Major Capital Investment Projects, 3848-3909 [2012-1198]

Agencies

• Federal Transit Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3848-3909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1198]



[[Page 3847]]

Vol. 77

Wednesday,

No. 16

January 25, 2012

Part II





Department of Transportation





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Federal Transit Administration





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





49 CFR Part 611





Major Capital Investment Projects; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 3848]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

49 CFR Part 611

[Docket No. FTA-2010-0009]
RIN 2132-AB02


Major Capital Investment Projects

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposes a new 
regulatory framework for FTA's evaluation and rating of major new 
transit investments seeking funding under the discretionary ``New 
Starts'' and ``Small Starts'' programs. This notice of proposed 
rulemaking is being published concurrently with a Notice of 
Availability of proposed guidance that proposes new measures and 
methods for calculating the project justification and local financial 
commitment criteria specified in statute and this proposed rule. FTA 
seeks public comment on both this proposed rule and the proposed 
guidance.

DATES: Comments must be received by March 26, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number FTA-
2010-0009 by any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments on the U.S. 
Government electronic docket site.
    2. Fax: (202) 493-2251.
    3. Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. 
SE., Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    4. Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New 
Jersey Ave. 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: You must include the agency name (Federal Transit 
Administration) and Docket number (FTA-2010-0009) for this NPRM at the 
beginning of your comments. You should submit two copies of your 
comments if you submit them by mail. If you wish to receive 
confirmation that FTA 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 on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477). Docket: For access to the 
docket to read background documents and comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Docket Operations, M-30, West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590 between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., EST, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Day, Office of Planning and 
Environment, (202) 366-5159; for questions of a legal nature, 
Christopher Van Wyk, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1733. FTA is 
located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office 
hours are from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., EST, Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction

    This NPRM is being issued to amend the regulation (Part 611 of 
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations) under which the Federal 
Transit Administration (FTA) evaluates major new transit investments 
seeking funding under the discretionary ``New Starts'' and ``Small 
Starts'' programs authorized by Section 5309 of Title 49, U.S. Code. 
The New Starts and Small Starts programs are FTA's primary capital 
funding programs for new or extended fixed guideway and bus rapid 
transit systems across the country, including rapid rail, light rail, 
commuter rail, bus rapid transit, and ferries. This proposed rule was 
the subject of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) issued 
on June 3, 2010, which posed a series of questions about the current 
regulation, and in particular about three of the criteria used to 
assess project justification.
    In developing this NPRM, FTA has been guided by two broad goals. 
First, FTA intends, as suggested by the ANRPM and by the Secretary's 
announcement of January 13, 2010, to measure a wider range of benefits 
transit projects provide. Second, FTA desires to do so while 
establishing measures that support streamlining of the New Starts and 
Small Starts project development process. In balancing these goals, FTA 
is seeking to continue a system in which well-justified projects are 
funded. At the same time, FTA seeks to ensure that it does not 
perpetuate a system in which the measures used to determine the project 
justification or local financial commitment are so complex that they 
unnecessarily burden projects sponsors and FTA, or that make it 
increasingly difficult to understand, which hinders effective 
involvement of the public.
    To streamline the process, FTA is first proposing a simplified 
measure of mobility benefits. Second, FTA is proposing to expand the 
ability of projects to pre-qualify based on the characteristics of the 
project or the corridor in which it is located. As with the current 
``Very Small Starts'' category, FTA proposes to determine what 
characteristics would be sufficient, without further analysis, to 
warrant a satisfactory rating of ``medium'' on one or more of the 
evaluation criteria. Third, FTA is proposing ways the data submitted by 
project sponsors and the evaluation methods employed by FTA could be 
simplified. Fourth, FTA is proposing to greatly simplify the process 
for developing a point of comparison for incremental measures (i.e., 
measures that are based on a comparison between two different 
scenarios, such as a comparison of Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) in the 
corridor without the project and VMT in the corridor with the project). 
Fifth, FTA is proposing to clarify the local financial commitment 
criteria to address more clearly the strong interaction between capital 
and operating funding plans. Finally, FTA is proposing that if a 
project stays within a certain ``envelope'' of cost and scope during 
the project development process, no further re-evaluation of project 
merit will be required.
    To address more explicitly the broad range of benefits that transit 
projects provide, FTA is proposing several ways such benefits will be 
incorporated into the evaluation process. In particular, this includes 
livability principles and goals that relate strongly to the purposes of 
many transit investments. More specifically, FTA is proposing to 
include more meaningful measures of the environmental benefits and 
economic development effects of projects and to give these measures 
equal weight in the evaluation of project justification.

II. What This NPRM Contains

    This NPRM is one way FTA seeks to accomplish the two goals outlined 
above; FTA is also publishing a notice in the Federal Register today 
that proposes guidance related to the proposals in this NPRM that is 
available for public review and comment. The regulations act as a 
framework for the project evaluation process, and the policy guidance 
provides non-binding

[[Page 3849]]

interpretations for implementing the regulations. Under current law, 
FTA is required to issue such policy guidance for public comment at 
least every two years and whenever major changes in policy are 
proposed. FTA believes that this approach allows FTA to make 
improvements in the criteria as new techniques become available. FTA 
encourages comment on both the NPRM and the proposed policy guidance.
    The Executive Summary that follows describes the New Starts and 
Small Starts programs, describes the ANPRM published on June 3, 2010, 
describes the general approach taken in the NPRM, and discusses several 
key issues and how they are resolved.
    The following section includes a detailed summary of the comments 
received on the ANPRM and FTA's response to those comments. FTA 
received over 2,000 individual comments from over 160 respondents to 
the ANRPM. FTA made a special effort to categorize the comments by 
topical area, group them, and summarize them so as to assure all 
relevant comments received consideration in the development of this 
NRPM and accompanying proposed policy guidance. The responses to 
comments will provide a sense of the proposals that FTA is carrying 
forward through this NPRM and accompanying proposed policy guidance, 
but those proposals are more specifically detailed in the ``Section-by-
Section'' analysis that directly follows the comment summaries and 
responses.
    The Section-by-Section analysis is intended to do two things: (1) 
Explain the proposed changes to the regulatory text found at the end of 
this NPRM; and (2) provide some sense of what is in the related 
proposed policy guidance also being published for comment today. FTA is 
bound by the current law when it comes to the process used to evaluate, 
rate, and approve funding for New Starts and Small Starts projects, 
including the criteria used to evaluate them. But FTA has made an 
effort in this proposal to introduce a number of streamlining features 
compatible with current law. In addition, and separately from this 
effort, FTA will be pursuing additional legislative changes to further 
streamline the process as part of its efforts toward reauthorization of 
its programs.
    Following the Section-by-Section analysis is the ``Regulatory 
Evaluation'' section of this NPRM, which includes descriptions of the 
requirements that apply to the rulemaking process and information on 
how this rulemaking effort fits within those requirements. FTA 
encourages you to read these and submit comments on them.
    The NPRM concludes with the actual regulatory text FTA is proposing 
for its New Starts and Small Starts programs. This is the language 
that, if finalized, would govern the way New Starts and Small Starts 
projects are evaluated, rated, and funded. The language would be 
binding, which means FTA's future policy guidance documents would need 
to be consistent with the language. FTA seeks your comments on this 
proposed regulatory text.

