Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Report on Funding Recommendations- CIG Program

Annual Report
on Funding
Recommendations
Fiscal Year 2020
Capital Investment Grants Program and
Expedited Project Delivery Pilot Program
Report of the Secretary of Transportation
to the United States Congress
Pursuant to 49 USC 5309(o)(1) and
Section 3005(b)(11) of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act
March 2019
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 Grants Program Projects ...................... 2
The FY 2020 Funding Allocations and Recommendations ............................................................ 5

Tables
Table 1 FY 2020 Funding Proposed for Capital Investment Grants Program ................................ 4
Table 2A Summary of Capital Investment Grants Program FY 2020 Project Ratings .................. 7
Table 2B Detailed Summary of FY 2020 Local Financial Commitment Ratings .......................... 9
Table 2C Detailed Summary of FY 2020 Project Justification Ratings ....................................... 11

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 that have been submitted to the Federal Transit
Administration’s (FTA) discretionary Capital Investment Grants Program.
The Capital Investment Grants Program
The Capital Investment Grants (CIG) Program outlined in 49 USC 5309, was most recently
authorized in December 2015 by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act1 (FAST).
Since 1964, Congress has provided Federal funds to supplement certain local transit projects. In
FY 2019, Congress provided $10.2 billion in formula funds distributed to state and local
governments for local transit projects. The CIG Program supplements those expenditures with
additional financial resources for transit capital projects that are locally planned, implemented,
and operated. It provides discretionary funding for fixed guideway investments such as new and
expanded heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, streetcars, bus rapid transit, and ferries as well as
corridor-based bus rapid transit investments that emulate the features of rail.
There are three categories of eligible projects under the CIG Program: New Starts, Small Starts,
and Core Capacity. New Starts and Core Capacity projects are required by law to go through a
three-phase process - Project Development, Engineering, and Construction. Small Starts projects
are required by law to go through a two-phase process - Project Development and Construction.
As defined in law, New Starts projects are those whose sponsors request $100 million or more in
Capital Investment Grants Program funds or have an anticipated total capital cost of $300 million
or more. Core Capacity projects are substantial investments in existing fixed-guideway corridors
that are 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 those whose sponsors request less
than $100 million in Capital Investment Grants Program funds and have an anticipated total
capital cost of less than $300 million.
The FTA awards Section 5309 CIG funding for a portion of the total project cost, including
design and construction. Federal public transportation law limits New Starts projects to a
maximum Section 5309 CIG Program share of 60 percent of the total project cost, while Core
Capacity and Small Starts projects are limited to a maximum Section 5309 CIG Program share of
80 percent of the total project cost. Often, annual appropriations laws also include provisions
relating to the maximum Section 5309 CIG share allowed for projects funded with that year’s
appropriations. For example, the FY 2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act limits the CIG
Program share for New Starts projects to a maximum of 51 percent. Ordinarily, the CIG
Program share is less than the maximums specified in law, and often by a considerable amount.
The law requires all CIG projects to be evaluated and rated on a set of statutorily defined project
justification and local financial commitment criteria. Projects must receive and maintain a
“Medium” or better overall rating to advance through the various phases and be eligible for CIG
1

This Annual Report is required by Federal public transportation law, 49 USC 5309(o)(1).

1

Annual Report on Funding Recommendations

funding. Ratings are point in time evaluations by FTA and may change as proposed projects
proceed through planning and design when information concerning costs, benefits, financial
plans, and impacts is refined. The law does not require FTA to evaluate and rate projects once a
construction grant agreement is awarded.
Section 3005(b) of FAST established the Expedited Delivery Pilot Program, which allows FTA
to select up to eight projects for participation in the pilot. Eligible projects include New Starts,
Small Starts, and Core Capacity projects that are seeking no more than 25 percent in Federal
funding, are supported in part through a public private partnership, and will be operated and
maintained by an existing public transportation provider. Similar to the requirements for the
CIG Program, Section 3005(b)(11) of FAST requires FTA to submit to Congress an annual
report on the proposed amount of funding for this pilot program.
This Report provides general information about the CIG Program, including the guidelines that
the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) uses to make funding recommendations.
Table 1 identifies the FY 2020 funding amount recommended for individual CIG 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 CIG projects at this juncture.
Information Available on the FTA Web Site
More information on the CIG Program can be found on FTA’s website at http://www.fta.dot.gov/
12304.html. Also available on the website, in the section labeled “Current Projects,” are profiles
of each of the projects currently in the CIG Program pipeline.

