FY23 Annual Report on Funding Recommendations CIG Program

Annual Report
on Funding
Recommendations
Fiscal Year 2023
Capital Investment Grants Program and
Expedited Project Delivery Pilot Program
Report of the Secretary of Transportation
to the United States Congress
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 5309(o)(1),
Section 3005(b)(11) of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act,
and Division J of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
March 2022
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 2023 Funding Allocations and Recommendations ............................................................ 6

Tables
Table 1 FY 2023 Funding Proposed for Capital Investment Grants Program and Expedited
Project Delivery Pilot Program....................................................................................................... 4
Table 2A Summary of Capital Investment Grants Program and Expedited Project Delivery Pilot
Program Projects............................................................................................................................. 9
Table 2B Detailed Summary of FY 2023 Local Financial Commitment Ratings ........................ 12
Table 2C Detailed Summary of FY 2023 Project Justification Ratings ....................................... 14

i

Introduction
This Annual Report on Funding Recommendations is issued by the United States Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) 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 (CIG) Program and Expedited
Project Delivery (EPD) Pilot Program.
The Capital Investment Grants Program
The CIG Program, set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 5309 (Section 5309), was most recently authorized by
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, enacted as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).
In addition to funding Congress may appropriate annually, the IIJA also provided $1.6 billion per
year in advance appropriations annually for the CIG Program from FY) 2022 through 2026.
The CIG Program is the Federal Government’s primary financial resource for supporting transit
capital projects that are locally planned, implemented, and operated. It provides 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. Over the years, 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.
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 Section 5309 as amended by the IIJA, New Starts projects are those for which the
sponsors request $150 million or more in CIG Program funds or have an anticipated total capital
cost of $400 million or more. Core Capacity projects are substantial investments in existing
fixed-guideway corridors that are at capacity today or will be in 10 years, where the proposed
project will increase capacity by not less than 10 percent. Small Starts projects are those for
which sponsors request less than $150 million in CIG Program funds and have an anticipated
total capital cost of less than $400 million.
FTA awards Section 5309 CIG Program funding for a portion of the total project cost, including
planning, 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.
The law requires FTA to evaluate and rate all CIG projects 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 of the CIG process and
be eligible for CIG funding. Ratings are point-in-time evaluations by FTA and may change as

1

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.
The Expedited Project Delivery Pilot Program
Section 3005(b) of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act established the
EPD 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 grant 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 the FAST Act 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 and EPD Program, including the
guidelines that the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) uses to make funding
recommendations. Table 1 identifies the FY 2023 funding amount recommended for individual
CIG and EPD projects, with information on each project’s cost and funding history. Tables 2A,
2B, and 2C provide information on the CIG and EPD projects as well as the results of FTA’s
evaluation and rating of the CIG projects at this juncture.
Information Available on the FTA Website
More information on the CIG Program can be found on FTA’s website at
https://www.transit.dot.gov/CIG. Also, available on the website in the section labeled “Current
Projects” are profiles of each of the projects currently in the CIG Program pipeline.
More information on the EPD Pilot Program can be found on FTA’s website at
https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/grant-programs/expedited-project-delivery-pilotprogram-section-3005b.

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

2

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.
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. 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. 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.”



FTA encourages project sponsors to provide an overmatch as a means of funding more
projects and leveraging State, local and private financial resources.

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 2023 Funding Recommendations for the Capital Investment Grants Program and Expedited Project Delivery Pilot Program

New Starts Existing Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGAs)
Proposed New Starts Projects For FFGAs
Funding for Other New Starts Projects That May Become Ready and for Project Development and Engineering Grants
Total New Starts

$
$
$
$

FY 2022
FY22
Consolidated
Appropriations
Act $2.248 B
731,854,451 $ 1,117,578,973
139,345,549 $
158,122,079
$
183,318,948
871,200,000 $ 1,459,020,000

Core Capacity Existing Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGAs)
Funding for Other Core Capacity Projects That May Become Ready
Total Core Capacity

$
$
$

316,800,000 $
$
316,800,000 $

345,000,000 $
$
345,000,000 $

661,800,000 $ 200,000,000 $
$ 116,800,000 $
661,800,000 $ 316,800,000 $

139,519,539 $
$
139,519,539 $

339,519,539
116,800,000
456,319,539

Small Starts Projects Proposed for Construction Grants
Funding for Other Small Starts Projects That May Become Ready and for Project Development and Engineering Grants
Total Small Starts

$
$
$

95,163,308 $
142,436,692 $
237,600,000 $

321,500,000 $
$
321,500,000 $

416,663,308 $ 106,165,996 $
142,436,692 $ 131,434,004 $
559,100,000 $ 237,600,000 $

