more weight to this
Stimulus. criterion than to either of the
Secondary Selection Criteria. This
criterion will be considered after it is
determined that a project demonstrates a
likelihood of significant long-term
benefits in at least one of the five
long-term outcomes identified in the
long-term outcomes criterion.
[[Page 21704]]
Innovation & Partnership..... DOT will give less weight to these
criteria than to the Primary Selection
Criteria. These criteria will be rated
equally.
As noted below in Section III(C) (Distribution of Funds), upon
completion of this competitive rating process DOT will analyze the
preliminary list and determine whether the purely competitive ratings
are consistent with the distributional requirements of the FY 2010
Appropriations Act. If necessary, DOT will adjust the list of
recommended projects to satisfy the statutory distributional
requirements while remaining as consistent as possible with the
competitive ratings.
B. Evaluation of Eligibility
To be selected for a TIGER II Discretionary Grant, a project must
be an Eligible Project and the applicant must be an Eligible Applicant.
DOT may consider one or more components of a large project to be an
Eligible Project, but only to the extent that the components have
independent utility, meaning the components themselves, not the project
of which they are a part, are Eligible Projects and satisfy the
selection criteria identified above in Section II(A) (Selection
Criteria). For these projects, the benefits described in an application
must be related to the components of the project for which funding is
requested, not the full project of which they are a part. DOT will not
fund individual phases of a project if the benefits of completing only
these phases would not align well with the selection criteria specified
in the Notice because the overall project would still be incomplete.
To the extent an applicant requests a substantial amount of grant
funds for a larger project or a group of related projects, DOT reserves
the right to award funds for a part of the project, not the full
project, if a part of the project has independent utility and aligns
well with the selection criteria specified in this notice. To the
extent applicants expect that DOT may wish to consider funding one or
more parts of a project and not the full project that is the subject of
the application, then applicants should clearly identify in their
applications the separate parts of the project and the benefits that
each part of the project provides, and how these benefits align with
the selection criteria. Similarly, if a project is not viable unless
DOT funds the full project, this should be stated in the application.
C. Distribution of Funds
As noted above in Section I (Background), the FY 2010
Appropriations Act prohibits the award of more than 25 percent of the
funds made available under the TIGER II program to projects in any one
State. The FY 2010 Appropriations Act also requires that DOT take
measures to ensure an equitable geographic distribution of funds, an
appropriate balance in addressing the needs of urban and rural areas,
and the investment in a variety of transportation modes. DOT will apply
an initial unconstrained competitive rating process based on the
selection criteria identified above in Section II(A) (Selection
Criteria) to determine a preliminary list of projects recommended for
TIGER II Discretionary Grants. DOT will then analyze the preliminary
list and determine whether the purely competitive ratings are
consistent with the distributional requirements of the FY 2010
Appropriations Act. If necessary, DOT will adjust the list of
recommended projects to satisfy the statutory distributional
requirements while remaining as consistent as possible with the
competitive ratings.
As noted above in Section II(B)(2)(b)(i) (Jurisdictional &
Stakeholder Collaboration), applications submitted jointly by multiple
States should include an allocation of project costs to assist DOT in
making these determinations. In addition, DOT will use the subsidy and
administrative cost estimate, not the principal amount of credit
assistance, to determine any TIGER II TIFIA Payment's effect on these
distributional requirements.
D. Transparency of Process
In the interest of transparency, DOT will disclose as much of the
information related to its evaluation process as is practical. DOT
expects that the TIGER II Discretionary Grant program may be reviewed
and/or audited by Congress, the U.S. Government Accountability Office,
DOT's Inspector General, or others, and has and will continue to take
steps to document its decision-making process.
IV. Grant Administration
DOT expects that each TIGER II Discretionary Grant will be
administered by one of the Cognizant Modal Administration, pursuant to
a grant agreement between the TIGER II Discretionary Grant recipient
and the Cognizant Modal Administration. In accordance with the FY 2010
Appropriations Act, the Secretary has the discretion to delegate such
responsibilities.
Applicable Federal laws, rules and regulations will apply to
projects that receive TIGER II Discretionary Grants.
As noted above in Section II(B)(1)(b) (Job Creation & Economic
Stimulus), how soon after award a project is expected to obligate grant
funds and start construction will be considered on a case-by-case basis
and will be specified in the project-specific grant agreements. DOT
reserves the right to revoke any award of TIGER II Discretionary Grant
funds and to award such funds to another project to the extent that
such funds are not timely expended and/or construction does not begin
in accordance with the project schedule. DOT's ability to obligate
funds for TIGER II Discretionary Grants expires on September 30, 2012.
V. Projects in Rural Areas
The FY 2010 Appropriations Act directs that not less than $140
million of the funds provided for TIGER II Discretionary Grants are to
be used for projects in rural areas. For purposes of this notice, DOT
is generally defining ``rural area'' as any area not in an Urbanized
Area, as such term is defined by the Census Bureau,\6\ and will
[[Page 21705]]
consider a project to be in a rural area if all or a material portion
of a project is located in a rural area. For projects located in rural
areas the FY 2010 Appropriation Act does not require matching funds
(although the statute does direct DOT to give priority to projects,
including projects located in rural areas, for which Federal funding is
required to complete an overall financing package that includes non-
Federal sources of funds) and the minimum grant size is $1 million.
Applicants for TIGER II Discretionary Grants of between $1 million and
$10 million for projects located in rural areas are encouraged to apply
and should address the same criteria as applicants for TIGER II
Discretionary Grants in excess of $10 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For Census 2000, the Census Bureau classified as urban all
territory, population, and housing units located within urbanized
areas (UAs) and urban clusters (UCs), both defined using the same
criteria. The Census Bureau delineates UA and UC boundaries to
encompass densely settled territory, which generally consists of:
A cluster of one or more block groups or census blocks,
each of which has a population density of at least 1,000 people per
square mile at the time.
Surrounding block groups and census blocks, each of
which has a population density of at least 500 people per square
mile at the time.
Less densely settled blocks that form enclaves or
indentations, or are used to connect discontiguous areas with
qualifying densities.
Rural consists of all territory, population, and housing units
located outside of UAs and UCs.
For Census 2000, the urban and rural classification was applied
to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American
Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Urbanized Areas (UAs)--An urbanized area consists of densely
settled territory that contains 50,000 or more people. The Census
Bureau delineates UAs to provide a better separation of urban and
rural territory, population, and housing in the vicinity of large
places. For Census 2000, the UA criteria were extensively revised
and all areas were reexamined and redefined, rather than building
from the previous decade's UA boundary as had been the practice in
previous censuses (territory that was part of a 1990 UA was not
automatically grandfathered into the 2000 UA). Because of changes in
criteria, some territory that was classified as urbanized for the
1990 census was reclassified as rural. In addition, some areas that
were identified as being within UAs for the 1990 census were
reclassified as within urban clusters.
Urban Clusters (UCs)--An urban cluster consists of densely
settled territory that has at least 2,500 people but fewer than
50,000 people. The Census Bureau introduced the UC concept for
Census 2000 to provide a more consistent and accurate measure of
urban population, housing, and territory throughout the United
States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas. Prior to Census 2000,
urban places of 2,500 or more population were identified outside UAs
without regard to population density. In addition, densely settled
populations located outside places and outside UAs were classified
as rural prior to Census 2000. Because of the adoption of the UC
concept for Census 2000, some territory that was classified as rural
for the 1990 census was reclassified as urban. Note: All urban areas
defined within Guam based on the results of Census 2000 are
designated as urban clusters regardless of their total population.
Updated lists of UAs and UCs are available on the Census Bureau
Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. TIGER II TIFIA Payments
Up to $150 million of the $600 million available for TIGER II
Discretionary Grants may be used for TIGER II TIFIA Payments. Based on
the average subsidy cost of the existing TIFIA portfolio, $150 million
in TIGER II TIFIA Payments could support approximately $1.5 billion in
Federal credit assistance.
Applicants seeking TIGER II TIFIA Payments should apply in
accordance with all of the criteria and guidance specified in this
notice for TIGER II Discretionary Grant applications and will be
evaluated concurrently with all other applicants. Any applicant seeking
a TIGER II TIFIA Payment is also required to submit a TIFIA letter of
interest concurrent with the TIGER II TIFIA Payment application. If
selected for a TIGER II TIFIA Payment, the applicant must comply with
all of the TIFIA program's standard application and approval
requirements including submission of a complete TIFIA application and
$30,000 application fee (the TIFIA program guide can be downloaded from
http://tifia.fhwa.dot.gov/).
