FTA Summary of Comments to Interim Guidance

August 2015

Federal Transit Administration

1

Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Eligibility of Bus Rapid Transit Projects for CIG funding ............................................................. 4
Getting into and through the Steps in the CIG Process .................................................................. 5
Information Needed with Request to Enter Project Development .......................................... 5
Two-year Project Development Timeframe for New Starts and Core Capacity Projects ....... 5
Withdrawal From the CIG Program if Project Development Not Completed in Two Years . 6
Start of Formal Oversight ........................................................................................................ 6
Expedited Oversight Reviews ................................................................................................. 7
Information Required for Entry into Engineering ................................................................... 7
Locking in the CIG Amount at Entry Into Engineering .......................................................... 8
Making Sufficient Progress During Engineering .................................................................... 9
Early Systems Work Agreements and Letters of Intent .......................................................... 9
Small Starts Projects Inclusion in the President’s Budget..................................................... 10
Pre-Award Authority ............................................................................................................. 11
Other Comments on Steps in the CIG Process ...................................................................... 12
Warrants ........................................................................................................................................ 12
Thresholds to Qualify for Warrants ....................................................................................... 12
Certifying Existing System is in a State of Good Repair to be Eligible for Warrants .......... 13
Applicability of Warrants to Various Evaluation Criteria..................................................... 14
Expansion of Warrants .......................................................................................................... 15
Other Comments on Warrants ............................................................................................... 15
Congestion Relief Criterion .......................................................................................................... 16
Congestion Relief Measure ................................................................................................... 16
Congestion Relief Breakpoints .............................................................................................. 18
Core Capacity................................................................................................................................ 18
Core Capacity Eligibility ....................................................................................................... 18
Capacity Needs Criterion for Core Capacity Projects ........................................................... 22
Cost-effectiveness Criterion for Core Capacity Projects....................................................... 23
Core Capacity Local Financial Commitment Evaluation...................................................... 23
Other Core Capacity Related Matters.................................................................................... 24
Affordable Housing ...................................................................................................................... 24
Affordable Housing Measure ................................................................................................ 24
Affordable Housing Measure Breakpoints ............................................................................ 27
Impact of the Measure on Station Locations/Affordable Housing Supply ........................... 27
Burden of Calculating and Reporting Affordable Housing Data .......................................... 28
Signed CEO Certifications of Affordable Housing Data ...................................................... 28
Other Matters Related to the Affordable Housing Measure .................................................. 28
Other CIG Project Evaluation Matters .......................................................................................... 29
Environmental Benefits Criterion.......................................................................................... 29
Ridership Forecasts ............................................................................................................... 29
Breakpoints for Other Criteria and Measures Not Open for Public Comment ..................... 30
General Comments on the CIG Project Evaluation Process ................................................. 30
Other Matters ......................................................................................................................... 31
Comments on Topics Not Part of the CIG program ..................................................................... 32
Federal Transit Administration

2

Federal Transit Administration

3

Introduction
This document summarizes the comments received on the Capital Investment Grant (CIG)
Program Proposed Interim Policy Guidance published by the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) on April 8, 2015. FTA is appreciative of the thoughtful comments provided. Below we
summarize the comments received by topic area and how FTA did or did not make changes in
the final interim policy guidance based on those comments. This document provides succinct
responses. Readers should familiarize themselves with the final interim policy guidance to get an
understanding of the details.
FTA received written responses on the proposed interim policy guidance from 41 entities,
including cities, transit operators, state agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, non-profit
organizations, and interested citizens. These letters contained more than 539 separate comments.
These responses can be found in their entirety under docket number FTA–2015–0007 at
www.regulations.gov.

Eligibility of Bus Rapid Transit Projects for CIG funding
FTA received a total of 17 comments on its proposed corridor based BRT definition. One was
solidly in favor of the proposal. Nine noted that the definitions in law for corridor based BRT
and fixed guideway BRT differ slightly, with the former saying “substantial investment in a
defined corridor” and the latter saying “substantial investment in a single corridor.” These seven
comments all suggested that FTA allow service operating on a trunk line with several branches
to qualify as a project provided it can meet all other requirements. One comment suggested the
proposed requirement for separate and consistent brand identity for stations and vehicles has
limited utility and should not be given the same importance as other features that improve
performance. Two suggested modifications to the corridor based BRT proposed definition to
eliminate confusing terminology. One requested clarification on whether combined frequency of
service along a given corridor would qualify. One requested that FTA change the definition to
only require frequent bi-directional service during peak periods. Two comments were somewhat
unclear in their intent, but seemed to be stating the corridor based BRT definition may not
promote better projects and fixed guideway should be required.
FTA Response: FTA has kept the definition for corridor based BRT as listed in the proposed
interim policy guidance because we believe the law intended corridor based BRT projects to
have similar features to fixed guideway BRT projects, absent the fixed guideway component.
However, FTA has added clarifying text on page 4 of the Small Starts Chapter of the final
interim policy guidance. As a matter of practice, FTA has allowed in the past and will continue
to allow trunk lines with multiple branches to be eligible as a single BRT project. The trunk line
is considered the single corridor and is the basis on which FTA examines the combined
frequency of service to determine if it meets the definition. While FTA agrees with the comment
that a separate and unique branding for a BRT may not help improve performance of the BRT,
such marketing helps to differentiate the service from local bus service and can assist in drawing
ridership. Although some comments suggest the definition for corridor based BRT is confusing
since it references separated guideways, FTA has not changed the definition because some
corridor based BRTs contain separated guideway but not along enough of the project length to
Federal Transit Administration

4

qualify as a fixed guideway BRT. The law is clear that frequent bi-directional service should be
provided for a substantial part of weekday and weekend days, thus FTA did not change the
definition to require such service only during peak periods. Lastly, the law allows corridor based
BRT projects without fixed guideway to be eligible for CIG funding, so we cannot require fixed
guideway on all BRTs.

Getting into and through the Steps in the CIG Process
Information Needed with Request to Enter Project Development
Four comments were submitted on the information required to be provided to FTA to enter the
Project Development (PD) phase. One comment was solidly in support of FTA’s proposal,
stating that the process was streamlined and straightforward, with minimal new work required on
the project sponsor’s part to collect and document information about the proposed project. One
comment asked FTA to consider allowing the PD request letter to be longer than five pages, and
another comment suggested that FTA tell project sponsors to organize their letters into sections
matching the list of information. One comment was regarding FTA’s proposal that project
sponsors provide documentation demonstrating commitment of funds for Project Development
work. That comment stated that FTA should accept letters of intent from jurisdictional staff
responsible for budgeting funds in future budgets and capital improvement programs.
FTA Response: FTA believes the information required with the request to enter PD can easily
be provided in 2-5 pages, and that each project sponsor should determine the format for their
request based on the unique characteristics and status of their individual project. Letters of intent
from jurisdictional staff to program future funding for PD means the funding is not currently
available. FTA has added clarifying text in the final interim policy guidance that explains
project sponsors must have money available to begin the PD work immediately upon entry into
the program (pages 4-5 of New Starts Chapter, page 5 of Small Starts Chapter, and page 7 of
Core Capacity Chapter). Funding available one or more years in future does not qualify as
available and committed for entry into PD, even if it is programmed in a Transportation
Improvement Plan, agency Capital Improvement Program, or future fiscal year budget document.
MAP-21 intends projects to make quick progress and not linger in the program, which can only
happen if funding is available to begin performing the PD work immediately upon entry into the
CIG program.
Two-year Project Development Timeframe for New Starts and Core Capacity Projects
FTA received four comments regarding extensions to the two-year timeframe to complete
Project Development for New Starts and Core Capacity projects. Two of these comments asked
FTA to clarify the criteria FTA would consider in deciding whether to grant an extension.
Another comment recommended that FTA not exercise strict adherence to the two-year
timeframe for Project Development because it could negatively impact environmental reviews in
which multiple alternatives are being analyzed that require more time evaluate fully. One
comment suggested that FTA establish a 30-day timeframe to respond to requests for PD
extensions to enable the project to continue its momentum.
FTA Response: FTA has added some clarifying text in the final interim policy guidance related
to requests for an extension to the two-year PD timeframe (page 6 of New Starts Chapter and
Federal Transit Administration

5

page 9 of Core Capacity Chapter), but notes that the proposed interim policy guidance already
indicated the items FTA would consider when determining whether to grant an extension – the
reasons an extension is needed, the reasonableness of the proposed revised schedule, and the
timeframe to complete the PD activities. FTA does not wish to specify anything further in the
final interim policy guidance because each situation is unique and we cannot account for the
myriad of reasons a project may get delayed in selecting a locally preferred alternative,
completing the environmental review required by the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), or getting the project adopted into the fiscally constrained long range metropolitan
transportation plan (the items required by law to completed within the two years). Instead, we
have stated in the final interim policy guidance that each request for an extension will be
considered on a case-by-case basis. For these same reasons, FTA has not stated a specific
timeframe within which we will respond to requests for extensions, but intends for the process to
neither be complicated nor lengthy. Lastly, FTA agrees with the comment that environmental
reviews might take longer than the two year Project Development timeframe specified in law.
However, that timeframe is in law so we must adhere to the requirement. Thus, FTA has stated
in the proposed and final interim policy guidance that project sponsors may wish to conduct
early planning work and initiate the environmental review process under NEPA including, where
appropriate, early scoping prior to seeking entry into Project Development.
Withdrawal From the CIG Program if Project Development Not Completed in Two Years
FTA received one comment on its proposal to remove projects from the program if they do not
complete Project Development within two years and are not granted an extension. The comment
requested that FTA provide clarification on how much time a project would be allowed to
complete Project Development upon its re-entry into that phase.
FTA Response: FTA has clarified the text in the final interim policy guidance to address the
comment received (page 6 of New Starts Chapter and page 9 of Core Capacity Chapter). After
being withdrawn from the program, project sponsors must complete the Project Development
work activities on their own. When they re-apply to the CIG program, it would be for entry into
the Engineering phase rather than re-entry into the Project Development phase. Any work
performed after withdrawal from Project Development and prior to entry into Engineering would
not be covered by pre-award authority and would be ineligible for reimbursement at a future date
should FTA ultimately award a construction grant agreement.
Start of Formal Oversight
FTA received ten comments seeking clarification on its statement that “During PD, project
sponsors should contact FTA no later than six months prior to their anticipated request to enter
the Engineering phase so that FTA can proceed with our formal project oversight process and
take the steps necessary to undertake our evaluation and rating of the project for entry into
Engineering.” Specifically, eight of the comments wanted FTA to clarify that project sponsors
would be given the full two years to complete Project Development, because the statement by
FTA could be interpreted instead as giving them only 18 months to complete Project
Development. The remaining two comments requested clarification on whether FTA anticipated
an intervening time between completion of Project Development and entry into Engineering
providing project sponsors additional time to develop the Project Management Plans and other
documents in the list FTA proposed as needed to enter Engineering.
Federal Transit Administration