$
151,496,303 $
151,496,303 $

106,165,996
282,930,307
389,096,303

Expeditd Project Delivery Pilot Program

$

158,400,000

$

100,000,000 $

258,400,000 $ 158,400,000 $

450,000,000 $

608,400,000

FTA Oversight

$

16,000,000 $

22,480,000 $

28,500,000 $

44,500,000

GRAND TOTAL

$ 1,600,000,000

$ 2,248,000,000 $ 3,848,000,000 $ 1,600,000,000 $ 2,850,000,000 $ 4,450,000,000

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

132,119,328
74,272,734
74,272,734
74,272,734
74,272,734
22,964,251
56,861,737
74,272,734
74,272,734
74,272,734
731,854,451

$
100,000,000
$
100,000,000
$
100,000,000
$
100,000,000
$
100,000,000
$
50,000,000
$
100,000,000
$
48,410,033
$
94,746,841
$
100,000,000
$
24,422,099
$
100,000,000
$
100,000,000
$ 1,117,578,973

$
232,119,328
$
174,272,734
$
174,272,734
$
174,272,734
$
174,272,734
$
72,964,251
$
156,861,737
$
48,410,033
$
94,746,841
$
174,272,734
$
24,422,099
$
174,272,734
$
174,272,734
$ 1,849,433,424

$
$ 50,000,000
$ 50,000,000
$ 50,000,000
$ 50,000,000
$
$
$
$
$ 50,000,000
$
$ 50,000,000
$ 50,000,000
$ 350,000,000

29,043,407
43,300,000
78,980,461
165,476,132
$316,800,000

$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$

74,043,407
143,300,000
178,980,461
265,476,132
661,800,000

$
$
$
$
$ 200,000,000 $
$
$
$ 116,800,000 $
$ 316,800,000 $

$
$
$
$
$ 100,000,000
$
$
$
$

Mode

Existing New Starts FFGAs
* AZ Phoenix, South Central/Downtown Hub Light Rail
# CA Los Angeles, Westside Subway Section 1
CA Los Angeles, Westside Subway Section 2
CA Los Angeles, Westside Subway Section 3
# CA San Diego, Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project
* IN Northern Indiana, Double Track
* IN Northern Indiana, West Lake Corridor
* MA Boston Green Line Extension
* MD Maryland National Capital Purple Line
MN Minneapolis, Southwest LRT
* MO Kansas City, Streetcar Main Street Extension
# WA Seattle, Federal Way Link Extension
WA Seattle, Lynnwood Link Extension
Total for Existing New Starts FFGAs
Existing Core Capacity FFGAs
* CA San Carlos, Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project
* CA San Francisco, BART Transbay Corridor Core Capacity Project
# NJ Seacaucus, Portal North Bridge
* IL Chicago, Red and Purple Line Modernization Project Phase 1
Funding for Other Core Capacity Projects That May Become Ready
Total for Existing Core Capacity FFGAs
Proposed New Starts Projects
* AZ Phoenix, Northwest Extension Phase II ^
* MN St Paul, METRO Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit
+ NJ-NY Seacaucus, Hudson Tunnels ^
+ NY New York, Second Avenue Subway Phase 2
#+ TX San Antonio, Advanced Rapid Transit North-South Corridor
Funding for Other New Starts Projects That May Become Ready and for
Project Development and Engineering Grants
Total for Proposed New Starts Projects

Total Project
Cost

Section 5309
CIG Request

Section
CIG/EPD Funds
5309
Allocated
CIG
through FY 2021
Share

FY 2023

FY22 Advance
Appropriation
$1.600 B

LRT
HR
HR
HR
LRT
CR
CR
LRT
LRT
LRT
SC
LRT
LRT

$1,345,088,335
$2,821,957,153
$2,499,239,536
$3,599,267,008
$2,171,200,545
$491,121,424
$944,892,265
$2,297,618,856
$2,407,030,286
$2,003,152,549
$351,706,565
$3,160,704,706
$3,260,357,587

$529,830,295
$1,250,000,000
$1,187,000,000
$1,300,000,000
$1,043,380,000
$172,964,251
$354,572,704
$996,121,000
$900,000,000
$928,840,370
$174,059,270
$790,000,000
$1,172,730,000

39.4%
44.3%
47.5%
36.1%
48.1%
35.2%
37.5%
43.4%
37.4%
46.4%
49.5%
25.0%
36.0%

$ 297,710,967
$ 762,710,967
$ 597,710,967
$ 397,710,967
$ 627,735,707
$ 100,000,000
$ 197,710,967
$ 947,710,967
$ 805,253,159
$ 212,710,967
$ 149,637,171
$ 297,710,967
$ 497,710,967
$ 5,892,024,740

