Mass Transit: FTA's Progress in Developing and Implementing a New Starts
Evaluation Process (Letter Report, 04/26/99, GAO/RCED-99-113).

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO provided information on the
Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) efforts to develop and implement
evaluation and rating processes and procedures for evaluating new start
transit projects for federal funding, focusing on: (1) the status of
FTA's efforts; (2) how FTA implemented the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century (TEA-21) requirements for evaluating, rating, and
recommending projects; and (3) open issues that FTA needs to resolve to
fully satisfy TEA-21 requirements.

GAO noted that: (1) FTA has made substantial progress in developing and
implementing a new starts evaluation and rating process, as required by
TEA-21; (2) FTA had already revised its new starts evaluation process,
since the criteria and most of the factors that TEA-21 requires FTA to
consider while applying the criteria were also contained in the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; (3) in 1997,
FTA first applied these criteria for its fiscal year (FY) 1999 project
evaluations; (4) in 1998, FTA expanded its evaluation process to include
the TEA-21 requirement to rate projects as either highly recommended,
recommended, or not recommended and to provide individual ratings on
each criterion; (5) the evaluation process FTA followed to prepare its
FY 2000 new starts report uses ratings based on specific financial and
project justification criteria to build toward an overall project
rating; (6) FTA uses this rating information in deciding which projects
will receive full funding grant agreements and to make funding
recommendations to the Congress in its annual new starts report; (7)
while FTA has implemented a new starts evaluation and rating process for
FY 2000 that addressed TEA-21 requirements, it has not issued final
regulations on the evaluation and rating process, as required by the
legislation; and (8) FTA issued a proposed rule on April 7, 1999, and
plans to issue final regulations in summer 1999.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-99-113
     TITLE:  Mass Transit: FTA's Progress in Developing and Implementing
             a New Starts Evaluation Process
      DATE:  04/26/99
   SUBJECT:  Mass transit funding
             Federal aid for transportation
             Evaluation criteria
             Grant award procedures
             Intergovernmental fiscal relations
             Cost effectiveness analysis
             Transportation law


******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

Cover
================================================================ COVER

Report to Congressional Committees

April 1999

MASS TRANSIT - FTA'S PROGRESS IN
DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING A NEW
STARTS EVALUATION PROCESS

GAO/RCED-99-113

Mass Transit

(348120)

Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  FTA - Federal Transit Administration
  ISTEA - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
  TEA-21 - Transportation Equity Act

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER

B-280884

April 26, 1999

The Honorable Phil Gramm
Chairman
The Honorable Paul S.  Sarbanes
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Banking, Housing,
 and Urban Affairs
United States Senate

The Honorable Bud Shuster
Chairman
The Honorable James Oberstar
Ranking Democratic Member
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives

Since the early 1970s, the federal government has provided a large
share of the nation's capital investment in urban mass
transportation.  Much of this investment has come through the Federal
Transit Administration's (FTA) ï¿½new startsï¿½ program, which funds
major new rail, bus, and trolley transit projects that use separate
and exclusive rights-of-way.  In the last 5 years, this program has
provided state and local transit agencies with about $3.8 billion to
help design and construct such projects throughout the country.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21\st Century (TEA-21),\1
enacted in June 1998, authorizes $8.2 billion for new starts transit
projects through fiscal year 2003.\2

However, FTA has already entered into full funding grant agreements
totaling $3.73 billion for 14 projects under construction.\3 The
remaining $4.47 billion falls far short of the $12.1 billion FTA
estimates will be needed to construct 42 additional projects
currently in the preliminary engineering and final design phases.
FTA also expects that over $40 billion in federal funding will be
requested to fund approximately 100 projects currently in the early
planning stages.  To prioritize funding, TEA-21 directs FTA to
evaluate, rate, and recommend potential new starts projects on the
basis of specific financial and project justification criteria.
TEA-21 also requires FTA to issue regulations for the evaluation and
rating process.

TEA-21 also requires GAO to report by April 30, 1999, and annually
thereafter, on FTA's processes and procedures for evaluating, rating,
and recommending new starts transit projects for federal funding and
on FTA's implementation of these processes and procedures.  As agreed
with your offices, this report discusses (1) the status of FTA's
efforts to develop and implement the evaluation and rating processes
and procedures, (2) how FTA implemented the TEA-21 requirements for
evaluating, rating, and recommending projects, and (3) open issues
that FTA needs to resolve to fully satisfy TEA-21 requirements.