General Funding Recommendation and Funding Commitment
Guidelines for CIG Projects


Any project recommended for CIG funding by FTA in the Annual Report must 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.



Funding recommendations are based on the results of the project evaluation process and
resulting project justification, local financial commitment, and overall project ratings, as well
as considerations such as project readiness and the availability of CIG funds.



The decision whether to enter into a construction grant agreement is discretionary. Even if
FTA decides to proceed with such an agreement, FTA does not sign a construction grant
agreement committing CIG funding until after the project sponsor has demonstrated that its
project is ready for such an agreement. This includes assurance that the project’s
development and design have progressed to the point where its scope, costs, benefits, and
impacts are considered firm and final, the project sponsor has obtained all non-CIG funding
commitments, and the project sponsor has completed all critical third-party agreements.
Under the longstanding CIG Program framework, FTA establishes a maximum fixed CIG
dollar amount upon entry into the Engineering phase for New Starts and Core Capacity
projects, or at award of the construction grant agreement for Small Starts projects.

2

Annual Report on Funding Recommendations

Thereafter, the project sponsor assumes the risk for any cost overruns or funding shortfalls
that may occur on a project.


The construction grant agreement, called either a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for
New Starts and Core Capacity projects or a Small Starts Grant Agreement (SSGA) for Small
Starts projects, defines the project including its cost, scope, schedule, and level of service;
commits to a maximum level of annual and total CIG 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 oversee
and the project sponsor manage the project in accordance with Federal law. Upon
completion of the payment schedule outlined in an FFGA or SSGA, the CIG funding
commitment has been fulfilled. Any additional costs are the responsibility of the project
sponsor. The 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.



When preparing funding recommendations for the upcoming fiscal year, FTA’s priority is to
honor the commitments made in existing construction grant agreements. The FTA
recommends new projects not yet under construction grant agreements for funding only if
proposed CIG Program funding levels are sufficient.



Initial planning efforts conducted prior to entry into the first phase of the CIG process are not
eligible for CIG funding, but funding may be provided for that work through grants under the
Section 5303 Metropolitan Planning Program, the Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula
Program, or Title 23 “flexible funding.”



The FTA encourages project sponsors to provide an overmatch as a means of funding more
projects and leveraging State, local and private financial resources including through the use
of value capture. For large projects, the maximum Federal CIG Program share has been less
than 38 percent in new FFGAs awarded since January 2017.

FTA emphasizes that the process of CIG project evaluation and rating is ongoing. As a proposed
CIG 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 2020 Funding Recommendations for the Section 5309 Capital Investment Grants (CIG) Program and the 3005(b) Expedited Delivery
Mode

Section 5309
CIG Request

Total Project Cost

Section
5309 CIG
Share

CIG Funds
Appropriated
through FY19

Existing New Starts Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGAs)
Existing Core Capacity Full Funding Grant Agreements
Other Projects That May Become Ready for Section 5309 or 3005(b) Funding During FY20
Oversight - 1% takedown by statute
Total
Existing New Starts FFGAs
* CA Los Angeles, Regional Connector
CA Los Angeles, Westside Subway Section 1
CA Los Angeles, Westside Subway Section 2
CA San Diego, Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project
MA Boston Green Line Extension
MD Maryland National Capital Purple Line
TX Fort Worth, TEX Rail
WA Lynnwood, Link Extension
Subtotal

LRT
HR
HR
LRT
LRT
LRT
CR
LRT

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Existing Core Capacity FFGAs
CA San Carlos, Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project
IL Chicago, Red and Purple Line Modernization Project Phase One
Subtotal

CR
HR

$
$
$

1,402,932,490
2,821,957,153
2,499,239,536
2,171,200,545
2,297,618,856
2,407,030,286
1,034,411,932
3,260,357,587
17,894,748,385

