FY16 Annual Report on Funding Recommendations CIG Program

Annual Report
on Funding
Recommendations
Fiscal Year 2016
Capital Investment Grant Program
Report of the Secretary of Transportation
to the United States Congress
Pursuant to 49 USC 5309(o)(1)
2015
Prepared by:

Federal Transit Administration

Available from:

Federal Transit Administration

Office of Planning and Environment

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

http://www.fta.dot.gov

Annual Report on Funding Recommendations

Table of Contents

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1

General Commitment Guidelines for Capital Investment Grant Program Projects ........................ 2

The FY 2016 Funding Allocations and Recommendations ............................................................ 6

Tables and Maps
Table 1 FY 2016 Funding for Capital Investment Grant Program ................................................. 4

Table 2A Summary of Capital Investment Grant Program FY 2016 Project Ratings .................... 9

Table 2B Detailed Summary of FY 2016 Local Financial Commitment Ratings ........................ 10

Table 2C Detailed Summary of FY 2016 Project Justification Ratings ....................................... 11

Map of Existing Full Funding Grant Agreements With Remaining Funding Needs … ...............12

Map of Projects in Project Development and Engineering… ........................................................13

i

Annual Report on Funding Recommendations

Introduction
This Annual Report on Funding Recommendations is issued by the United States Secretary of
Transportation to help inform the appropriations process for the upcoming fiscal year (FY) by
providing information on projects included in the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA)
discretionary Capital Investment Grant Program.
The Capital Investment Grant Program
The Capital Investment Grant Program outlined in 49 USC 5309, was most recently authorized
in July 2012 by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act1 (MAP-21). On July 31,
2014, Congress passed the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014, which extended
MAP-21 through May 31, 2015.
The Capital Investment Grant Program is the Federal Government’s primary financial resource
for supporting transit capital projects that are locally planned, implemented, and operated. The
majority of the projects are fixed-guideway transit projects, meaning they use or occupy a
separate right-of-way such as rails, catenaries, or exclusive bus lanes. This includes rapid rail,
light rail, streetcar, commuter rail, and bus rapid transit (BRT). However, ferry projects and
corridor-based BRT projects that do not use an exclusive bus lane but have other characteristics
similar to rail transit service are also eligible. The program has helped to make possible dozens
of new or extended transit systems across the country. These public transportation investments,
in turn, have improved the mobility and quality of life of millions of Americans, provided
alternatives to congested roadways, and fostered the development of more economically vibrant
communities.
MAP-21 includes three categories of eligible projects under the Capital Investment Grant
Program, referred to as New Starts, Core Capacity, and Small Starts projects. Under MAP-21,
New Starts and Core Capacity projects go through three phases - Project Development,
Engineering, and Construction. Small Starts projects go through two phases - Project
Development and Construction. New Starts projects are those whose sponsors request $75
million or more in Capital Investment Grant Program funds or have an anticipated total capital
cost of $250 million or more. Core Capacity projects are substantial investments in an existing
fixed-guideway corridor that is at capacity today or will be in five years, where the proposed
project will increase capacity by not less than 10 percent. Small Starts projects are defined as
those whose sponsors request less than $75 million in Capital Investment Grant Program funds
and have an anticipated total capital cost of less than $250 million. All projects must be
evaluated and rated on a set of statutorily defined project justification and local financial
commitment criteria and receive and maintain at least a “Medium” overall rating to advance
through the various phases and be eligible for funding.
As reflected in this report, FTA is proposing in its FY 2016 Budget Request to Congress that the
amount of funding allowed for FTA oversight activities be increased from the 1 percent allowed
under MAP-21 to 1.5 percent. The increase will help FTA mitigate the cost and schedule risks
1

The mandate for the Annual Report (49 USC 5309(o)(1)) is a continuation of the detailed reporting requirement
established by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998, reauthorized by SAFETEA-LU
in August 2005, and reauthorized by MAP-21 in July 2012.

1

Annual Report on Funding Recommendations

associated with the increasing number of mega projects with total project capital costs over
$1 billion.
This Report provides general information about the Capital Investment Grant Program, including
the guidelines that the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) uses to make funding
recommendations for proposed projects in the development pipeline and for projects currently in
construction. Table 1 identifies the FY 2016 funding amount recommended for individual
projects, with information on each project’s cost and funding history. Tables 2A, 2B, and 2C
provide the results of FTA’s evaluation and rating of the projects.
Information Available on the FTA Web Site
More information on the Capital Investment Grant program can be found on FTA’s website at
http://www.fta.dot.gov/12304.html. Also available on the website are profiles of each of the
projects in the Capital Investment Grant program pipeline in the row labeled “Current Projects.”
There you can find project descriptions, project maps, notes on the projects’ progress, and a
discussion of any significant issues since FTA’s last evaluation.