III. Executive Summary

    The New Starts and Small Starts programs, established in Section 
5309(d) and (e) of Title 49, U.S. Code, are FTA's primary capital 
funding programs for new or extended transit systems across the 
country, including rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, bus rapid 
transit, and ferries. Under this discretionary program, proposed 
projects are evaluated and rated as they seek FTA approval for a 
Federal New Starts or Small Starts funding commitment to finance 
project construction. Currently, overall ratings for proposed New 
Starts and Small Starts projects are based on summary ratings for two 
categories of criteria: project justification and local financial 
commitment. Within these two categories, projects are evaluated and 
rated against several criteria specified in law. Details on how 
projects are currently evaluated and rated are set forth in the FTA 
regulations at 49 CFR Part 611, which can be found at the following web 
address: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2009-title49-vol7/pdf/CFR-2009-title49-vol7-part611.pdf.
    Several statutory changes since 49 CFR Part 611 was first written 
have modified the evaluation process, including the Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 
(SAFETEA-LU) signed on August 10, 2005, and the SAFETEA-LU Technical 
Corrections Act of 2008, signed on June 6, 2008. FTA announced the most 
recent policy guidance on the evaluation process (issued to address the 
SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act) on July 29, 2009. This policy 
guidance is available in the Federal Register at 74 FR 37763. A summary 
of the evaluation and rating process can be found at https://fta.dot.gov/documents/FY12_Evaluation_Process(1).pdf.

1. The Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)

    The ANPRM sought comment on three of the evaluation criteria under 
the project justification category: Cost effectiveness, environmental 
benefits, and economic development benefits.
    a. Cost Effectiveness. All of the project justification criteria 
characterize the effectiveness of projects in addressing the objectives 
identified by the statute; cost effectiveness is currently the only 
project justification criterion that examines whether certain benefits 
are in scale with project costs. Cost effectiveness is not, however, an 
attempt to perform a full cost-benefit analysis. In its current cost 
effectiveness measure, FTA includes the direct mobility benefits of the 
project and compares them to the annualized capital and operating costs 
of the proposed project as compared to a baseline alternative. FTA 
defines mobility benefits as any measurable change from the proposed 
project in travel time, including walking, waiting, transfers, and 
other attributes of travel on the transportation system as compared to 
the baseline alternative.
    Although FTA's definition of mobility benefits includes time 
savings to highway users caused by congestion relief, FTA has not been 
using projections of highway time savings because of their 
unreliability and inconsistency. Instead, in determining cost 
effectiveness ratings, FTA credits all projects with an allowance for 
highway time savings that is equal to 20 percent of the project-
specific transit travel time savings. FTA has sponsored research on 
better methods to predict highway time savings so that project-specific 
highway time savings might someday be included in the mobility benefits 
that are compared to project costs in the cost effectiveness 
calculation.
    FTA has also not included other benefits among the project-specific 
benefits used to compute the current cost effectiveness measure because 
of the difficulties of combining the broad range of other benefits into 
a common unit of measurement. Instead, in determining cost 
effectiveness ratings, FTA currently credits all projects with an 
allowance for other benefits that is equal to 100 percent of the 
project-specific time savings. FTA sought comment in the ANPRM on ways 
to quantify and value other benefits so that they can be included as 
project-specific benefits, rather than as a general allowance, in the 
comparison against project costs that is done in measuring cost 
effectiveness.
    Beginning in April 2005, FTA had in place a budget decision 
approach that required at least a ``medium'' rating on cost 
effectiveness for a project to be considered for funding in the

[[Page 3850]]