$
$
$
$
$

795,290,221
200,000,000
494,847,879
15,051,900
1,505,190,000

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

669,900,000
1,250,000,000
1,187,000,000
1,043,380,000
996,121,000
900,000,000
499,390,221
1,172,730,000
7,718,521,221

47.7%
44.3%
47.5%
48.1%
43.4%
37.4%
48.3%
36.0%

$
565,000,000
$
565,000,000
$
400,000,000
$
430,024,740
$
700,000,000
$
568,000,000
$
454,000,000
$
200,000,000
$ 3,882,024,740

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

104,900,000
100,000,000
100,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
120,000,000
20,390,221
100,000,000
795,290,221

1,930,670,934 $
2,066,702,783 $
3,997,373,717 $

647,000,000
956,607,772
1,603,607,772

33.5%
46.3%

$
$
$

372,956,593
491,131,640
864,088,233

$
$
$

100,000,000
100,000,000
200,000,000

$

494,847,879

Other Projects That May Become Ready for Section 5309 or 3005(b) Funding During FY20
* CIG payout completed with receipt of proposed FY 2020 funding recommendation
LRT = light rail transit, HR = heavy rail, CR = commuter rail

FY20 President's
Budget
Recommendation

Annual Report on Funding Recommendations

The FY 2020 Funding Allocations and Recommendations
The FTA is recommending a total appropriation of $1.505 billion in Section 5309 Capital
Investment Grants Program funds in FY 2020, with the proposed distribution as follows:
 $995.29 million for 10 existing FFGAs, including eight New Starts and two Core
Capacity projects;
 $494.85 million in funding for other projects that may become ready for Section 5309
CIG or 3005(b) Expedited Delivery Pilot Program funding during FY2020; and
 $15.05 million for management and oversight (1.0% of the FY 2020 funding level.)
The funding proposed for the existing FFGAs shown above includes the negotiated payment
outlined in each FFGA or the amount needed to complete the CIG commitment if the project is
in the last year of its payment schedule.
The requested funds can also support projects in the Expedited Project Delivery for Capital
Investment Grants Pilot Program. The FTA is administering the CIG Program consistent with
the law, evaluating each project on its individual merits, and consistent with the discretion
afforded by Section 5309. The Department’s diligence in administering the CIG Program helps
to ensure that Federal funds go to projects that will use the assistance effectively.

Project Evaluation and Ratings
The CIG project evaluation and ratings included in this report are based on a process specified in
statute. Federal public transportation law (49 USC 5309) establishes various criteria on which
proposed projects must be evaluated and specifies a five-point rating scale: High, Medium-High,
Medium, Medium-Low, and Low. To advance in the CIG process toward a construction grant
agreement, a project must be rated Medium or better overall. The FTA awards CIG Program
funding only once the project sponsor can assure FTA that the proposed project scope, cost
estimate, and budget are firm and reliable, all non-CIG funding commitments are in place, and
all critical third-party agreements are completed. If a project receives a construction grant
agreement 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
for the Annual Report. 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 funding; 2) significant issues have been raised in prior
year evaluations that warrant a re-rating; 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 CIG process. Hence,
the ratings included in this Annual Report should not be construed as statements about the
ultimate success or failure of those projects. Rather, the ratings provide assessments of the
projects’ strengths and weaknesses at the point in time when they were rated.