Applicants should demonstrate that they are ready to proceed
rapidly upon receipt of a TIGER II TIFIA Payment in accordance with the
guidance specified above in Section II(B)(1)(b) (Job Creation &
Economic Stimulus). DOT's TIFIA Joint Program Office will assist DOT in
determining a project's readiness to proceed rapidly upon receipt of a
TIGER II TIFIA Payment.
Applicants seeking TIGER II TIFIA Payments may also apply for a
TIGER II Discretionary Grant for the same project and must indicate the
type(s) of funding for which they are applying clearly on the face of
their applications. An applicant for a TIGER II TIFIA Payment must
submit an application pursuant to this notice for a TIGER II TIFIA
Payment even if it does not wish to apply for a TIGER II Discretionary
Grant.
DOT reserves the right to offer a TIGER II TIFIA Payment to an
applicant that applied for a TIGER II Discretionary Grant even if DOT
does not choose to fund the requested TIGER II Discretionary Grant
request and the applicant did not request a TIGER II TIFIA Payment.
Therefore, applicants for TIGER II Discretionary Grants, particularly
applicants that require a substantial amount of funds to complete a
financing package, should indicate whether or not they have considered
applying for a TIGER II TIFIA Payment. To the extent an applicant
thinks that TIFIA may be a viable option for the project, applicants
should provide a brief description of a project finance plan that
includes TIFIA credit assistance and identifies a source of revenue
which may be available to support the TIFIA credit assistance.
Unless otherwise expressly noted herein, any and all requirements
that apply to TIGER II Discretionary Grants pursuant to the FY 2010
Appropriations Act, this notice, or otherwise, apply to TIGER II TIFIA
Payments. TIFIA applicants that do not receive TIGER II TIFIA Payments
will not be required to comply with any of these requirements.
VII. TIGER II Planning Grants
The FY 2010 Appropriations Act permits DOT to use up to $35 million
of the amount available for TIGER II Discretionary Grants for TIGER II
Planning Grants.
TIGER II Planning Grants may be awarded, like TIGER II
Discretionary Grants, to Eligible Applicants, and may be used for
activities related to the planning, preparation or design of Eligible
Projects, including transportation corridors or regional transportation
systems (``DOT Eligible Planning Activities''). Applications for
planning assistance may be made alone or as part of a TIGER II
Discretionary Grant application.
Applicants seeking TIGER II Planning Grants should apply in
accordance with all of the application requirements specified in this
notice for TIGER II Discretionary Grants, unless specified otherwise.
This includes responding to each of the selection criteria specified
for TIGER II Discretionary Grants and submission of a pre-application
and application in accordance with the requirements specified in
Section IX (Pre-Application and Application Cycle) below.
DOT reserves the right to offer a TIGER II Planning Grant to an
applicant that applied for a TIGER II Discretionary Grant even if DOT
does not choose to fund the requested TIGER II Discretionary Grant
request and the applicant did not request a TIGER II Planning Grant.
For purposes of this interim notice, DOT is seeking comments on its
intention to conduct a multi-agency evaluation and award process with
HUD for DOT's TIGER II Planning Grants and HUD's Community Challenge
Planning Grants, which were also authorized under the FY 2010
Appropriations Act. HUD is authorized to use $40 million for Community
Challenge Planning Grants to foster reform and reduce barriers to
achieve affordable, economically vital, and sustainable communities.
This multi-agency approach for the planning grants would be consistent
with DOT and HUD's participation in the ``Partnership for Sustainable
Communities'' with EPA to help American families in all communities--
rural, suburban and urban--gain better access to affordable housing,
more transportation options, lower transportation costs, and a cleaner
environment.
DOT and HUD believe there is great value in issuing a joint
solicitation for the two planning grant programs in order to better
align transportation, housing, economic development, and land use
planning and to improve linkages between the three Partnership
agencies' programs. DOT and HUD also believe this proposal has the
potential to encourage and reward more holistic planning efforts and
result in better projects being built with Federal dollars.
While the DOT and HUD planning grant programs have similar, related
purposes, there are differences in the activities that the two programs
can fund. DOT's program can fund planning activities that relate
directly to a future transportation capital investment, while HUD's
program can fund local planning
[[Page 21706]]
activities that could support future transportation investment.
Transportation planning activities that may be funded through the
TIGER II Discretionary Grant program include efforts related to
individual transportation projects, transportation corridors, or
regional transportation systems or networks. Activities eligible for
funding under HUD's program include, but are not limited to, the
development of master plans, zoning and building code reform
initiatives, including the development of inclusionary zoning
ordinances, corridor and district plans, and other strategies,
including land acquisition, designed to create walkable, mixed-use,
transit-oriented, and affordable communities for persons of all
incomes, especially those of low-, very low-, and extremely low-income
persons and families.
Additionally, the two programs can provide funding to different
applicants. DOT's TIGER II Planning Grants are available to any
Eligible Applicant. The HUD Community Challenge Grants are potentially
available to a broader range of applicants, including nonprofit
organizations. DOT and HUD would like to invite comments about whether
the differences in eligibility should be maintained and, if so, how it
might be managed in a joint selection process.
DOT and HUD would like to receive comments on the evaluation method
that should be used for a combined planning grant process, in terms of
selection criteria and goals. Also, feedback is invited on funding
categories and where the overlap between DOT and HUD's program might be
applied most effectively. To the extent DOT and HUD determine that a
joint solicitation is feasible and advisable, it would be published no
later than May 28, 2010, with the final notice of funding availability
for the TIGER II Discretionary Grant program.
Pre-Application and Application Cycle
VIII. Pre-Application and Application Cycle
A. Two Stages of Application Cycle
The application cycle for TIGER II Discretionary Grants has two
stages:
1. Pre-Application: In Stage 1, applicants must submit a pre-
application form to the DOT. This step qualifies applicants to submit
an application in Stage 2. No application submitted during Stage 2 that
does not correlate with a properly completed Stage 1 pre-application
will be considered.
2. Application: In Stage 2, applicants must submit a complete
application package through Grants.gov.
Pre-applications must be submitted to DOT by the Pre-Application
Deadline, which is July 16, 2010, at 5 p.m. EST. Final applications
must be submitted through Grants.gov by the Application Deadline, which
is August 23, 2010, at 5 p.m. EST. The Grants.gov ``Apply'' function
will open on July 30, 2010, allowing applicants to submit applications.
While applicants are encouraged to submit pre-applications in advance
of the Pre-Application Deadline, pre-applications will not be reviewed
until after the Pre-Application Deadline. Similarly, while applicants
are encouraged to submit applications in advance of the Application
Deadline, applications will not be evaluated, and awards will not be
made, until after the Application Deadline.
Pre-applications (stage 1) must be submitted to the DOT. The pre-
application form will be available on the DOT Web site at http://www.dot.gov/recovery/ost/TIGERII on June 15, 2010, together with
instructions for submitting the pre-application form electronically to
DOT.
Applications (Stage 2) must be submitted through Grants.gov. To
apply for funding through Grants.gov, applicants must be properly
registered. Complete instructions on how to register and submit
applications can be found at http://www.grants.gov. Please be aware
that the registration process usually takes 2-4 weeks and must be
completed before an application can be submitted. If interested parties
experience difficulties at any point during the registration or
application process, please call the Grants.gov Customer Support
Hotline at 1-800-518-4726, Monday-Friday from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. EST.
Additional information on applying through Grants.gov is available in
Appendix B, attached hereto.