General Commitment Guidelines for Capital Investment Projects
 Any project recommended for a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) or Small Starts
Grant Agreement (SSGA) should meet the project justification, local financial commitment,
and process criteria established in Section 5309, and should be consistent with Executive
Order 12893, Principles for Federal Infrastructure Investments, issued January 26, 1994.
 To the extent that funds can be obligated by FTA in the coming fiscal year under existing
FFGAs and SSGAs, these commitments should be honored before any new funding
recommendations are made.
 The FFGA or SSGA defines the project including its cost, scope, schedule, and level of
service; commits to a maximum level of annual and total Capital Investment Grant Program
financial assistance (subject to Congressional appropriation); establishes the terms and
conditions of Federal financial participation; defines the period of time for completion of the
project, and helps FTA and the project sponsor manage the project in accordance with
Federal law. Upon completion of an FFGA or SSGA, the Section 5309 funding commitment
has been fulfilled. Additional Section 5309 funding will not be recommended. Any
additional costs beyond the scope of the commitment outlined in the FFGA or SSGA are the
responsibility of the project sponsor. FTA works closely with project sponsors to identify
and implement strategies for containing capital costs at the level indicated in the FFGA or
SSGA at the time it was signed.
 Initial planning efforts conducted prior to entry into the first phase of the Capital Investment
Grant process are not eligible for Section 5309 funding under MAP-21, but funding may be
provided through grants under the Section 5303 Metropolitan Planning Program, the Section
5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program, or Title 23 “flexible funding.”
 Firm funding commitments, embodied in FFGAs or SSGAs, will not be made until the
project sponsor has demonstrated that its project is ready for such an agreement, i.e., the

2

Annual Report on Funding Recommendations

project’s development and design have progressed to the point where its scope, costs,
benefits, and impacts are considered firm and final.
 Funding should be provided to the most qualified projects to allow them to proceed through
the implementation process on a reasonable schedule, to the extent that funds can be
obligated to such projects in the upcoming fiscal year.
 Funding recommendations will be based on the results of the project evaluation process and
resulting project justification, local financial commitment, overall project ratings, and
considerations such as project readiness and the availability of funds.
 FTA encourages project sponsors to provide an overmatch as a means of funding more
projects and leveraging State and local financial resources as well as other Federal financial
resources.
FTA emphasizes that the process of project evaluation and rating is ongoing. As a proposed
project proceeds through planning and design, information concerning costs, benefits, financial
plans, and impacts is refined and the project rating may be reassessed to reflect new information.

3

Table 1 - FY 2016 Funding for Capital Investment Grant Program

Project

Rating

Mode

Total Project Cost

Section 5309
Request

Section
5309
Share

Funds
Appropriated/
Allocated
Through FY15

Remaining Needs
After FY15

FY16 Budget
Recommendation

Totals by Project Type
Existing New Starts Construction Grant Agreements
Recommended New Starts Projects Not Yet Under FFGAs
Recommended Core Capacity Funding
Recommended Small Starts Projects Not Yet Under SSGAs
Accelerated Project Delivery and Development
Oversight Activities
GRAND TOTAL

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,385,000,000
792,000,000
351,066,101
353,183,899
320,000,000
48,750,000
3,250,000,000

Existing New Starts Full Funding Grant Agreements With Remaining Funding Needs - Projects Are Under Construction or Open for Service
CA Los Angeles, Regional Connector Transit Corridor
FFGA
LRT $
1,402,932,490 $
669,900,000 47.7% $
165,000,000
CA Los Angeles, Westside Subway Extension - Section 1
FFGA
HR
$
2,821,957,153 $ 1,250,000,000 44.3% $
165,000,000
CA San Francisco - Third Street Light Rail-Central Subway Project FFGA
LRT $
1,578,300,000 $
942,200,000 59.7% $
619,181,899
CA San Jose - Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension
FFGA
HR
$
2,230,021,971 $
900,000,000 40.4% $
552,585,423
CO Denver - RTD Eagle, Denver
FFGA
CR
$
2,043,143,000 $ 1,030,449,000 50.4% $
667,186,415
HI Honolulu - High Capacity Transit Corridor
FFGA
HR
$
5,121,693,163 $ 1,550,000,000 30.3% $ 1,056,267,358
MA Cambridge to Medford, Green Line Extension
FFGA
LRT $
2,297,618,856 $
996,121,000 43.4%
TBD
NC Charlotte, Blue Line Extension-Northeast Corridor
FFGA
LRT $
1,160,084,496 $
580,042,248 50.0% $
305,807,660
OR Portland - Milwaukie LRT
FFGA
LRT $
1,490,350,173 $
745,175,087 50.0% $
379,510,943
Total Existing New Starts Full Funding Grant Agreements
$ 20,146,101,302 $ 8,663,887,335
$ 3,910,539,698

$
504,900,000
$ 1,085,000,000
$
323,018,101
$
347,414,577
$
363,262,585
$
493,732,642
TBD
$
274,234,588
$
365,664,144
$ 3,757,226,637

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

115,000,000
115,000,000
165,000,000
165,000,000
165,000,000
265,000,000
165,000,000
115,000,000
115,000,000
1,385,000,000

New Starts Projects Recommended for Full Funding Grant Agreements
CA Los Angeles Westside Section 2
MH
CA San Diego, Mid-Coast Corridor
MH
CO Denver, Southeast Extension
MH
MD Baltimore, Red Line
MH
MD Maryland National Capital Purple Line
MH
MN Minneapolis, Southwest LRT
MH
TX Fort Worth, TEX Rail
MH
Total Recommended New Starts Projects