President's annual budget. Members of the transit community criticized 
that policy and questioned the way in which FTA measured cost 
effectiveness. Specifically, the transit community expressed concern 
that receiving a ``low'' or ``medium-low'' cost effectiveness rating 
``trumped'' the other project justification criteria established by 
law. Critics also noted that projects were sometimes designed to 
achieve a ``medium'' cost effectiveness rating to remain eligible for 
funding while sacrificing other potentially important considerations 
(such as station locations and/or design features to accommodate 
ridership growth). On January 13, 2010, Secretary Ray LaHood announced 
the end of that budget decision approach. This new direction presented 
FTA with an opportunity to rethink how it evaluates cost effectiveness 
for projects seeking New Starts and Small Starts funding, which led to 
this rulemaking effort.
    Quantitative measures often require evaluating the incremental (or 
added) benefits of implementing a proposed project against some other 
alternative. FTA sought comment in the ANPRM on what the point of 
comparison should be. As stated above, projects are currently evaluated 
against a ``baseline alternative,'' which is defined as the ``best that 
can be done'' to address identified transportation needs in the 
corridor without a major capital investment in new infrastructure. The 
baseline alternative generally includes lower cost actions such as 
traffic engineering, enhanced bus service and other transit operational 
changes, and modest capital improvements such as reserved lanes, park-
and-ride lots, and transit terminals. Although less expensive than the 
proposed project, the baseline alternative may still result in 
substantial costs, particularly in complex study areas with significant 
transportation problems.
    For more information how FTA currently calculates cost 
effectiveness, see the summary of the evaluation and rating process 
available at https://fta.dot.gov/documents/FY12_Evaluation_Process(1).pdf
    b. Environmental Benefits. Since environmental benefits was first 
added as a project justification criterion in the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), FTA has attempted 
through various methods, with limited success, to meaningfully measure 
and compare the environmental benefits of transit projects in the 
project development pipeline, even though each project may be located 
in a unique environmental setting.
    For a number of years, FTA measured air quality effects using a 
regional forecast of the change in vehicle miles of travel (VMT) 
expected to result from implementation of the proposed project compared 
to the baseline alternative in the forecast year. The results of that 
approach proved unsatisfactory because any one project had only a minor 
effect on total regional air quality. The results also did not take 
into account the severity of the metropolitan area's air quality 
problems or the size of the population exposed to polluted air. Because 
of those concerns, FTA switched to using the Environmental Protection 
Agency's (EPA) air quality conformity designation of the metropolitan 
area in which the proposed project is located as the sole basis for 
assigning a rating on environmental benefits.
    Although FTA has focused solely on air quality for the 
environmental benefits criterion in the past, the statute is written 
broadly enough to allow FTA to take into account other factors such as 
noise pollution, energy consumption, reductions in local infrastructure 
costs achieved through compact land use development, and the cost of 
suburban sprawl. In the ANPRM, FTA sought input on how better to assess 
all of the environmental benefits connected with a proposed project.
    c. Economic Development. Under its current approach, FTA has 
defined economic development as the extent to which a proposed project 
is likely to enhance additional, transit-supportive development. 
Currently, FTA rates the economic development effects of major transit 
investments on the basis of the transit-supportive plans and policies 
in place and the demonstrated performance and impact of those policies. 
These ``on the ground'' indicators characterize the environment in 
which a project would be built and are not intended to predict future 
development outcomes. In the ANPRM, FTA requested input on how better 
to define economic development and on how to establish an improved 
approach for assessing these benefits.
    d. Outreach. In support of this ANPRM, FTA held a series of public 
outreach meetings at which FTA staff made oral presentations on the 
ANPRM and provided meeting attendees with an opportunity to pose 
questions. Additionally, the sessions were intended to encourage 
interested parties and stakeholders to submit their comments directly 
to the official docket per the instructions. These sessions, announced 
in the Federal Register, were held in: Raleigh, NC; Vancouver, Canada 
(in connection with the American Public Transportation Association's 
annual Rail Conference); Chicago, IL; San Francisco, CA; Dallas, TX; 
and Washington, DC In addition, two webinars were held to provide the 
same opportunity for those unable to attend the other outreach sessions 
in person.

2. Key Issues and Proposed Resolution

    The ANPRM laid out a series of questions on cost effectiveness, 
environmental benefits, and economic development effects. This section 
describes the current approach and lays out the changes being proposed 
in this NPRM. These proposed changes are the result of a review of the 
comments received and an application of the lessons learned from 
implementation of the current methods.
    a. Cost Effectiveness. Currently, cost effectiveness is evaluated 
based on the incremental annualized capital and operating cost of the 
project per hour of travel time savings (i.e., the cost of the project 
divided by how much time it would save travelers). Changes in cost and 
travel time are calculated by comparing the proposed project with a 
baseline alternative. FTA's thresholds for assigning ratings from 
``low'' to ``high'' are based on U.S. DOT guidance on the value of 
time. To establish these thresholds, benefits other than travel time 
savings are not calculated directly, but are assumed to be equal to the 
value of the travel time savings (as described above).
    FTA is proposing a significantly different and simpler approach. 
The measure of cost effectiveness is proposed to be cost (annualized 
capital cost and operating cost) per trip taken on the project, with 
extra weight given to project trips made by transit dependents, with 
some allowances for ``betterments'' to be excluded from the cost side 
of the equation.
    This proposed measure is intended to be much simpler that the 
current measure. It also allows project sponsors to use simplified 
forecasting methods for estimating project trips rather than 
traditional local travel forecasting methods. Given that the measure of 
effectiveness is not an incremental measure, there is no need for a 
point of comparison, or ``baseline alternative,'' to calculate it. To 
calculate the annualized capital and operating costs of the proposed 
project, the point of comparison would be the existing system.
    FTA proposes the cost of ``betterments,'' would be excluded from 
the cost side of the cost effectiveness calculation. Betterments are 
those items above and beyond the items needed to

[[Page 3851]]