--------------------
\1 P.  L.  105-178.

\2 $6.1 million of these funds is "guaranteed," that is, subject to a
procedural mechanism designed to ensure that minimum amounts of
funding are provided each year.

\3 A full funding grant agreement establishes the terms and
conditions of federal financial participation in the project and the
maximum amounts of federal new starts financial assistance for the
project.  FTA considers projects for full funding grant agreements
after they have progressed from the initial planning and preliminary
engineering phases to the final design and construction phases.

   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

FTA has made substantial progress in developing and implementing a
new starts evaluation and rating process, as required by the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21\st Century (TEA-21).  FTA had
already revised its new starts evaluation process, since the criteria
and most of the factors that TEA-21 requires FTA to consider while
applying the criteria were also contained in the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA).  In 1997, FTA first
applied these criteria for its fiscal year 1999 project evaluations.
In 1998, FTA expanded its evaluation process to include the TEA-21
requirement to rate projects as either highly recommended,
recommended, or not recommended and to provide individual ratings on
each criterion.

The evaluation process FTA followed to prepare its fiscal year 2000
new starts report, issued on March 23, 1999, uses ratings based upon
specific financial and project justification criteria to build toward
an overall project rating.  FTA uses this rating information in
deciding which projects will receive full funding grant agreements
and to make funding recommendations to the Congress in its annual new
starts report.

While FTA has implemented a new starts evaluation and rating process
for fiscal year 2000 that addressed TEA-21 requirements, it has not
issued final regulations on the evaluation and rating process, as
required by the legislation.  FTA issued a proposed rule on April 7,
1999, and plans to issue final regulations in the summer of 1999.

   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

TEA-21 requires that before FTA may approve a grant or loan for a
proposed new starts project, it must determine that the proposed
project is based upon the results of an alternatives analysis\4 and
preliminary engineering and justified by a comprehensive review of
the proposed project's mobility improvements, environmental benefits,
cost-effectiveness, and operating efficiencies.\5 Under TEA-21, in
applying these justification criteria, FTA must consider a number of
factors, including land-use policies and congestion relief.

In addition, a project must be supported by an acceptable degree of
local financial commitment, including evidence of stable and
dependable financing sources to construct, maintain, and operate the
system or extension.  In evaluating this commitment, FTA is required
to determine whether (1) the proposed project plan provides for
contingencies in order to cover unanticipated cost increases; (2)
each proposed local source of capital and operating funds is stable,
reliable, and available within the timetable for the proposed
project; and (3) local resources are available to operate the overall
proposed mass transportation system without requiring a reduction in
existing mass transportation services.  FTA is also required to
consider a number of additional factors when evaluating a project's
local financial commitment.

While these evaluation requirements existed prior to the enactment of
TEA-21, TEA-21 requires FTA, for the first time, to (1) develop a
rating for each criterion as well as an overall rating of highly
recommended, recommended, or not recommended for each project and to
include this information in its annual new starts report due to the
Congress each February, and (2) issue regulations on the manner in
which it will evaluate and rate potential new starts projects.
TEA-21's deadline for the regulations was October 7, 1998.

TEA-21 also directs FTA to use these evaluations and ratings in
approving projects' advancement to the preliminary engineering and
final design phases and in deciding which projects will be
recommended to the Congress for funding or receive full funding grant
agreements.  In addition, TEA-21 requires FTA to issue a supplemental
report to its annual report to the Congress each August that updates
information on projects that have advanced to the preliminary
engineering or final design phases since the annual report.

--------------------
\4 An alternatives analysis is a study performed by local
transportation planning officials that evaluates all reasonable
alternatives for addressing a transportation problem in a given
corridor and identifies a locally preferred solution.

\5 Significant provisions regarding new starts projects, including
criteria and factors for FTA's consideration, are found at 49 U.S.C.
5309.