CR
HR
CR
HR

$1,930,670,934
$2,705,720,281
$1,732,168,451
$2,066,702,783

$647,000,000
$1,169,000,000
$766,500,000
$956,607,772

33.5%
43.2%
44.3%
46.3%

$ 572,956,593 $
$ 1,025,700,000 $
$ 248,000,000 $
$ 691,131,640 $
$
$2,537,788,233

LRT
BRT
CR
HR
BRT

$401,325,074
$531,879,000
$12,685,490,487
$6,948,742,838
$320,000,000

$158,122,079
$239,345,549
$5,582,613,600
$3,404,883,991
$158,080,000

39.4%
45.0%
44.0%
49.0%
49.4%

$
$
$
$
$

45,000,000
100,000,000
100,000,000
100,000,000
$345,000,000

Total FY22

FY23 Advance
Appropriation
$1.600 B

$ 1,849,433,424 $ 350,000,000
$
297,467,628 $ 100,000,000
$
183,318,948 $ 421,200,000
$ 2,330,220,000 $ 871,200,000

38,480,000 $

FY23 Budget
Proposal
$2.850 B

Total FY23
Funding
$4.450 B

$ 1,522,404,158 $ 1,872,404,158
$ 558,080,000 $ 658,080,000
$
$ 421,200,000
$ 2,080,484,158 $ 2,951,684,158

16,000,000 $

$
$ 263,016,299
$ 200,000,000
$ 200,000,000
$ 191,371,559
$
$
$
$
$ 200,000,000
$
$ 268,016,299
$ 200,000,000
$ 1,522,404,158

100,000,000 $
$
$
$
$

$
139,345,549 $
$
$
$

58,122,079 $
100,000,000 $
$
$
$

58,122,079
239,345,549
-

$
$100,000,000 $

$
139,345,549 $

183,318,948 $
341,441,027 $

183,318,948 $ 421,200,000 $
480,786,576 $ 521,200,000 $

139,519,539
139,519,539

-

$
$ 313,016,299
$ 250,000,000
$ 250,000,000
$ 241,371,559
$
$
$
$
$ 250,000,000
$
$ 318,016,299
$ 250,000,000
$ 1,872,404,158
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$

339,519,539
116,800,000
456,319,539

-

400,000,000 $
158,080,000 $

400,000,000
158,080,000

558,080,000

421,200,000
979,280,000

$
$

Table 1 - FY 2023 Funding Recommendations for the Capital Investment Grants Program and Expedited Project Delivery Pilot Program

Mode

Proposed Small Starts Projects
* MN Rochester, Rapid Transit
* TX Austin, Expo Center Bus Rapid Transit
* TX Austin, Pleasant Valley Bus Rapid Transit
* WA Seattle, RapidRide I Line
* WA Tacoma, Pacific Avenue/SR 7 BRT
* WI Madison, East-West BRT
* PA Pittsburgh Downtown-Uptown-Oakland-East End BRT
#+ TN Memphis Innovation Corridor BRT
#+ WA Seattle RapidRide J Line
Funding for Other Small Starts Projects That May Become Ready and for
Project Development Grants
Total for Proposed Small Starts Projects
Expedited Project Delivery Pilot Program
+ CA
BART Silicon Valley Phase II Project
+ CA
Los Angeles East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Phase 1
Funding for Other EPD Projects That May Become Ready
Total for EPD Pilot Program

BRT
BRT
BRT
BRT
BRT
BRT
BRT
BRT
BRT

HR
LRT

Total Project
Cost

$114,541,900
$48,516,357
$52,723,726
$141,058,980
$169,997,716
$186,000,000
$290,795,000
$73,341,523
$120,546,340

Section 5309
CIG Request

$56,085,700
$30,855,528
$34,748,728
$66,720,897
$75,202,455
$103,000,000
$150,000,000
$46,037,482
$60,128,514

$ 9,148,000,000 $ 2,287,000,000
$ 2,811,929,373 $ 702,000,000

Section
CIG/EPD Funds
5309
Allocated
CIG
through FY 2021
Share
49.0%
63.6%
65.9%
47.3%
44.2%
55.4%
51.6%
62.8%
49.9%

FY22 Advance
Appropriation
$1.600 B

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
99,950,000 $
$
$

$
$

$
99,950,000 $

25.0% $
25.0% $

225,000,000
-

$
$
$
$

45,113,308
50,050,000
-

FY 2022
FY22
Consolidated
Appropriations
Act $2.248 B
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