deliver the mobility benefits of the project and that would not 
contribute to other benefits such as operating efficiencies. 
Betterments may include, for example, features needed to obtain LEED 
certification for the transit facilities or additional features to 
provide extra pedestrian access to surrounding development or 
aesthetically-oriented design features. This would remove a 
disincentive to include such features in the design of projects. FTA is 
interested on receiving comments on the kinds of betterments that 
should be excluded from the calculation.
    FTA is proposing, in addition, to develop pre-qualification 
approaches that would allow for a project to automatically receive a 
satisfactory rating on cost effectiveness based on its characteristics 
or the characteristics of the project corridor. These approaches would 
be developed by analyzing how certain project or corridor 
characteristics would contribute to producing a satisfactory rating on 
cost effectiveness. In this way, a project whose characteristics met or 
exceeded a certain threshold value could be automatically rated without 
further project-specific analysis. Proposed pre-qualification values 
(``warrants'') would be proposed in policy guidance for comment by the 
public.
    b. Environmental Benefits. Currently, FTA uses the EPA air quality 
designation for the metropolitan area in which a project is proposed to 
be located. Thus, FTA assigns projects located in non-attainment areas 
(areas that EPA has designated as having poor air quality) with a 
``high'' rating; all other projects receive a ``medium'' rating.
    FTA is proposing to expand the measure for environmental benefits 
to include direct and indirect benefits to the natural and human 
environment. Based on estimated changes in vehicle miles of travel 
(VMT), FTA would evaluate air quality based on changes in total 
emissions of EPA criteria pollutants, changes in energy use, changes in 
total greenhouse gas emissions, and safety changes including the amount 
of accidents, fatalities, and property damage. Changes in public 
health, such as benefits associated with long-term activity levels that 
would result from changes in development patterns, would be included 
once better methods for calculating this information are developed.
    Estimated changes in VMT would be calculated in one of two ways. If 
the project sponsor uses the simplified forecasting method developed by 
FTA, changes in VMT would be imputed using standard factors developed 
by FTA that are applied to the estimated project-trips and passenger-
miles. If a project sponsor chooses at its option to use standard local 
travel forecasting methods, the changes in VMT would be an output of 
the local travel forecasting process. The estimated environmental 
benefits would be monetized and compared to the annualized capital and 
operating cost of the proposed project.
    c. Economic Development. Currently, FTA rates the economic 
development effects of major transit investments on the basis of the 
transit-supportive plans and policies in place and the demonstrated 
performance and impact of those policies. FTA proposes to continue to 
use this measure and to add a consideration of the social equity 
impacts of the proposed investment by assessing the degree to which 
policies maintaining or increasing affordable housing are in place. The 
number of domestic jobs related to design, construction and operation 
of the project would also be reported.
    FTA is also proposing to allow project sponsors, at their option, 
to estimate indirect changes in VMT resulting from changes in 
development patterns that are anticipated to occur with implementation 
of the proposed project. The resulting environmental benefits would be 
calculated, monetized, and compared to the annualized capital and 
operating cost of the project under the economic development criterion. 
In is anticipated that the project sponsor would undertake an analysis 
of the economic conditions in the project corridor, the mechanisms by 
which the project would improve those conditions, the availability of 
land in station areas for development and redevelopment, and a pro 
forma assessment of the feasibility of specific development scenarios.

3. Streamlining

    Aside from changes that will improve FTA's measures for evaluating 
projects, FTA is proposing some changes that are intended to streamline 
the process.
    First, FTA is proposing to allow project sponsors to forgo a 
detailed analysis of benefits that are unnecessary to justify a 
project. For example, if a project rates ``medium'' overall based on 
benefit calculations developed using existing conditions in the project 
corridor today, the project sponsor would not be required to do the 
analysis necessary to forecast benefits out to some future year (i.e., 
a ``horizon'' year). Similarly, FTA is proposing to develop methods 
that can be used to estimate benefits using simple approaches. Only 
when a project sponsor feels it is necessary to further identify 
benefits beyond a simplified method would more elaborate analysis be 
undertaken, and only at the project sponsor's option.

IV. Response to Comments

    The following is a summary of the comments received in response to 
the questions in the ANPRM, FTA's response to the comments received, 
and our proposal for addressing the issue raised by the questions in 
this NPRM. FTA received approximately 165 comment submissions from a 
wide-range of organizations and individuals. Comments included 
operators of public transportation; a private bus operator; State 
departments of transportation; a Federal agency; a member of Congress, 
metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) and regional councils of 
governments; local governments or entities; trade organizations; 
national non-profit organizations; lobbyists; research institutions; 
local or regional community organizations; private citizens; and 
businesses.
    Please note that FTA attempted to respond to all relevant comments 
received on the ANPRM. FTA provided a more detailed response, however, 
only to comments that specifically addressed the issues presented in 
the ANPRM. General comments that did not pertain specifically to those 
topics were summarized at the beginning of this section.

A. General Comments

1. Funding Based on Regional or Project Characteristics
    Comment: A number of comments suggested separate funding streams 
depending on the characteristics of the project or the region in which 
it is located. One comment suggested that FTA separate funding streams 
based on regional population to afford projects in medium-to-small 
regions a better chance to compete for funding. Another suggested 
creating separate funding opportunities for new transit initiatives and 
one for additions to existing systems. One comment suggested 
distinguishing between new corridors, extensions, and circulator 
projects.
    Response: FTA is bound by the current law, in which funding 
eligibility is distinguished only by the size of the project and the 
amount of New Starts/Small Starts funds being sought. FTA believes the 
simplified project development and evaluation processes for smaller 
projects provide an opportunity for smaller and medium sized regions to 
compete. So long as there is a single source of funding in law for both 
extensions and completely new

[[Page 3852]]

