Notice2021-15079
Request for Information Concerning the Capital Investment Grants Program
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 15, 2021
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentFederal Transit Administration
Abstract
The Federal Transit Administration is seeking suggestions from all transit stakeholders (transit authorities, planning officials, States, cities, the private sector, and the public) on improvements that could be made to the evaluation process for projects seeking funding from the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) Program. Specifically, FTA seeks input on evaluation measures and data sources that can better capture the benefits and costs of transit and how the CIG program can facilitate outcomes that maximize those benefits.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 133 (Thursday, July 15, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 133 (Thursday, July 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37402-37405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15079]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
Request for Information Concerning the Capital Investment Grants
Program
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Request for Information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration is seeking suggestions from
all transit stakeholders (transit authorities, planning officials,
States, cities, the private sector, and the public) on improvements
that could be made to the evaluation process for projects seeking
funding from the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) Program. Specifically,
FTA seeks input on evaluation measures and data sources that can better
capture the benefits and costs of transit and how the CIG program can
facilitate outcomes that maximize those benefits.
DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before October 13, 2021. FTA
will consider comments filed after this date to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: All responses MUST be submitted electronically to Docket No.
FTA-2021-0010 at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Day, Director, Office of
Capital Project Development, (202) 366-5159, or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#46032a2f3c272423322e6802273f0622293268212930"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d095bcb9aab1b2b5a4b8fe94b1a990b4bfa4feb7bfa6">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: To receive discretionary Capital Investment Grants
(CIG) program funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), an
applicant must complete the multi-year, multi-step process outlined in
law at 49 U.S.C. 5309 for the proposed transit capital project. The law
specifies evaluation criteria covering project justification and local
financial commitment that FTA must use to develop a project rating on a
five-point scale from low to high. It also specifies that a project
must receive a Medium or better overall rating to advance through the
process and receive CIG program funding. The law establishes three
categories of projects eligible under the CIG program, which are known
as New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity Improvement projects.
Each project type has a unique set of requirements and evaluation
criteria in law, although many similarities exist among them.
For New Starts and Core Capacity Improvement projects, the steps in
the CIG process include project development, engineering, and
construction. The CIG process for Small Starts projects includes only
project development and construction. New Starts and Core Capacity
Improvement projects receive construction funds from the CIG program
through a full funding grant agreement (FFGA) that defines the scope of
the project and specifies the total multi-year Federal commitment to
the project. Small Starts projects receive construction funds through a
single-year grant or a Small Starts grant agreement (SSGA) that defines
the scope of the project and specifies the Federal commitment to the
project.
There are six statutory project justification criteria that FTA
must evaluate and rate individually for projects pursuing CIG funding
that differ slightly between the three categories of projects. The law
requires each project justification criterion to be given a
``comparable, but not necessarily equal, numerical weight'' when FTA
develops a summary project justification rating. The law also requires
FTA to evaluate local financial commitment. For New Starts and Core
Capacity, the law requires FTA to determine whether: (A) The proposed
financial plan provides for the availability of reasonable contingency
to cover unanticipated cost increases or funding shortfalls; (B) each
proposed local source of capital and operating financing is stable,
reliable, and available within the proposed project timetable; and (C)
local resources are available to recapitalize, maintain, and operate
the overall existing and proposed public transportation system,
including essential feeder bus and other services necessary to achieve
the projected ridership levels, without requiring a reduction in
existing public transportation services or level of service to operate
the proposed project. For Small Starts projects the law requires FTA to
determine that, ``each proposed local source of capital and operating
financing is stable, reliable, and available within the proposed
project timetable.''
Lastly, the law requires FTA to issue policy guidance on the CIG
review and
[[Page 37403]]
evaluation process each time FTA makes significant changes to the
process or criteria, but not less frequently than once every two years.
When there are significant guidance changes proposed, the document is
subject to notice and comment procedures.
For more information on the existing CIG process and evaluation
criteria, please see the CIG Policy Guidance found at <a href="https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/capital-investments/final-capital-investment-grant-program-interim-policy">https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/capital-investments/final-capital-investment-grant-program-interim-policy</a>.