$ 1,187,000,000 +
$ 1,035,375,288 +
$
92,000,000 *+
TBD
TBD
$
826,724,462 +
TBD
TBD

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

100,000,000
150,000,000
92,000,000
100,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
100,000,000
792,000,000

HR
LRT
LRT
LRT
LRT
LRT
CR

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

2,374,436,573
2,112,114,987
224,295,280
2,997,748,095
2,448,222,331
1,653,448,925
891,898,224
12,702,164,414

$ 1,187,000,000
$ 1,043,384,804
$
92,000,000
$
900,000,000
$
900,000,000
$
826,724,462
$
445,949,112
$ 5,395,058,378

50.0%
49.4%
41.0%
30.0%
36.8%
50.0%
50.0%

$
$
$

$

8,009,516
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

Table 1 - FY 2016 Funding for Capital Investment Grant Program

Project

Rating

Mode

Section 5309
Request

Total Project Cost

Section
5309
Share

Funds
Appropriated/
Allocated
Through FY15

Remaining Needs
After FY15

FY16 Budget
Recommendation

Core Capacity (project listed for illustrative purposes only, projects not yet ready for construction grant)
HR
IL Chicago, Red and Purple Line Modernization Project
NY Canarsie Line Power Improvements
HR
TX Dallas DART Platform Extension
LRT
Small Starts Projects Recommended for Small Starts Grant Agreements
CA Fresno, FAX Blackstone/Kings Canyon BRT
M
CA San Francisco, Van Ness Avenue BRT
H
CA San Rafael to Larkspur Regional Connector
M
NC Charlotte, CityLYNX Gold Line Phase 2
MH
NV Reno, 4th St/Prater Way Corridor
MH
OH Columbus, Cleveland Avenue BRT
M
TX El Paso Montana Corridor BRT
M
UT Provo Orem BRT
MH
WA Tacoma, Tacoma Link Light Rail Expansion
MH
Total Small Starts

BRT
BRT
CR
SC
BRT
BRT
BRT
BRT
LRT

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

48,530,694
162,072,300
42,532,750
150,000,000
52,570,000
47,667,067
45,516,813
149,927,986
166,008,514
864,826,123

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Accelerated Project Delivery and Development^

38,824,555
74,999,999
22,532,873
74,999,999
6,470,000
38,133,654
26,972,509
74,964,311
74,999,999
432,897,898

80.0%
46.3%
53.0%
50.0%
12.3%
80.0%
59.3%
50.0%
45.2%

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

27,800,000
45,396,000
2,500,000
4,018,000
79,714,000

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

11,024,555
29,603,999
20,032,873
74,999,999
6,470,000
38,133,654
26,972,509
70,946,311
74,999,999
353,183,898

*
*
*+
*+
*+
*+
*+
*+
*+

$

351,066,101

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

11,024,555
29,603,999
20,032,873
74,999,999
6,470,000
38,133,654
26,972,509
70,946,311
74,999,999
353,183,899

$

320,000,000

Ratings abbreviations -- L=Low; ML=Medium-Low; M=Medium; MH=Medium-High; H=High
Mode abbreviations -- BRT=bus rapid transit; CR=commuter rail; HR=heavy rail; LRT=light rail transit; SC=streetcar
TBD = Allocation of FY 2015 funds is to be determined as the projects become ready for FFGAs. Legislative language directs FTA to "give funding priority to projects requiring a 40 percent or less Federal share."
+ Indicates first time included as a funding recommendation in the President's Budget.
* Indicates completion of FTA commitment to the project with proposed FY16 budget recommendation
^ For projects that may become ready for construction grant agreements during FY 2016, accelerated project development work including planning activities, and not less than $75 million for projects in Small
Urban/Rural areas with less than 200,000 in population meeting a set of new eligibility parameters and streamlined evaluation criteria.