   FTA HAS MADE SUBSTANTIAL
   PROGRESS IN DEVELOPING AND
   IMPLEMENTING A NEW STARTS
   EVALUATION PROCESS THAT
   REFLECTS TEA-21 REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

FTA has made substantial progress in developing and implementing an
evaluation process that includes the individual criterion ratings and
overall project ratings required by TEA-21.  Before TEA-21 was
enacted in June 1998, FTA had already taken significant steps to
revise its new starts evaluation process, since most of the
evaluation requirements contained in TEA-21 were introduced by
ISTEA.\6 In March 1999, FTA issued its fiscal year 2000 new starts
report, which included project evaluations and ratings based upon the
revised process.

Table 1 highlights key dates in the chronology of FTA's development
of its new starts evaluation process.

                                Table 1

                 Chronology of FTA's Revised New Starts
                           Evaluation Process

Date                            Action
------------------------------  --------------------------------------
12/91                           ISTEA expanded the criteria for
                                assessing new starts projects.

09/94                           FTA proposed revised measures for
                                assessing projects in policy paper.

12/96                           FTA issued a notice describing
                                measures to be used for the fiscal
                                year 1999 assessments.

09/97                           FTA used technical guidance and
                                outreach sessions to describe how the
                                criteria would be reported and applied
                                for the fiscal year 1999 new starts
                                report.

05/98                           FTA issued the fiscal year 1999 new
                                starts report based upon the revised
                                criteria.

06/98                           TEA-21 required ratings on each
                                criterion and overall project ratings.

09/98                           FTA used technical guidance and
                                outreach sessions to describe how
                                projects would be rated for the fiscal
                                year 2000 new starts report.

01/99                           FTA issued the fiscal year 1999 new
                                starts supplemental report.

03/99                           FTA rated projects as required by TEA-
                                21 in the fiscal year 2000 report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to ISTEA's expansion of the evaluation criteria, FTA
issued a policy paper in September 1994 proposing its overall
assessment strategy and criteria measures.  FTA circulated this paper
among interested parties, including state and local governments,
transit agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, and
consultants.  In December 1996, after reviewing the comments
received, FTA issued a notice describing the revised criteria it
would use in 1997 to evaluate candidate new starts projects for
fiscal year 1999.  The notice also introduced measures for mobility
improvements, environmental benefits, operating efficiencies,
cost-effectiveness, and transit-supportive land use.\7 FTA's existing
process for assessing and rating a project's local financial
commitment did not change.

In September 1997, FTA issued technical guidance on the ISTEA new
starts criteria to assist project sponsors in submitting the
information and documentation that the agency needed to prepare the
fiscal year 1999 evaluations.  The guidance identified the new starts
criteria, documented the reporting procedures for the criteria, and
outlined how FTA would apply each of the criteria in evaluating
candidate projects.  For example, in evaluating mobility
improvements, FTA said it would look at the expected savings in
travel time.  FTA also conducted workshops at which the new criteria
and reporting requirements were discussed in detail with grantees.
FTA's fiscal year 1999 new starts report, submitted to the Congress
in May 1998, included evaluations that were based upon these
criteria.

The supplemental report to the fiscal year 1999 annual report,
required by TEA-21, was issued in January 1999.  That report did not
include the individual ratings on each criterion and overall project
ratings required by TEA-21 because FTA had not yet incorporated these
requirements at the time the report was prepared.  According to FTA
officials, the fiscal year 2000 supplemental report will include
these ratings.

Noting that TEA-21 made no changes to the existing new starts
criteria and added relatively few factors for consideration in
applying the criteria, FTA completed the fiscal year 2000 project
evaluations using its existing new starts criteria.  However, as
described in more detail in the next section of this report, FTA
revised its evaluation process to provide for the individual
criterion ratings and overall ratings required by TEA-21.  In
September 1998, at the start of the fiscal year 2000 process, FTA
used letters and a series of outreach sessions to explain to its
grantees how it planned to rate projects for the fiscal year 2000
evaluations.  It also issued an addendum to its technical guidance to
assist grantees in submitting the required information for the fiscal
year 2000 process.  In its fiscal year 2000 new starts report
submitted to the Congress on March 23, 1999, FTA provided
evaluations, individual criterion ratings, and an overall project
rating for 39 projects in the final design and preliminary
engineering phases.\8 FTA rated 8 projects as highly recommended, 11
projects as recommended, and 20 projects as not recommended.  The
report also included funding recommendations for 11 of the 39
projects that FTA rated.