6

FTA Response: FTA has clarified the text in the final interim policy guidance to address the
comments received (page 6 of New Starts Chapter and page 9 of Core Capacity Chapter). The
text in the proposed interim policy guidance was not meant to imply project sponsors had only
18 months to complete the work required during Project Development. It was meant only to
explain when formal oversight of the project will begin (no later than six months prior to entry
into Engineering or six months prior to the end of the two year PD timeframe, whichever is
earlier).
Expedited Oversight Reviews
Six comments were received about expedited oversight reviews that FTA may undertake. Five
comments strongly supported these expedited reviews because they will help accelerate projects
from sponsors with a proven history of delivering projects on time and on budget. Another
comment stated that expedited reviews should be provided to project sponsors who have
delivered successful New and Small Starts projects and maintain a significant number of
experienced personnel in the agency. Two comments requested that FTA commit to review
timeframes in order to ensure that New Starts and Core Capacity projects can meet the
requirement to complete the Project Development phase within two years.
FTA Response: FTA agrees that expedited reviews should be provided to project sponsors who
have delivered successful CIG projects and maintain a significant number of experienced
personnel in the agency and assigned to the project. These factors will be addressed as part of
FTA’s review of the project sponsor’s management capacity and capability.
FTA works with project sponsors to develop roadmaps outlining the steps and timeframes
required to reach the next major milestone for the project, whether that is entry into Engineering
or receipt of a construction grant agreement. These roadmaps include general timeframes needed
for FTA to complete its reviews.
Information Required for Entry into Engineering
FTA received 20 comments on the list of design and engineering activities proposed by FTA to
be completed during Project Development. Eight comments suggested the activities proposed by
FTA go well beyond the required documentation to receive a rating, but one of these suggested
development of the Project Management plan is appropriate during Project Development. Seven
comments suggested the list of activities be required during the Engineering phase instead of
during the Project Development phase. One comment stated the proposal seems to effectively
require project sponsors to complete 30 percent design before requesting entry into the
Engineering phase, which it said would be appropriate for projects being delivered through
design-build or another accelerated delivery mechanism but challenging for traditional project
delivery methods. One comment suggested the timing of completion of the list of activities
creates potential Brooks Act implications, stating that under the Brooks Act consultants that have
performed, or are performing planning work on the project would be excluded from
consideration for such engineering tasks. One comment suggested the activities be strongly
suggested, but not required. Several comments sought clarification on the activities listed such
as Project Delivery Method selected, Value Engineering report timing, and level of
documentation needed for third-party agreements and right-of-way.

Federal Transit Administration

7

FTA Response: The activities proposed by FTA as required to be completed during the Project
Development phase and prior to entry into Engineering represent an approximate 30 percent
level of design, which is typically what project sponsors complete to finish the environmental
review process. FTA believes this is reasonable and appropriate within a two year Project
Development timeframe. As part of the project evaluation and rating process required for entry
into Engineering, FTA must determine if the project cost estimate is reasonable since it is used as
a data point in many of the project evaluation criteria. A 30 percent design level allows the
project sponsor and FTA to appropriately characterize the level of risk associated with the
project. FTA has clarified the text in the final interim policy guidance (pages 5-6 of New Starts
Chapter and pages 8-9 of Core Capacity Chapter) in response to the comments received to better
explain the various documents needed, but has not changed the list of activities required to be
completed during Project Development.
FTA does not believe the list of activities required to be completed for entry into the Engineering
creates Brooks Act implications that do not otherwise already exist. Under the Brooks Act, an
Architectural and Engineering firm is prohibited from proposing on work for which they are
currently providing consulting services. The amount of engineering and design FTA requires at
given phases in our CIG process has no bearing on this requirement. Project sponsors can define
their procurements for consulting services to help avoid such issues.
Locking in the CIG Amount at Entry Into Engineering
FTA received 37 comments total about its proposal to lock in the CIG amount at entry into the
Engineering phase. All comments received were against the proposal. Twelve commenters
suggested the two year Project Development timeframe specified in law for New Starts and Core
Capacity projects does not allow sufficient time to complete extensive engineering and design, so
locking in the CIG amount at entry into the Engineering phase would require project sponsors to
apply higher than needed contingencies in their cost estimate. Many of the comments included
alternative proposals. These included nine comments suggesting the CIG amount should be
locked in at the point a construction grant agreement is being negotiated, five comments
suggesting it be locked in somewhere between 60 and 85 percent design, three suggesting it be
after the FTA conducted risk assessment, three suggesting that it be during the Engineering
phase without specifying exactly when, and one suggesting that while the amount could be
locked in at entry into Engineering it should be done only if an agreed upon inflation factor is
considered such that the dollar amount may be increased or decreased by up to ten percent if the
cost of the project increases or decreases during the Engineering phase.
FTA response: FTA has adopted as final its proposal to lock in the CIG amount (not share, the
actual amount) at the level requested by the project sponsor with entry into Engineering. The
parameters associated with the steps in the process proposed by FTA were built on the premise
that the Federal process should not stand in the way of local agencies that wish to move quickly
while strong local political support exists. In order to allow projects to move quickly if they
desire, FTA’s approach allows them to enter the Engineering phase with relatively little
engineering and design completed (30 percent) as long as they include sufficient contingencies in
their cost estimate to account for the unknowns at that stage. FTA believes that project sponsors,
not the federal government, should bear the risk of the project cost escalating once it is in the
Engineering phase, as it is the project sponsor’s decision to enter into Engineering prior to
completing extensive engineering and design work. To address the concerns noted in the
Federal Transit Administration

8

comments received, FTA made changes in the final interim policy guidance (page 6 of New
Starts Chapter and page 9 of Core Capacity Chapter) explaining that project sponsors can write a
request to FTA to postpone entry into Engineering if they wish to perform more engineering and
design prior to locking in the CIG amount, provided they can demonstrate they have completed
the steps required during PD within the 2-year timeframe specified in law. This includes
demonstrating they have selected a locally preferred alternative, gotten it adopted into the
fiscally constrained long range metropolitan transportation plan, completed NEPA, obtained
funding commitments for at least 30 percent of the non-CIG funding, and completed
approximately 30 percent design. If a project sponsor has not completed those activities, the
sponsor would request an extension of PD rather than a postponement of entry into Engineering.
Making Sufficient Progress During Engineering
FTA received eight comments on its proposal that project sponsors must make sufficient
progress on gaining funding commitments and furthering the project design within three years of
entry into Project Development (Small Start) or entry into Engineering (New Start or Core
Capacity). Five of these comments agreed this was a reasonable approach and stated they
support the goal of ensuring projects are making continual progress toward completion. One
sought clarification to ensure FTA was not suggesting Engineering must be completed within
three years and suggested complex projects and simple projects should be judged appropriately.
Two suggested the proposal created an additional burden for project sponsors.
FTA response: FTA has kept in the final interim policy guidance the requirement that project
sponsors must make sufficient progress on gaining funding commitments and furthering project
design within three years of entry into Project Development (Small Start) or entry into
Engineering (New Start or Core Capacity). FTA included a sentence clarifying it is not a
requirement that the Engineering phase be completed in three years (page 8 of New Starts
Chapter and page 10 of Core Capacity Chapter). We do not believe requiring that sufficient
progress is made places an undue burden on project sponsors. Rather, we believe it meets the
intent of the law that projects make progress and not linger in the program.
Early Systems Work Agreements and Letters of Intent
FTA received six comments in total on Early Systems Work Agreements (ESWA) and Letters of
Intent (LOI). One agreed with FTA’s proposal to consider them on a case-by-case basis. One
stated they allow project sponsors to take advantage of favorable market conditions, weather
conditions, and long lead items. One sought clarification on difference between an ESWA and a
Letter of No Prejudice. The last suggested FTA consider allowing the portion of the project
covered by an ESWA to be either a subsection of the project's full length or work/tasks that
would occur over the full length of the project.
Two comments were received on LOIs only. One stated a LOI from FTA would be useful when
a project sponsor is pursuing local and non-traditional sources of matching funds because it
would serve to validate the project standing in discussions with lenders, political leaders, and
other entities that are asked to provide project funding. This comment suggested a LOI could be
provided during the Engineering phase at the request of the project sponsor. The other suggested
a LOI may not be as useful since it lacks an obligation of federal funds.