B. Contents of Pre-Applications
An applicant for a TIGER II Discretionary Grant should provide all
of the information requested below in its pre-application form. DOT
reserves the right to ask any applicant to supplement the data in its
pre-application, but expects pre-applications to be complete upon
submission. Applicants must complete the pre-application form and send
it to DOT electronically on or prior to the Pre-Application Deadline,
in accordance with the instructions specified at http://www.dot.gov/recovery/ost/TIGERII. The pre-application form must include the
following information:
i. Name of applicant (if the application is to be submitted by more
than one entity, a lead applicant must be identified);
ii. Applicant's DUNS (Data Universal Numbering System) number;
iii. Type of applicant (State government, local government, U.S.
territory, Tribal government, transit agency, port authority,
metropolitan planning organization, or other unit of government;);
iv. State(s) where the project is located;
v. County(s) where the project is located;
vi. City(s) where the project is located;
vii. Project title (descriptive);
viii. Project type: Highway, transit, rail, port, multimodal,
bicycle and pedestrian, or planning activity (if the project is a
multimodal project, the pre-application form will require that
applicants provide additional information identifying the affected
modes);
ix. Whether the project is requesting a TIGER II TIFIA Payment;
x. Project description (describe the project in plain English terms
that would be generally understood by the public, using no more than 50
words (e.g. ``the project will replace the existing bridge over the W
river on interstate-X between the cities of Y and Z'' or ``the TIGER II
Planning Grant will fund planning activities for streetcar service from
location X to location Y''; please do not describe the project's
benefits, background, or alignment with the selection criteria in this
description);
xi. Total cost of the project;
xii. Total amount of TIGER II Discretionary Grant funds requested;
xiii. Contact name, phone number, e-mail address, and physical
address for applicant;
xiv. Congressional districts affected by the project;
xv. Type of jurisdiction where the project is located (urban or
rural, as defined above in Section V (Projects in Rural Areas));
xvi. Whether or not the project is in an Economically Distressed
Area, as defined in Section II(A) (Selection Criteria);
xvii. An assurance that the NEPA process has been initiated, as
evidenced by the identification of and engagement with the appropriate
Federal/State lead agency for the NEPA review and preparation of draft
NEPA documentation (while not required for the pre-application,
relevant NEPA documentation must be provided with
[[Page 21707]]
the application--preferably by way of a website link--for Departmental
review); applicants for TIGER II Planning Grants do not need to
demonstrate that the NEPA process has been initiated; and
xviii. An assurance that local matching funds to support 20 percent
or more of the costs of the project are identified and committed (as
noted in Section I (Background), this requirement is waived for
projects located in rural areas (as defined above in Section V
(Projects in Rural Areas)), and these projects do not need to provide
this assurance).
To the extent the pre-application does not provide adequate
assurances for items xvii or xviii, DOT will inform the project sponsor
that an application for the project will not be reviewed unless the
application submitted on or prior to the Application Deadline can
demonstrate that the requirement has been addressed.
C. Contents of Applications
An applicant for a TIGER II Discretionary Grant should include all
of the information requested below in its application. DOT reserves the
right to ask any applicant to supplement the data in its application,
but expects applications to be complete upon submission. To the extent
practical, DOT encourages applicants to provide data and evidence of
project merits in a form that is publicly available or veri fi able.
For TIGER II TIFIA Payments, these requirements apply only to the
applications required under this notice; the standard TIFIA letter of
interest and loan application requirements, including the standard
$30,000.00 application fee, are separately described in the Program
Guide and Application Form found at http://tifia.fhwa.dot.gov.
1. Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance
Please see http://www07.grants.gov/assets/SF424Instructions.pdf for
instructions on how to complete the SF 424, which is part of the
standard Grants.gov submission. Additional clarifying guidance and FAQs
to assist applicants in completing the SF-424 will be available at
http://www.dot.gov/recovery/ost/TIGERII by July 30, 2010, when the
``Apply'' function within Grants.gov opens to accept applications under
this notice.
2. Project Narrative (Attachment to SF 424)
The project narrative must respond to the application requirements
outlined below. DOT recommends that the project narrative be prepared
with standard formatting preferences (e.g. a single-spaced document,
using a standard 12-point font, such as Times New Roman, with 1-inch
margins).
A TIGER II Discretionary Grant application must include information
required for DOT to assess each of the criteria specified in Section
II(A) (Selection Criteria), as such criteria are explained in Section
II(B) (Additional Guidance on Selection Criteria). Applicants are
encouraged to demonstrate the responsiveness of a project to any and
all of the selection criteria with the most relevant information that
applicants can provide, regardless of whether such information has been
specifically requested, or identified, in this notice. Any such
information shall be considered part of the application, not
supplemental, for purposes of the application size limits identified
below in Part D (Length of Applications). Information provided pursuant
to this paragraph must be quantified, to the extent possible, to
describe the project's impacts on the Nation, a metropolitan area, or a
region. Information provided pursuant to this paragraph should include
projections for both the build and no-build scenarios for the project
for a point in time at least 20 years beyond the project's completion
date or the lifespan of the project, whichever is closest to the
present.
All applications should include a detailed description of the
proposed project and geospatial data for the project, including a map
of the project's location and its connections to existing
transportation infrastructure. An application should also include a
description of how the project addresses the needs of an urban and/or
rural area. An application should clearly describe the transportation
challenges that the project aims to address, and how the project will
address these challenges. The description should include relevant data
such as, for example, passenger or freight volumes, congestion levels,
infrastructure condition, or safety experience.
DOT recommends that the project narrative generally adhere to the
following basic outline, and include a table of contents, maps and
graphics that make the information easier to review:
I. Project Description (including a description of the
transportation challenges that the project aims to address, and how the
project will address these challenges);
II. Project Parties (information about the grant recipient and
other project parties);
III. Grant Funds and Sources/Uses of Project Funds (information
about the amount of grant funding requested, availability/commitment of
funds sources and uses of all project funds, total project costs,
percentage of project costs that would be paid for with TIGER II
Discretionary Grant funds, and the identity and percentage shares of
all parties providing funds for the project (including Federal funds
provided under other programs));
IV. Selection Criteria (information about how the project aligns
with each of the primary and secondary selection criteria and a
description of the results of the benefit-cost analysis):
a. Long-Term Outcomes:
i. State of Good Repair;
ii. Economic Competitiveness;
iii. Livability;
iv. Sustainability;
v. Safety;
b. Job Creation and Economic Stimulus;
c. Innovation;
d. Partnership;
V. Project Readiness and NEPA (information about how ready the
project is to move forward quickly, including information about the
project schedule, environmental approvals, legislative approvals, state
and local planning, technical feasibility, and financial feasibility);
applications for TIGER II Planning Grants do not need to address
project readiness and NEPA;
VI. Federal Wage Rate Certification (an application must include a
certification, signed by the applicant, stating that it will comply
with the requirements of subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40,
United States Code (Federal wage rate requirements), as required by the
FY 2010 Appropriations Act); and
VII. To the extent relevant, the final page of the application
should describe (in one page or less) any material changes that need to
be made to the pre-application form, including changes to the
assurances provided in items xvii and xviii regarding initiation of
NEPA and required cost sharing.
The purpose of this recommended format is to ensure that
applications are provided in a format that clearly addresses the
application requirements and makes critical information readily
apparent and easy to locate.
D. Length of Applications
The project narrative should not exceed 25 pages in length.
Documentation supporting the assertions made in the narrative portion
may also be provided, but should be limited to relevant information. If
possible, Web site links to supporting documentation (including a more
detailed discussion of the benefit-cost
[[Page 21708]]
analysis) should be provided rather than copies of these materials. At
the applicant's discretion, relevant materials provided previously to a
Cognizant Modal Administration in support of a different DOT
discretionary program (for example, New Starts or TIFIA) may be
referenced and described as unchanged. To the extent referenced, this
information need not be resubmitted for the TIGER II Discretionary
Grant application. DOT recommends use of appropriately descriptive file
names (e.g., ``Project Narrative,'' ``Maps,'' ``Memoranda of
Understanding and Letters of Support,'' etc.) for all attachments.
Cover pages and tables of contents do not count towards the 25-page
limit for the narrative portion of the application, and the Federal
wage rate certification and one-page update of the pre-application form
(if necessary) may also be outside of the 25-page narrative. Otherwise,
the only substantive portions of the application that should exceed the
25-page limit are any supporting documents provided to support
assertions or conclusions made in the 25-page narrative section.
E. Contact Information
Contact information is requested as part of the SF-424. DOT will
use this information to inform parties of DOT's decision regarding
selection of projects, as well as to contact parties in the event that
DOT needs additional information about an application.
F. National Environmental Policy Act Requirement
An application for a TIGER II Discretionary Grant must detail
whether the project will significantly impact the natural, social and/
or economic environment. If the NEPA process is completed, an applicant
must indicate the date of, and provide a Web site link or other
reference to, the final Categorical Exclusion, Finding of No
Significant Impact or Record of Decision. If the NEPA process is
underway but not complete, the application must detail where the
project is in the process, indicate the anticipated date of completion
and provide a Web site link or other reference to copies of any NEPA
documents prepared.