56,085,700
30,855,528
34,748,728
66,720,897
75,202,455
57,886,692
-

FY 2023
Total FY22

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

FY23 Advance
Appropriation
$1.600 B

56,085,700 $
30,855,528 $
34,748,728 $
66,720,897 $
75,202,455 $
103,000,000 $
50,050,000 $
$
$

46,037,482
60,128,514

FY23 Budget
Proposal
$2.850 B

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

-

Total FY23
Funding
$4.450 B

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

46,037,482
60,128,514

142,436,692 $
237,600,000 $

$
321,500,000 $

142,436,692 $ 131,434,004 $
559,100,000 $ 237,600,000 $

151,496,303
151,496,303

$
$

282,930,307
389,096,303

$
$
158,400,000 $
158,400,000 $

$
$
100,000,000 $
100,000,000 $

$
$
$
$
258,400,000 $ 158,400,000 $
258,400,000 $ 158,400,000 $

200,000,000
250,000,000
450,000,000

$
$
$
$

200,000,000
250,000,000
158,400,000
608,400,000

* This project would have its CIG funding completed with FY 2022 funding.
# This project would have it CIG funding completed with the proposed FY 2023 funding.
+ This project is recommended for funding in the President's Budget for the first time
^ The Phoenix NW project was a proposed FFGA in the FY 2022 President's Budget, but has now been awarded an FFGA. It is shown in the proposed FFGA category to better show FY 2022 allocations.
^ These funds will not be allocated to the Hudson Tunnel project until the project sponsor meets statutory requirements for receipt of Federal funds.

The FY 2023 Funding Allocations and Recommendations
FTA is requesting in the President’s FY 2023 Budget an appropriation of $2.85 billion in funds
for the Section 5309 CIG and EPD Programs, with the proposed distribution as follows:
 $1.5224 billion for seven existing New Starts FFGAs;
 $558.1 million for two New Starts projects not yet under construction grants;
 $139.5 million for one existing Core Capacity FFGA;
 $151.5 million for other Small Starts projects;
 $450.0 million for two projects not yet under construction grants under the Section
3005(b) EPD Pilot Program; and
 $28.5 million for management and oversight (1.0% of the FY 2023 funding level).
This report also documents how FTA is proposing to allocate the $1.6 billion in FY2023 advance
appropriations pursuant to Division J of the IIJA1. The proposed distribution is as follows:
 $871.2 million for New Starts (55 percent of the total per direction in IIJA) including:
o $350.0 million for seven existing FFGAs;
o $100.0 million for one project not yet under a construction grant; and
o $421.2 million for other projects that may become ready for construction funding
during FY 2023 and/or for planning and design grants for projects in Project
Development and Engineering as allowed by 5309(b)(1).
 $316.8 million Core Capacity projects (20 percent of the total per direction in IIJA)
including:
o $200.0 million for one existing FFGA; and
o $116.8 million for other projects that may become ready for construction funding
during FY 2023.
 $237.6 million for Small Starts (15 percent of the total per direction in IIJA) including:
o $106.2 million for two projects not yet under construction grants; and
o $131.4 million for other projects that may become ready for construction funding
during FY 2023 and/or for planning and design grants for projects in Project
Development as allowed by 5309(b)(1).
 $158.4 million for Expedited Project Delivery Pilot Program (10 percent of the total per
direction in IIJA) for projects that may become ready during FY 2023.
 $16.0 million for FTA oversight of these projects (one percent per direction in IIJA).
With the amount of CIG funding being requested in FY 2023, combined with the amount
appropriated in advance in the IIJA, FTA is proposing funding the existing New Starts and Core
Capacity FFGAs at levels greater than the annual negotiated payment outlined in each FFGA as
accelerated payments. FTA believes accelerating FFGA payments would not only potentially
lower financing costs incurred on these projects, but also allow FTA to better manage the overall
program in the future given the increasing number of projects and demand for funds.

1

Pursuant to Division J of the IIJA, the potential projects that may receive either FY 2022 or FY 2023 advanced
appropriations funding are those that have entered the CIG or EPD programs. As new projects enter the CIG or EPD
programs, the Department updates the relevant congressional committees.

6

FTA intends to allocate some of the $1.6 billion in advanced FY 2023 appropriations to New
Starts and Small Starts projects that are not yet currently ready for a funding recommendation
but might successfully advance and become ready for construction funding in FY 2023, and for
planning and design grants to projects in the Project Development and Engineering phases as
allowed by Section 5309(b)(1). In addition, a portion of the $1.6 billion in advanced FY 2023
appropriations is to be made available for Core Capacity projects and for EPD Pilot Program
projects that are not yet currently ready for a funding recommendation but might successfully
advance and become ready for construction funding in FY 2023. 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.