Federal Transit Administration

9

FTA response: FTA has stated in the final interim policy guidance that it will consider ESWAs
and LOIs during the Engineering phase on a case-by-case basis. FTA added a sentence in the
final interim policy guidance describing that a LOI could be useful when a project sponsor is
pursuing local and non-traditional sources of matching funds (page 8 of New Starts Chapter and
page 11 of Core Capacity Chapter).
Small Starts Projects Inclusion in the President’s Budget
FTA received nine comments about the need for Small Starts projects to be recommended for
funding by FTA in the Annual Report on Funding Recommendations, which is a companion
document to the President’s budget, before FTA can begin working on a construction grant
agreement. Eight comments stated that this practice would delay Small Starts project schedules.
These comments seemed concerned that the evaluation and rating required to be considered as a
funding candidate in the President’s budget would require project sponsors to obtain
commitments of all non-CIG funding at that point in time rather than at the point later in time
when the project is ready for a construction grant agreement. They indicated this concern could
be mitigated by FTA waiting to finalize the financial commitment rating until just before the
award of the construction grant agreement.
Another comment requested clarification on when during Project Development FTA considers a
project ready to be considered for a funding recommendation, and wanted to know if Small
Starts projects could get a preliminary rating early in Project Development so that the project
sponsor could then refine the project to improve the final rating.
FTA Response: FTA has kept in the final interim policy guidance the statements that projects
must be recommended in the President’s budget for funding before they will be considered for a
construction grant agreement and that to be considered for a funding recommendation in the
budget the project must be evaluated and rated by FTA. This is long-standing FTA practice,
including for Small Starts projects. FTA does not know whether a project will be eligible for
CIG funding until after an evaluation and rating is completed; therefore, we cannot recommend a
project for funding in the budget until we have completed the evaluation. Additionally, FTA
does not know whether a project is a wise investment of taxpayer dollars until we have
completed the evaluation. The proposed and final interim policy guidance text does not state that
all funding commitments must be in place to be considered for a funding recommendation in the
President’s budget. Furthermore, the evaluation and rating process does not require all funding
commitments be in place. Thus, FTA has not implemented the suggestion to delay the local
financial commitment rating until the time of the construction grant agreement.
Small Starts project sponsors can submit a request to be considered for a funding
recommendation in an upcoming President’s annual budget whenever they wish. The final
interim policy guidance describes the considerations that FTA takes into account when deciding
to include a project as a funding recommendation in the budget, based on, among other items, the
evaluation and rating of the project and considerations related to project readiness.
Finally, Small Starts project sponsors may submit information to FTA at any time if they wish to
have a preliminary evaluation and rating performed.

Federal Transit Administration

10

Pre-Award Authority
Eight comments in total were received regarding pre-award authority. Four of the comments
were against FTA’s proposal that activities undertaken prior to a project entering Project
Development are not covered by automatic pre-award authority. The comments stated that, due
to the two-year timeframe for Project Development for New Starts and Core Capacity projects,
project sponsors may need to undertake significant planning and environmental activities prior to
Project Development. One of the four comments referred to FTA’s policy for pre-award
authority under its formula and other discretionary programs that is not applicable to the CIG
program, which allows pre-award authority as of the date of authorization of formula funds or
the date of the announcement of the discretionary allocation of funds.
Three comments were received regarding FTA’s proposal that the work performed by project
sponsors after they are withdrawn from the CIG program for not making sufficient progress and
before they seek re-entry into the program would not be covered by pre-award authority. One of
these was against FTA’s proposal and suggested FTA allow pre-award authority during the
period of withdrawal if the project sponsor identifies a timeframe for resolving technical or
political obstacles. Another of these suggested that FTA determine on a case-by-case basis
whether to provide pre-award authority for work completed after a project is withdrawn from the
CIG program if it ultimately re-enters the program. Finally, one comment agreed with FTA’s
proposal, and wanted clarification that the costs expended during the time that the project was in
the CIG program, before the period of withdrawal, would remain eligible for future
reimbursement with CIG funds.
One comment wanted clarification regarding the application of pre-award authority in situations
where there is a waiting period between the completion of the environmental review process and
FTA’s approval to enter Engineering. One comment requested that FTA provide automatic preaward authority for project sponsors to proceed with all project work, including construction, as
soon as the environmental review process is complete.
FTA Response: In the final interim policy guidance FTA retains its positions on pre-award
authority but has added clarifying text to help address some of the comments received (page 4 of
both the New Starts and Small Starts Chapters and page 6 of Core Capacity Chapter). FTA does
not wish to grant pre-award authority for work conducted prior to entry into the CIG program
because we would have no way to monitor or verify the work performed. Allowing work
performed by the project sponsor after the project is withdrawn from the CIG program because
of lack of progress to be covered by pre-award authority would eliminate any incentives for
projects to move quickly through the CIG process as the law intended. The proposed and final
interim policy guidance states that pre-award authority is granted for all Project Development
work upon entry into Project Development. This includes any work performed prior to approval
to enter Engineering. FTA does not wish to grant pre-award authority for construction activities
and instead will continue with our policy that project sponsors must request a Letter of No
Prejudice instead. FTA believes that it is appropriate for us to review and approve the start of
construction even if it is being advanced entirely with non-CIG funds, because ultimately FTA
would help share in those costs should a construction grant agreement be signed.

Federal Transit Administration

11

Other Comments on Steps in the CIG Process
Nine general comments were received regarding the CIG program phases and milestones, and
the work that FTA proposed be completed in each phase. Two comments supported the phases
and steps proposed by FTA, including the increased flexibility with regard to the percentage of
design that may be completed prior to entering the Engineering phase. One comment stated that
the proposed steps in the process and milestones are geared to a design-bid-build process, and
that FTA should address alternative delivery methodologies. One comment requested that FTA
develop more flexible steps to allow project sponsors to accomplish some work concurrently,
such as requesting entry into Engineering when Project Development is almost complete and
requesting the start of project evaluation to be considered for a funding recommendation when
Engineering is nearing completion. One comment requested that FTA allow project sponsors of
New Starts and Core Capacity projects additional time (beyond the two-year limit for Project
Development) to conduct design once information has been submitted for evaluation and rating.
One comment was submitted regarding FTA’s proposal to require completed third party
agreements prior to awarding a construction grant agreement. That comment stated that it may
be difficult for multimodal bus rapid transit projects to complete all third party agreements at that
stage because some agreements at the state level require final bid documents to begin third party
agreement negotiations.
FTA Response: FTA agrees that it is appropriate to provide flexibility regarding the level of
design that should be completed prior to the Engineering phase, and the final interim policy
guidance maintains FTA’s position that project sponsors should perform as much engineering
and design as they feel necessary to feel comfortable with the project cost and scope, but no less
than a 30 percent level of design. Regarding the comments about the project delivery method
and flexibility of steps, FTA believes that the steps as described in the proposed and final interim
policy guidance already allow for these circumstances. For example, FTA routinely works with
project sponsors to tailor FTA’s oversight reviews to account for the unique structures of publicprivate partnerships and design-build project delivery methods. Regarding third party
agreements, FTA already decides on a case-by-case basis which third party agreements are
needed prior to the construction grant agreement. Therefore, in the specific situation that the
commenter describes, FTA would take the unique circumstances into account and work with the
project sponsor to determine what would need to be submitted prior to the construction grant
agreement versus what could occur after the construction grant agreement is signed.

Warrants
Thresholds to Qualify for Warrants
FTA received 24 comments regarding the proposed cost and ridership ranges to be eligible for
warrants. Of these, 13 comments expressed support for FTA’s proposal. Eight comments asked
that FTA expand eligibility to projects that exceed $500 million in total project cost. One
comment suggested that FTA establish stricter cost and ridership thresholds to enable projects to
automatically qualify for Medium-High or High ratings. One comment requested that FTA
establish a lower tier of cost and ridership ranges to allow smaller projects to qualify for project
justification warrants. One comment suggested that FTA base the ranges for project cost on the

Federal Transit Administration

12

Federal share of the project instead of the total project cost to benefit projects providing a higher
proportion of local funding.
FTA Response: In the final interim policy guidance FTA has kept the warrants thresholds as
shown in the proposed interim policy guidance because we believe them to be appropriate. FTA
developed the warrant thresholds based on an examination of data on past and current projects in
the program. Those projects that met the existing ridership and cost thresholds generally fell
within the cost per trip breakpoints currently used to assess cost-effectiveness, thus FTA believes
them to be reasonable. FTA believes that projects with a capital cost of greater than
$500 million are of a size and scale that merits a more careful and detailed analysis before
proceeding with investment of significant taxpayer dollars. Likewise, corridors with less than
3,000 existing transit riders in the corridor today may not have the densities to support successful
implementation of a CIG project even if the capital cost of the proposed project is fairly low, so
FTA does not wish to create lower warrants thresholds. Rather, these projects should be
evaluated and rated to ensure demand is sufficient in the corridor to justify the expenditure of
taxpayer dollars.
The purpose of warrants is to greatly simplify the evaluation process for projects that can meet
certain cost and ridership thresholds. FTA believes creating multiple levels of thresholds to
allow for various levels of automatic ratings would complicate the process and run counter to
process simplification. Project sponsors wishing to get higher ratings can always submit more
detailed information for evaluating and rating by FTA rather than selecting warrants.
Certifying Existing System is in a State of Good Repair to be Eligible for Warrants
FTA received six comments regarding the MAP-21 requirement that a project sponsor requesting
the use of warrants must certify its existing system is in a state of good repair. Four comments
want FTA to automatically assume that all sponsoring agencies requesting the use of warrants
are in a state of good repair until such time as FTA issues a regulatory definition of state of good
repair. One comment proposed that until such time as FTA issues a regulatory definition of state
of good repair, FTA should allow the use of warrants to sponsoring agencies that can
demonstrate they have a process in place to assess the condition of their assets and have made
progress toward improving asset condition across their system. One comment requested that
FTA clarify how this MAP-21 requirement will impact project sponsors seeking to qualify for
warrants who have capital backlogs in their transit systems.
FTA Response: FTA cannot automatically assume that all sponsoring agencies are in a state of
good repair. Even in the absence of a regulatory definition, FTA must develop an approach that
meets the requirement in law that project sponsors certify they are in a state of good repair to be
eligible for warrants. In the final interim policy guidance, FTA has included text that matches
one of the comments received (page 30 of New Starts Chapter). Specifically, it now states that
when a sponsor submits its request to FTA seeking to take advantage of warrants, the letter
submitted should include a signed statement by the Chief Executive Officer of the transit agency
that the existing public transportation system is in a state of good repair as demonstrated by: 1) a
description of the process in place to assess the condition of the transit system’s assets; and 2)
submittal of information demonstrating progress has been made toward improving asset
conditions across the system. FTA intends to review the eligibility of a proposed project for
Federal Transit Administration