--------------------
\6 ISTEA expanded the statutory requirement that a new starts project
be cost-effective and supported by an adequate degree of local
financial commitment by requiring, among other things, that a project
be ï¿½justifiedï¿½ on the basis of a ï¿½comprehensive review of its
mobility improvements, environmental benefits, cost-effectiveness,
and operating efficiencies.ï¿½ ISTEA also identified specific
considerations such as local land-use policies and patterns to be
taken into account when evaluating candidate projects.

\7 FTA included local land use among the project justification
criteria because it believes that transit-supportive land-use
policies reduce the risk of a project and therefore reflect whether
the project will be successful or not.

\8 The report included information on three additional projects that
FTA did not rate because of insufficient information.

   FTA'S EVALUATION AND RATING
   PROCESS ASSIGNS INDIVIDUAL
   RATINGS ON TEA-21 CRITERIA AND
   PROVIDES FOR OVERALL PROJECT
   RATINGS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

FTA's current new starts evaluation process, which it followed to
prepare its fiscal year 2000 new starts report, assigns candidate
projects individual ratings for each TEA-21 criterion in order to
assess each project's justification and local financial commitment.
The process also assigns an overall rating for each project.  FTA
considers these overall ratings in deciding which projects will be
recommended for funding or receive full funding grant agreements.

As figure 1 illustrates, FTA evaluates and rates projects in three
stages.  First, FTA evaluates and rates projects on each new starts
criterion.  Second, FTA uses these individual ratings on each
criterion to assign summary project justification and local financial
commitment ratings for each project.  Finally, FTA then combines
these two ratings to assign an overall project rating.

   Figure 1:  The FTA New Starts
   Evaluation and Rating Process

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a The local share is the percentage of a project's capital cost to
be funded from sources other than new starts funding.

\b According to FTA, this optional criterion gives grantees the
opportunity to provide additional information about a project that
may contribute in determining the project's overall success.

Source:  FTA.

As figure 1 shows, FTA's current process provides for individual
ratings for the four project justification criteria identified by
TEA-21 (mobility improvements, environmental benefits, operating
efficiencies, and cost-effectiveness) as well as for
transit-supportive land-use policies.\9 Similarly, to evaluate a
project's financial commitment, the project is rated on its capital
and operating finance plans and the local share of project costs.
According to FTA, the process also takes into account the factors for
consideration identified in TEA-21, such as congestion relief.  For
example, FTA considers this factor in evaluating and rating a
project's cost-effectiveness.

To develop and assign individual ratings on each criterion, FTA holds
a series of meetings to review and analyze information submitted by
project sponsors.  For the fiscal year 2000 process, participants in
these meetings included officials and staff from FTA's Offices of
Planning, Budget and Policy, and Program Management, and contractors
who made the initial financial and land-use assessments.  On the
basis of an analysis of the documentation submitted by project
sponsors, FTA assigns each project a descriptive rating of high,
medium-high, medium, low-medium or low for each project justification
and local financial commitment criterion.  Appendix I summarizes the
measures that FTA uses in applying the criteria to develop these
ratings.

Once the individual criterion ratings are completed, FTA assigns
summary ratings of project justification and local financial
commitment by combining the individual criterion ratings.  In
developing the summary project justification ratings, FTA gives the
most weight to the criteria for transit-supportive land use,
cost-effectiveness, and mobility improvements.  For the summary local
financial commitment rating, the project's capital plan is given the
most consideration.  In assigning a summary financial commitment
rating, FTA will not give a project a rating higher than low-medium
if its capital finance plan received a low-medium or low rating.

FTA combines these summary ratings to assign an overall project
rating of highly recommended, recommended, or not recommended.  To
receive the highly recommended rating, a project must have summary
ratings of at least medium-high for project justification and local
financial commitment.  To receive a rating of recommended, the
project must have summary ratings of at least medium.  A project is
rated as not recommended when either summary rating is less than
medium.