5

Annual Report on Funding Recommendations

Tables 2A, 2B, and 2C present the ratings for all projects currently in the Project Development or
Engineering phase of the CIG Program. Table 2A is the Summary of FY 2020 Project Ratings;
Table 2B is the Detailed Summary of FY 2020 Local Financial Commitment Ratings; and Table
2C is the Detailed Summary of FY 2020 Project Justification Ratings.
Between publication of the FY 2019 Annual Report in February 2018 and mid-February 2019,
FTA awarded ten construction grant agreements. In addition, FTA approved one project into the
New Starts Engineering phase and eight projects entered the Small Starts Project Development
phase. These include the following:
New Starts Projects That Received Construction Grant Agreements
 CA Santa Ana and Garden Grove Streetcar
 WA Lynnwood Link Extension
Small Starts Projects That Received Construction Grant Agreements
 CA San Raphael SMART Larkspur Extension
 FL Jacksonville BRT East Corridor
 IN Indianapolis Red Line
 MI Grand Rapids Laker Line BRT
 MO Kansas City Prospect Max BRT
 NM Albuquerque Rapid Transit
 WA Everett Swift II BRT
 WA Tacoma Link Extension
New Starts Project Entered into Engineering
 CA Los Angeles Westside Section 3 
Small Starts Projects Entered into Project Development
 FL Miami-Dade County South Corridor Rapid Transit
 FL Tampa Streetcar Extension
 IN Indianapolis Blue Line Rapid Transit
 LA New Orleans St. Claude and Elysian Fields Streetcar Extensions
 OR Portland Southwest Corridor LRT
 UT Ogden/Weber State University Bus Rapid Transit
 WA Tacoma Pacific Avenue/SR7 Corridor BRT
 WA Vancouver Mill Plain BRT
In the project evaluations in the tables below, there are four projects that earned an overall
project rating below Medium, making them currently ineligible for CIG funding.

6

Table 2A -- Capital Investment Grant Program Summary of FY 2020 Project Ratings
CORE CAPACITY PROJECTS
Phase
State, City, Project
Core Capacity Engineering
NY New York City, Canarsie Line Power and Station Improvements
TX Dallas, DART Red and Blue Line Platform Extensions
Core Capacity Project Development
CA San Francisco, Transbay Corridor Core Capacity Program
NJ Hudson County, Portal North Bridge
NEW STARTS PROJECTS
Phase
State, City, Project
New Starts Engineering
CA Los Angeles, Westside Purple Line Extension, Section 3
MN Minneapolis, METRO Blue Line Extension (Bottineau LRT)
MN Minneapolis, Southwest Light Rail Transit
NC Durham, Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit
New Starts Project Development
AZ Phoenix, Northwest Extension Phase II Light Rail
AZ Phoenix, South Central Light Rail Extension (Downtown Hub)
^ CA San Jose, BART Silicon Valley Phase II - Extension to San Jose and Santa Clara
^ IN Lake County, West Lake Corridor
MN St. Paul, METRO Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit
MO Kansas City, Kansas City Streetcar Main Street Extension
NJ-NY Secaucus, Hudson Tunnel
^ NY New York City, Second Avenue Subway Phase 2
OR Portland, Southwest Corridor Light Rail Transit
WA Seattle, Federal Way Link Extension - Sound Transit

Capital Cost
(millions)

Financing
Costs
(millions)

Total CIG
Total Capital
CIG Share of
Funding Request
Cost (millions)
Capital Costs
(millions)

Local Financial
Commitment
Rating

Project
Justification
Rating

Overall Project
Rating

$336.8
$128.7

$36.2
$0.0

$372.9
$128.7

$100.0
$60.8

26.8%
47.2%

Medium-High
High

Medium-High
Medium

Medium-High
Medium-High

$2,689.7
$1,409.0

$81.5
$233.0

$2,771.2
$1,642.0

$1,250.0
$811.1

45.1%
49.4%

High
Medium-Low

Medium-High
Medium-High

High
Medium-Low

Local Financial
Commitment
Rating

Project
Justification
Rating

Overall Project
Rating

Capital Cost
(millions)

Financing
Costs
(millions)

Total CIG
Total Capital
CIG Share of
Funding Request
Cost (millions)
Capital Costs
(millions)

$3,211.9
$1,496.2
$1,948.2
$2,343.8

$451.1
$40.0
$55.0
$132.5

$3,663.0
$1,536.2
$2,003.2
$2,476.3

$1,300.0
$752.7
$928.8
$1,238.2

35.5%
49.0%
46.4%
50.0%

Medium-High
Medium-High
Medium-High
Medium

Medium-High
Medium
Medium
Medium

Medium-High
Medium-High
Medium-High
Medium

$326.6
$1,275.3
$4,693.0
$764.3
$420.0
$316.6
$11,429.1
$6,000.0
$2,600 - $2,800
$2,976.8

$14.2
$69.8
--$126.6
--$0.0
$2,273.3
----$183.9

$340.8
$1,345.2
$4,693.0
$890.9
$420.0
$316.6
$13,702.4
$6,000.0
$2,600 - $2,800
$3,160.7

$168.7
$665.9
--$440.1
$189.0
$151.6
$6,769.0
$2,000.0
$1,300 - $1,400
$790.0

49.5%
49.5%
--49.4%
45.0%
47.9%
49.4%
33.3%
--25.0%

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

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

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

^ This project entered Project Development (PD) under the MAP-21 and FAST process. 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 has not been rated because it entered PD under the MAP-21 and FAST procedures, which do not require a rating to be assigned upon entry into PD.