Project Evaluation and Ratings
The CIG project evaluation and ratings included in this report are based on a process specified in
statute. Section 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. FTA awards CIG construction grant agreements 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. Once a project receives a construction grant agreement, FTA does not have to
continue to evaluate and rate the project.
FTA does not require CIG project sponsors to submit information annually for evaluation and
rating for the Annual Report. Rather, FTA only requires CIG project 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.
Tables 2A, 2B, and 2C present information on CIG and EPD projects, including the ratings for
projects currently in the Project Development or Engineering phase of the CIG Program. Table
2A is the Summary of FY 2023 CIG and EPD Projects; Table 2B is the Detailed Summary of FY
2023 Local Financial Commitment Ratings for CIG projects; and Table 2C is the Detailed
Summary of FY 2023 Project Justification Ratings for CIG projects.
Between publication of the FY 2022 Annual Report in May 2021, and publication of this report
in March 2022, FTA awarded eight construction grant agreements. In addition, FTA approved
one project into the New Starts Engineering phase. Lastly, ten projects entered the New Starts
7

Project Development phase, one project entered the Core Capacity Project Development phase,
and eight projects entered the Small Starts Project Development phase. Each of these approvals
are shown below:
New Starts Projects Awarded Construction Grant Agreements since May 2021
 AZ Phoenix Northwest Extension Phase II
Small Starts Projects Awarded Construction Grant Agreements since May 2021
 IN Indianapolis IndyGo Purple Line BRT
 NY Albany Washington Western BRT
 OR Portland Max Red Line Extension and Reliability Improvements
 UT Ogden-Weber State BRT
 WA Everett Swift Orange Line BRT
 WA Seattle Madison Street BRT
 WA Vancouver Mill Plain BRT
New Starts Projects Approved into Engineering since May 2021
 NY New York Second Avenue Subway Phase 2
New Starts Projects That Entered Project Development since May 2021
 CA Inglewood Transit Connector
 CA Los Angeles West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor
 CA San Francisco Transbay Downtown Rail Extension
 FL Miami Northeast Corridor Rapid Transit
 MN Twin Cities Metro Purple Line BRT
 PA King of Prussia King of Prussia Rail Extension
 TX Austin Blue Line Light Rail Transit
 TX Austin Orange Line Light Rail Transit
 TX Houston University Corridor BRT
 TX San Antonio ART North/South Corridor
Core Capacity Projects That Entered Project Development since May 2021
 VA Northern Virginia Core Capacity Project
Small Starts Projects That Entered Project Development since May 2021
 CO Denver Colfax Avenue BRT
 CO Fort Collins West Elizabeth Corridor
 FL Miami East-West Rapid Transit Phase I
 GA Atlanta Clayton Southlake BRT
 NC Raleigh Wake BRT – Southern Corridor
 OH Cleveland MetroHealth Line BRT
 OH Columbus East Main Street BRT
 OH Columbus West Broad Street BRT

8

Table 2A -- Capital Investment Grant Program Summary of FY 2023 Project Ratings
CORE CAPACITY PROJECTS
Phase
State, City, Project
Core Capacity Engineering
NY New York City, Canarsie Line Power and Station Improvements
Core Capacity Project Development
^ VA Northern Virginia, Northern Virginia Core Capacity Project

Capital Cost
(millions)

Financing
Costs
(millions)

Total CIG
Local Financial
Total Capital
CIG Share of
Funding Request
Commitment
Cost (millions)
Capital Costs
(millions)
Rating

$336.8

$36.2

$372.9

$100.0

26.8%

$2,415.0

---

$2,415.0

---

---

Project
Justification
Rating

Overall Project
Rating

Medium-High

Medium-High

Medium-High

---

---

---

Project Development 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.
--- The project sponsor has not yet requested a rating.
^

NEW STARTS PROJECTS
Phase
State, City, Project
New Starts Engineering
# MN Minneapolis, METRO Blue Line Extension (Bottineau LRT)
MN St. Paul, METRO Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit
NY New York City, Second Avenue Subway Phase 2
New Starts Project Development
^ CA Inglewood, Inglewood Transit Connector
^ CA Los Angeles, West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor Project
^ CA San Francisco, Transbay Downtown Rail Extension Project
^ FL Miami, Northeast Corridor Rapid Transit
^ IL Chicago, Red Line Extension
^ MN Twin Cities, METRO Purple Line BRT
NJ-NY Secaucus, Hudson Tunnel
^ OR Portland, Southwest Corridor LRT
^ PA King of Prussia, King of Prussia Rail Project
^ SC Charleston, Lowcountry Rapid Transit
^ TX Austin, Blue Line Light Rail Transit Project
^ TX Austin, Initial Investment of the Orange Line Light Rail Transit
^ TX Houston, University Corridor BRT
TX San Antonio, Advanced Rapid Transit (ART) North-South Corridor
^ VA Fairfax County, Richmond Highway BRT