systems, FTA must evaluate them using the same criteria.
2. Additional and Updated Guidance
    Comment: Numerous comments suggested FTA publish additional 
guidance on the New Starts/Small Starts project development and 
evaluation processes. For example, several comments suggested 
publishing additional guidance for how to achieve higher project 
justification ratings, although one comment suggested FTA retain its 
current level of guidance emphasizing the importance of regional and 
local land use planning, zoning, and economic development. Individual 
comments were received suggesting FTA should:
     Annually publish a capital cost analysis looking at 
regional variations and cost trends, as well as the actual as-built 
project costs and New Start application costs.
     Issue guidance on policies that support land use goals and 
transit-oriented development (TOD) planning.
     Update FTA's 2004 contractor guidelines on land use and 
economic development and issue it as official guidance to all 
applicants.
     Provide project sponsors with complete details on cost 
estimating and an actual FTA high-reliability ridership model.
     Facilitate the application process with best practices, 
guidelines, or other explanatory materials.
     Maximize public investment by using FTA resources to 
provide guidance, best practices, and research to facilitate efficient 
and cost-effective project completion.
     Clarify FTA's goals, objectives, and desired outcomes from 
the New Starts process.
     Assure the application process is clear, comprehensible, 
and efficient, so that project sponsors have sufficient time to make 
necessary project decisions according to whether they have qualified 
for funding.
     Create a comprehensive, up-to-date source of guidance for 
applicants.
     Enhance its current Lessons Learned and Best Practices 
procedures.
     Update the New and Small Starts guidance to reflect 
changes in policies and administrative requirements and make it 
consistent with the FTA Web site.
    Response: FTA agrees with the importance of providing clear and up-
to-date guidance about the project development and evaluation 
processes. By law, FTA is required to publish guidance about its 
policies for New and Small Starts at least every two years for comment, 
and whenever it intends to make a substantive change in its procedures 
or evaluation criteria. FTA intends to use this process to provide 
periodic updates to its policies and procedures in this arena. FTA also 
intends to continue to provide technical assistance in the form of 
research, training, and technical assistance materials on all aspects 
of the process. FTA appreciates the suggestions for specific areas of 
attention, and will use these, as well as comments on this rulemaking 
process, to guide the development of policy and procedural guidance and 
technical assistance activities in the future. In particular, FTA 
intends to use its Web site to provide a source for updated technical 
assistance and guidance materials.
3. Livability and Sustainability
    Comment: A number of comments addressed the topic of how FTA should 
address the Administration's livability and sustainability initiatives. 
A few comments expressed general support for the new livability 
initiative and policy shift to support transit projects with positive 
community, environmental, and economic impacts. One comment expressed 
support for the Administration's livability and sustainability 
initiatives recognizing the connection among DOT, HUD, and EPA in 
future regional and local planning efforts. Another comment, however, 
suggested ignoring sustainability and livability claims.
    Response: FTA believes its New and Small Starts project development 
and evaluation processes should address the Administration's livability 
and sustainability goals. Current law provides that projects be 
evaluated by factors including environmental benefits and economic 
development effects, which relate very strongly to these goals. In 
addition, the degree to which these projects are supported by local 
transit supportive plans and policies is also a criterion specified in 
law that FTA proposes to continue measuring.
    Comment: A series of comments suggested ways FTA could support this 
initiative by altering its evaluation criteria. One comment expressed 
concern that the current criteria are not compatible with streetcar 
projects, and along with another comment, recommended FTA adopt 
performance measures supporting the livability and sustainability 
criteria. One comment made a general suggestion that FTA review the 
entire livability program and alter its rating system to address 
features of the program. Another comment, however, recommended FTA 
develop new rating factors that only award more points to applicants 
agreeing to increase affordable housing investment within one-half mile 
of planned transit stops. A couple of comments suggested the six 
Federal livability and sustainability criteria should be the primary 
criteria in law for New Starts. A couple of other comments expressed 
support for FTA's furtherance of the goals of the Partnership for 
Sustainable Communities through its New Starts and Small Starts program 
analyses. Others recommended New Starts and Small Starts projects 
support building healthy and sustainable communities of opportunity, 
recommending livability indicators as a means for attaining that 
outcome. One comment recommended the criteria for New Starts and Small 
Starts funds should focus on the improvements made towards safer 
walking and biking environments. Another comment recommended modifying 
the New Starts and Small Starts regulation to incentivize the 
preservation and expansion of affordable housing near planned transit 
stops.
    Response: FTA believes it can address livability and sustainability 
in measures it establishes for the environmental benefits, economic 
development effects, and land use criteria. FTA believes reductions in 
energy use and greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions are the 
primary environmental benefits of transit projects that promote 
sustainability. FTA is proposing to evaluate the magnitude of these 
benefits in its environmental benefits criterion. FTA also believes it 
can address livability benefits of proposed investments by assessing 
transit supportive economic development plans and policies, existing 
and proposed, that would promote development in concert with assessing 
the degree to which those policies protect affordable housing.
    In addition, FTA is proposing to allow project sponsors to evaluate 
the magnitude of the projected benefits that come from denser 
development around the transit investment as part of the measure for 
economic development. At the option of the project sponsor, indirect 
changes in VMT resulting from changes in development patterns may be 
estimated, and the resulting environmental benefits calculated, 
monetized, and compared to the annualized capital and operating cost of 
the project under the economic development criterion.
    Comment: Other comments addressed how funding priorities might be 
established to support the livability and sustainability initiatives. 
One comment recommended funding transportation projects that ensure 
that communities

[[Page 3853]]