Table 2A -- Capital Investment Grant Program Summary of FY 2020 Project Ratings
SMALL STARTS PROJECTS
Phase
State, City, Project
Small Starts Project Development
^ AZ Flagstaff, Transit Spine BRT
AZ Tempe, Tempe Streetcar
CA Los Angeles, Restoration of Historic Streetcar in Downtown Los Angeles
CA Sacramento, Downtown Riverfront Streetcar Project
^ CA San Bernardino, West Valley Connector BRT
FL Jacksonville, First Coast Flyer Bus Rapid Transit Southwest Corridor
FL Miami-Dade County, South Corridor Rapid Transit Project
^ FL Orlando, SunRail Connector to the Orlando International Airport
+++ FL Orlando, SunRail Phase II North
FL St. Petersburg, Central Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
FL Tampa, Tampa Streetcar Extension
IN Indianapolis, IndyGo Blue Line Rapid Transit
IN Indianapolis, IndyGo Purple Rapid Transit Line
^ LA Baton Rouge, TramLinkBR
^ LA New Orleans, St. Claude and Elysian Fields Streetcar Extensions
MI Lansing, Capital Area Transportation Authority Bus Rapid Transit Project
MN Minneapolis, METRO Orange Line Bus Rapid Transit
^ NC Chapel Hill, North-South BRT
NV Reno, Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension
NY Albany, River Corridor Bus Rapid Transit
NY Albany, Washington/Western Bus Rapid Transit
NY New York City, Woodhaven Boulevard Select Bus Service
OR Portland, Division Transit Project
PA Pittsburgh, Downtown-Uptown-Oakland-East End Bus Rapid Transit
TX El Paso, Montana RTS Corridor
UT Ogden, Ogden/Weber State University BRT
^ VA Alexandria, West End Transitway
^ WA Everett, Swift Bus Rapid Transit Orange Line
WA Seattle, Center City Connector
WA Seattle, Madison Street BRT
WA Seattle, RapidRide Roosevelt Project
WA Spokane, Central City Line
WA Tacoma, Pacific Avenue/SR 7 Corridor BRT
WA Vancouver, Mill Plain Bus Rapid Transit
WI Milwaukee, Milwaukee East-West BRT

Capital Cost
(millions)

$32.9
$192.4
$282.2
$209.8
$219.0
$33.2
$291.0
$175 - $225
$68.2
$41.4
$99.6 -$102.6
$200.0
$140.0
$169.8
--$141.8
$150.7
$96.8 - $105.9
$98.5
$41.4
$80.6
$231.9
$168.6
$195.5
$47.0
$78.2
$119 - $140
$67 - $77
$252.2
$121.3
$90.2
$72.0
$149.9
$50.0
$54.7

Financing
Costs
(millions)

--$9.5
$14.2
$0.0
--$0.0
----$0.5
$0.0
--$0.0
$0.0
----$0.0
$0.0
--$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$6.3
$0.0
$0.0
$0.8
----$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0

Total CIG
Total Capital
CIG Share of
Funding Request
Cost (millions)
Capital Costs
(millions)

$32.9
$201.8
$296.4
$209.8
$219.0
$33.2
$291.0
$175 - $225
$68.7
$41.4
$99.6 -$102.6
$200.0
$140.0
$169.8
--$141.8
$150.7
$96.8 - $105.9
$98.5
$41.4
$80.6
$231.9
$174.8
$195.5
$47.0
$79.0
$119 - $140
$67 - $77
$252.2
$121.3
$90.2
$72.0
$149.9
$50.0
$54.7