Annual Report on Funding Recommendations

The FY 2016 Funding Allocations and Recommendations
FTA is recommending a total appropriation of $3,250 million in Section 5309 Capital Investment
Grant Program funds in FY 2016. FTA recommends it be distributed as follows:
 $1,385.00 million for nine existing FFGAs
 $ 792.00 million to seven proposed New Starts Projects
 $ 351.07 million for Core Capacity projects
 $ 353.18 million to nine proposed Small Starts Projects
 $ 320.00 million for Accelerated Project Development and Delivery Incentive category
 $ 48.75 million for management and oversight (1.5% of the FY 2016 funding level.)
The funding proposed for the existing FFGAs shown above includes the negotiated payment
outlined in each FFGA plus an additional $15 million for each project. FTA believes
accelerating FFGA payments can not only potentially lower financing costs incurred on these
projects, but also allow FTA to better manage the overall program given the ever growing
demand for funds.
The FY 2016 budget proposal also includes $320 million for an “Accelerated Project
Development and Delivery” category. This is proposed to be distributed as described below:
1. Approximately $120 million would be for New and Small Starts projects currently in the
program pipeline that were unable to receive a rating and funding recommendation at the
time of the President’s FY 2016 budget submittal, but potentially could receive an
acceptable rating of Medium or higher prior to the conclusion of FY 2016. This could
include :
 The Orlando SunRail Phase 2 South, Orlando SunRail Phase 2 North, and
Sacramento Downtown Riverfront Streetcar projects that did not submit sufficient
information to provide FTA with the necessary confidence at the time of the
preparation of the FY 2016 President’s budget that they would receive the Medium or
better overall rating required by statute to be recommended for a construction grant
agreement. Funding in the “Accelerated Delivery” category can be assigned to these
projects if the uncertainties are resolved and FTA agrees to advance them to
construction grant agreements prior to September 30, 2016.
 Other projects currently in FTA’s Capital Investment Grant pipeline that may be
ready for a construction grant agreement before the conclusion of FY 2016, but were
not able to prepare and submit the information required to be evaluated and rated for
the President’s FY 2016 Budget. Importantly, FTA has been encouraging project
sponsors to submit information for evaluation and rating on an on-going basis
throughout the year, not simply by one fixed deadline for annual budget
considerations. By providing projects in the pipeline the potential to advance to
construction grant agreements when they are ready, rather than making them wait for
the next federal budget cycle to be completed, an opportunity exists to advance the
projects more quickly and thereby minimize cost escalation and possible financing
costs. To the extent that pipeline projects can be advanced after the FY 2016 Budget

6

Annual Report on Funding Recommendations

submittal, but sooner than the FY 2017 Budget submittal, they would be eligible for
some portion of the funding proposed in this category.
2. Approximately $200 million would be for Accelerated Project Development work for
communities that have found it challenging to advance local resources for this purpose.
Not less than $75 million of this amount would be for a newly proposed subsection under
Section 5309 that would set aside funding for areas under 200,000 in population (small
urban and rural areas) seeking to implement corridor or regional based bus service with
premium features such as use of advanced technologies, branding, and other amenities,
that could meet a set of streamlined evaluation criteria.

Project Evaluation and Ratings
The Capital Investment Grant project evaluation and ratings included in this report are based on
a process specified in statute. MAP-21 establishes various criteria on which proposed projects
must be evaluated and specifies a five-point rating scale: High, Medium-High, Medium, MediumLow, and Low. To advance in the process toward a funding recommendation in the President’s
budget and a construction grant, a project must be rated Medium or higher overall. Receipt of
project funding through a construction grant is subject to Congressional appropriation, and is
only obligated when the grantee can assure FTA that the proposed project scope, cost estimate,
and budget are firm and reliable and local funding commitments are in place. Once a project
receives a construction grant from FTA, it is no longer required to be evaluated and rated.
FTA does not require project sponsors to submit information annually for evaluation and rating.
Rather, FTA only requires sponsors to submit information for an updated evaluation and rating
of the project for the Annual Report if: 1) the project sponsor wants the project to be considered
as a candidate for a funding recommendation in the budget; 2) significant issues have been raised
in prior year evaluations that warrant a rerating; or 3) there has been a significant change to the
project since the last evaluation.
Projects can be expected to continue to change as they progress through the development
process. Hence, the ratings for projects that have not yet been recommended for FFGAs or
SSGAs should not be construed as statements about the ultimate ratings of those projects.
Rather, the ratings provide assessments of the projects’ strengths and weaknesses at the time they
were rated.
Tables 2A, 2B, and 2C present the ratings for all projects currently advancing through the
process. Table 2A is the Summary of FY 2016 Project Ratings; Table 2B is the Detailed
Summary of FY 2016 Local Financial Commitment Ratings; and Table 2C is the Detailed
Summary of FY2016 Project Justification Ratings.
Since publication of the FY 2015 Annual Report in April 2014, three projects received
construction grant agreements. Another is in the final stages of review prior to receipt of a
construction grant agreement. In addition, two projects entered the New Starts Engineering
phase and eleven projects entered the New Starts, Small Starts, or Core Capacity Project
Development phase. These include the following:

7

Annual Report on Funding Recommendations

New Starts Projects that Received Full Funding Grant Agreements
 Cambridge to Medford, MA – Green Line Extension
 Los Angeles, CA – Westside Subway Extension – Section 1
Small Starts Project that Received Small Starts Grant Agreement
 Oakland, CA – East Bay BRT
Small Starts Project in the Final Stages of Review for a Small Starts Grant Agreement
 Jacksonville, FL – North Corridor Bus Rapid Transit
New Starts Projects Entered into Engineering under MAP-21
 Los Angeles, CA – Westside Purple Line Extension Section 2
 Maryland National Capital Purple Line
New Starts Projects Entered into Project Development under MAP-21
 Minneapolis, MN METRO Blue Line Extension (Bottineau LRT)
Small Starts Projects Entered into Project Development under MAP-21
 Albany, NY – Washington/Western BRT
 Everett, WA – Swift II Bus Rapid Transit
 Minneapolis, MN METRO Orange Line BRT
 Reno, NV Virginia Street BRT Extension
 Sacramento, CA – Downtown Riverfront Streetcar
 Salt Lake County, UT – Provo-Orem BRT
 Seattle, WA – Seattle Center City Connector Streetcar
 Tacoma, WA – Link Light Rail Expansion
Core Capacity Projects Entered into Project Development under MAP-21
 New York, NY – Canarsie Line Power Improvements
 Dallas, TX – DART Red and Blue Line Platform Extensions