G. Environmentally Related Federal, State and Local Actions
An application for a TIGER II Discretionary Grant must indicate
whether the proposed project is likely to require actions by other
agencies (e.g., permits), indicate the status of such actions and
provide a Web site link or other reference to materials submitted to
the other agencies, and/or demonstrate compliance with other Federal,
State and local regulations as applicable, including, but not limited
to, Section 4(f) Parklands, Recreation Areas, Refuges, & Historic
Properties; Section 106 Historic and Culturally Significant Properties;
Clean Water Act Wetlands and Water; Executive Orders Wetlands,
Floodplains, Environmental Justice; Clean Air Act Air Quality
(specifically note if the project is located in a nonattainment area);
Endangered Species Act Threatened and Endangered Biological Resources;
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat; The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; and/or any State and
local requirements.
H. Protection of Confidential Business Information
All information submitted as part of or in support of any
application shall use publicly available data or data that can be made
public and methodologies that are accepted by industry practice and
standards, to the extent possible. If the application includes
information that the applicant considers to be a trade secret or
confidential commercial or financial information, the applicant should
do the following: (1) Note on the front cover that the submission
``Contains Confidential Business Information (CBI);'' (2) mark each
affected page ``CBI;'' and (3) highlight or otherwise denote the CBI
portions. DOT protects such information from disclosure to the extent
allowed under applicable law. In the event DOT receives a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, DOT will follow the
procedures described in its FOIA regulations at 49 CFR Sec. 7.17. Only
information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under that
procedure will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
IX. Project Benefits
DOT expects to identify and report on the benefits of the projects
that it funds with TIGER II Discretionary Grants. To this end, DOT will
request that recipients of TIGER II Discretionary Grants cooperate in
Departmental efforts to collect and report on information related to
the benefits produced by the projects that receive TIGER II
Discretionary Grants.
The benefits that DOT reports on may include the following: (1)
Improved condition of existing transportation facilities and systems;
(2) long-term growth in employment, production or other high-value
economic activity; (3) improved livability of communities across the
United States; (4) improved energy efficiency, reduced dependence on
oil and reduced greenhouse gas emissions; (5) reduced adverse impacts
of transportation on the natural environment; (6) reduced number, rate
and consequences of surface transportation-related crashes, injuries
and fatalities; (7) greater use of innovative technology and innovative
approaches to transportation funding and project delivery; (8) greater
collaboration with state and local governments, other public entities,
private entities, nonprofit entities, or other non-traditional
partners; (9) greater integration of transportation decision making
with decision making by other public agencies with similar public
service objectives; or (10) any other benefits claimed in the project's
benefit-cost analysis.
Because of the limited nature of this program, these benefits are
likely to be reported on a project-by-project basis and trends across
projects that were selected for TIGER II Discretionary Grants may not
be readily available. In addition, because many of these benefits are
long-term outcomes, it may be years before the value of the investments
can be quantified and fully reported. DOT is considering the most
appropriate way to collect and report information about these potential
project benefits.
X. Questions and Clarifications
For further information concerning this notice please contact the
TIGER II Discretionary Grant program manager via e-mail at
[email protected], or call Robert Mariner at 202-366-8914. A TDD is
available for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing at 202-366-
3993. DOT will regularly post answers to these questions and other
important clarifications on DOT's Web site at http://www.dot.gov/recovery/ost/TIGERII.
Appendix A: Additional Information on Benefit-Cost Analysis
As previously discussed in the Notice, the lack of a useful
analysis of expected project benefits and costs may be a basis for
denying an award of a TIGER II Discretionary Grant to any applicant.
Additionally, if it is clear that the total benefits of a project are
not reasonably likely to outweigh the project's costs, the Department
will not award a TIGER II Discretionary Grant to the project.
Consequently, it is incumbent upon the applicant to prepare a thorough
benefit-cost analysis that demonstrates clearly the derivation of both
the costs and the benefits of the project. However, DOT understands
that the level of expense
[[Page 21709]]
that can be expected in these analyses for surveys, travel demand
forecasts, market forecasts, statistical analyses, and so on will be
less for smaller projects than for larger projects. Smaller projects
will therefore be given greater latitude to estimate benefits
subjectively. However, even smaller projects will be expected to
quantify these subjective estimates of benefits and costs, and to
provide whatever evidence they have available to lend credence to their
subjective estimates. Estimates of benefits should be presented in
monetary terms whenever possible; if a monetary estimate is not
possible, then at least a quantitative estimate (in physical, non-
monetary terms, such as ridership estimates, emissions levels, etc.)
should be provided. A benefit-cost analysis is not necessary for TIGER
II Planning Grant applicants; however, such applicants should describe
the expected benefits of the underlying project(s) that the planning
activities will help advance.
This appendix provides general information and guidance on
conducting an analysis. In addition to this guidance, applicants should
also refer to OMB Circulars A-4 and A-94 in preparing their analysis
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/). Circular A-4 also cites
textbooks on cost-benefit analysis (e.g., Mishan and Quah \7\) if an
applicant wants to review additional background material. The
Department will rate all analyses as indicated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ E.J. Mishan and Euston Quah, Cost-Benefit Analysis, 5th
edition (New York: Routledge, 2007).
Table 1--Ratings of Benefit-Cost Analyses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rating Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very Useful...................... The economic analysis (i) is
comprehensive (quantifying and
monetizing the full range of costs
and benefits, including the likely
timing of such costs and benefits,
for which such measures are
reasonably available), (ii) attempts
to describe the indirect effects of
transportation investments on land
use (when applicable), (iii) helps
the Department organize information
about, and evaluate trade-offs
between, alternative transportation
investments, (iv) provides a high
degree of confidence as to the
extent to which the benefits of the
project will exceed the project's
costs on a net present value basis,
and (v) provides sensitivity
analysis to show how changes in key
assumptions affect the outcome of
the analysis.
Useful........................... The economic analysis (i) identifies,
quantifies, monetizes, and compares
the project's expected benefits and
costs, but has minor gaps in
coverage of benefits and costs or
the precise timing of benefits and
costs, or fails in some cases to
quantify or monetize benefits and
costs for which such measures are
reasonably available, and (ii)
provides a sufficient degree of
confidence that the benefits of the
project will exceed the project's
costs on a net present value basis.
Marginally Useful................ The economic analysis (i) identifies,
quantifies, monetizes, and compares
the project's expected benefits and
costs, but has significant gaps in
coverage, quantification,
monetization, or timing of benefits
and costs, or significant errors in
its measurement of benefits or
costs, and (ii) the Department is
uncertain whether the benefits of
the project will exceed the
project's costs on a net present
value basis.
Not Useful....................... The economic analysis (i) does not
adequately identify, quantify,
monetize, and compare the project's
expected benefits and costs or
timing of benefits and costs, (ii)
provides little basis for concluding
that the benefits of the project
will exceed the project's costs on a
net present value basis, and (iii)
demonstrates an unreasonable absence
of data and analysis or poor
applicant effort to put forth a
robust quantification of net
benefits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A benefit-cost analysis attempts to measure the dollar value of the
benefits and the costs to all the members of society (in this context,
``society'' means all residents of the United States) on a net present
value basis. The benefits represent a dollar measure of the extent to
which people are made better off by the project--that is, the benefits
represent the amount that all the people in the society would jointly
be willing to pay to carry out the project, and feel as if they had
generated enough benefits to justify the project's costs accounting for
the relative timing of those benefits and costs. In some cases,
benefits may be difficult to measure in dollar terms. Applicants must
at least describe the nature of each of the major types of benefits
described in this guidance. To the extent possible, applicants must
also quantify each of those types of benefits (e.g., in terms of the
number of users making use of a transportation facility). Finally,
applicants must attempt to measure those benefits in dollar terms
(i.e., ``monetize'' them). These benefits must then be compared with a
dollar measure of the costs of the project. Both benefits and costs
must be estimated for each year after work on the project is begun, and
these streams of annual benefits and costs must be discounted to the
present using an appropriate discount rate, so that a present value of
the stream of benefits and a present value of the stream of costs is
calculated.
As a starting point for any analysis, applicants should provide a
Project Summary describing the project and what it changes. The Project
Summary should provide:
A description of the current infrastructure baseline
(e.g., two-lane road).
A description of what the proposed project is and how it
would change the current infrastructure baseline (e.g., extension of a
trolley line).
A general justification for the project and how it affects
the long-term outcomes relative to the current baseline.
A description of who would be the users of the project or
what groups of people would benefit from it.
A description of what types of economic effects the
project is expected to have.
If an application contains multiple separate projects, each of
which has independent utility, the applicant should provide a separate
summary (and analysis) for each project. The summary should also
identify the types of societal benefits the project might generate. The
applicant should list the types of benefits here and then clearly
demonstrate in the analysis how it estimated benefits for each
category. The summary should also include the full cost of a project,
including Federal, State, local, and private funding, and not simply
the requested grant amount or the local amount.