have streets, sidewalks, and transportation networks that are safe and 
inviting. Another comment suggested addressing national environmental 
and climate challenges by promoting low-carbon types of transportation 
modes via integration of transportation, housing, environment, and 
community revitalization strategies. One other comment encouraged FTA 
to consider the unequal treatment of highway and transit investments as 
the primary obstacle to improving livability.
    Response: FTA does not believe it is necessary to explicitly 
establish funding priorities for certain kinds of projects. Rather, it 
believes having evaluation criteria in place that reward projects that 
achieve more environmental benefits and economic development effects 
can provide sufficient incentives to project sponsors to meet these 
goals. FTA notes the way highway and transit projects are treated is a 
feature of surface transportation law and cannot be changed through 
rulemaking.
4. Methodology
    Comment: A few comments addressed the weights assigned to the 
various evaluation criteria. The first comment suggested FTA's rating 
system give up to 40 percent of the points awarded for local matching 
funds. Another comment suggested only weighting environmental benefits 
higher than ten percent. A third comment suggested FTA give points to 
sponsors leveraging symbiotic projects that have private funds from 
rail companies or industry.
    Response: According to existing law, FTA must evaluate the six 
specified project justification criteria and give ``comparable, but not 
necessarily equal'' weight to each. Separately, FTA must evaluate local 
financial commitment and produce a rating for it based on the various 
factors specified in the law. The separate ratings for project 
justification and local financial commitment must then be combined into 
an overall rating. The weightings for the project justification 
criteria will not be included in this proposed rule. Rather, FTA is 
proposing specific weights in the accompanying policy guidance. FTA 
does not believe it is appropriate to provide additional weight to 
projects with private funding. The source of local funding is not as 
important as whether the project has adequate overall financial support 
from non-Federal sources for both capital and operating costs.
    Comment: A couple of comments questioned how FTA planned to 
incorporate incomplete studies commissioned by FTA, including Transit 
Cooperative Research Program studies H-39, H-41, and H-42, to develop 
data for future project evaluation.
    Response: FTA will consider the results of these studies when they 
become available through policy guidance issued for notice and comment 
at least every two years. This will allow FTA to take into account any 
improved methodologies that may result from these and other studies 
conducted in the future.
    Comment: Several comments included general suggestions for 
additional evaluation factors. One comment suggested adding a transit 
agency's management-labor relations history as a factor. Another 
comment expressed support for comparing project cost to shortened 
commute times. One other comment recommended that the project 
justification criteria should better address equity benefits associated 
with transit projects.
    Response: FTA does not believe labor-management relations affect 
the relative performance or merits of a proposed transit investment. 
Shortened commute times are one important factor in assessing project 
merit, but FTA believes a simple measure of project effectiveness, such 
as system usage, is a reasonable proxy for a wide variety of project 
benefits. FTA also believes shortened commute times can be an important 
part of evaluating the likelihood a project will produce economic 
development benefits since improvements in accessibility are often a 
major reason why development occurs around transit investments. FTA 
agrees equity issues are an important part of project evaluation and is 
proposing to incorporate assessments of equity into its evaluations of 
project justification.
    Comment: Some comments made general methodological suggestions. Of 
these, one comment questioned the use of a cost effectiveness decision 
rule. The other comment recommended FTA combine a quantitative and 
qualitative framework for New and Small Starts project evaluation.
    Response: FTA agrees that cost effectiveness should not be the 
primary test of project merit. It is for that reason the Secretary of 
Transportation announced in January 2010 that FTA would no longer 
require a ``medium'' rating on cost effectiveness, but would return to 
the approach prescribed by law in which six project justification 
criteria (including cost effectiveness) would be evaluated and given 
``comparable, but not necessarily equal'' weight. This NPRM proposes to 
continue that approach. FTA will propose both quantitative and 
qualitative measures.
5. Other General Comments
    Comment: One comment suggested program goals should include public 
communication specifically targeting transit advocates. Another comment 
encouraged FTA to support development of mixed-use activity centers 
with varied transportation access because they will provide the highest 
return on Federal New Starts investments. One comment questioned why 
FTA held a public outreach session in Vancouver, Canada.
    Response: FTA believes communication is a particularly important 
part of its New and Small Starts process and thus will continue to work 
to make sure all parties in the process have a clear understanding of 
the project development and evaluation processes. FTA will continue to 
use its Web site, training, publication of technical assistance and 
guidance documents, and outreach sessions to make the process as 
transparent as possible. FTA also believes a simpler, more 
understandable process for determining project merit can add 
considerably to more effective participation by the public and agrees 
that good transportation access and mixed-use development are important 
to assuring transit investments are successful. FTA is incorporating an 
assessment of these features in its economic development and land use 
criteria. FTA held an outreach session in Vancouver in connection with 
the American Public Transportation Association's annual Rail 
Conference. This site was selected because it was an event at which a 
substantial number of U.S. public transportation agencies and other 
interested parties would be in attendance during the public comment 
period. FTA also held outreach sessions at a number of other sites in 
the United States where such interested parties were likely to be able 
to attend, as well as two Webinars for those who were unable to be at 
one of the sessions in person.

B. Cost Effectiveness

Measuring Cost Effectiveness

Cost Effectiveness Question 1: ``How might FTA better evaluate cost 
effectiveness?''
1. Conceptual Basis for Comparing Benefits and Costs
    Comment: A large number of comments suggested various ways of 
comparing costs and benefits. Comments also provided thoughts on the 
difference between a cost effectiveness evaluation and a cost-benefit 
analysis.

[[Page 3854]]

    One comment stated cost effectiveness is often wrongly confused 
with cost-benefit analysis. The comment stated cost-benefit analysis is 
appropriate when it is possible to calculate all benefits and costs in 
dollars (or some other common denomination), but a cost effectiveness 
evaluation is appropriate when it is not possible to express all of the 
potential benefits of investments in dollar terms. The comment stated 
that for a cost effectiveness evaluation, benefits that cannot be 
expressed in dollars must still be quantified using some other measure 
or measures such as hours of time saved, tons of abated air emissions, 
or accident fatalities avoided, with the costs in dollars divided by 
the benefits to calculate the cost per hour, ton, fatality, or whatever 
is the benefit. The comment favored quantification of the annual 
outputs (or savings) of each of the key non-monetary benefits under 
each of the local alternatives.
    According to another comment, cost effectiveness is best understood 
and evaluated by comparing costs to ridership and then understanding 
other benefits individually. This comment stated that development of a 
single cost effectiveness measure that captures what decisionmakers 
would expect is too complex to ever explain and, therefore, not useful 
in this context. Another comment also argued the law does not require a 
single cost effectiveness measure.
    Response: FTA agrees a cost effectiveness evaluation should not be 
confused with a cost-benefit analysis. FTA believes a cost 
effectiveness evaluation is more appropriate for New and Small Starts 
project evaluation than is a cost-benefit analysis because it is very 
difficult to express many of the benefits of these transit projects in 
dollar terms. Further, the statute explicitly calls for cost 
effectiveness as one of a series of measures of project justification. 
FTA agrees a wide range of benefits should be quantified and is 
proposing to do so in this NPRM and in the accompanying policy guidance 
made available for public comment today.
    FTA agrees it makes sense to compare costs to measures of ridership 
and to account explicitly for other benefits in the other measures of 
project justification. Although the law may not require a single 
measure of cost effectiveness, FTA believes having multiple cost 
effectiveness measures would cause too much complexity and confusion. 
However, FTA believes it is appropriate to use cost as a way to scale 
environmental benefits (including the indirect environmental benefits 
that may be estimated at the project sponsor's option under the 
economic development criterion), but that it is better to calculate a 
summed monetary value for these benefits, rather than having a series 
of measures, one for each kind of environmental benefit.
2. Calculating Costs
    Comment: One comment stated the current cost effectiveness measure 
is adequate for large New Starts projects, and that the most effective 
way to improve it is to change FTA's treatment of New Starts project 
costs. Some comments stated concern that traditional cost effectiveness 
measures along with FTA's current guidance can be a challenge for 
projects located in more mature urban transit network environments due 
to higher real estate costs in those areas. Other comments agreed with 
this sentiment, further stating FTA should index or otherwise normalize 
the cost effectiveness thresholds to differentiate between ``low,'' 
``medium-low,'' ``medium,'' ``medium-high,'' and ``high'' ratings to 
reflect local cost levels, which are often higher in denser areas 
having the greatest transit needs. One other comment suggested FTA 
develop peer-specific cost effectiveness standards. Another comment 
said FTA should develop a method for ``equalizing'' the comparative 
disadvantages of projects that have higher capital costs because they 
are situated in environments that necessitate complex construction 
methods. Along similar lines, another comment stated FTA should account 
for cost differences among regional economies on the cost side of the 
cost effectiveness calculation.
    Also with respect to calculating cost, one comment argued the seven 
percent discount rate used by FTA to annualize costs in the existing 
cost effectiveness calculation is high, such that it discriminates 
against large, very long-term benefits associated with heavy rail 
projects.
    Finally, one comment argued a fully-allocated cost model better 
applies to new systems, and an incremental cost model better applies to 
expansions of existing systems. This comment also stated current FTA 
policy appears to prefer a fully allocated cost model.
    Response: FTA believes in general that its current approach to 
evaluating capital costs in the cost effectiveness measure is 
appropriate. FTA also believes, however, the cost of certain 
``betterments'' should be excluded from the cost effectiveness 
calculation. These include the incremental costs of features that may 
be required to obtain LEED certification of public transportation 
facilities. Such project features can achieve environmental benefits 
not well captured in the assessment of changes in travel behavior that 
accompany public transportation investments, such as improved water 
quality or reduced runoff, even though some of these project elements 
might also produce operating cost savings that would be assessed under 
the operating efficiencies criterion. To include these costs in the 
calculation of cost effectiveness would penalize project sponsors 
making such investments, and would provide a disincentive to making 
them. FTA does not believe it is appropriate to adjust the costs used 
in the cost effectiveness measure for local real estate costs, 
construction complexity, or above-average construction costs. Project 
sponsors are competing for scarce funds at the national level, so it is 
necessary to determine which projects are the most cost effective 
investments of Federal funds. For this purpose, it is necessary to 
determine how much each dollar of Federal funding is purchasing.
    FTA agrees the current seven percent discount rate used to 
annualize costs in the current cost effectiveness measure is a stiff 
test for very long-term investments and is proposing to change it to 
two percent.
    FTA believes its approach for calculating costs is appropriate. 
Although an incremental cost model may make sense when it comes to 
developing estimates for use in financial planning, for the purposes of 
understanding the complete cost of a particular investment, a fully 
allocated approach makes sense.
3. Determining What Costs Should Be Included in Cost Effectiveness
    Comment: FTA received a number of comments concerning what costs 
should be included in the calculation of cost effectiveness. Sixteen 
comments supported basing the calculation of cost effectiveness on 
either the New Starts/Small Starts share or Federal share of the 
project cost instead of the current practice of basing cost 
effectiveness on the total project cost, with thirteen comments stating 
a preference for the New Starts or Small Starts share and three 
comments expressing support for the Federal share. Comments said FTA's 
current approach is burdensome to communities with stringent local 
requirements because those communities must include locally funded 
project elements in their projects that are not necessary for the basic 
functioning of the project. Comments said the costs for these locally 
required and locally funded elements are