8

Table 2A --Capital Investment Grant Program Summary of FY 2016 Project Ratings
Phase

Capital Cost
(millions)

State, City, Project
New Starts Engineering
CA Los Angeles, Westside Subway Extension - Section 2
+++ FL Orlando, SunRail Phase II South
MD Maryland National Capital Purple Line
TX Houston, University Corridor LRT
New Starts Project Development
CA San Diego, Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project
^ CO Denver, Southeast Extension
MD Baltimore, Red Line
^ MN Minneapolis, METRO Blue Line Extension (Bottineau LRT)
MN Minneapolis, Southwest LRT
^ NC Durham, Durham-Orange LRT Project
TX Fort Worth, TEX Rail
^ WA Seattle, Lynnwood Link Extension
Core Capacity Project Development
^ IL Chicago, Red and Purple Line Modernization Project - Phase One
^ NY New York City, Canarsie Power Improvements
^ TX Dallas, DART Red and Blue Line Platform Extensions
Small Starts Project Development
^ AZ Tempe, Tempe Streetcar
CA Fresno, Fresno Area Express Blackstone/Kings Canyon BRT
^ CA Los Angeles, Downtown Streetcar
@ CA Sacramento, Downtown Riverfront Streetcar
CA San Francisco, Van Ness Avenue BRT
^ CA San Jose, El Camino Real Corridor BRT Project
^ CA San Rafael, SMART San Rafael to Larkspur Regional Connection
^ FL Fort Lauderdale, Wave Streetcar
FL Jacksonville, BRT Southeast Corridor
+++ FL Orlando, SunRail Phase II North Extension
^ IL Chicago, CTA Ashland Ave BRT Phase I Project
^ MI Lansing, Michigan/Grand River BRT
^ MN Minneapolis, METRO Orange Line BRT
^ NC Charlotte, CityLYNX Gold Line Phase 2
^ NM Albuquerque, Central Ave BRT
^ NV Reno, 4th St/Prater Way Corridor
^ NV Reno, Virginia Street BRT Extension
^ NY Albany, Washington/Western BRT
^ OH Columbus, COTA Cleveland Avenue BRT Project
OR Eugene, West Eugene EmX Extension
^ TN Nashville, East-West Connector BRT (The Amp)
TX El Paso, Dyer Corridor BRT
^ TX El Paso, Montana Corridor BRT
^ TX San Antonio, Downtown Modern Streetcar
^ UT Provo-Orem, Provo-Orem Bus Rapid Transit
^ WA Everett, Swift II Bus Rapid Transit
^ WA Seattle, Center City Connector
^ WA Tacoma, Tacoma Link Light Rail Extension
^ WA Vancouver, C-TRAN Fourth Plain Bus Rapid Transit

Financing
Costs
(millions)

Total Capital Cost
(millions)

Total CIG
Funding
Request
(millions)

CIG Share of
Capital Costs

Overall Project
Rating

Local Financial
Commitment
Rating

Project
Justification
Rating

$2,273.2
$183.9
$2,325.1
$1,461.6

$101.2
$1.0
$123.1
$101.5

$2,374.4
$184.9
$2,448.2
$1,563.1

$1,187.0
$92.4
$900.0
$781.5

50.0%
50.0%
36.8%
50.0%

Medium-High
Not Rated
Medium-High
Medium

Medium
Not Rated
Medium-High
Medium

Medium-High
Not Rated
Medium-High
Medium

$1,687.7
$224.3
$2,888.9
$1,002.0
$1,588.4
$1,820.6
$881.0
$1,200.0 - 1,700.0

$424.4
$0.0
$108.8
$0.0
$65.0
$0.0
$10.9
$0.0

$2,112.1
$224.3
$2,997.7
$1,002.0
$1,653.4
$1,820.6
$891.9
$1,200.0 - 1,700.0

$1,043.4
$92.0
$900.0
$501.0
$826.7
$910.3
$445.9
---

49.4%
41.0%
30.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%

Medium-High
Medium-High
Medium-High
--Medium-High
--Medium-High
---

Medium-High
Medium-High
Medium-High
--High
--Medium-High
---

Medium-High
Medium
Medium-High
--Medium
--Medium
---

$1,700.0
$300.0
$188.4

$0.0
$0.0
$0.0

$1,700.0
$300.0
$188.4

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------

$124.7
$48.5
$153.0 - 162.0
$165.9
$162.1
$188.0
$42.5
$161.9
$23.9
$68.2
$116.9
$215.4
$150.7
$150.0
--$52.6
$27.4
$64.0
$47.7
$95.6
$174.0
$35.8
$45.5
$232.0
$149.9
$48.0
$110.0
$166.0
$53.0

$4.7
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.5
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0