13

warrants on a case-by-case basis until such time as it completes the rulemaking process
associated with the Transit Asset Management requirements of MAP-21.
Applicability of Warrants to Various Evaluation Criteria
FTA received 10 comments in response to our proposal that project sponsors who request the use
of warrants must be warranted for all of the project justification criteria for which travel forecasts
are typically prepared -- mobility, cost effectiveness, congestion relief, and the simplified
calculation for environmental benefits. Seven comments were against the proposal, requesting
that FTA allow project sponsors to pick and choose the criteria for which they want to be
warranted versus those that they wish to have evaluated and rated. One comment supported the
proposal, stating that it would discourage project sponsors from shopping for results and reduce
the burden of more in-depth analyses. One comment wanted FTA to clarify why project
sponsors would be required to select all or none. One comment wanted to know if the
requirement would apply to both project justification and finance warrants.
FTA Response: FTA has kept the requirement in the final interim policy guidance. The purpose
of warrants is to greatly simplify the analysis required of projects sponsors and the verification of
that analysis by FTA. Specifically, warrants help eliminate the need for costly and timeconsuming ridership forecasting by project sponsors and FTA. Unless all the criteria are
warranted, these time-savings would not be realized. Allowing a pick and choose approach
might actually increase the workload required of project sponsors and FTA, eliminating any
potential time-savings. Project sponsors will need to weigh the pros and cons of project
justification warrants and make their own decision based on their specific situation.
Six comments were submitted related to FTA not allowing a project sponsor to revert back to
warrants if the sponsor submits information for evaluation and rating and does not like the
results. Five of these comments stated that FTA should allow project sponsors to re-evaluate the
use of warrants if new information becomes available that would significantly alter the ratings.
The remaining comment stated that FTA should allow project sponsors to re-evaluate the use of
warrants after submitting information for evaluation and rating in order to create the best case for
the project.
FTA Response: In the final interim policy guidance, FTA is retaining its requirement that
project sponsors cannot revert back to warrants if they do not like the results of the more detailed
evaluation and rating performed by FTA. The premise behind warrants is to streamline the level
of analysis required by FTA and project sponsors. It would be contrary to this premise for
project sponsors to submit information for evaluation and rating, have FTA evaluate the data
submitted and rate the project, and then the sponsor changes back to warrants simply because
they do not like the results of the evaluation and rating. Additionally, once FTA is aware a
project may not fare well under the criteria specified in law for receipt of funds, we cannot go
back to allowing warrants. FTA believes that project sponsors need to carefully weigh the
decision to use warrants based on the specifics of their project. FTA has developed templates
that allow project sponsors to easily determine on their own whether an improved project rating
could be received if they opted for the full evaluation and rating.

Federal Transit Administration

14

Expansion of Warrants
Eleven comments requested that FTA expand warrants to other measures or to FTA reviews and
approvals. Of these, five comments requested that FTA allow Core Capacity projects to qualify
for the proposed project justification warrants. Three comments requested that FTA propose
warrants for the other project justification criteria (Land Use and Economic Development). One
comment requested that FTA propose warrants for Project Management Oversight reviews and
FTA milestone approvals for project sponsors with proven success implementing other projects.
One comment requested that FTA expand warrants to the five project justification criteria
common to New Start and Core Capacity projects. One comment suggested that Core Capacity
projects be warranted for congestion relief because they improve transit and auto congestion.
FTA Response: At this time, FTA is not expanding warrants. After gaining some experience
implementing the warrants included in the final interim policy guidance, FTA may consider
making changes in the future. The proposed and final interim policy guidance state projects are
still subject to the normal rating process for the Economic Development and Land Use criteria
because those criteria are related to highly individualized aspects of each particular project such
as the amount of affordable housing and the transit-supportive nature of local development plans
and policies that cannot be determined to be acceptable solely because existing ridership in a
corridor may meet the FTA threshold. FTA is not warranting Core Capacity projects for
congestion relief at this time, but has altered the measure we will use, as explained elsewhere in
this document, in response to comments received on the proposed interim policy guidance.
Elsewhere in the proposed and final interim policy guidance, FTA has discussed the possibility
of expedited oversight reviews. The allowance for warrants under Section 5309 is specific to the
project evaluation and rating process and does not apply to FTA oversight responsibilities under
Section 5327.
Other Comments on Warrants
Nine comments were received on various other aspects of warrants. Two comments supported
FTA’s proposal to warrant Core Capacity projects for Environmental Benefits and Economic
Development. One comment supported FTA’s simplified approach for calculating the
Environmental Benefits of warranted New and Small Starts projects. One comment suggested
that FTA periodically review and update warrants to maintain a reasonable level of rigor. One
comment was unclear but seemed to indicate that warrants aren’t conducive to serving the transit
user. Finally, four comments were received seeking clarification on demonstrating existing
ridership in the corridor today to qualify for warrants. Of these, one wanted to know how FTA
would define the corridor, and one wanted to know if private bus and ferry services would count.
FTA Response: FTA appreciates the comments in support of our proposals on these issues
related to warrants. We do plan to periodically review the use of warrants and make
improvements as appropriate. FTA has included in the final interim policy guidance a sentence
explaining where project sponsors can find instructions on our website on how to document
existing ridership (page 30 of New Starts Chapter and page 28 of Small Starts Chapter).

Federal Transit Administration

15

Congestion Relief Criterion
Congestion Relief Measure
FTA received a total of 44 comments on FTA’s proposed Congestion Relief measure of new
transit trips that was proposed to be used for New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity
projects. Of these, six comments were in favor of the proposed measure, with some noting it is
simple to calculate, easy to explain to decision-makers, and consistent with reforms in the
California Environmental Quality Act. One of these sought clarification on whether the measure
would be calculated based on current year forecasts only or horizon year forecasts as well at the
project sponsor’s option. Another of these comments suggested that FTA implement the
proposed measure for now, but work to develop a more direct measure of congestion relief in the
future.
Fifteen comments generally disagreed with using new transit trips as the measure for congestion
relief. Of these, several stated that the measure is inadequate because the notion of congestion
relief encompasses more than the mode shift to transit. Two comments noted that because travel
models are typically often not refined enough to capture bicycle and walk trips, the new transit
trips measure does not accurately capture new transit trips previously made by bicycle, foot or
carpool. One comment noted that the measure does not capture the effect on congestion of
removing buses from mixed traffic. One comment expressed concern that the measure does not
consider how a project would impact ridership among people that do not own vehicles, and
further noted that features of a project, such as signal priority and far-side bus stops, can provide
congestion relief. Finally, one comment expressed concern that the proposed measure would
increase costs of project planning.
The remaining comments suggested other approaches that FTA might consider. A common
refrain among most of these comments was that FTA should focus on throughput to the urban
core as the measure of congestion relief, but these comments did not include a specific
calculation or methodology for developing such information. One comment urged FTA to
consider using new transit trips in conjunction with highway travel times to defined central
business districts as the measure. Another suggested that FTA consider allowing long drive to
transit trips that may be shortened due to implementation of a new transit project to count in the
measure of congestion relief since they help remove traffic from portions of the roadway system.
Four comments asked that FTA consider supplemental information, with one of these specifying
vehicle delay reductions, reductions in automobile vehicle miles traveled, and average transit
travel time by trip purpose as possible information to consider.
With regard to Core Capacity projects specifically, three comments expressed concern that
FTA’s Simplified Trips on Project Software (STOPS) forecasting tool and local travel models
will not be able to generate reasonable estimates of new transit trips for Core Capacity projects,
with one of these asking that FTA not require ridership forecasting for the measure since it is not
proposed to be required for any other aspect of Core Capacity project evaluation. A further three
comments stated that because roadway congestion relief is not the primary goal of Core Capacity
projects, new transit trips should not be used as the measure for Core Capacity projects. One