In its fiscal year 2000 new starts report, as noted previously, FTA
rated 8 projects as highly recommended, 11 projects as recommended,
and 20 projects as not recommended.  Of the 20 projects rated as not
recommended, 18 received financial commitment ratings of less than
medium.  In assigning overall project ratings, however, FTA
emphasized the continuous nature of project evaluation.  Throughout
the report, FTA underscored the fact that as candidate projects
proceed through the project development process, information
concerning costs, benefits, and impacts will be refined.
Consequently, FTA will update its ratings and recommendations at
least annually to reflect new information, changing conditions, and
refined financing plans.\10 Thus, a project that received a not
recommended rating in the fiscal year 2000 report could receive a
higher rating in the fiscal year 2001 report to reflect project
changes.

According to FTA, the overall project rating in the new starts report
is intended to reflect a project's merits at a particular point in
time and does not translate directly into a funding recommendation or
commitment in a given year.  In deciding which projects will be
recommended for funding or receive a full funding grant agreement,
FTA considers projects with an overall rating of recommended or
better.  However, some projects rated as highly recommended or
recommended may not be ready for funding because they are still in
the early stages of preliminary engineering.  In making funding
recommendations, FTA gives first priority to projects with existing
grant agreements.  After these projects are accounted for, priority
is given to projects that are ready to begin final design or
construction.

In accordance with these funding principles, the President's fiscal
year 2000 budget and FTA's fiscal year 2000 new starts report
recommended $962.72 million in funding for 25 projects.  As table 2
shows, these recommendations included $668.18 million for 14 projects
currently under construction,\11 $216.11 million for seven projects
expected to enter final design by the beginning of fiscal year
2000,\12 and $32 million for four projects in the later stages of
preliminary engineering.  TEA-21 limits the amount of new starts
funds that can be used for activities other than final design and
construction to 8 percent of total new starts funding, or $78.43
million for fiscal year 2000.  After accounting for the $32 million
for the four recommended projects in preliminary engineering, $46.43
million remains available for other projects currently in or approved
to enter preliminary engineering by the end of fiscal year 2000.  FTA
plans to allocate the remaining $46.43 million on the basis of its
review of funding applications and project ratings.  The seven
remaining projects in preliminary engineering that received overall
ratings of recommended or highly recommended but no funding
recommendation in the fiscal year 2000 report would be eligible to
seek this funding.  Appendix II presents the ratings and funding
recommendations in FTA's fiscal year 2000 new starts report.

                                Table 2

                   FTA's Fiscal Year 2000 New Starts
                Funding Recommendations by Project Phase

                         (Dollars in millions)

                                               Amount of    Percent of
Fiscal year 2000               Number of        proposed  total annual
project phase                   projects         funding       funding
--------------------------  ------------  --------------  ------------
Construction                          14         $668.18           92%
Final design                           7         $216.11
Preliminary engineering                4             $32            8%
                                                  $46.43
                                           available for
                                          other eligible
                                                projects
======================================================================
Total                                 25         $962.72          100%
----------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------
\9 In rating projects on this criterion, FTA considers such factors
as existing land use, the containment of sprawl, and
transit-supportive policies and zoning.

\10 FTA's supplemental report issued each August will also update
ratings for projects that have advanced from alternatives analysis to
preliminary engineering and from preliminary engineering to final
design since the annual report.

\11 These fourteen projects have existing full funding grant
agreements.

\12 FTA expects all seven projects to be ready to negotiate full
funding grant agreements by the end of fiscal year 2000.

   FTA NEEDS TO ISSUE REGULATIONS
   TO SATISIFY TEA-21 REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

While FTA has implemented a new starts evaluation process that
addresses the TEA-21 requirements, it still needs to issue final
regulations to formalize the process.  FTA did not meet the TEA-21
deadline of October 7, 1998, for issuing these regulations.
According to FTA, priority was given to satisfying the rating
requirements in TEA-21 and issuing the fiscal year 2000 report.  FTA
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on April 7, 1999.  The process
described in the proposed rule mirrors the process FTA used to
prepare the fiscal year 2000 report.

Comments on the proposed rule are due on July 6, 1999.  FTA plans to
issue the final regulations in the summer of 1999.  FTA has said that
any changes resulting from comments on the proposed rule will be
incorporated into the evaluation and rating process for the fiscal
year 2001 annual report.  We will continue to monitor FTA's efforts
to implement TEA-21 and report our results in our next annual report.