Each application must include in its analysis estimates of the
project's expected benefits with respect to each of the five long-term
outcomes specified in Section II(A) (Selection Criteria). We recognize
that it may in some cases be unclear in which of these categories of
outcomes a benefit should be listed. In these cases, it is less
important in which category a benefit is listed than to make
[[Page 21710]]
sure that the benefit is listed and measured (but only once).
Applicants must demonstrate that the proposed project has independent
utility as defined in this Notice. It cannot be a component of a larger
project such that, if the larger project were not built, this project
would have little or no transportation value (or, if it is part of a
larger project, the application must demonstrate that funding for the
larger project is committed). If the applicant provides a benefit-cost
analysis for a larger project, then it must estimate what portion of
the benefits and costs of the larger project apply to the smaller
project for which funding is being sought. The following sections
describe baselines, affected population, discounting, forecasting,
costs, and benefit categories in more detail. The Department expects a
thorough discussion of these items in the body of the analysis.
Benefit-Cost Analysis vs. Economic Impact Analysis
First, it is important to recognize that a benefit-cost analysis is
not an economic impact analysis. Applicants are required to provide a
benefit-cost analysis in support of their proposed projects. An
economic impact analysis is not acceptable.
A benefit-cost analysis attempts to measure the dollar value of the
benefits and the costs to all the members of society (in this context,
``society'' means all residents of the United States). The benefits
represent a dollar measure of the extent to which people are made
better off by the project--that is, the benefits represent the amount
that all the people in the society would jointly be willing to pay to
carry out the project, and feel as if they had generated enough
benefits to justify the project's costs.
An economic impact analysis, on the other hand, typically focuses
on local benefits rather than national benefits. Some of the benefits
that are counted in an economic impact analysis, such as diversion of
economic activity from one region of the country to another, represent
benefits to one part of the country but costs to another part, so they
are not benefits from the standpoint of the nation as a whole.
Moreover, economic impact analyses estimate ``impacts'' rather than
``benefits,'' and the ``impacts'' are normally much larger than the
``benefits.'' For example, the total payroll of workers on a project is
usually considered one of the ``impacts'' in an economic impact
analysis. The total payroll is not a measure of the ``benefits'' of the
project, however, for two reasons. First, a payroll is a cost to
whoever pays the employees, at the same time that it is a benefit to
the employees, so it is not a net benefit. Second, even for the
employees, the employees have to work for their wages, so the amount
they are paid is not a net benefit to them--it is a benefit only to the
extent that they value their wages more than the cost to them of having
to be at work every day.
Economic impact analyses also often treat real estate investments
induced by a project as one of the economic ``impacts.'' The full value
of such an investment is not a ``benefit,'' however, because the
benefit of those investments to the community in which they are made is
balanced by the cost of the investment to the investor. Because these
investments are a cost as well as a benefit, they are not a net benefit
for purposes of a benefit-cost analysis.
There is often an element of benefit in these ``impacts.'' A worker
who gets a higher-paying job as a result of a transportation investment
project benefits if he or she works just as hard as he or she did at
his or her previous job but is paid more. Such projects produce
benefits by increasing the productivity of labor. A transportation
investment project that increases the value and productivity of land
and thus induces real estate investment can also provide a benefit, but
the benefit must be measured net of the cost of making the real estate
investment. Measuring these labor productivity effects requires a
careful analysis of the local labor market and how that market is
changed by the transportation investment. Similarly, measuring the
effects of transportation projects on the productivity of land requires
a careful netting out of increases in land values that are compensated
by costs of real estate investment and increases in land values that in
effect capitalize other types of benefits that have already been
counted, such as time savings.
In summary, applicants must be careful to measure only the net
benefits of a project, and should avoid using software packages that
are designed to produce economic impact analyses. An application
containing only an economic impact analysis does not meet the program's
requirements and may be denied an award for that reason.
Baselines and Alternatives
Applicants should measure costs and benefits of a proposed project
against a baseline (also called a ``base case'' or a ``no build''
case). The baseline should be an assessment of the way the world would
look if the project did not receive the requested TIGER II
Discretionary Grant funding. Usually, it is reasonable to forecast that
that baseline world resembles the present state. However, it is
important to factor in any projected changes (e.g., baseline economic
growth, increased traffic volumes, or completion of already planned and
funded projects) that would occur even if the proposed project were not
funded. In some cases the proposed project already has a financing plan
that would allow it to be built, but that involves a slower
construction schedule than would occur if it received TIGER II
Discretionary Grant funding. Or it may be likely that, in the absence
of TIGER II Discretionary Grant funding, the project would be built
later using ordinary funding sources. In these cases, the TIGER II
Discretionary Grant funding may accelerate completion of the project,
but it does not allow a project to be built that would never otherwise
have been built. The benefits and costs in this case should thus be
limited to the marginal benefits (and marginal costs) of having the
project completed in a shorter period of time and including the cost of
expending resources on the project sooner than otherwise planned.
Many projects have multiple parts or multiple phases, only one or
two of which would actually receive funding from a TIGER II
Discretionary Grant. It is important in these cases that both the costs
and the benefits pertain to the same portion of the project. If the
part or phase of the project funded by a TIGER Discretionary Grant has
independent utility, then the analysis should compare the costs and the
benefits of just that part or phase. If the part or phase of the
project funded by a TIGER Discretionary Grant does not have independent
utility, then the applicant must first demonstrate that funding is
committed for the entire project (or for an entire portion of the
project, including the TIGER Discretionary Grant-funded portion, that
has independent utility). In this case, the applicant should compare
the benefits and costs of the entire project (or the entire portion of
the project that has independent utility). The applicant must make
clear exactly what portions of the project form the basis of the
estimates of benefits and costs.
It is incorrect to claim benefits from time savings accruing from a
100-mile highway when the TIGER II Discretionary Grant will only fund
10 miles. Similarly, it would be incorrect to attribute all the
benefits from a new port facility to a TIGER II Discretionary Grant
when the TIGER Discretionary Grant-grant-funded portion only pays for
pavement. In some cases, the applicant may choose to allocate the
benefits of the project proportionately to the costs
[[Page 21711]]
of the project that would be funded by the TIGER II Discretionary
Grant, but this should generally be done only if (1) the TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds are commingled with non-TIGER Discretionary
Grant funds for a single, non-divisible structure that has independent
utility) and (2) the project has sufficient funding in place to be
completed as a whole unit. If a project is being funded by multiple
Federal, State, and local sources, it would be inappropriate to
attribute the full benefit of the project to only one source of funding
(such as the local share or the TIGER II Discretionary Grant itself).
All costs and benefits of the project should be evaluated,
including benefits and costs that fall outside of the jurisdiction
sponsoring the project. It is also important that the applicant assume
the continuation of reasonable and sound management practices in
establishing a baseline. Assuming a baseline scenario in which the
owner of the facility does no maintenance on the facility and ignores
traffic problems and maintenance is not realistic and will lead to the
overstatement of project benefits.
In addition to the baseline, the applicant should present and
consider reasonable alternatives in the analysis. Smaller-scale and
more focused projects should be evaluated for comparison purposes. For
example, if an applicant is requesting funds to replace a pier, it
should also analyze the alternative of rehabilitating the current pier.
Similarly, if an applicant seeks funds to establish a relatively large
streetcar project, it should also evaluate a more focused project
serving only the more densely populated corridors or an area.
Affected Population
Applicants should clearly identify the population that the project
will affect and measure the number of passengers (for a passenger
project) and the amount of freight (for a freight project) affected by
the project. If possible, passenger and freight traffic should be
measured in passenger-miles and freight ton-miles (and possibly value
of freight). If, as is often the case (e.g., projected growth in
highway traffic), the forecasted traffic volume is not the same for all
years, then the applicant needs to break out the forecasted traffic
annually. In some cases, the characteristics of the passenger
population or of the freight shipper population may be important (e.g.,
whether the passengers or shippers are members of a disadvantaged
group, or whether the passengers or shippers are spread across a multi-
state region. Measures of freight traffic might include growing levels
of port calls. In some cases, the relevant population is the volume of
traffic that is diverted from one mode to another. Applicants must
clearly identify which population will be affected by any particular
benefit. For example, the affected population that will enjoy travel
time savings may be different from the affected population benefiting
from reduced shipping costs. Further, the applicant should be realistic
as to how the project affects these populations. For example, improving
rail access to a wholesale distribution center near an urban area may
take some trucks off the road that had been carrying freight from a
truck/rail intermodal yard to the wholesale distribution center.