Federal Transit Administration

16

comment noted that the measure ignores the impacts of relieving bottlenecks where multiple
transit lines converge.
For Core Capacity projects, six comments suggested that FTA consider additional space per
transit passenger in lieu of new transit trips as the measure for Congestion Relief. Three
comments proposed that FTA warrant the Congestion Relief criterion for Core Capacity projects,
suggesting all projects receive an automatic Medium rating.
One comment apiece suggested that FTA measure transit congestion relief generally, increased
carrying capacity of transit, increased carrying capacity of the overall multimodal transportation
system, and a corridor or a maximum capacity per-hour line haul capacity past a maximum load
point or constricted line segment.
Finally, one comment opined that development of transit has not led to congestion relief in the
Los Angeles area.
FTA response: FTA has retained new transit trips on the project as the measure for the
Congestion Relief criterion for New and Small Starts projects. FTA believes the measure is easy
to calculate and continues to allow project sponsors the option of using the FTA Simplified Trips
on Projects Software (STOPS). We acknowledge the measure represents only a proxy for
congestion relief since it generally represents people who used to drive and now take transit
instead. We also acknowledge it does not capture all of the possible congestion-related benefits
of a transit project. However, the suggestions for augmenting or replacing the measure or
modifying the definition of a new transit trip (including applying greater weight to certain trips)
generally would require more complex modeling that in some cases is beyond the capability of
STOPS and local models. This is particularly the case for the throughput to the urban core and
highway travel time based measures that several commenters proposed. While some local travel
models may be more refined to be able to calculate these types of measures, not all local models
can. FTA believes maintaining a level playing field and a common point of comparison for all
projects in the CIG program is important, so we must base our measure on data available from all
types of project sponsors and areas. We also believe the streamlining and time savings afforded
project sponsors by use of STOPS should not be taken away since we have heard many positive
comments about it.
FTA has clarified in the final interim policy guidance that New and Small Starts project sponsors
have the option of performing a horizon-year forecast for the Congestion Relief measure in
addition to submitting the required current year forecast (page 17 of New Starts Chapter and
page 15 of Core Capacity Chapter). The final interim policy guidance clarifies that project
sponsors that opt to perform horizon-year analyses must do so for all four criteria involving
ridership forecasts: Mobility Improvements, Cost Effectiveness, Environmental Benefits and
Congestion Relief.
FTA intends to continue to refine the Congestion Relief measure over time with input from the
industry and the experience gained through its initial implementation.

Federal Transit Administration

17

FTA agrees that the proposed new transit trips measure does not align well with the goals of
Core Capacity projects, which is to relieve congestion on the existing fixed guideway transit line.
FTA also recognizes that the other Core Capacity evaluation criteria do not require ridership
forecasts and that most travel demand models, including STOPS, are not sensitive enough to
recognize changes that may result from some Core Capacity projects. Therefore, FTA has
changed the congestion relief criterion for Core Capacity projects in the final interim policy
guidance to the percent increase in capacity in the corridor resulting from the proposed project.
This is an incremental measure comparing the existing capacity in the corridor today, as
measured by useable space per passenger for light rail and heavy rail or as percent seated load
for commuter rail, to capacity that will exist once the project is completed (pages 16-17 of the
Core Capacity Chapter). FTA believes that this measure is simple, imposes minimal burden on
project sponsors to calculate, and provides a general indication of the transit congestion relief
benefits and additional carrying capacity associated with Core Capacity projects while not
requiring ridership forecasting. FTA does not agree with warranting this criterion given that
Core Capacity projects will yield disparate capacity increases.
Congestion Relief Breakpoints
Four comments were received that all disagreed with the proposed breakpoints. Three expressed
concern that Small Starts projects would not fare well under the breakpoints, one of which
specifically mentioned BRT projects and another that mentioned streetcar and urban circulator
projects. The fourth comment proposed revised breakpoints that would require significantly
fewer new transit trips.
FTA response: In the final interim policy guidance, the breakpoints have been changed.
Because of the concerns noted in the comments received, FTA re-examined the data on past
projects in the CIG program that were used to inform the breakpoints. When establishing
breakpoints based on past data, we try to establish a bell curve rather than relying on pure
quintiles. In other words, based on the existing data, we develop five rating thresholds where the
majority of projects fall in the medium range, with lower numbers of projects falling in the other
lower and higher ranges such that the curve resembles the shape of a bell. Upon closer
examination, FTA determined the bell curve distribution used to inform the originally proposed
breakpoints can be smoothed and improved with slightly lower breakpoints for the Low,
Medium-Low, and Medium ranges.

Core Capacity
Core Capacity Eligibility
Light Rail and Heavy Rail Projects
FTA received 42 comments on Core Capacity eligibility for light rail and heavy rail projects.
Five comments supported the proposal to use peak hour average space per passenger on the line.
Seven comments recommended determining capacity based on specific features of the line such
as flat junctions, terminal layouts, constrained yards, signal system design, limited power
distribution capability, lengthy run cycle times, etc. Two comments supported using a square
footage per passenger factor based on the actual usable floor area of the passenger compartment
of vehicles, excluding the operator’s cab and other areas that offer no passenger-carrying
Federal Transit Administration

18

capacity. One comment recommended using manufacturers’ specifications of usable interior
floor area available to passengers.
Eight comments requested that FTA clarify whether the calculation is based on a peak load point
during the peak hour in the peak direction.
Two comments recommended that project sponsors have the option to use a 5-year projection of
ridership for purposes of determining Core Capacity eligibility rather than simply the existing
ridership on the line. One comment recommended that current year ridership only should be
used.
Six comments recommended that if additional capacity could be added simply by purchasing and
operating additional rolling stock, the line should not be considered at capacity.
Three comments supported a requirement to show that the project sponsor will immediately
provide more service upon completion of the project, rather than allowing calculating the amount
of capacity improvement based on a distant point in the future that might include unfunded
service improvements.
Three comments sought clarification on whether mode shift (such as from BRT to LRT) on an
existing system would be eligible for Core Capacity program funding.
Four comments questioned whether increasing average space per passenger is an appropriate
measure for determining whether implementation of the project meets the eligibility requirement
of increasing capacity by at least 10 percent. These comments stated that due to latent passenger
demand, the additional space would soon fill with new passengers. Some of these commenters
stated that a better measure would be the number of additional riders who will use Core Capacity
increases in the future, rather than increased space per passenger.
FTA Response: In the final interim policy guidance, FTA has altered the calculation that will be
used to determine whether a light rail or heavy rail line is currently at capacity today or will be in
five years (pages 3-4 of Core Capacity Chapter). Specifically, it has been changed from average
space per passenger to the average useable space per passenger in response to comments
received. The calculation now takes into account the average useable space per railcar rather
than the total area of each railcar by using a simple, straightforward method found in the TCRP
Transit Capacity Manual. While FTA recognizes each vehicle configuration may be different,
for simplicity of the calculation and verification by FTA, we are using this standard calculation
for all projects rather than system specific and vehicle specific calculations.
FTA has clarified in the final interim policy guidance that the calculations are peak hour average
useable space per person along the entire project-defined corridor and are not based on a peak
load point (page 4 of Core Capacity Chapter).
FTA is keeping the requirement that calculations verifying the fixed guideway corridor is at
capacity today or will be in five years be based on existing ridership currently on the line. We
are not implementing the suggestion that we allow ridership forecasts five years in the future to
Federal Transit Administration

19

be used, because other comments received on the proposed interim policy guidance rightly
indicated the difficulty some travel models may have estimating future ridership for Core
Capacity projects. For this same reason, FTA is not implementing the suggestion that we
consider the additional riders that may use the service after it is implemented to make our
eligibility determination that the project results in at least a 10 percent increase in capacity.
Likewise, consideration of mode shift would require travel forecasting, so FTA has not
implemented the suggestion given. This is because FTA believes maintaining a level playing
field and a common point of comparison for all projects in the CIG program is important.
Lastly, the law does not allow the purchase of rolling stock alone to qualify as a Core Capacity
project. FTA has clarified this in the final interim policy guidance (page 2 of the Core Capacity
Chapter).
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Six comments were received on Core Capacity eligibility for BRT projects. Three supported
using a similar capacity standard for BRT as for commuter rail (e.g., 95 percent of passenger
seats occupied.) Two comments recommended the same passenger capacity standard for BRT as
proposed for light rail and heavy rail projects (i.e., average peak hour space per passenger.) One
commenter suggested separate capacity eligibility standards for different types of BRT guideway
facilities: e.g., express service without stations, local service with stations, bus-only freeway
lanes without stops, etc. This commenter suggested a combination of volume of buses operated
and actual speeds of buses as an alternative measure of BRT capacity.
FTA Response: At this time, FTA is not implementing a fixed guideway BRT capacity
calculation. Instead, FTA will work with fixed guideway BRT projects on a case-by-case basis
to determine whether the proposed project is eligible as a Core Capacity project. FTA will also
continue to work with the industry to determine a simple national standard calculation for fixed
guideway BRT projects that would be similar to the ones above used for rail projects.
Commuter Rail (CR)
Eleven comments were received on Core Capacity eligibility for CR projects. Three supported
the proposed standard of percent of passenger seats occupied (e.g., 95% of seats occupied).
Some of these commenters said that FTA should retain flexibility to allow different measures of
available capacity for different operators depending on their type of operation (e.g., standees or
no standees), although they said that the 95 percent standard “is workable”. Four additional
comments suggest that FTA should explicitly recognize variations in loading standards between
various CR operating agencies. Three commenters expressed concern with a different passenger
capacity standard for CR than for light rail and heavy rail because some CR systems allow
standees, similar to light rail and heavy rail systems, while others do not. One commenter
recommended that commuter rail project sponsors be required to submit information similar to
LRT/HRT Core Capacity project sponsors.
FTA Response: In the final interim policy guidance FTA is keeping the eligibility for CR
projects as proposed. As stated in both the proposed and final interim policy guidance, while
FTA recognizes there is a range of factors that play a role in the capacity of a line, those factors
are very system specific and not easily verifiable by FTA without extensive analysis and review.
For streamlining and time-savings, FTA believes simple calculations represent an acceptable
Federal Transit Administration