--$75.0
$100.0
$100.0
--$23.2
$97.0
--$34.3
$20.4
$51.3
$100.0
$70.0
$84.0
--$97.8
$74.1
$77.4 - $84.7
$40.4
$26.9
$60.5
$97.1
$87.4
$97.8
$28.2
$49.8
--$35 - $40
$75.0
$59.9
$45.0
$53.4
$59.7
$24.9
$38.7

--37.2%
33.7%
47.7%
--70.0%
33.3%
--50.0%
49.3%
--50.0%
50.0%
49.5%
--69.0%
49.2%
--41.0%
65.0%
75.0%
41.9%
50.0%
50.0%
60.0%
63.0%
----29.7%
49.4%
49.9%
74.2%
39.9%
49.8%
70.7%

Local Financial
Commitment
Rating

Project
Justification
Rating

Overall Project
Rating

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

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

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

+++ Questions remain on the capital and operating costs submitted by the project sponsor. Therefore, FTA was unable to develop ratings for the project.
^ This project entered Project Development (PD) under the MAP-21 and FAST process. 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 has not been rated because it entered PD under the MAP-21 and FAST procedures, which do not require a rating to be assigned upon entry into PD.

Table 2B -- Detailed Summary of FY 2020 Local Financial Commitment Ratings
CORE CAPACITY PROJECTS
Phase
State, City, Project

Core Capacity Engineering
NY New York City, Canarsie Line Power and Station Improvements
TX Dallas, DART Red and Blue Line Platform Extensions
Core Capacity Project Development
CA San Francisco, Transbay Corridor Core Capacity Program
NJ Hudson County, Portal North Bridge

Local Financial Commitment Factors
Current Financial
Condition Rating

Commitment of
Funds Rating

Reasonableness of the
Financial Plan Rating

CIG Share of
Capital Costs

Local Financial
Commitment
Summary Rating

Medium
N/A

High
N/A

Medium-Low
N/A

26.8%
47.2%

Medium-High
High

High
Medium-Low

High
Medium

Medium-Low
Medium-Low

45.1%
49.4%

High
Medium-Low

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.
"N/A" signifies that this subfactor does not apply because the project qualified for the financial rating "warrant" outlined in FTA's Final Interim Policy Guidance.
NEW STARTS PROJECTS
Phase

Local Financial Commitment Factors
Current Financial
Condition Rating

Commitment of
Funds Rating

Reasonableness of the
Financial Plan Rating

CIG Share of
Capital Costs

Local Financial
Commitment
Summary Rating

New Starts Engineering
CA Los Angeles, Westside Purple Line Extension, Section 3
MN Minneapolis, METRO Blue Line Extension (Bottineau LRT)
MN Minneapolis, Southwest Light Rail Transit
NC Durham, Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit

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

High
High
High
Medium

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

35.5%
49.0%
46.4%
50.0%

Medium-High
Medium-High
Medium-High
Medium

New Starts Project Development
AZ Phoenix, Northwest Extension Phase II Light Rail
AZ Phoenix, South Central Light Rail Extension (Downtown Hub)
CA San Jose, BART Silicon Valley Phase II - Extension to San Jose and Santa Clara
IN Lake County, West Lake Corridor
MN St. Paul, METRO Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit
MO Kansas City, Kansas City Streetcar Main Street Extension
NJ-NY Secaucus, Hudson Tunnel
NY New York City, Second Avenue Subway Phase 2
OR Portland, Southwest Corridor Light Rail Transit
WA Seattle, Federal Way Link Extension - Sound Transit

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

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

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

49.5%
49.5%
--49.4%
45.0%
47.9%
49.4%
33.3%
--25.0%

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

State, City, Project

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.
--- This project entered Project Development (PD) under the MAP-21 and FAST process, which does not require FTA to perform an evaluation and rating of projects entering PD.