$129.3
$48.5
$153.0 - 162.0
$165.9
$162.1
$188.0
$42.5
$161.9
$23.9
$68.7
$116.9
$215.4
$150.7
$150.0
--$52.6
$27.4
$64.0
$47.7
$95.6
$174.0
$35.8
$45.5
$232.0
$149.9
$48.0
$110.0
$166.0
$53.0

$56.0
$38.8
$75.0
$75.0
$75.0
$75.0
$22.5
$59.3
$19.1
$34.3
$58.3
$75.0
$64.6
$75.0
--$6.5
----$38.1
$75.0
$75.0
$20.4
$27.0
$75.0
$75.0
$38.0
$55.0 - 75.0
$75.0
$38.4

43.3%
80.0%
46 - 49%
45.2%
46.3%
39.9%
53.0%
36.6%
80.0%
50.0%
49.9%
34.8%
42.9%
50.0%
--12.3%
----80.0%
78.5%
43.1%
56.9%
59.3%
32.3%
50.0%
79.2%
50 - 68%
45.2%
72.5%

--Medium
--Not Rated
High
--Medium
Medium-High
Medium
Not Rated
------Medium-High
--Medium-High
----Medium
Medium
Medium-High
Medium
Medium
--Medium-High
----Medium-High
Medium-High

--Medium
--High
High
--Medium
High
Medium
Not Rated
------High
--High
----Medium
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
--High
----High
Medium

--Medium
--Not Rated
High
--Medium
Medium
Medium
Not Rated
------Medium
--Medium
----Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
--Medium
----Medium
Medium-High

+++ Questions remain on the capital and operating costs submitted by the project sponsor. Therefore, FTA was unable to develop ratings for the projects. FTA will work with the project sponsor to address the matters.
^ This project entered Project Development (PD) under MAP-21 procedures. PD is the phase when a project sponsor completes the environmental review process, selects a locally preferred alternative, gets it adopted into the fiscally
constrained long range plan, and develops the information necessary for the project to be evaluated and rated by FTA. Thus, the project cost, including financing charges, may not yet be known.

--- This project was not rated because it entered PD under MAP-21 procedures, which do not require a rating to be assigned upon entry into PD.

@ FTA was unable to develop an overall rating for the project due to unreliable travel forecasts. FTA will work with the project sponsor to address the matter.

Table 2B -- Detailed Summary of FY 2016 Local Financial Commitment Ratings
Phase
State, City, Project

Local Financial Commitment Factors
Local Financial
Commitment
Summary Rating

Current Financial
Condition Rating

Commitment of
Funds Rating

New Starts Engineering
CA Los Angeles, Westside Subway Extension - Section 2
+++ FL Orlando, SunRail Phase II South
MD Maryland National Capital Purple Line
^ TX Houston, University Corridor LRT

Medium
Not Rated
Medium-High
Medium

Medium-Low
--Medium
*

Medium-High
--Medium-High
*

Medium
--Medium-Low
*

50%
50%
37%
50%

New Starts Project Development
CA San Diego, Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project
CO Denver, Southeast Extension
MD Baltimore, Red Line
MN Minneapolis, METRO Blue Line Extension (Bottineau LRT)
MN Minneapolis, Southwest LRT
NC Durham, Durham-Orange LRT Project
TX Fort Worth, TEX Rail
WA Seattle, Lynnwood Link Extension

Medium-High
Medium-High
Medium-High
--High
--Medium-High
---

Medium-High
Medium
Medium
--High
--Medium-High
---

High
Medium-High
Medium-High
--High
--High
---

Medium-Low
Medium
Medium-Low
--Medium-High
--Medium-High
---

49%
41%
30%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%

Core Capacity Project Development
IL Chicago, Red and Purple Line Modernization Project - Phase One
NY New York City, Canarsie Power Improvements
TX Dallas, DART Red and Blue Line Platform Extensions

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------

Small Starts Project Development
AZ Tempe, Tempe Streetcar
^ CA Fresno, Fresno Area Express Blackstone/Kings Canyon BRT
CA Los Angeles, Downtown Streetcar
CA Sacramento, Downtown Riverfront Streetcar
^ CA San Francisco, Van Ness Avenue BRT
CA San Jose, El Camino Real Corridor BRT Project
CA San Rafael, SMART San Rafael to Larkspur Regional Connection
FL Fort Lauderdale, Wave Streetcar
^ FL Jacksonville, BRT Southeast Corridor
+++ FL Orlando, SunRail Phase II North Extension
IL Chicago, CTA Ashland Ave BRT Phase I Project
MI Lansing, Michigan/Grand River BRT
MN Minneapolis, METRO Orange Line BRT
NC Charlotte, CityLYNX Gold Line Phase 2
NM Albuquerque, Central Ave BRT
NV Reno, 4th St/Prater Way Corridor
NV Reno, Virginia Street BRT Extension
NY Albany, Washington/Western BRT
OH Columbus, COTA Cleveland Avenue BRT Project
^ OR Eugene, West Eugene EmX Extension
TN Nashville, East-West Connector BRT (The Amp)
^ TX El Paso, Dyer Corridor BRT
TX El Paso, Montana Corridor BRT
TX San Antonio, Downtown Modern Streetcar
UT Provo-Orem, Provo-Orem Bus Rapid Transit
WA Everett, Swift II Bus Rapid Transit
WA Seattle, Center City Connector
WA Tacoma, Tacoma Link Light Rail Extension
WA Vancouver, C-TRAN Fourth Plain Bus Rapid Transit