   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

We provided the Department of Transportation with a draft of this
report for review and comment.  We met with Federal Transit
Administration officials, including the Director for Policy
Development and officials from the Offices of Planning and of Budget
and Policy.  FTA agreed with the report's contents and provided us
with some technical comments, which we have incorporated where
appropriate.

   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

To address the issues discussed in this report, we reviewed the
legislation governing new starts transit projects, FTA's annual new
starts reports for fiscal years 1999 and 2000, its technical guidance
on the new starts criteria, and other documentation by the agency of
its processes and procedures for evaluating projects.  We also
interviewed appropriate FTA headquarters and regional officials, the
contractors who conducted the financial and land-use assessments, and
selected grantees whose projects were assessed in 1997 and 1998.  In
addition, we attended FTA's outreach sessions, in which officials
explained the new TEA-21 requirements and how FTA intended to meet
these requirements.  We also observed meetings at the agency in which
the project ratings on financial commitment and land use were
deliberated.  We performed our work in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards from July 1998 through April
1999.

---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Rodney E.
Slater, Secretary of Transportation; the Honorable Gordon J.  Linton,
Administrator, Federal Transit Administration; the Honorable Jacob
Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested
parties.  We are also making copies available to others on request.

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.  Please
call me at (202) 512-2834 if you have any questions about this
report.

Phyllis F.  Scheinberg
Associate Director,
 Transportation Issues

NEW STARTS CRITERIA AND RELATED
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
=========================================================== Appendix I

Table I.1 presents a summary of each of the new starts criteria and
the related performance measures that the Federal Transit
Administration uses to appraise candidate new starts projects as part
of its evaluation and rating process.

                               Table I.1

                    Summary of New Starts Evaluation
                   Criteria and Performance Measures

Criterion                       Performance measure
------------------------------  --------------------------------------
Mobility improvements           Change in hours of travel time
                                Low-income households served by the
                                system, expressed in terms of the
                                number of such households within a
                                half-mile of a project's boarding
                                points

Environmental benefits          Change in pollutant emissions
                                Change in regional energy
                                consumption, expressed in British
                                thermal units
                                The Environmental Protection Agency's
                                air quality designation for the region

Operating efficiencies          Operating cost per passenger mile

Cost-effectiveness              Incremental cost per incremental
                                passenger

Transit-supportive land use     Existing land use
                                Containment of sprawl
                                Transit-supportive corridor policies
                                Supportive zoning regulations
                                Tools to implement land-use policies
                                Performance of land-use policies
                                Other land-use factors

Other factors                   Local policies, programs, and factors
                                relevant to the success of the project

Local financial commitment      Proposed local share of project
                                costs
                                Stability and reliability of capital
                                financing
                                Stability and reliability of
                                operating funds
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  FTA.

FTA'S FISCAL YEAR 2000 NEW STARTS
RATINGS AND FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS
========================================================== Appendix II

                                  (Dollars in millions)

                                                                       FY2000 recommended
City/project                             Overall project rating                   funding
---------------------------------------  ----------------------------  ------------------
Existing full funding grant agreements\a
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta -North Line Extension            FFGA                                      $45.14
Boston -Piers Transitway, Phase 1        FFGA                                       53.96
Denver -Southwest LRT                    FFGA                                       35.00
Houston -Regional Bus Plan               FFGA                                       62.52
Los Angeles -MOS-3 Segments of Metro     FFGA                                       50.00
 Rail
Maryland -MARC Extensions -Point of      FFGA                                        0.70
 Rocks to Frederick
Northern New Jersey -Hudson-Bergen LRT   FFGA                                       99.00
Portland -Westside LRT                   FFGA                                       11.06
Sacramento -South Corridor LRT           FFGA                                       25.00
Salt Lake City -South LRT                FFGA                                       37.93
San Francisco -BART to Airport           FFGA                                       84.00
San Jose -Tasman LRT                     FFGA                                       31.87
San Juan -Tren Urbano                    FFGA                                       82.00
St. Louis -St. Clair County, Illinois    FFGA                                       50.00
 LRT
=========================================================================================
Subtotal                                                                          $668.18