20

method for determining a project is at capacity today or will be in five years. Additionally, FTA
knows that each transit system establishes its own load standards that guide its decisions on
service planning. To make eligibility determinations for a national funding program, however,
FTA believes it is more appropriate to use a general industry-wide standard rather than system
specific measures based on local preferences.
Stations
Ten comments were received on Core Capacity eligibility for station projects. Eight comments
recommended that FTA work with the industry to identify methodologies for measuring station
capacity. One comment recommended use of the National Fire Protection Association’s
(NFPA) 130 Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems for measures of
station capacity. One comment recommended that making stations compliant with the
Americans with Disabilities Act requirements should be considered as eligible for Core Capacity
funding.
FTA Response: MAP-21 specifies that station facility improvements alone are not eligible as
Core Capacity projects, and may only be considered as part of a larger Core Capacity project that
includes other elements as well. The process for determining capacity put forth by FTA in the
proposed interim policy guidance and being adopted by FTA in the final interim policy guidance
does not include an evaluation of station capacity. However, FTA aspires for its process to
account for station capacity needs in the future. We appreciate the suggestions received and will
continue to work with the industry to determine a simple national standard calculation for station
capacity that could be used in the future.
Other Core Capacity Eligibility Matters
Fourteen comments were received on other Core Capacity eligibility-related issues besides those
identified above. Six comments requested clarification on the differentiation between Core
Capacity and State of Good Repair (SGR) elements in a Core Capacity project. Four comments
recommended that FTA retain flexibility, allowing projects to include multiple lines packaged
together. One comment recommended FTA allow as an eligible project the development of an
alternative route to relieve capacity constraints rather than simply allowing improvements to an
existing route. One comment recommended that ferry projects be eligible for Core Capacity
funding.
FTA Response: FTA does not wish to provide more detail at this time than is already included in
the proposed and final interim policy guidance on differentiating between Core Capacity and
state of good repair elements of a project. Rather, FTA wishes to retain flexibility and allow
project sponsors to propose their own methods for differentiating the costs. This allows FTA the
benefit of hearing from the industry how best it might be done. In future policy guidance
additional clarification may be provided.
The law is clear that a Core Capacity project must be a “substantial corridor-based capital
investment in an existing fixed guideway system.” Therefore, FTA cannot allow system-wide
improvements to be packaged together as a single Core Capacity project. However, FTA has
clarified in the final interim policy guidance that improvements along a trunk line with several
branches is an eligible Core Capacity corridor project (page 2 of Core Capacity Chapter).
Federal Transit Administration

21

MAP-21 includes ferry projects in the definition of fixed guideway projects, making them
eligible for the CIG funding program including Core Capacity. FTA is not implementing a ferry
project capacity calculation at this time, but will work with ferry project sponsors on a case-bycase basis to determine whether a proposed project is eligible.
Capacity Needs Criterion
Capacity Needs Measure
Nine comments were received on the specific measure proposed for the Capacity Needs
criterion. Four comments supported the simplified measure proposed by FTA for determining
capacity needs, but recommended that it recognize the usable interior floor space rather than the
total area of the vehicle to account for space taken up by driver cabs and other features. Two
comments supported using space per passenger for the Capacity Needs criterion, similar to those
measures defined in the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCRP Report 165).
Two comments sought clarification that FTA intends the Capacity Needs criterion to focus on
the peak load point. One comment sought clarification on whether the measure is applied to a
whole rail line or, more narrowly, to a project-defined corridor if less than a whole line.
FTA Response: In the final interim policy guidance, FTA has altered the proposed capacity
needs calculation from average space per passenger to the average useable space per passenger in
response to comments received (pages 13-15 of Core Capacity Chapter). The calculation now
takes into account the average useable space per railcar rather than the total area of each railcar
by using a simple, straightforward method found in the TCRP Transit Capacity Manual. While
FTA recognizes each vehicle configuration may be different, for simplicity of the calculation and
verification by FTA, we are using this standard calculation for all projects rather than system
specific and vehicle specific calculations. FTA has clarified in the final interim policy guidance
that the calculations are peak hour person capacity along the entire project-defined corridor and
are not based on a peak load point.
Capacity Needs Criterion Breakpoints
Thirteen comments were received on the breakpoints proposed for the Capacity Needs criterion.
Five comments stated the breakpoints for light rail and heavy rail are too high because the simple
use of vehicle length times width overestimates the interior floor space available for passengers.
Six comments recommended separate breakpoints for commuter rail projects based on percent of
seats occupied. Two comments recommended that FTA make modifications and updates to the
breakpoints for the Capacity Needs criterion as more data is gathered over time from projects
entering the program.
FTA Response: In the final interim policy guidance as described above, FTA has altered the
calculation for the Capacity Needs criterion for light rail and heavy rail projects from average
space per passenger to useable space per passenger with allowances for the average space taken
up on railcars by driver cabs, wall thickness, etc. This addresses the concerns noted in the
comments received so that the breakpoints do not need to be altered. The breakpoints have been
established based on transit level of service data taken directly from TCRP Report 100, the
former version of the Transit Capacity Manual. FTA believes this to be the best source of data
for establishing the breakpoints at this time. Future policy guidance may suggest changes to the
breakpoints after FTA has the benefit of reviewing data from project sponsors over time. Per the
Federal Transit Administration

22

comments received, in the final interim policy guidance FTA has added breakpoints for
commuter rail projects since they were accidentally omitted previously (page 15 of Core
Capacity Chapter).
Cost-Effectiveness Criterion
FTA received three comments suggesting FTA treat the cost of enrichments for Core Capacity
projects the same as they are treated for New Starts projects when calculating cost-effectiveness.
Two comments requested clarification on FTA’s statement that cost-effectiveness will be based
on the Core Capacity CIG share of the project only. One comment suggested a measure other
than cost per rider should be used, stating it is not a sufficient measure for quantifying the scale
of a project’s benefit and travel time savings should be measured.
FTA Response: In the final interim policy guidance, FTA has kept the cost-effectiveness
calculation for Core Capacity projects as proposed. It is the annualized Section 5309 CIG Core
Capacity share of the project cost per trip on the project. In other words, the measure is not
based on the total project cost. Rather it is based only on the Section 5309 CIG share of the
project cost. It does not include operating and maintenance costs. Thus, excluding the cost of
enrichments is not reasonable. FTA allows enrichments for New Starts projects because it wants
to encourage project sponsors to consider green building design, alternative fueled vehicles, joint
development, and bicycle and pedestrian access when planning a project but these items can add
to the project cost making the project fare worse on the evaluation criteria. Thus, FTA allows
the cost of these enrichments to be excluded from the cost-effectiveness and environmental
benefits calculations as a matter of policy to encourage sponsors to consider including these
types of elements. Because the Core Capacity cost-effectiveness calculation does not look at the
total project cost but only the Section 5309 CIG share, there is no need to remove costs from the
calculation. The calculation is already based on something less than the total project cost. FTA
is required by law to use a cost per rider measure for cost-effectiveness rather than other
measures.
Local Financial Commitment Evaluation
Five comments were received on the financial evaluation proposal for Core Capacity projects.
One comment opposed the proposal to use “adequacy of meeting state of good repair needs” to
evaluate local financial commitment. Two comments were related to the boost in the local
financial commitment rating to High for projects qualifying for the streamlined financial
evaluation if the project is seeking less than 50 percent in CIG funds. These comments
suggested that FTA instead establish a sliding scale. Another comment suggested local financial
commitment be evaluated during the Engineering phase instead of at entry into the Engineering
phase so the time and effort associated with the level of project definition and cost estimation
needed to obtain a satisfactory rating on the local financial commitment criterion would not
consume part of the two year timeframe for completing Project Development.
FTA Response: In the final interim policy guidance, FTA has kept the local financial evaluation
process the same as was proposed, which is similar to the manner in which we evaluate New and
Small Starts projects. The law requires that FTA ensure “local resources are available to
recapitalize, maintain, and operate the overall existing and proposed public transportation system
. . . without requiring a reduction in existing public transportation services or level of service to
Federal Transit Administration

23

operate the project.” The law also requires that FTA evaluate and rate the project prior to its
entry into the Engineering phase.
Other Core Capacity Related Matters
One comment was received seeking clarification as to whether projects that contain both state of
good repair and Core Capacity elements can be submitted in a single project grant application.
FTA Response: As stated in the proposed and final interim policy guidance, FTA understands
there will often be cases where a project sponsor will propose to undertake a major construction
project that involves both Core Capacity and SGR elements, and that the sponsor may seek both
Section 5309 discretionary Core Capacity and Section 5339 formula SGR funds for the project.
FTA allows such a combination of FTA funding for such projects. The final interim policy
guidance does not get into the details of applying for the specific grants in our electronic grant
making system. In Fiscal Year 2016, FTA will be deploying the Transit Award Management
System (TrAMS) a successor to FTA’s current TEAM electronic grant system. TrAMS has been
configured to allow applicants to develop a single grant application for multiple FTA funding
program dollars that will fund a common project. Additional information about applying for
funds in TrAMS can be found on the TrAMS web page at http://www.fta.dot.gov/TrAMS.
Applicants should discuss specific scenarios for combining multiple funding programs within an
application with their regional office prior to drafting applications.