However, it is unrealistic to claim benefits from reduced truck traffic
all the way from the shipping origin point hundreds or thousands of
miles away to the truck/rail intermodal yard, if that traffic would be
likely to be moving by rail already.
Discounting
Applicants should discount future benefits and costs to present
values using a real discount rate of 7 percent, following guidance
provided by OMB in Circulars A-4 and A-94 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_default/). Applicants may also provide an alternative
analysis using a real discount rate of 3 percent. The latter approach
should be used when the alternative use of funds currently dedicated to
the project would be other public expenditures, rather than private
investment.
As a first step, applicants should present the year-by-year stream
of benefits and costs from the project. Applicants should clearly
identify when they expect costs and benefits to occur. The beginning
point for the year-by-year stream of benefits should be the first year
in which the project will start generating costs or benefits. The
ending point should be far enough in the future to encompass all of the
significant costs and benefits resulting from the project but not to
exceed the usable life of the asset without capital improvement.\8\ In
presenting these year-by-year streams, applicants should measure them
in constant (or ``real'') dollars prior to discounting. Applicants
should not add in the effects of inflation to the estimates of future
benefits and costs prior to discounting. Once an applicant has
generated the stream of costs and benefits in constant dollars, it
should then discount these estimates to arrive at a present value of
costs and benefits. The standard formula for the discount factor in any
given year is 1/(1 + r) \t\, where ``r'' is the discount rate and ``t''
measures the number of years in the future that the costs or benefits
will occur. Infrequently, benefits or costs will be the same in
constant dollars for all years. In these limited cases, an applicant
can calculate the formula for the present value of an ordinary annuity
instead of showing a year-by-year calculation.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In some cases the application may use a fixed term of years
to analyze benefits and costs (e.g., 20 years), even though the
applicant knows that the project will last longer than that and
continue to have benefits and costs in later years. In these cases,
the project will retain a ``residual value'' at the end of the
analysis period. For instance, a new bridge may be expected to have
a 100-year life but the analysis period for the benefit-cost
analysis might cover only 40 years. In such cases, a residual value
can be claimed as a benefit (or cost offset) for the asset at the
end of the analysis period. One method to estimate the residual
value is to calculate the percentage of the project that will not be
depreciated or used up at the end of the analysis period and to
multiply this percentage by the original cost of the project.
Different components of the project may have different depreciation
rates--land typically does not depreciate. The estimated residual
value is assigned to the end of the analysis period and should then
be discounted to its present value as would any other cost or
benefit occurring at that time. Note that a residual value of a
project can only be claimed if the project will be kept in operation
beyond the end of the analysis period. If the project will be
retired at that time, a salvage value (reflecting revenues raised
from the decommissioning of the project) can be claimed.
\9\ See http://www.brighthub.com/money/personal-finance/articles/17948.aspx. For example, 10.594 is the discount factor that
would be multiplied by an annual benefit to get the present value of
a constant benefit stream over 20 years at a discount rate of seven
percent. If the constant annual benefit is $500,000, then the
present value of the benefits is $5.297 million. In these limited
cases, the applicant must show the calculation of the discount
factor of the ordinary annuity formula.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forecasting
Benefit-cost analyses of transportation projects almost always
depend on forecasts of projected levels of usage (road traffic, port
calls, etc.). When an applicant is using such forecasts to generate
benefit estimates, it must assess the reliability of these forecasts.
If the applicant is using outside forecasts, it must provide a citation
and an appropriate page number for the forecasts. An applicant should
carefully review any outside forecasts for reliability before using
them in its analyses. In cases where an applicant is using its own
estimates, it should clearly demonstrate in the analysis the
methodology it used to forecast affected population (e.g., traffic).
The number of individuals who enjoy the benefits of a project will
partly determine the net benefits of the project. Consequently,
accurate forecasts are essential to conducting a quality benefit-cost
analysis. Applicants should incorporate indirect effects into their
forecasts
[[Page 21712]]
where possible (e.g. induced demand). Applicants should also take great
care to match forecasts of affected population to the corresponding
year. For example, using projected traffic levels for 2030 to generate
benefits for all the earlier years is incorrect. For more information
on forecasting, applicants can refer to the forecasting section of
FHWA's Economic Analysis Primer (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/primer06.cfm). While produced for analysis of
highway projects, the primer is a good source of information on issues
related to all transportation forecasting.
Costs
As noted above, the estimate of costs must pertain to the same
project as the estimate of benefits. If the TIGER II Discretionary
Grant is to pay for only part of the project, but the project is
indivisible (i.e., no one part of the project would have independent
utility), then the benefits of the whole project should be compared to
the costs of the whole project, including costs paid for by State,
local, and private partners other than the Federal government.
Applicants may not claim that the TIGER II Discretionary Grant
``leverages'' the financial contributions of other parties, and
therefore that all the benefits of the project are attributable to the
TIGER II Discretionary Grant, even though the TIGER II Discretionary
Grant only pays for part of the project.
The analysis of costs should be equally as rigorous as the analysis
of benefits. The lack of a useful analysis of expected project costs
may be a basis for denying the award of a TIGER II Discretionary Grant
to an applicant. In general, applicants should use a life-cycle cost
analysis approach in estimating the costs of the project. The
Department expects applicants to include operating, maintenance, and
other life-cycle costs of the project, along with capital costs. In
addition to construction costs, other direct costs may include design
and land acquisition. If the time period considered in the analysis is
long enough to require the rehabilitation of the facility during the
period of analysis, then the costs of that rehabilitation should be
included. External costs, such as noise, increased congestion, and
environmental pollutants resulting from the use of the facility or
related changes in usage on other facilities in the same network,
should be considered as costs in the analysis. Additionally, applicants
should include, to the extent possible, costs to users during
construction, such as delays and increased vehicle operating costs. The
applicant should correctly discount annual costs to arrive at a present
value of the project's cost.
Types of Benefits--Livability
There are several potential benefits that a project could generate
that affect livability. The most important aspect of livability is
accessibility to non-single-occupancy vehicle modes of transportation,
such as transit, bicycle paths, and sidewalks. Measuring the benefits
of increased accessibility should start with a quantitative measure of
the increase in accessibility--how many people will have access to
these alternative modes who did not have access before? The analysis
should go on to estimate how many people are actually likely to use
these newly available transportation modes and how much of their
existing single-occupancy vehicle travel are those people likely to
divert to these alternative modes. Finally, the analysis should attempt
to estimate the monetary value that people place on access to these
newly available transportation modes. In some cases, monetary values
may be estimated based on existing market transactions--e.g., bicycle
rentals. In others, differentials in the market values of land or rents
between residences and businesses that are already easily accessible
(e.g. < 0.5 miles) to these modes and those that are in the same areas
but not easily accessible (e.g. > 0.5 miles) can be used as a proxy
estimate of the value of this access. In other cases, no objective
market values are available, and the applicant should make the best
subjective estimate it can of the average value that this accessibility
has to those who now have access to these alternative modes.
Transit and bicycle paths may provide greater accessibility to
alternative transportation modes, but they will not actually enhance
livability unless people actually want to use them, and the desire to
use them will depend in part on where these modes go and on the
amenities provided with them. An important part of accessibility is
making sure not only that people's residences are accessible to these
modes, but that the modes connect to workplaces, schools, shopping, and
other desired destinations. Assessments of enhanced accessibility
should describe where these alternative modes go as well as where they
start.
Land use changes are also an important aspect of livability. When
people live closer to their workplaces, their schools, and shopping,
they will be more likely to use these alternative transportation modes.
Transportation changes that encourage more mixed-use land development
(where residences are intermixed with workplaces and shopping) will
shorten the length of travel and encourage more use of non-highway
modes. The analysis should evaluate the extent to which the proposed
transportation project will encourage these changes in land use and be
coordinated with zoning changes and other public and private
investments. Changes in land use that result in shorter travel
distances can result in long-term travel time savings, and the
quantitative extent of these time savings can be estimated. Values of
time can then be used to estimate the monetary value of these time
savings. The applicant should propose a subjective estimate of the
monetary value of land use changes. Land use changes can also reduce
the total cost of transportation for the affected population, so
applicants should attempt to measure the effects of the project and
associated land use changes on average household transportation
expenditures.
In using differentials in property values or rents to measure the
value of changes in accessibility, applicants must identify other
factors that might have caused property values and/or rents to change
and isolate the portion of the change that is attributable to the
change in accessibility. Applicants must also be careful to avoid
double-counting. If the applicant has already counted reductions in
travel time as a benefit, the value of those reductions in travel time
may get capitalized in changes in property values or rents, and the
applicant must be careful not to count those benefits again as part of
the change in property values.