Capital Cost
(millions)

Financing
Costs
(millions)

TBD
$522.8
$6,289.4

TBD
$9.1
$659.3

TBD
$531.9
$6,948.7

TBD
$239.3
$3,404.9

TBD
45.0%
49.0%

$1,150.0
$4,900 - $5,100
$4,400 - $5,000
$414.0
$2,507.0
$445.0
$11,045.9
$2,600 - $2,800
$2,082.0
$387.5
$2,000.0
$3,800.0
$1,560.0
$320.0
$730.0

------------$1,639.6
------------$0.0
---

$1,150.0
$4,900 - $5,100
$4,400 - $5,000
$414.0
$2,507.0
$445.0
$12,685.5
$2,600 - $2,800
$2,082.0
$387.5
$2,000.0
$3,800.0
$1,560.0
$320.0
$730.0

------$207.0
--$218.0
$5,582.6
$1,300 - $1,400
--------$936.0
$158.1
$285.0

------50.0%
--49.0%
44.0%
----------60.0%
49.4%
39.0%

Total CIG
Local Financial
Total Capital
CIG Share of
Funding Request
Commitment
Cost (millions)
Capital Costs
(millions)
Rating

Project
Justification
Rating

Overall Project
Rating

Under Review
High
Medium-High

Under Review
Medium
Medium-High

Under Review
Medium-High
Medium-High

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

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

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

# In March 2021, the project sponsor began a process of public outreach on several revised alignments under consideration.
^ Project Development 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.
--- The project sponsor has not yet requested a rating.

Table 2A -- Capital Investment Grant Program Summary of FY 2023 Project Ratings
SMALL STARTS PROJECTS
Phase
State, City, Project
Small Starts Project Development
^ AZ Flagstaff, Transit Spine BRT
CA Los Angeles, Restoration of Historic Streetcar in Downtown Los Angeles
^ CA Monterey Bay, SURF! Highway 1 Busway and BRT
+++ CA Sacramento, Downtown Riverfront Streetcar Project
CA San Bernardino, West Valley Connector BRT Project
^ CO Denver, Colfax Avenue BRT
^ CO Fort Collins, West Elizabeth Corridor
^ FL Miami, East-West Corridor Rapid Transit Phase 1 Project
^ FL Orlando, SunRail Connector to the Orlando International Airport
& FL Tampa, Tampa Streetcar Extension and Modernization
^ GA Atlanta, Clayton Southlake BRT
IN Indianapolis, IndyGo Blue Line Rapid Transit
MN Rochester, Rochester Rapid Transit
NC Chapel Hill, North-South Bus Rapid Transit
NC Raleigh, Wake Bus Rapid Transit: New Bern Avenue Project
^ NC Raleigh, Wake Bus Rapid Transit: Southern Corridor Project
^ NC Raleigh, Wake Bus Rapid Transit: Western Corridor Project
^ NV Las Vegas, Maryland Parkway High Capacity Transit Project
NY New York City, Woodhaven Boulevard Select Bus Service
^ OH Cleveland, MetroHealth Line BRT
^ OH Columbus, East Main Street BRT
^ OH Columbus, West Broad Street BRT
PA Pittsburgh, Downtown-Uptown-Oakland-East End Bus Rapid Transit
TN Memphis, Memphis Innovation Corridor Project
TX Austin, Expo Center Bus Rapid Transit Project
TX Austin, Pleasant Valley Bus Rapid Transit Project
^ TX Waco, Rapid Transit Corridor
UT Salt Lake County, Midvalley Connector Project
^ VA Alexandria, West End Transitway
WA Everett, Swift Orange Line BRT
WA Seattle, RapidRide I Line
WA Seattle, RapidRide J Line
^ WA Seattle, RapidRide K Line BRT
WA Seattle, Seattle Center City Connector
WA Tacoma, Pacific Avenue/SR 7 BRT
WI Madison, Madison East-West BRT

Capital Cost
(millions)

Financing
Costs
(millions)

$32.9
$282.2
$55.0
$117.0
$261.5
$200 - $300
$74.3
$281.0
$175 - $225
$234.5
$338.1
$209.7
$114.5
$141.3
$71.5
$93 - $126
$180.0
$287.0
$258.8
$50.0
$220 - $230
$180 - $190
$249.9
$71.7
$35.6
$36.6
$18.3 - $19.4
$105.5
$119 - $140
$81.0
$141.1
$120.5
$89.8
$285.5
$170.0
$157.2