Affordable Housing
Affordable Housing Measure
FTA received a total of 66 comments regarding the affordable housing measure under the land
use criterion that has been part of the New and Small Starts evaluation process since 2013.
Nine comments offered support for the current ratio-based measure or recommended FTA
augment the ratio-based measure with a second measure. Two suggested that FTA add
consideration of municipal requirements for affordable housing to the measure. One comment
suggested augmenting the ratio with an evaluation of the concentration of affordable housing in
the counties through which the project passes or the percentage of low-income households
experiencing severe housing cost burden. One comment supported the ratio but suggested that
the sponsors of any projects that qualify for Project Justification warrants should be exempted
from needing to submit information on affordable housing. Another suggested that transitoriented developments that advance fair housing or consolidated plans should receive extra credit
in the evaluation.
Ten comments expressed concerns with the ratio-based measure. Six of these observed that a
project with a small number or proportion of affordable housing units in station areas could rate
more favorably than a project with a more significant number or proportion if the latter project
were in a county with considerable affordable housing. Two comments expressed concerns
related to geographically large counties through which a project may travel, stating substantial
portions of the county may have little to no connection to the transit project and that a large
number of municipalities within the county can make the effort of collecting affordable housing
Federal Transit Administration

24

data prohibitive. One comment apiece mentioned that the measure is inconsistent with the
suburbanization of poverty and may disadvantage expansion projects.
Fifteen comments concerned replacements for the ratio-based measure. Five of these suggested
that FTA base the rating on qualitative information. Three suggested that FTA use the number
of affordable housing units per incremental rider as the measure, while a further three proposed
the total number of affordable housing units in project station areas. Two comments proposed
the number of affordable housing units per transit station as the measure, while two comments
cautioned against this measure because it would disadvantage smaller or less dense communities.
Seventeen comments were related to specific aspects of the existing ratio-based measure. Four
comments suggested that FTA allow sources of affordable housing data beyond that available
from public housing authorities, particularly noting state housing agencies as a data source. One
comment noted that smaller municipalities may not keep records of the number of affordable
housing units within their boundaries. Six comments concerned the boundary of the area on
which to base the measure: one of these suggested expanding the station-area radius from onehalf to one mile; three suggested replacing counties through which the project travels with the
region, subregion, or a boundary of the project sponsor’s choosing; and two suggested that the
rating for extension projects should account for affordable housing accessible by a one-seat ride.
Seven comments concerned the definition of legally binding affordability restricted housing that
FTA uses, with two requesting that Section 8 units count and five requesting changes to the
duration of the affordability restriction or income level that would allow a housing unit to count.
Nine comments related to the supplemental information on affordable housing that FTA allows
project sponsors to submit. Eight comments encouraged FTA to continue accepting
supplemental information. One comment requested clarification on whether FTA has a preferred
format for receiving supplemental information.
FTA response: In the final interim policy guidance, FTA is retaining the ratio-based measure of
existing affordable housing under the Land Use criterion because we continue to believe that the
measure encourages project sponsors to consider locating their project in an area that serves a
higher proportion of affordable housing than the greater surrounding area. This is a desirable
goal since these are often the very populations most dependent on transit. The ratio FTA uses
helps to normalize the results to the specific local area in which the project is located by
comparing the legally binding affordability restricted housing in the project corridor to the
legally binding affordability restricted housing in surrounding counties. The measure is not
intended to compare projects to one another.
If FTA were to use a measure based on total existing affordable housing units in the project
corridor instead of the ratio, it would bias the evaluation process in favor of larger cities with
more total housing units and more total affordable housing units. In order to evaluate projects
fairly and uniformly across the country, to the extent possible FTA avoids using measures that
could bias the process in favor of one type or size of city over another. For example, both the
cost-effectiveness criterion and the environmental benefits criterion are normalized since they
compare the size of the benefits to the size of the cost. Larger cost projects with larger benefits
can fair well under the evaluation process as can smaller cost projects with smaller benefits.
Federal Transit Administration

25

While the mobility improvements criterion looks at total trips estimated to be taken on a
proposed project, it too is normalized to an extent. Not only does it take into consideration and
give greater weight to trips made by transit dependent persons, but the size of a city does not
necessarily determine how high the ridership on a proposed line might be. Sometimes
geographic constraints, such as a mountain range on one side of a corridor and a lake on the
other or a corridor with a river running through it that has limited bridge crossings, can create
barriers to travel in a city regardless of its size, allowing a transit line to serve as a good solution
for serving the transportation needs of the community in that corridor.
Having explained our rationale for keeping the ratio-based measure, FTA recognizes that it has
some drawbacks, particularly for projects located in counties with very high levels of legally
binding affordability restricted housing. Thus, FTA has stated in the final interim policy
guidance that we will boost the rating for this subfactor one level if the denominator shows the
counties through which the project travels have greater than a five percent share of legally
binding affordability restricted housing (page 13 of New Starts Chapter and page 11 of the Small
Starts Chapter). FTA established the five percent threshold based on an examination of the data
received from projects that have submitted information for this measure since 2013. Five
percent was the natural breakpoint that arose as the highest level of total legally binding
affordability restricted housing in the surrounding counties. All of the information needed to
determine whether a project qualifies for a rating increase is already part of the measure, so no
additional work on project sponsors’ part is required by this change. In recognition of each
project corridor’s unique circumstances with respect to affordable housing, FTA will continue to
allow project sponsors to submit supplemental information on affordable housing.
The recommendations that FTA examine housing cost burdens or award extra credit for certain
transit oriented developments did not include specific mechanisms for doing so, and therefore,
FTA is not incorporating them into the measure at this time. FTA notes that municipal
affordable housing policies are already considered as part of the Economic Development
criterion. The Land Use criterion focuses on existing conditions. FTA is not extending project
justification warrants to affordable housing at this time given that the correlation between
affordable housing and corridor ridership is unclear.
FTA believes the measures that commenters proposed to replace the ratio would introduce their
own biases. Replacing the ratio with the total number of affordable housing units could
disadvantage projects in smaller or less densely populated communities as two commenters
observed, as could using affordable housing units per transit station as the measure. A measure
based on affordable housing units per incremental rider could disadvantage higher-ridership
projects. FTA does not agree with basing the affordable housing measure under the land use
criterion on qualitative information. The land use criterion is meant to capture conditions as they
exist in the corridor today, which should be quantifiable.
FTA agrees that local public housing authorities are not the only sources for affordable housing
data. The final interim policy guidance now simply says “area housing authorities.” Project
sponsors may gather data from state housing agencies and regional clearinghouses, the national
preservation database, etc. The final interim policy guidance clarifies that signed certifications
attesting to the accuracies of the data may be collected from the heads of the agencies from
Federal Transit Administration

26

where the data came (page 12 of the New Starts Chapter and page 11 of the Small Starts
Chapter).
With respect to geographies, FTA will retain the half-mile station radius for consistency with
other land use factors and retain counties through which the project travels as the reference
geography. FTA notes that the rating increase described above for projects serving counties with
a significant amount of affordable housing may address concerns about the reference geography.
As for the definition of a legally binding affordability restricted housing unit, FTA will continue
to use the same definition that it has applied since late 2013. FTA observes that many Section 8
housing units are tenant rather than project based, and thus do not have affordability restrictions
once their tenants move elsewhere.
Affordable Housing Measure Breakpoints
Seven comments were received on the existing affordable housing breakpoints. Three comments
offered that the breakpoints appear reasonable based on the projects evaluated thus far, and
recommended that FTA maintain the breakpoints for now. One comment suggested that FTA
revise the breakpoints to smooth the distribution of ratings, one recommended awarding a
Medium rating to any project that serves a concentration of affordable housing equivalent to the
regional average, and two proposed standards for evaluating municipalities’ affordable housing
plans and policies (along with modifying the measure accordingly).
FTA response: In the final interim policy guidance, FTA has kept the breakpoints as they were
in the proposed interim policy guidance. We believe that the breakpoints have resulted in a
reasonable distribution of ratings across projects so far and help to strengthen the nexus between
transit planning and concentrations of affordable housing. Lowering the breakpoints so that a
project that serves a concentration of affordable housing equivalent to the regional average be
assigned a Medium rating is inconsistent with FTA’s goal. Consideration of local affordable
housing plans and policies are already examined as part of the Economic Development criterion,
so that has not been added to the affordable housing measure under the Land Use criterion.
Impact of the Measure on Station Locations and Affordable Housing Supply
FTA received more than 20 comments in response to this question posed in the proposed interim
policy guidance. Nine comments stated that the measure is too new to have had an impact yet, as
alignment decisions for many projects currently seeking CIG funding were largely made before
FTA implemented the measure. However, six comments expressed that the measure is spurring
local conversations about station locations. Additionally, one project sponsor reported that the
project alignment was changed in part to improve access to affordable housing. Another
comment indicated that a project serving low-income areas became a higher priority for
implementation in its region. One comment mentioned that the measure incentivizes the location
of stations near affordable housing, and vice versa. Two further comments mentioned that
partnerships catalyzed by the introduction of the measure will support compliance with the Fair
Housing Rule. One comment alluded to a loss of affordable housing units in a major city and the
difficulty of finding the remaining affordable units.
FTA response: FTA acknowledges the measure has been in place only a short time, but
appreciates the feedback on its effects to date on the location of affordable housing developments
and alignments of transit projects. With respect to the comment about the loss of affordable
Federal Transit Administration