[[Page 3855]]

factored into the cost effectiveness calculation, which makes their 
cost effectiveness rating ``worse'' than the ratings for projects in 
communities that do not have stringent local requirements. Comments 
also said this approach would enable communities to build projects that 
best serve their local needs because project elements funded with local 
sources would be excluded from the calculation of cost effectiveness. 
Some comments also said this approach would provide an incentive for 
project sponsors to provide a higher local funding share, allowing 
Federal dollars to be distributed to a larger number of projects than 
would be the case under FTA's current approach. They stated this 
approach would reduce the likelihood that project sponsors would need 
to conduct ``value engineering'' in ways that may reduce the full 
benefit of the project in order to achieve an ``acceptable'' cost 
effectiveness rating. Some comments said this approach would enable 
project sponsors to easily calculate the cost effectiveness for the 
project based on the level of local funding that they provide to the 
project.
    Some comments stated FTA should change the current policy of basing 
cost effectiveness on total project cost and instead exclude certain 
costs from the calculation of cost effectiveness for various reasons. 
One comment stated the cost effectiveness calculation should only 
include the costs necessary for the functioning of the project, while 
another argued FTA should deduct from the cost effectiveness 
calculation the total or incremental costs of project ``upgrades'' that 
support important Federal objectives but do not produce additional 
ridership or user benefits or benefits associated with the other 
project justification criteria. Two comments said the cost included in 
the cost effectiveness calculation should be reduced by the amount of 
private sector contributions to the project, with one suggesting FTA 
only deduct costs provided by real estate developers and businesses 
that contribute funds because they realize the economic value created 
at the project's station areas. The comment said FTA should not deduct 
costs that apply to public-private partnerships in cases where the 
private sector partner provides construction funding in exchange for 
future availability payments from the public agency. Another comment 
said FTA could create a meaningful incentive by specifying that the 
private capital or public-private partnership must have a positive 
impact on the project's evaluation and rating in order to be worth 
counting in the evaluation process. One comment said FTA should limit 
the costs included in the calculation of cost effectiveness to 
operating costs, including environmental costs and benefits, stating 
the current capital and operating costs included in the calculation of 
cost effectiveness are focused on short-term costs at the expense of 
long-term environmental and economic benefits. Along similar lines, 
another comment said FTA should deduct costs associated with the use of 
new energy saving technologies from the calculation of cost 
effectiveness.
    Two comments supported FTA's current approach of basing cost 
effectiveness on the total project cost, stating that a focus on only 
Federal costs would cause a ``race to the bottom'' as projects try to 
improve the rating by reducing scope to lower the Federal share. The 
comments also stated many New Starts projects are major capital 
investments and require robust levels of Federal funding in order to be 
built. Another comment argued that reaching agreement with FTA on the 
cost of ``betterments'' would be complex and time-consuming, especially 
when agencies are seeking to incorporate ``green'' technologies into 
their routine practices. The same comment stated that comparing user 
benefits to the Federally-funded portion of a project could create 
other complications because agencies may attempt to apply Federal funds 
to the standardized cost categories with the longest useful life.
    Response: FTA does not agree the cost effectiveness measure should 
be calculated based on either the New Starts or Small Starts share or 
the total Federal share. Instead, FTA believes the total project cost 
should be the basis for the calculation, with allowances for 
``betterments'' to be excluded (as noted above). To allow a project to 
potentially obtain a satisfactory project justification rating simply 
by reducing the Federal share mixes an evaluation of project merit with 
an evaluation of the local financial commitment to the project. 
Further, it could permit an otherwise poorly performing project to 
receive an adequate rating. FTA believes it is possible, however, to 
exclude certain locally-required or preferred project elements from the 
cost calculation. FTA believes allowing ``betterments'' (those elements 
that go beyond what is needed for the basic functioning of the project) 
to be excluded from the cost side of the cost effectiveness calculation 
is reasonable. FTA understands it may be challenging to identify 
exactly what constitutes a ``betterment,'' but believes that guidelines 
or parameters can be established to help with this. FTA believes 
incentives for providing higher local funding shares should be 
considered in the local financial commitment criteria evaluation, not 
the project justification criteria evaluation. FTA agrees it is 
important that a project sponsor not delete necessary project elements 
in order to achieve an acceptable cost effectiveness rating, but 
believes this can be avoided through guidance defining necessary 
elements (along with what might be considered a betterment) and by 
thoroughly reviewing cost estimates as part of FTA's project management 
oversight.
    FTA agrees the costs used in calculating cost effectiveness can be 
limited to those necessary to produce the project's primary functions. 
This can be done to avoid counting the costs of various locally-derived 
``betterments'' and the costs of achieving certain Federal policy 
objectives, so long as these costs are not being borne by New Starts/
Small Starts or other Federal funds. These costs could include things 
like additional features to provide extra pedestrian access to 
surrounding development, aesthetically-oriented design features, or 
features to allow for LEED certification of project facilities. FTA 
agrees such features often do not produce the primary transportation 
benefits being evaluated in assessing cost effectiveness, but 
nonetheless produce desirable outcomes. To count such costs in the cost 
effectiveness measure would provide a disincentive to include such 
project features. FTA is interested in receiving comment on the kinds 
of betterments that should be excluded from the cost side of the cost 
effectiveness calculation.
    FTA does not believe it is appropriate to deduct private 
contributions to the project from the cost effectiveness measure for 
the same reasons stated above regarding calculating cost effectiveness 
based on the New Starts or Federal share alone. If a private developer 
contributes funds to a specific feature, such as an enhanced pedestrian 
linkage to a developer's project site, then it would make sense to 
delete those costs to the extent that the feature is not necessary for 
the achievement of the project's ridership or other benefits included 
in the justification measures. FTA agrees private equity contributions 
that will later be repaid through availability payments or other 
reimbursement by the project sponsor should be included in the costs 
used to calculate cost effectiveness. FTA does not agree that only 
operating costs should be part of the costs included in the cost 
effectiveness calculation. Both capital and operating costs are part of