--Medium
--High
High
--Medium
High
Medium
Not Rated
------High
--High
----Medium
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
--High
----High
Medium

--*
--N/A
*
--Medium-High
N/A
*
--------N/A
--N/A
----N/A
*
N/A
*
Medium
--N/A
----N/A
N/A

--*
--N/A
*
--High
N/A
*
--------N/A
--N/A
----N/A
*
N/A
*
High
--N/A
----N/A
N/A

--*
--N/A
*
--Medium-Low
N/A
*
--------N/A
--N/A
----N/A
*
N/A
*
Medium-Low
--N/A
----N/A
N/A

43%
80%
46 - 49%
45%
46%
40%
53%
37%
80%
50%
50%
35%
43%
50%
--12%
----80%
78%
43%
57%
59%
32%
50%
79%
50 - 68%
45%
72%

Reasonableness of the CIG Program
Financial Plan Rating Funding Share

If the summary local financial commitment rating is rated at least Medium and the CIG Program share is less than 50 percent of the project’s capital cost, then the summary local financial
commitment rating is raised one level.
+++ Questions remain on the capital and operating costs submitted by the project sponsor. Therefore, FTA was unable to develop ratings for the projects. FTA will work with the project
sponsor to address the matters.
--- This project entered Project Development (PD) under MAP-21, which does not require FTA to perform an evaluation and rating of projects entering PD.
* The rating shown is from the last evaluation and rating that was performed under the SAFETEA-LU process. Because the subfactors in the SAFETEA-LU process differ from those in the
MAP-21 process, only the summary rating is shown.
^ This project was grandfathered under the SAFETEA-LU evaluation and rating process.

"N/A" signifies that this subfactor does not apply because the project qualified for the financial rating "warrant" outlined in FTA's August 2013 New and Small Starts Final Policy

Guidance.

Table 2C -- Detailed Summary of FY 2016 Project Justification Ratings
Phase
Project

Environmental

Mobility

Congestion

Cost

Economic

Justification

Benefits

Improvements

Relief

Effectiveness

Development

Summary Rating

Rating

Rating

Rating

Rating

Rating

New Starts Engineering
CA Los Angeles, Westside Subway Extension - Section 2
+++ FL Orlando, SunRail Phase II South
MD Maryland National Capital Purple Line
^ TX Houston, University Corridor LRT

Medium-High
Not Rated
Medium-High
Medium

High
--High
High

Medium
--Medium-High
Medium-High

Medium
--Medium
N/A

Medium
--Medium-High
Medium

Medium-High
--Medium-High
Medium

Medium-High
--Medium
Medium-Low

New Starts Project Development
CA San Diego, Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project
CO Denver, Southeast Extension
MD Baltimore, Red Line
MN Minneapolis, METRO Blue Line Extension (Bottineau LRT)
MN Minneapolis, Southwest LRT
NC Durham, Durham-Orange LRT Project
TX Fort Worth, TEX Rail
WA Seattle, Lynnwood Link Extension

Medium-High
Medium
Medium-High
--Medium
--Medium
---

High
Medium
Medium-High
--Medium
--High
---

Medium
Medium-Low
Medium-High
--Medium
--Medium-Low
---

Medium
Medium
Medium
--Medium
--Medium
---

Medium
Medium-High
Medium
--Medium
--Medium-Low
---

Medium-High
Medium-High
Medium-High
--Medium-High
--Medium
---

Medium
Medium-Low
Medium-High
--Medium
--Medium-Low
---

State, City, Project

Core Capacity Project Development
IL Chicago, Red and Purple Line Modernization Project - Phase One

Land Use
Rating

---

---

-----

-----

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------

Small Starts Project Development
AZ Tempe, Tempe Streetcar
^ CA Fresno, Fresno Area Express Blackstone/Kings Canyon BRT
CA Los Angeles, Downtown Streetcar
@ CA Sacramento, Downtown Riverfront Streetcar
^ CA San Francisco, Van Ness Avenue BRT
CA San Jose, El Camino Real Corridor BRT Project
CA San Rafael, SMART San Rafael to Larkspur Regional Connection
FL Fort Lauderdale, Wave Streetcar
^ FL Jacksonville, BRT Southeast Corridor

--Medium
--Not Rated
High
--Medium
Medium
Medium

--N/A
----N/A
--High
Low

--N/A
----N/A
--Low
Low

--N/A
----N/A
--Medium
Medium

--Medium
----High
--Medium
Medium

--Medium
----High
--Low
Medium-High

--Medium
----High
--Medium-Low
Medium

+++ FL Orlando, SunRail Phase II North Extension
IL Chicago, CTA Ashland Ave BRT Phase I Project
MI Lansing, Michigan/Grand River BRT
MN Minneapolis, METRO Orange Line BRT
NC Charlotte, CityLYNX Gold Line Phase 2
NM Albuquerque, Central Ave BRT
NV Reno, 4th St/Prater Way Corridor
NV Reno, Virginia Street BRT Extension
NY Albany, Washington/Western BRT
OH Columbus, COTA Cleveland Avenue BRT Project