27

housing, FTA notes that the CIG process specifically takes into consideration whether there are
local plans and policies in place to preserve and expand affordable housing under the Economic
Development criterion.
Burden of Calculating and Reporting Affordable Housing Data
FTA received 11 comments on the burden in providing the required affordable housing
information to FTA. Five comments stated that computation is not an undue burden to project
sponsors since the data is readily available. A housing consultant reported that the firm’s clients
unanimously felt that the measure was not burdensome to compute. One local government
reported that it was already proactively collecting the data needed for the measure. A New Starts
project sponsor estimated the burden at $6,000 and 60 hours of labor for its project. Another
project sponsor indicated that a nonprofit organization was already maintaining a database of
affordable housing for that region, and that a portion of the organization’s $800,000 annual
budget could be attributable to collecting the data needed for the measure. A New Starts project
sponsor reported that both the optional supplemental analyses and obtaining the needed
certification by public housing authorities were the most burdensome aspects of computing the
measure.
FTA response: FTA is pleased that the measure is not an undue burden to project sponsors. In
response to comments received on the proposed interim policy guidance, FTA has made changes
in the final interim policy guidance on the CEO certifications required that we hope reduces the
burden in obtaining them (page 12 of the New Starts Chapter and page 11 of the Small Starts
Chapter).
Signed CEO Certifications of Affordable Housing Data
Ten comments were received on the requirement that project sponsors submit signed CEO
certifications from housing authorities attesting to the data on affordable housing units. Six of
these observed that project sponsors may have difficulty obtaining certifications from local
public housing authorities in cases where some of the units are not the housing authorities’
responsibility. These comments suggested that FTA instead allow project sponsors to selfcertify the accuracy of the counts they are submitting and that FTA occasionally conduct spot
checks using publicly available data. Three comments suggested as an alternative that FTA
clarify that project sponsors may submit multiple letters and that the letters do not need to be
from public housing authorities. One comment stated that the need to recertify housing counts
that it already provides to a regional database created extra effort.
FTA response: FTA has clarified in the final interim policy guidance that it will accept signed
certification letters from the head of any entity from where the data came (page 12 of the New
Starts Chapter and page 11 of the Small Starts Chapter). FTA believes that certification letters
are appropriate given that project sponsors do not control the affordable housing data they are
supplying to FTA.
Other Matters Related to the Affordable Housing Measure
FTA received 14 comments on the merits of including affordable housing in the evaluation
process. Twelve of these comments were supportive. Two comments recommended that FTA
deemphasize affordable housing given that it is generally out of a transit project sponsor’s
control.
Federal Transit Administration

28

FTA received six comments on other topics related to affordable housing. One comment
encouraged FTA to continue collaborating with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and to encourage HUD to consider transit access in its own discretionary
funding decisions. Another comment suggested that FTA provide support and technical
assistance to ensure that environmental justice groups benefit from FTA investments. One
comment apiece noted that the State of California does not require a relationship to transit in
affordable housing plans, a property covenant may not be recognized if it is not kept in a publicly
available database, parking has become more valuable and gentrification defeats the purpose of
transit.
FTA response: FTA is pleased at the support for including affordable housing in the CIG project
evaluation process. We believe providing transit access to affordable housing and jobs is
important when determining where to locate a transit project. Environmental justice concerns
are taken into consideration as part of the environmental review process required for the project.

Other CIG Project Evaluation Matters
Environmental Benefits Criterion
Fifteen comments were received on using the change in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the
basis for the environmental benefits criterion for New and Small Starts projects. Eleven of these
suggested FTA consider evaluating environmental benefits based instead on the change in
greenhouse gas emissions per passenger-mile, change in energy use per passenger-mile, and
change in air quality criteria pollutants per passenger mile. Another comment proposed
comparing local per capita VMT to regional per capita VMT. Several comments referenced
TCRP report 176 entitled Quantifying Transit’s Impact on GHG Emissions and Energy Use – the
Land Use Component, suggesting greenhouse gas emissions per passenger-mile is a promising
metric for evaluating environmental performance in transit projects. A few comments noted that
using VMT penalizes older transit systems in denser communities with higher transit market
share that tend to have shorter trip lengths and, therefore, less VMT.
FTA Response: As stated in the proposed interim policy guidance, FTA did not reopen the
Environmental Benefits measure for public comment. Thus, we have kept the environmental
benefits measure as is in the final interim policy guidance. In the future, FTA may consider
altering the measure based on the comments and research suggested.
Ridership Forecasts
Five comments were received on ridership forecasts. Two were on forecasts for Core Capacity
projects, one of which requested clarification on whether travel forecasts or existing ridership
data is to be used and one of which stated that travel models have difficulty calculating trips on
Core Capacity projects. Three comments were about FTA’s requirement that New and Small
Starts projects submit current year forecasts, with horizon year forecasts allowed at the sponsor’s
option. One of these suggested a large part of the value of a CIG investment is to help support
growth. Another said this requirement goes against the long term transportation planning
tradition of basing highway and transit plans on a forecast 20 or more years in the future. The
Federal Transit Administration

29

third said using current year ridership rather than horizon year ridership does not support rail
investment but rather favors BRT projects.
FTA Response: FTA has clarified in the final interim policy guidance that Core Capacity
projects are evaluated on existing ridership on the line in the project corridor rather than
forecasts of ridership because we agree with the comment that travel models are not sensitive
enough to be able to predict the ridership changes that may result from Core Capacity projects
(page 13 of Core Capacity Chapter). For example, some Core Capacity projects may add
vehicles to trains to add capacity rather than adding trains. Travel models and STOPS are not
sensitive enough to recognize a change in the number of vehicles per train, but rather only a
change in the frequency of trains. The other comments received on ridership forecasts were on
items not open for public comment. New and Small Starts projects will continue to be evaluated
based on ridership forecasts using current year inputs of population and employment, with an
option for project sponsors to also prepare horizon year forecasts using inputs either 10 or 20
years in the future. As stated under the guiding principles section of the proposed and final
interim policy guidance, FTA believes project evaluation based on existing conditions provides
the most easily understood, most reliable, and most readily available information for decisionmaking. Use of current year data increases the reliability of the projected future performance of
the proposed project by avoiding reliance on future population, employment, and transit service
levels that are themselves forecasts. Because FTA allows sponsors at their option to also
calculate a 20 year horizon for consideration in the rating, we are being consistent with
metropolitan planning processes.
Breakpoints for Other Criteria and Measures Not Open for Public Comment
FTA received four comments on breakpoints for several criteria not open for public comment.
One of the four was supportive of the breakpoints established for the Small Starts Economic
Development measures. Another noted the parking supply measure under the Land Use criterion
looks at parking supply and cost in the Central Business District, which may not be informative
for projects that serve suburban markets where parking is generally free. The third comment
stated the breakpoints for the mobility improvements and congestion relief criteria should be
different for New Starts and Small Starts projects. The final comment suggested breakpoints for
the cost-effectiveness criterion be updated annually.
FTA Response: FTA is keeping the measures and breakpoints as is since they previously went
through an extensive public comment process before being finalized and were not re-opened for
public comment in the proposed interim policy guidance. FTA will consider the suggestions
made when contemplating future revisions of the policy guidance.
General Comments on the CIG Project Evaluation Process
FTA received one comment encouraging FTA to adopt an evaluation and rating process that
meaningfully differentiates projects. Another comment suggested the number of measures for
Small Starts, New Starts, and Core Capacity projects could reasonably be of different magnitude
based on the overall project cost. A third comment understood the reason FTA must develop
national standards, but stated such standards cannot capture the experience of operating in a
complex environment. This comment suggested FTA allow project sponsors to submit alternate
analytical approaches that could be reviewed by FTA and deemed acceptable or unacceptable.
Federal Transit Administration

30

FTA Response: The law outlines a multiple measure approach that FTA must use to evaluate
and rate projects seeking CIG funding. As stated in the proposed and final interim policy
guidance, FTA has tried to develop meaningful measures that generally rely on readily available
and easily verifiable data and follow the direction given in law. Allowing unique and different
calculations by individual project sponsors for a national funding program would not provide
FTA with a standard basis on which to make its funding recommendations to Congress.
Other Matters
Seventeen comments were received on various other matters. Four comments were statements of
appreciation to FTA for efforts to simplify the overall CIG process. Two observations were
made that the proposed interim policy guidance significantly advances the creation of
comprehensive guidance for the three types of CIG projects. FTA received two commendations
for outreach to the industry and to stakeholders for seeking their help in determining the best way
to implement the new requirements contained in MAP -21.
Three comments were received stating support for the Program of Inter-related Projects CIG
provisions of MAP-21, which were not included in the proposed interim policy guidance. Four
comments were received on resiliency, stating it is essential for transit systems to be resilient to
climate change. Two of those comments recommended FTA allow resiliency measures to be
included in project costs when those resiliency elements would maintain transit service during
natural disasters. One comment requested FTA include language to clarify how expansion
projects should be shown in the constrained regional transportation plan.
FTA Response: FTA appreciates the comments noting our efforts to simplify and streamline the
process and provide comprehensive policy guidance. FTA intends to continue to work closely
with the industry to refine the measures and breakpoints over time as needed when new
information becomes available.
FTA has worked hard to implement the many new changes to the CIG program resulting from
enactment of MAP-21. Given the significance of the changes made, FTA felt extensive industry
outreach was critical prior to suggesting processes and procedures and evaluation measures on
the newly created aspects of the program. This final interim policy guidance, which outlines the
process to be followed by Core Capacity projects until the more formal rulemaking process can
be completed, is a necessary first step toward implementing the Programs of Inter-related
Projects provisions in MAP-21 since those provisions indicate the programs can include Core
Capacity projects.
FTA agrees ensuring transit systems are resilient is important. That is why we specifically
encourage in the proposed and final interim policy guidance that project sponsors seeking CIG
funding incorporate resilience elements in their project design. These elements are eligible as
part of the CIG project cost.
The law requires that projects seeking CIG funding be adopted into the fiscally constrained
metropolitan transportation plan, which we believe is clear. If a project sponsor needs
clarification on what project definition to include in that plan, FTA can provide assistance on a
case-by-case basis.
Federal Transit Administration

31

Comments on Topics Not Part of the CIG program
FTA received two comments related to the FTA rulemaking process on safety and asset
management and the definition of state of good repair. Both comments stated that FTA should
adopt a definition of state of good repair as being a condition when assets are fit for their
intended purposes.
FTA Response: FTA appreciates these comments related to safety and asset management. FTA
is in the process of developing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on that topic that will
include a public comment period. We encourage the public to review the NPRM and provide
comments during the public comment period.

Federal Transit Administration

32