Through this request for information (RFI), FTA seeks input on the
CIG process and evaluation criteria to inform the development of
proposed changes to the existing CIG policy guidance that would undergo
formal notice and comment in the future. The timing for publication of
proposed CIG policy guidance is not certain and could be impacted by
enactment of reauthorization legislation. FTA looks forward to feedback
from all interested parties.
CIG Process (New Starts, Small Starts and Core Capacity Improvements)
1. The law currently specifies that the Project Development phase
for New Starts and Core Capacity Improvement projects must be completed
within two years, signifying Congress' intent that projects move
through the CIG process expeditiously. However, the law allows project
sponsors to seek, and FTA to approve, an extension of the two-year
timeframe. Is there a maximum amount of time beyond two years that FTA
should allow a project sponsor to extend Project Development to remain
consistent with the statutory intent?
2. In addition to the requirements specified in law that must be
completed to advance from one phase of the CIG process to the next, FTA
has also issued CIG policy guidance. For example, FTA specifies in the
guidance that a minimum of 30 percent design be completed and a minimum
of 30 percent of the non-CIG funding be committed or budgeted before a
New Start or Core Capacity Improvement project may advance from the
Project Development phase to the Engineering phase. FTA also specifies
in the guidance that all types of CIG projects (New Starts, Small
Starts, and Core Capacity) have all of the non-CIG funding committed or
budgeted, all critical third-party agreements completed, and a firm and
reliable cost, scope, and schedule developed before a construction
grant is awarded. Should FTA alter any provisions of its CIG guidance?
Please be specific as to the reason for the response and any proposed
alterations.
Economic Development Criterion (New Starts, Small Starts, and Core
Capacity Improvements)
FTA currently evaluates the Economic Development criterion for New
Starts and Small Starts projects based on the extent to which a
proposed project is likely to induce additional, transit-supportive
development in the future. The evaluation is based on: (1) The transit-
supportive plans and policies in place (e.g., growth management plans,
transit-supportive corridor policies; supportive zoning regulations
near transit stations; and tools to implement land use policies); (2)
the performance and impacts of those policies; and (3) the tools in
place to maintain or increase the share of affordable housing in the
project corridor (e.g., evaluation of project corridor-specific
affordable housing needs and supply, or plans or policies to preserve
and increase affordable housing).
3. Should FTA consider under the Economic Development criterion
whether a proposed CIG project is located in a federally designated
community development zone (e.g., designated opportunity zones, promise
zones, empowerment zones, or choice neighborhoods)? Please provide
reasons for answering yes or no. [See <a href="https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/opportunity-zones-frequently-asked-questions#designated">https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/opportunity-zones-frequently-asked-questions#designated</a>;
<a href="https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/field_policy_mgt/fieldpolicymgtpz">https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/field_policy_mgt/fieldpolicymgtpz</a>;
<a href="https://www.hud.gov/hudprograms/empowerment_zones">https://www.hud.gov/hudprograms/empowerment_zones</a>, and <a href="https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/cn">https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/cn</a>.]
4. Should FTA consider other ways of assessing whether local plans
and policies are transit supportive and encourage affordable housing
under the Economic Development criterion? Please be specific as to what
different or additional metrics could be used, and what thresholds for
these metrics could be deemed as transit-supportive.
Land Use Criterion (New Starts and Small Starts)
The Land Use criterion examines what exists in the project corridor
today. FTA currently evaluates Land Use for New Starts and Small Starts
projects based primarily on existing station area population densities,
total existing employment served by the project, and the percentage of
existing ``legally binding affordability restricted'' housing within a
\1/2\ mile of station areas as compared to the counties in which the
corridor is located.
5. For equity considerations, should FTA evaluate measures under
the Land Use criterion that are easy to calculate using census data,
such as the minority population or the number of households in poverty
along the alignment?
6. Should FTA consider ``access to opportunity'' under the Land Use
criterion? If so, how specifically could FTA measure it? For example,
should access provided by the project to education facilities, health
care facilities, or food stores be considered? Please identify
measures/data sources that would be readily available nationwide
without requiring an undue burden on project sponsors to gather and FTA
to verify the information.