Table 2B -- Detailed Summary of FY 2020 Local Financial Commitment Ratings
SMALL STARTS PROJECTS
Phase
State, City, Project

AZ Flagstaff, Transit Spine BRT
AZ Tempe, Tempe Streetcar
CA Los Angeles, Restoration of Historic Streetcar in Downtown Los Angeles
CA Sacramento, Downtown Riverfront Streetcar Project
CA San Bernardino, West Valley Connector BRT
FL Jacksonville, First Coast Flyer Bus Rapid Transit Southwest Corridor
FL Miami-Dade County, South Corridor Rapid Transit Project
FL Orlando, SunRail Connector to the Orlando International Airport
+++ FL Orlando, SunRail Phase II North
FL St. Petersburg, Central Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
FL Tampa, Tampa Streetcar Extension
IN Indianapolis, IndyGo Blue Line Rapid Transit
IN Indianapolis, IndyGo Purple Rapid Transit Line
LA Baton Rouge, TramLinkBR
LA New Orleans, St. Claude and Elysian Fields Streetcar Extensions
MI Lansing, Capital Area Transportation Authority Bus Rapid Transit Project
MN Minneapolis, METRO Orange Line Bus Rapid Transit
NC Chapel Hill, North-South BRT
NV Reno, Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension
NY Albany, River Corridor Bus Rapid Transit
NY Albany, Washington/Western Bus Rapid Transit
NY New York City, Woodhaven Boulevard Select Bus Service
OR Portland, Division Transit Project
PA Pittsburgh, Downtown-Uptown-Oakland-East End Bus Rapid Transit
TX El Paso, Montana RTS Corridor
UT Ogden, Ogden/Weber State University BRT
VA Alexandria, West End Transitway
WA Everett, Swift Bus Rapid Transit Orange Line
WA Seattle, Center City Connector
WA Seattle, Madison Street BRT
WA Seattle, RapidRide Roosevelt Project
WA Spokane, Central City Line
WA Tacoma, Pacific Avenue/SR 7 Corridor BRT
WA Vancouver, Mill Plain Bus Rapid Transit
WI Milwaukee, Milwaukee East-West BRT

Local Financial Commitment Factors
Current Financial
Condition Rating

Commitment of
Funds Rating

Reasonableness of the
Financial Plan Rating

CIG Share of
Capital Costs

Local Financial
Commitment
Summary Rating

--Medium
Medium-High
N/A
--N/A
----Not Rated
N/A
--N/A
N/A
----Medium-High
N/A
--N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
----N/A
N/A
N/A
Medium-High
N/A
--N/A

--High
Low
N/A
--N/A
----Not Rated
N/A
--N/A
N/A
----Medium-Low
N/A
--N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
----N/A
N/A
N/A
Medium-High
N/A
--N/A

--Medium-Low
Low
N/A
--N/A
----Not Rated
N/A
--N/A
N/A
----Low
N/A
--N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
----N/A
N/A
N/A
Medium-Low
N/A
--N/A

--37.2%
33.7%
47.7%
--70.0%
33.3%
--50.0%
49.3%
--50.0%
50.0%
49.5%
--69.0%
49.2%
--41.0%
65.0%
75.0%
41.9%
50.0%
50.0%
60.0%
63.0%
----29.7%
49.4%
49.9%
74.2%
39.9%
49.8%
70.7%

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

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 project.
--- This project entered Project Development (PD) under the MAP-21 and FAST process, which does not require FTA to perform an evaluation and rating of projects entering PD.
"N/A" signifies that this subfactor does not apply because the project qualified for the financial rating "warrant" outlined in FTA's Final Interim Policy Guidance.

Table 2C -- Detailed Summary of FY 2020 Project Justification Ratings
CORE CAPACITY PROJECTS
Phase

Environmental
Benefits
Rating

Mobility
Improvements
Rating

Congestion
Relief
Rating

Cost
Effectiveness
Rating

Economic
Development
Rating

Capacity Needs
Rating

Project Justification
Summary Rating

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

Medium
Medium

High
Medium

Medium
Medium

High
High

Medium
Medium

Medium-High
Medium

Medium-High
Medium

Core Capacity Project Development
CA San Francisco, Transbay Corridor Core Capacity Program
NJ Hudson County, Portal North Bridge

Medium
Medium

High
High

High
Medium

High
High

Medium
Medium

Medium-High
Medium

Medium-High
Medium-High

Environmental
Benefits
Rating

Mobility
Improvements
Rating

Congestion
Relief
Rating

Cost
Effectiveness
Rating

Economic
Development
Rating

Land Use
Rating

Project Justification
Summary Rating

New Starts Engineering
CA Los Angeles, Westside Purple Line Extension, Section 3
MN Minneapolis, METRO Blue Line Extension (Bottineau LRT)
MN Minneapolis, Southwest Light Rail Transit
NC Durham, Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit

High
Medium-High
Medium
Medium-High

Medium-High
Medium
Medium
Medium

Medium
Medium-High
Medium
Medium-High

Medium
Medium-Low
Medium-Low
Low

Medium-High
Medium
Medium-High
Medium

Medium
Medium-High
Medium
Medium

Medium-High
Medium
Medium
Medium

New Starts Project Development
AZ Phoenix, Northwest Extension Phase II Light Rail
AZ Phoenix, South Central Light Rail Extension (Downtown Hub)
CA San Jose, BART Silicon Valley Phase II - Extension to San Jose and Santa Clara
IN Lake County, West Lake Corridor
MN St. Paul, METRO Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit
MO Kansas City, Kansas City Streetcar Main Street Extension
NJ-NY Secaucus, Hudson Tunnel
NY New York City, Second Avenue Subway Phase 2
OR Portland, Southwest Corridor Light Rail Transit
WA Seattle, Federal Way Link Extension - Sound Transit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State, City, Project

NEW STARTS PROJECTS
Phase
State, City, Project

--- This project entered Project Development (PD) under the MAP-21 and FAST process, which does not require FTA to perform an evaluation and rating of projects entering PD.

Table 2C -- Detailed Summary of FY 2020 Project Justification Ratings
SMALL STARTS PROJECTS

State, City, Project

Small Starts Project Development
AZ Flagstaff, Transit Spine BRT
AZ Tempe, Tempe Streetcar
CA Los Angeles, Restoration of Historic Streetcar in Downtown Los Angeles
CA Sacramento, Downtown Riverfront Streetcar Project
CA San Bernardino, West Valley Connector BRT
FL Jacksonville, First Coast Flyer Bus Rapid Transit Southwest Corridor
FL Miami-Dade County, South Corridor Rapid Transit Project
FL Orlando, SunRail Connector to the Orlando International Airport
+++ FL Orlando, SunRail Phase II North
 FL St. Petersburg, Central Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
FL Tampa, Tampa Streetcar Extension
IN Indianapolis, IndyGo Blue Line Rapid Transit
IN Indianapolis, IndyGo Purple Rapid Transit Line
LA Baton Rouge, TramLinkBR
LA New Orleans, St. Claude and Elysian Fields Streetcar Extensions
MI Lansing, Capital Area Transportation Authority Bus Rapid Transit Project
 MN Minneapolis, METRO Orange Line Bus Rapid Transit
NC Chapel Hill, North-South BRT
 NV Reno, Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension
 NY Albany, River Corridor Bus Rapid Transit
 NY Albany, Washington/Western Bus Rapid Transit
 NY New York City, Woodhaven Boulevard Select Bus Service
 OR Portland, Division Transit Project
 PA Pittsburgh, Downtown-Uptown-Oakland-East End Bus Rapid Transit
TX El Paso, Montana RTS Corridor
UT Ogden, Ogden/Weber State University BRT
VA Alexandria, West End Transitway
WA Everett, Swift Bus Rapid Transit Orange Line
WA Seattle, Center City Connector
WA Seattle, Madison Street BRT
WA Seattle, RapidRide Roosevelt Project
WA Spokane, Central City Line
WA Tacoma, Pacific Avenue/SR 7 Corridor BRT
WA Vancouver, Mill Plain Bus Rapid Transit
 WI Milwaukee, Milwaukee East-West BRT

Environmental
Benefits
Rating

Mobility
Improvements
Rating

Congestion
Relief
Rating

Cost
Effectiveness
Rating

Economic
Development
Rating

Land Use
Rating

Project Justification
Summary Rating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+++ Questions remain on the capital and operating costs submitted by the project sponsor. Therefore, FTA was unable to develop ratings for the project.
--- This project entered Project Development (PD) under the MAP-21 and FAST process, which does not require FTA to perform an evaluation and rating of projects entering PD.
 Project qualifies for Project Justification warrants outlined in FTA's Final Interim Policy Guidance.