[[Page 3856]]

the overall investment being evaluated. FTA believes it may be 
appropriate to deduct the costs of various energy saving features to 
the extent they are not necessary for the basic functionality of the 
project.
    FTA agrees using total project costs, net of betterments (i.e., 
subtracting certain elements from the cost), rather than only Federal 
funding, is appropriate since otherwise a major portion of project 
costs would be excluded. FTA agrees there will be some complexity 
involved in identifying ``betterments,'' but on balance it is worth the 
effort to assure that disincentives to such features are not an 
inadvertent part of the evaluation process. Further, FTA believes it is 
more appropriate to reward projects that contribute a higher non-New 
Starts share of funding in the evaluation of local financial 
commitment. That way, the evaluation of project justification will be 
appropriately focused on the merits of the project itself, regardless 
of funding source. The overall evaluation of the project's worthiness 
is the combination of the project justification and local financial 
commitment rating that will include an accounting of the degree to 
which additional local resources are being brought to bear on the 
project.
4. Forecasting Methods
    Comment: FTA received a number of comments on the methods used to 
forecast ridership to calculate travel time savings, which is the 
current measure FTA uses in the calculation of cost effectiveness and 
mobility. Comments expressed concern that projects are designed to meet 
the projected ridership forecasts, but that actual ridership can 
sometimes surpass projections leaving the project under-developed. The 
comment noted projects facing this situation are then required to 
undergo costly retrofits to accommodate actual ridership. One comment 
suggested that if travel time savings is retained as the measure, the 
forecasting methods behind the measure should be improved. Similarly, 
another comment suggested the creation of a national standard or 
approach to transit ridership forecasting
    Response: FTA agrees these projects are long-term investments and 
should be built to accommodate long-term demand, which is difficult to 
predict. However, calculating cost effectiveness is a necessary part of 
the evaluation process, as required by statute.
    FTA agrees with the need for improved and simplified forecasting 
methods. FTA is proposing a simplified measure of effectiveness and the 
use of approaches that are easier to apply, including an FTA-developed 
standard national model to predict the number of trips on a proposed 
project.
    Comment: Other comments suggested various ways of improving travel 
forecasts and noted concerns about consultants having a conflict of 
interest that leads them to inflate ridership forecasts. Comments 
suggested FTA require better documentation of ridership projections, 
such as origin-destination surveys of current users of existing transit 
systems in the region and origin-destination surveys of current 
automobile drivers to determine the congestion impacts when existing 
roadways are altered to allow dedicated lanes for buses in a bus rapid 
transit (BRT) system. Another comment suggested FTA create a new FTA-
specific debarment process that would prohibit a firm that submitted 
false or misleading ridership forecasts to FTA from submitting 
additional information for the next three years. Another comment stated 
that in markets without choice riders (riders that choose transit over 
driving even though they have a car or other travel options available 
to them) historically, initial choice ridership may come from special 
events such as college and professional sports games, holiday parades, 
etc. The comment went on to say FTA should develop tools to allow 
projects to better model trips generated by those special events.
    Response: FTA does not agree consultants alone are the cause of 
inflated ridership forecasts. An over-reliance on a single metric, 
whatever it may be, can provide an incentive for all parties involved, 
including consultants and project sponsors, to overinflate the numbers. 
Ultimately ridership forecasts and all data submitted to FTA about the 
proposed project are the responsibility of project sponsors.
    FTA agrees the data on which forecasting models are based can be 
improved and already r