Not Rated
------Medium
--Medium
----Medium

N/A
--------Medium
--High
----High

N/A
--------Low
--Low
----Low

N/A
--------Medium
--Medium
----Medium

Medium
--------Medium-High
--High
----High

Medium
--------Medium
--Medium-Low
----Medium

Medium
--------Medium
--Medium
----Medium

Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
--Medium
----Medium
Medium-High

N/A
Medium
N/A
High
--High
----High
High

N/A
Medium-Low
N/A
Low
--Medium-Low
----Low
Medium-Low

N/A
Medium
N/A
Medium
--Medium
----Medium
Medium

High
Not Rated
Medium
Medium-High
--High
----Medium-High
High

Medium
Medium-High
Medium
Medium
--Medium-Low
----Medium
Medium-High

Low
Medium
Medium
Low
--Medium
----Medium
Medium

NY New York City, Canarsie Power Improvements
TX Dallas, DART Red and Blue Line Platform Extensions

^ OR Eugene, West Eugene EmX Extension
TN Nashville, East-West Connector BRT (The Amp)
^ TX El Paso, Dyer Corridor BRT
TX El Paso, Montana Corridor BRT
TX San Antonio, Downtown Modern Streetcar
UT Provo-Orem, Provo-Orem Bus Rapid Transit
WA Everett, Swift II Bus Rapid Transit
WA Seattle, Center City Connector
WA Tacoma, Tacoma Link Light Rail Extension
WA Vancouver, C-TRAN Fourth Plain Bus Rapid Transit

+++ Questions remain on the capital and operating costs submitted by the project sponsor. Therefore, FTA was unable to develop ratings for the projects. FTA will work with the project sponsor to address the m
--- This project entered Project Development (PD) under MAP-21, which does not require FTA to perform an evaluation and rating of projects entering PD.
^ This project was grandfathered under the SAFETEA-LU evaluation and rating process.
@ FTA was unable to develop an overall rating for the project due to unreliable travel forecasts. FTA will work with the project sponsor to address the matter.
"N/A" signifies that this criterion does not apply because the project rating shown is based on the SAFETEA-LU evaluation and rating process rather than the MAP-21 process.

Capital Investment Grant Program

Existing Full Funding Grant Agreements

With Remaining Funding Needs in FY 2016


Portland - Milwaukie LRT



Cambridge to Medford,
Green Line Extension

 San Francisco, Third Street Light Rail Central Subway
 San Jose - Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension



Denver, RTD Eagle




Los Angeles, Westside Subway Extension – Section 1
Los Angeles, Regional Connector Transit Corridor

Honolulu, High Capacity Transit Corridor



Legend


Full Funding Grant Agreement


Charlotte, Blue Line
Extension – Northeast Corridor

Capital Investment Grant Program

Projects in Project Development and Engineering - FY 2016

Seattle, Center
City Connector

Everett, Swift II BRT

Tacoma, Link

Light Rail Extension


 Seattle, Lynnwood Link Extension



 Vancouver, C-TRAN Fourth Plain BRT

Albany,
Washington/Western BRT

 West Eugene EmX Extension
Minneapolis, Blue Line Extension LRT

Lansing, Grand River BRT



Minneapolis, Southwest LRT

Minneapolis, Orange Line BRT

San Rafael, SMART
Larkspur Regional
Connection




Reno, Virginia Street BRT Extension


 San Francisco, Van Ness BRT


San Jose, El Camino Real Corridor BRT

 Fresno, Blackstone/Kings Canyon BRT

New York, Canarsie

Chicago, Red and Purple Line Modernization 
Chicago, Ashland Ave BRT Phase I 


 Reno, 4th St/Prater Way Corridor
 Provo-Orem BRT
 Sacramento, Downtown Streetcar

Line Power Improvements






Columbus, Cleveland Avenue BRT



Denver,
Southeast Extension

Baltimore, Red Line
Maryland National Capital
Purple Line


Los Angeles, Westside Subway Extension - Section 2
 Los Angeles, Downtown Streetcar



Nashville, East-West
Connector BRT (The Amp)



San Diego,
Mid-Coast Corridor




Tempe Streetcar

Albuquerque,
Central Ave BRT





New Starts Engineering



New Starts Project Development



Core Capacity Project Development



Small Starts Project Development

Charlotte, CityLYNX
Gold Line Phase 2

Fort Worth,
TEX Rail
 Dallas, DART Platform Extension
El Paso, Dyer Corridor BRT

El Paso, Montana Corridor BRT
Houston, University
Corridor LRT

Legend

Durham,
Durham-Orange LRT



San Antonio, Downtown
Modern Streetcar



 Jacksonville, BRT Southeast Corridor



Orlando, SunRail Phase II North
Orlando, SunRail Phase II South

 Fort Lauderdale, Wave Streetcar