Finally, an important aspect of livability is the availability of
transportation to disadvantaged communities, such as low-income people,
non-drivers, people with disabilities, and senior citizens. Applicants
should assess the extent to which their projects will improve
transportation opportunities for members of these disadvantaged
communities. While there may not be well-defined methodologies for
assigning monetary values to these enhancements to accessibility,
applicants should attempt to measure the size of the disadvantaged
community affected and make subjective judgments of the monetary values
that should be assigned to these improvements.
Types of Benefits--Economic Competitiveness
Economic competitiveness benefits might include reduced operating
costs due to infrastructure improvements. In
[[Page 21713]]
some cases, a project produces economic competitiveness benefits
because the existing users of the facility will have lower operating
costs after the improvement is completed. In other cases, the economic
competitiveness benefits result from modal diversion--users shifting
from a higher-cost transportation mode to a lower-cost transportation
mode when the quality of service on the lower-cost mode becomes more
competitive. In this case, the applicant should demonstrate clearly
what the basis is of any estimated modal diversion. In estimating
operating cost savings, it is important to avoid double-counting. For
example, applicants must not count both the reductions in fuel costs
and the overall reductions in operating costs, because fuel costs are
part of operating costs.
One particular form of reduced operating costs is travel time
savings. Road improvements or other projects whose purpose is to
relieve congestion frequently generate travel time savings for
travelers and shippers that contribute to economic competitiveness.
Where this is the case, applicants should clearly demonstrate how the
travel time savings are calculated and should account for induced
travel demand to the extent practical or applicable. If travel time
savings vary over time, the applicant must clearly show savings by
year. Once the applicant generates its estimate of hours saved, it
should apply the Department's guidance on the value of time to those
estimates (http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/reports.htm) to monetize
them.
Freight-related projects that improve roads, rails, and ports
frequently generate savings to shippers that they pass on to consumers
(e.g., fuel savings and other operating cost savings). If applicants
are projecting these savings as benefits, they need to carefully
demonstrate how the proposed project would generate such benefits.
However, savings to freight carriers can not be counted along with
savings to shippers that are passed along from the carrier to the
shipper.
Applicants should also guard against analysis that double-counts
other kinds of benefits. Analysis should distinguish between real
benefits and transfer payments. Benefits reflect real resource usage
and overall benefits to society, while transfers represent payments by
one group to another and do not represent a net increase in societal
benefits. Employment or output multipliers that purport to measure
secondary effects should not be included as societal benefits because
these secondary effects are generally the same (per dollar spent)
regardless of what kind of project is funded.
As noted earlier in this Appendix (see Benefit-Cost Analysis vs.
Economic Impact Analysis), applicants must be extremely cautious about
including job creation and economic development benefits as societal
benefits in the benefit-cost analysis. In the case of job creation, for
example, every job represents both a cost to the employer (paying a
wage) and a benefit to the employee (receiving a wage), so it is a
transfer payment, rather than a net benefit. However, if a project
increases the productivity of labor, then the applicant can count the
increased productivity as a benefit. For example, if the project allows
workers working at low-productivity jobs to switch to high-productivity
jobs, then the increase in their productivity can be counted as a
benefit. But the applicant needs to demonstrate rigorously how such
productivity benefits are estimated and the exact time period over
which the productivity benefits occur. Simply asserting these gains is
inadequate.
With respect to economic development, estimates of capital
investments or property tax revenues are not legitimate benefits in a
benefit-cost analysis. A property tax is a benefit to the tax assessor,
but it is a cost to the taxpayer. An applicant can potentially claim an
increase in the value of land as a benefit if the transportation
project increases the value and productivity of the land. However, the
applicant needs to count the increase in the value of the land
carefully to avoid double counting and transfer payments. For example,
if the property value goes up by the exact same value as the
developer's investment, then this is not a benefit. Property value
increases over and above the developer's investment may potentially be
a benefit from the project. However, if this property value increase is
due to improved travel times that the applicant has already included as
a benefit then there is no additional benefit here. The analysis should
also consider to what extent an increase in land values induced by the
project in one area causes a reduction in land values in some other
area. Only the net increase in land value can be counted as a benefit.
Applicants must carefully net out any embedded time savings in the
property value increase before claiming any benefits. Simply asserting
that there is a property tax increase net of time savings is
inadequate. The Department expects any applicant claiming these types
of benefits to provide a rigorous justification of the benefit that
shows how it is derived from the project (rather than from some other
non-project investment) and that shows how increases in property values
attributable to other benefits (such as travel time savings) have been
deducted. Applicants should note that any claimed societal benefit from
a property value increase is only a one-time stock benefit. Applicants
can not treat it as a stream of benefits accruing annually.
Types of Benefits--Safety
Road projects can also improve the safety of transportation. A
well-designed project can reduce fatalities and injuries as well as
reduce other crash costs, such as hazardous materials releases. The
applicant should clearly demonstrate how the project will improve
safety. For example, to claim a reduction in fatalities, an applicant
must clearly demonstrate how the existence of the project would have
prevented the types of fatalities that commonly occur in that area.
Applicants should use crash causation factors or similar analyses of
causes of crashes to show the extent to which the type of improvements
proposed would actually reduce the likelihood of the kinds of crashes
that actually had occurred. Alternatively, when only a few cases are
involved, the applicant should provide a description of the incidents
and demonstrate the linkage between the proposed project and crash
reduction. In some cases, safety benefits may occur because of modal
diversion from a less safe mode to a more safe mode. When this type of
benefit is claimed, the applicant should provide a clear analysis of
why the forecasted modal diversion will take place. Once the applicant
has established a reasonable count of the incidents that are likely to
be prevented by the project, it should apply the Department's guidance
on value of life and injuries (http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/reports.htm) to monetize them. Sources of information on the social
benefits of reducing crash costs are discussed in Chapter VIII of the
Final Regulatory Impact Analysis of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's rulemaking on Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY
2011 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.d0b5a45b55bfbe582f57529cdba046a0/). The economic
values of various benefits are summarized in Table VIII-5 on page VIII-
60.
Types of Benefits--State of Good Repair
Many infrastructure projects that improve the state of good repair
of transportation infrastructure can reduce long-term maintenance and
repair costs.
[[Page 21714]]
These benefits are in addition to the benefits of reductions in travel
time, shipping costs, and crashes which the applicant should account
for separately. Applicants should include these maintenance and repair
savings as benefits. Improving state of good repair may also reduce
operating costs and congestion by reducing the amount of time that the
infrastructure is out of service due to maintenance and repairs, or may
prevent a facility (such as a bridge) from being removed from service
entirely. In the latter case, the analysis should include a reasonable
assessment of the cost that closing the facility would have on system
users who would be required to take longer and more circuitous routes,
as well as the probability (and likely time in the future) when the
bridge would need to be closed. The application should also consider
differences in maintenance and repair costs when comparing different
project alternatives. For example, an applicant can compare the
maintenance costs that would be required after rehabilitating an
existing pier with those that would be required after building a new
one. As part of the data that go into estimating the benefits of
improving the state of good repair, applicants should provide accepted
metrics for assessing an asset's current condition. For example,
applicants can use Present Serviceability Ratings (PSR) to discuss
pavement condition and bridge sufficiency ratings to discuss the
condition of a bridge. As discussed in the section on costs, the
Department expects applicants to consider the life-cycle costs of the
project when making these comparisons.
Types of Benefits--Sustainability
Transportation can generate environmental costs in the form of
emissions of ``criteria pollutants'' (e.g., SOX,
NOX, and particulates) and from the emission of greenhouse
gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2). Increased traffic
congestion results in increased levels of these emissions.
Transportation projects that reduce congestion can reduce these
emissions and produce societal benefits given reduced idling and
otherwise constant vehicle miles travelled. Also, transportation
projects that encourage transportation users to shift from more-
polluting modes to less-polluting modes can similarly reduce emissions.
Applicants claiming these types of benefits must clearly demonstrate
and quantify how the project will reduce emissions. Once an applicant
has adequately quantified levels of emission reductions, it should
estimate the dollar value of these benefits. Sources of information on
the social benefits of reducing criteria pollutant emissions are
discussed in Chapter VIII of the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis of
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rulemaking on
Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY 2011 Passenger Cars and Light
Trucks (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.d0b5a45b55bfbe582f57529cdba046a0/).
The Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon has recently
issued its guidance on ``Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact
Analysis Under Executive Order 12866'' (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/sem_finalrule_appendix15a.pdf). This guidance lays out a range of values to use for
monetizing the social cost of carbon at various years in the future and
at various discount rates. Applicants should clearly indicate how and
to what degree calculations of benefits in their analyses are based on
these assumed values of CO2 emissions reduction.
Transparency and Reproducibility of Calculations
Applicants must ensure that the results of their analyses are
transparent and easily reproduced. Applicants should clearly set out
basic assumptions, methods, and data underlying the analysis and
discuss any uncertainties associated with the estimates. Applicants
should describe factors that could cause estimates to be incorrect,
such as failure of traffic to materialize or actual costs turning out
to exceed estimates. Applicants should also explain how likely these
events are to occur and what actions that might take to mitigate these
risks.
A Department reviewer reading the analysis should be able to
understand the basic elements of the analysis and the way in which the
applicant derived the estimates. If the application refers the reader
to more detailed documentation to explain how the calculations were
done, that documentation must go beyond merely providing spreadsheets.
It must include a thorough verbal description of how the calculation
was done, including references to tabs and cells in the spreadsheet.
This verbal description should include specific sources for all the
numbers in the spreadsheet that are not calculated from the spreadsheet
itself.
If an applicant uses a ``pre-packaged'' economic model to calculate
net benefits, the applicant should provide annual benefits and costs by
benefit and cost type for the entire analysis period. In any case,
applicants must provide a detailed explanation of the assumptions used
to run the model (e.g., peak traffic hours and traffic volume during
peak hours, mix of traffic by cars, buses, and trucks, etc.). The
applicant must provide enough information so that a Department reviewer
can follow the derivation of the estimates and reproduce them if need
be.
Ideally, the applicant should be able to summarize all pertinent
data and cost and benefit calculations in a single spreadsheet tab (or
table in Word). A Department reviewer should be able to understand the
calculations of the spreadsheet both from directions in the spreadsheet
and any accompanying text. The following provides a simplified example
for expository purposes of discounted costs and benefits from a road
project providing travel time savings only to local travelers over the
course of five years following a one-year period of construction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations &
Project Affected Travel time Total value of Initial costs maintenance Undiscounted Discounted at
Calendar year year drivers saved (hours) time saved ($2008) costs ($2008) net benefits 7%
\1\ ($2008) \2\ \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011.............................. 1 ......... .............. .............. $38,500,000 $6,000,000 -$44,500,000 -$41,588,785
2012.............................. 2 80,000 1,040,000 $14,248,000 .............. 700,000 13,548,000 11,833,348
2013.............................. 3 95,000 1,235,000 16,919,500 .............. 700,000 16,219,500 13,239,943
2014.............................. 4 100,000 1,300,000 17,810,000 .............. 700,000 17,110,000 13,053,137
2015.............................. 5 102,000 1,326,000 18,166,200 .............. 700,000 17,466,200 12,453,159
2016.............................. 6 109,000 1,417,000 19,412,900 .............. 700,000 18,712,900 12,469,195
NPV............................... ......... ......... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 21,459,998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of drivers times three minutes a day (3/60 hours) over 260 workdays.
\2\ Hours at $13.70 per hour ($2008).
\3\ Includes costs from delays to users during construction.
[[Page 21715]]
Most applicant analyses will be more complicated than this example
and will likely include several benefit categories. However, the
summary cost and benefit data should be as transparent and as easy to
follow and replicate as the example above.
Appendix B: Additional Information on Applying Through Grants.gov
Applications (Stage 2) for TIGER II Discretionary Grants must be
submitted through Grants.gov. To apply for funding through Grants.gov,
applicants must be properly registered. Complete instructions on how to
register and apply can be found at http://www.grants.gov. If interested
parties experience difficulties at any point during registration or
application process, please call the Grants.gov Customer Support
Hotline at 1-800-518-4726, Monday-Friday from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. EST.
Registering with Grants.gov is a one-time process; however,
processing delays may occur and it can take up to several weeks for
first-time registrants to receive confirmation and a user password. It
is highly recommended that applicants start the registration process as
early as possible to prevent delays that may preclude submitting an
application by the deadlines specified. Applications will not be
accepted after the relevant due date; delayed registration is not an
acceptable reason for extensions. In order to apply for TIGER II
Discretionary Grant funding under this announcement and to apply for
funding through Grants.gov, all applicants are required to complete the
following:
1. Acquire a DUNS Number. A DUNS number is required for Grants.gov
registration. The Office of Management and Budget requires that all
businesses and nonprofit applicants for Federal funds include a DUNS
(Data Universal Numbering System) number in their applications for a
new award or renewal of an existing award. A DUNS number is a unique
nine-digit sequence recognized as the universal standard for
identifying and keeping track of entities receiving Federal funds. The
identifier is used for tracking purposes and to validate address and
point of contact information for Federal assistance applicants,
recipients, and sub-recipients. The DUNS number will be used throughout
the grant life cycle. Obtaining a DUNS number is a free, one-time
activity. Obtain a DUNS number by calling 1-866-705-5711 or by applying
online at http://www.dunandbradstreet.com.
2. Acquire or Renew Registration with the Central Contractor
Registration (CCR) Database. All applicants for Federal financial
assistance maintain current registrations in the Central Contractor
Registration (CCR) database. An applicant must be registered in the CCR
to successfully register in Grants.gov. The CCR database is the
repository for standard information about Federal financial assistance
applicants, recipients, and sub-recipients. Organizations that have
previously submitted applications via Grants.gov are already registered
with CCR, as it is a requirement for Grants.gov registration. Please
note, however, that applicants must update or renew their CCR
registration at least once per year to maintain an active status, so it
is critical to check registration status well in advance of relevant
application deadlines. Information about CCR registration procedures
can be accessed at http://www.ccr.gov.
3. Acquire an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) and a
Grants.gov Username and Password. Complete your AOR profile on
Grants.gov and create your username and password. You will need to use
your organization's DUNS Number to complete this step. For more
information about the registration process, go to http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp.
4. Acquire Authorization for your AOR from the E-Business Point of
Contact (E-Biz POC). The E-Biz POC at your organization must login to
Grants.gov to confirm you as an AOR. Please note that there can be more
than one AOR for your organization.
5. Search for the Funding Opportunity on Grants.gov. Please use the
following identifying information when searching for the TIGER II
funding opportunity on Grants.gov. The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance (CFDA) number for this solicitation is 20.933, titled
Surface Transportation Infrastructure Discretionary Grants for Capital
Investments II.
6. Submit an Application Addressing All of the Requirements
Outlined in this Funding Availability Announcement. Within 24-48 hours
after submitting your electronic application, you should receive an
email validation message from Grants.gov. The validation message will
tell you whether the application has been received and validated or
rejected, with an explanation. You are urged to submit your application
at least 72 hours prior to the due date of the application to allow
time to receive the validation message and to correct any problems that
may have caused a rejection notification.
Note: When uploading attachments please use generally accepted
formats such as .pdf, .doc, and .xls. While you may imbed picture
files such as .jpg, .gif, .bmp, in your files, please do not save
and submit the attachment in these formats. Additionally, the
following formats will not be accepted: .com, .bat, .exe, .vbs,
.cfg, .dat, .db, .dbf, .dll, .ini, .log, .ora, .sys, and .zip.
Experiencing Unforeseen Grants.gov Technical Issues
If you experience unforeseen Grants.gov technical issues beyond
your control that prevent you from submitting your application by the
deadline, you must contact Robert Mariner at 202-366-8914 or
[email protected] within 24 hours after the deadline and request
approval to submit your application. At that time, DOT staff will
require you to email the complete grant application, your DUNS number,
and provide a Grants.gov Help Desk tracking number(s). After DOT staff
review all of the information submitted as well as contacts the
Grants.gov Help Desk to validate the technical issues you reported, DOT
staff will contact you to either approve or deny your request to submit
a late application. If the technical issues you reported cannot be
validated, your application will be rejected as untimely.
To ensure a fair competition for limited discretionary funds, the
following conditions are not valid reasons to permit late submissions:
(1) Failure to complete the registration process before the deadline
date; (2) failure to follow Grants.gov instructions on how to register
and apply as posted on its Web site; (3) failure to follow all of the
instructions in the funding availability notice; and (4) technical
issues experienced with the applicant's computer or information
technology (IT) environment.
Issued on: April 21, 2010.
Ray LaHood,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9591 Filed 4-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P