--$14.2
----$1.2
------------$10.3
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
------$0.0
------$0.0
$1.7
$0.0
$0.0
--$0.0
--$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
--$0.0
$0.0
$2.8

Total CIG
Local Financial
Total Capital
CIG Share of
Funding Request
Commitment
Cost (millions)
Capital Costs
(millions)
Rating

$32.9
$296.4
$55.0
$117.0
$262.7
$200 - $300
$74.3
$281.0
$175 - $225
$234.5
$338.1
$220.0
$114.5
$141.3
$71.5
$93 - $126
$180.0
$287.0
$258.8
$50.0
$220 - $230
$180 - $190
$249.9
$73.3
$35.6
$36.6
$18.3 - $19.4
$105.5
$119 - $140
$81.0
$141.1
$120.5
$89.8
$285.5
$170.0
$160.0

--$100.0
$40.0
$50.0
$86.8
----$92.7
--$99.9
$150.0
$100.0
$56.1
$100.0
$35.1
----$100.0
$97.2
$20.0
----$100.0
$46.0
$17.8
$18.3
--$50.9
--$37.2
$66.7
$60.1
--$75.0
$75.2
$80.0

--33.7%
72.7%
42.7%
33.0%
----33.0%
--42.6%
44.4%
45.5%
49.0%
70.7%
49.1%
----34.8%
37.5%
40.0%
----40.0%
62.8%
50.0%
50.0%
--48.2%
--45.9%
47.3%
49.9%
--26.3%
44.2%
50.0%

--Medium-Low
--Under Review
High
--------Under Review
--High
Medium-High
Medium
High
------High
------High
Medium
High
High
--High
--High
High
High
--High
High
High

Project
Justification
Rating

Overall Project
Rating

--Medium
--Under Review
Medium
--------Under Review
--Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
------Medium
------Medium-High
Medium
Medium
Medium
--Medium-Low
--Medium
Medium
Medium-High
--Medium-High
Medium
Medium

--Medium-Low
--Under Review
Medium-High
--------Under Review
--Medium-High
Medium-High
Medium
Medium-High
------Medium-High
------High
Medium
Medium-High
Medium-High
--Medium-Low
--Medium-High
Medium-High
High
--High
Medium-High
Medium-High

^ Project Development 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.
+++ In September 2020, the project sponsor adopted a shortened project alignment but has not yet provided FTA with the information needed to update the rating.
& In February 2021, the Florida Supreme Court ruled a key funding source is unconstitutional.
--- The project sponsor has not yet requested a rating.

Table 2A-EPD -- Expedited Project Delivery Pilot Program Summary for FY 2023
EXPEDITED PROJECT DELIVERY (EPD) PROJECTS
State, City, Project

Capital Cost
(millions)

Financing
Costs
(millions)

$2,752.0
$8,758.0

$60.0
$390.0

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

Project Selection

New Starts EPD
CA Los Angeles, East San Fernando Valley (ESFV) Transit Corridor Phase 1 Project
CA San Jose, BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension

$2,812.0
$9,148.0

$702.0
$2,287.0

25.0%
25.0%

Under Review
Letter of Intent

Table 2B -- Detailed Summary of FY 2023 Local Financial Commitment Ratings
CORE CAPACITY PROJECTS
Phase
State, City, Project

Core Capacity Engineering
NY New York City, Canarsie Line Power and Station Improvements
Core Capacity Project Development
VA Northern Virginia, Northern Virginia Core Capacity Project

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

High

Medium-Low

26.8%

Medium-High

---

---

---

---

---

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.
--- The project sponsor has not yet requested a rating.
NEW STARTS PROJECTS
Phase
State, City, Project

New Starts Engineering
# MN Minneapolis, METRO Blue Line Extension (Bottineau LRT)
MN St. Paul, METRO Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit
NY New York City, Second Avenue Subway Phase 2
New Starts Project Development
CA Inglewood, Inglewood Transit Connector
CA Los Angeles, West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor Project
CA San Francisco, Transbay Downtown Rail Extension Project
FL Miami, Northeast Corridor Rapid Transit
IL Chicago, Red Line Extension
MN Twin Cities, METRO Purple Line BRT
NJ-NY Secaucus, Hudson Tunnel
OR Portland, Southwest Corridor LRT
PA King of Prussia, King of Prussia Rail Project
SC Charleston, Lowcountry Rapid Transit
TX Austin, Blue Line Light Rail Transit Project
TX Austin, Initial Investment of the Orange Line Light Rail Transit
TX Houston, University Corridor BRT
TX San Antonio, Advanced Rapid Transit (ART) North-South Corridor
VA Fairfax County, Richmond Highway 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

Under Review
High
Medium

Under Review
High
Medium

Under Review
Medium-Low
Medium-Low

TBD
45.0%
49.0%

Under Review
High
Medium-High

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

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

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

------50.0%
--49.0%
44.0%
----------60.0%
49.4%
39.0%

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

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.
#

In March 2021, the project sponsor began a process of public outreach on several revised alignments under consideration.
--- The project sponsor has not yet requested a rating.