7. In a Memorandum on Redressing Our Nation's and the Federal
Government's History of Discriminatory Housing Practices and Policies
(January 26, 2021), President Biden highlighted the Federal
government's history of disconnecting neighborhoods from access to
high-quality housing, jobs, public transit, and other resources. Should
FTA consider under the Land Use criterion whether the project corridor
has been affected by major transportation projects in the past that
destroyed, divided, or isolated neighborhoods? If so, how should FTA
analyze and evaluate those impacts and consider them in the Land Use
criterion?
8. The more measures used to develop a criterion rating, the less
influence each measure has on the outcome. How many measures are
appropriate to include in total under the Land Use criterion given the
questions above? Should the use of multiple, strongly correlated
measures be avoided?
Environmental Benefits Criterion (New Starts, Small Starts, and Core
Capacity Improvements)
FTA currently evaluates Environmental Benefits for New Starts
projects based on the dollar value of the anticipated direct and
indirect benefits of the project resulting from the change in air
quality criteria pollutants, change in energy use, change in greenhouse
gas emissions, and change in safety divided by the annualized capital
and operating cost of the proposed project. These benefits are computed
based on the change in vehicle miles traveled resulting from
implementation of the proposed project. The Environmental Benefits
measure for Small Starts projects is currently the dollar value of the
anticipated direct and indirect benefits to safety, energy, and air
quality calculated in the same way as for New Starts projects but
divided by the annualized Federal share of the project.
[[Page 37404]]
Core Capacity Improvement projects receive an automatic Medium rating
on the Environmental Benefits criterion unless the sponsor requests to
be evaluated using the New Starts measures.
9. As mentioned in the existing CIG policy guidance, FTA intended
to include the direct and indirect benefits to human health resulting
from implementation of a proposed project in the Environmental Benefits
measures, but has had difficulty in determining how to do so. How
should FTA calculate the health benefits of transit projects? Please
provide specific proposed measures and data sources that would be
readily available across the nation without requiring an undue burden
on project sponsors to gather the information or on FTA to verify the
information.
10. Should FTA also consider impacts to water quality under the
Environmental Benefits criterion? Please provide any available research
or data on the impact of a transit project on water quality. Please
identify measures/data sources that would be readily available across
the nation without requiring an undue burden on project sponsors to
gather the information and FTA to verify the information.
Cost Effectiveness Criterion (New Starts, Small Starts, and Core
Capacity Improvements)
FTA currently evaluates Cost-Effectiveness by measuring the annual
capital and operating and maintenance cost per trip on the project (New
Starts); the annualized capital Federal share of the project per trip
on the project (Small Starts); or the annualized Core Capacity
Improvement share of the project per trip (Core Capacity).
11. As an incentive to encourage project sponsors to consider
``green'' elements in their proposed CIG projects, FTA currently allows
the additional costs of such elements to be excluded from the Cost-
Effectiveness calculation for New Starts projects. Specifically, FTA
allows 50 percent of the purchase cost of ``green'' buses and 2.5
percent of the cost of facilities designed to achieve U.S. Green
Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or a
comparable third-party certification to be excluded. Because the Core
Capacity Improvement and Small Starts Cost-Effectiveness calculations
are based only on the CIG share or Federal share and not the total
annualized project cost, a similar incentive is not provided for those
types of projects.
(a) How could FTA further incentivize project sponsors to
incorporate environmentally sustainable project elements into CIG
projects? Please be specific in any suggestions provided.
(b) Are there lifecycle cost savings or other benefits that transit
agencies have realized from implementing ``green'' elements (i.e.,
evidence of fuel, maintenance, or parts savings)? Please provide
examples or data.
Mobility Improvements (New Starts and Small Starts)
FTA currently evaluates Mobility Improvements on the total number
of linked trips estimated to use the proposed CIG project, with a
weight of two given to trips that would be made on the project by
transit-dependent persons.
12. Should more emphasis be placed on trips made by transit-
dependent persons? Why or why not?
Capacity Needs (Core Capacity Improvements)
The law specifies that to be eligible as a Core Capacity
Improvement, a proposed project corridor must be at capacity today or
will be in five years and the project must increase capacity by at
least 10 percent. FTA currently uses space per passenger in the peak
hour in the peak direction to evaluate Capacity Needs for light rail
projects and seated load in the peak hour in the peak direction to
evaluate Capacity Needs for commuter rail projects.