Proposed full funding grant agreements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas -North Central LRT Extension      Recommended                               $70.00
Fort Lauderdale -Tri-Rail Commuter Rail  Highly recommended                         20.00
 Upgrade
Memphis -Medical Center Extension        Recommended                                15.11
Newark Rail Link (MOS-1)                 Highly recommended                         12.00
Orlando -I-4 Central Florida LRT         Highly recommended                         44.00
 Project
Salt Lake City -Downtown Connector       Not recommended\b                          20.00
San Diego -Mission Valley East LRT       Highly recommended                         35.00
 Extension
=========================================================================================
Subtotal                                                                          $216.11

Other projects in final design
Dallas ï¿½ Ft. Worth ï¿½ RAILTRAN, Phase 2   Recommended                                   $0
Los Angeles -LOSSAN Rail Corridor        Not recommended                                0
 Improvement Project
New Orleans -Canal Streetcar Spine       Not recommended                                0
Tacoma-Seattle (Sounder) Commuter Rail   Recommended                                    0
=========================================================================================
Subtotal                                                                               $0

Preliminary engineering
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore -Central Corridor LRT Double   Recommended                                $8.00
 Track
Minneapolis -Hiawatha Corridor           Recommended                                 8.00
 Transitway
Raleigh-Durham -Research Triangle        Recommended                                 8.00
 Regional Rail
Seattle-Sound Move -Link LRT             Highly recommended                          8.00
Available for other projects                                                       $46.43
Austin ï¿½ Northwest/North Central         Not rated
 Corridor
Boston -Piers Transitway, Phase 2        Not recommended
Chicago -Central Kane Corridor           Recommended
Chicago -North Central Corridor          Not recommended
Chicago -Southwest Corridor              Highly recommended
Cincinnati -NE/I-71                      Not recommended
Cleveland -Euclid Corridor               Not recommended
Denver -Southeast Corridor               Not recommended
Kansas City -Southtown LRT               Not recommended
Las Vegas -Resort Corridor               Not recommended
Little Rock -Junction Bridge/River Rail  Not recommended
Miami -East/West Corridor                Not recommended
Miami -North 27th Avenue Corridor        Not recommended
New York City -LIRR East Side Access     Not recommended
N. New Jersey (Hudson-Bergen MOS-2)      Not rated
Norfolk -Virginia Beach Corridor         Not recommended
Orange County -Irvine-Fullerton          Recommended
 Corridor
Phoenix -Central Phoenix/East Valley     Not recommended
Pittsburgh -Martin Luther King, Jr., E.  Not recommended
 Busway Extension
Pittsburgh -Stage II LRT Reconstruction  Not recommended
Portland -South/North Corridor           Not recommended
San Diego -Mid Coast Corridor            Highly recommended
San Diego -Oceanside Escondido Corridor  Highly recommended
San Francisco ï¿½ Bayshore -Third Street   Recommended
 LRT
San Juan -Minillas Extension             Not rated
Tampa -Tampa Regional Rail               Not recommended
Washington, D.C. -Largo Extension        Recommended
=========================================================================================
Subtotal                                                                           $78.43

=========================================================================================
Total                                                                             $962.72
Ferry Capital Projects in Alaska or                                                 10.32
 Hawaii (Section 5309(m)(5)(A))
Oversight activities                                                                 7.35
=========================================================================================
Grand total                                                                       $980.40
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend

FFGA = full funding grant agreement
LIRR = Long Island Railroad
LRT = light rail transit
MOS = minimum operable segment

Note:  Figures do not always add to totals because of rounding.

\a Projects with FFGAs were not rated, since FTA had found the
projects to be justified and have adequate local financial
commitments at the time the FFGAs were issued.

\b The Downtown Connector is a segment of the overall Salt Lake
West-East light rail project that FTA rated as not recommended.
While FTA generally does not recommend funding for projects that are
rated as not recommended, it believes this segment of the project
should be funded because it will help meet the mass transportation
needs of the 2002 Winter Olympics.  In fiscal year 1999, the Congress
appropriated $5 million in new starts funds for the overall project.

Source:  FTA's FY 2000 New Starts Report.

MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C.

Ron Stouffer, Assistant Director
Paul J.  Bollea, Site Senior
Carol Ruchala, Site Senior

ATLANTA FIELD OFFICE

Kirk Kiester, Evaluator-in-Charge

*** End of document. ***