13. By what methods do transit agencies determine if a transit
corridor is at capacity today or soon will be? Please be specific on
the measures and calculations used. Are the measures based on readily
available data routinely calculated by transit agencies or do they
require a situation-specific analysis? Could the measures be applied in
a national program evaluating various modes and corridors across the
country?
14. What load factor policies do transit agencies use to determine
when additional vehicles are needed on a transit line? Please provide
specific examples of what load factors are used, and how they are
calculated? Please include load factors used for each mode.
Congestion Relief (New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity
Improvements)
For New Starts and Small Starts projects, FTA currently evaluates
the number of new weekday linked trips resulting from implementation of
the proposed project to determine Congestion Relief, which serves as an
indirect measure of reduced traffic congestion because those trips
typically represent people who have chosen to take transit rather than
drive. For Core Capacity Improvement projects, FTA evaluates the
percent increase in capacity in the corridor resulting from the
proposed project to determine Congestion Relief.
15. Should FTA evaluate Congestion Relief differently? If so,
please identify measures/data sources that would be readily available
at transit agencies across the nation without requiring an undue burden
on project sponsors to gather the information and FTA to verify the
information.
Resiliency/Futureproofing (Not Currently Considered in the Evaluation
Process)
FTA regulations, at 49 CFR 602.5, define ``resilience'' as the
``ability to anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to changing conditions
and withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from disruptions such as
significant multi-hazard threats with minimum damage to social well-
being, the economy, and the environment.''
16. Do transit agencies measure and evaluate resilience benefits of
proposed capital projects? Do they use a quantitative approach? Please
provide examples of specific metrics or analyses used.
17. Should resilience elements be formally incorporated into the
CIG project evaluation process? If so, how might resilience be measured
and incorporated? What thresholds would distinguish one project from
another? Should FTA use its Hazard Mitigation Cost Effectiveness (HMCE)
Tool to measure benefits and costs of resilience elements as it has
done for projects considered for emergency relief funding (see <a href="https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/emergency-relief-program/hazard-mitigation-cost-effectiveness-hmce-tool">https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/emergency-relief-program/hazard-mitigation-cost-effectiveness-hmce-tool</a>)? Please be specific in
your responses.
18. The concept of ``future-proofing'' is often discussed along
with resilience to ensure infrastructure projects will continue to be
of value into the distant future and not become obsolete quickly. What
emerging technologies may have an impact (positive or negative) on a
transit system, and how can avoiding this situation be prepared for in
the planning and design of CIG capital projects?
Local Financial Commitment (New Starts, Small Starts and Core Capacity
Improvements)
Currently, FTA evaluates three factors when examining Local
Financial Commitment: (1) The current financial condition of the
project sponsor; (2) the amount of committed funds; and (3) the
reasonableness of financial planning
[[Page 37405]]
assumptions and the resulting financial capacity they demonstrate.
After evaluation of those three factors and calculation of a rating for
Local Financial Commitment, FTA considers the CIG share request.
Specifically, if the CIG share request is less than 50 percent and the
calculated Local Financial Commitment rating is at least Medium, the
rating is boosted one level. Small Starts and Core Capacity Improvement
projects can qualify for financial warrants (automatic financial
ratings) under certain circumstances.
19. Project sponsors that do not qualify for warrants (automatic
financial ratings) must submit a 20-year cash-flow statement to FTA for
evaluation and rating. Should FTA consider accepting cash flow
statements for other time periods (e.g., a 10-year, 15-year, or 25-year
project cash-flow statement)? If so, please explain why and the
suggested time period.
FTA welcomes any additional feedback on the CIG program, including
topics not listed in the questions above.
All interested parties are encouraged to respond to this RFI.
Submissions are strictly voluntary. Individuals or entities responding
to the RFI should state their role as well as knowledge and experience
of the CIG program. FTA may request additional clarifying information
from any or all respondents. If a respondent does not wish to be
contacted by FTA for additional information, a statement to that effect
should be included in the response. All information submitted should be
unclassified and should not contain proprietary information.
FTA is not obligated to officially respond to the information
received, but the responses will greatly assist FTA in developing
proposed CIG policy guidance changes.
Comments may be submitted and viewed at Docket No. FTA-2021-0010 at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Nuria I. Fernandez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-15079 Filed 7-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 15, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.