Table 2B -- Detailed Summary of FY 2023 Local Financial Commitment Ratings
SMALL STARTS PROJECTS
Phase
State, City, Project

Small Starts Project Development
AZ Flagstaff, Transit Spine BRT
CA Los Angeles, Restoration of Historic Streetcar in Downtown Los Angeles
CA Monterey Bay, SURF! Highway 1 Busway and BRT
+++ CA Sacramento, Downtown Riverfront Streetcar Project
CA San Bernardino, West Valley Connector BRT Project
CO Denver, Colfax Avenue BRT
CO Fort Collins, West Elizabeth Corridor
FL Miami, East-West Corridor Rapid Transit Phase 1 Project
FL Orlando, SunRail Connector to the Orlando International Airport
& FL Tampa, Tampa Streetcar Extension and Modernization
GA Atlanta, Clayton Southlake BRT
IN Indianapolis, IndyGo Blue Line Rapid Transit
MN Rochester, Rochester Rapid Transit
NC Chapel Hill, North-South Bus Rapid Transit
NC Raleigh, Wake Bus Rapid Transit: New Bern Avenue Project
NC Raleigh, Wake Bus Rapid Transit: Southern Corridor Project
NC Raleigh, Wake Bus Rapid Transit: Western Corridor Project
NV Las Vegas, Maryland Parkway High Capacity Transit Project
NY New York City, Woodhaven Boulevard Select Bus Service
OH Cleveland, MetroHealth Line BRT
OH Columbus, East Main Street BRT
OH Columbus, West Broad Street BRT
PA Pittsburgh, Downtown-Uptown-Oakland-East End Bus Rapid Transit
TN Memphis, Memphis Innovation Corridor Project
TX Austin, Expo Center Bus Rapid Transit Project
TX Austin, Pleasant Valley Bus Rapid Transit Project
TX Waco, Rapid Transit Corridor
UT Salt Lake County, Midvalley Connector Project
VA Alexandria, West End Transitway
WA Everett, Swift Orange Line BRT
WA Seattle, RapidRide I Line
WA Seattle, RapidRide J Line
WA Seattle, RapidRide K Line BRT
WA Seattle, Seattle Center City Connector
WA Tacoma, Pacific Avenue/SR 7 BRT
WI Madison, Madison 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-High
--Under Review
N/A
--------Under Review
--N/A
Medium-High
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
N/A

--Low
--Under Review
N/A
--------Under Review
--N/A
Low
Medium
N/A
------N/A
------N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
--N/A
--N/A
N/A
N/A
--N/A
N/A
N/A

--Low
--Under Review
N/A
--------Under Review
--N/A
Medium-High
Medium
N/A
------N/A
------N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
--N/A
--N/A
N/A
N/A
--N/A
N/A
N/A

--33.7%
72.7%
42.7%
33.0%
----33.0%
--42.6%
44.4%
45.5%
49.0%
70.7%
49.1%
----34.8%
37.5%
40.0%
----40.0%
62.8%
50.0%
50.0%
--48.2%
--45.9%
47.3%
49.9%
--26.3%
44.2%
50.0%

--Medium-Low
--Under Review
High
--------Under Review
--High
Medium-High
Medium
High
------High
------High
Medium
High
High
--High
--High
High
High
--High
High
High

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.
+++ In September 2020, the project sponsor adopted a shortened project alignment but has not yet provided FTA with the information needed to update the rating.
& In February 2021, the Florida Supreme Court ruled a key funding source is unconstitutional.
--- The project sponsor has not yet requested a rating.
"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 2023 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

Medium

High

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
# MN Minneapolis, METRO Blue Line Extension (Bottineau LRT)
MN St. Paul, METRO Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit
NY New York City, Second Avenue Subway Phase 2

Under Review
Medium
Medium-Low

Under Review
Low
High

Under Review
Medium
Medium

Under Review
Medium-Low
Medium-High

Under Review
Medium
High

Under Review
Medium-High
High

Under Review
Medium
Medium-High

New Starts Project Development
CA Inglewood, Inglewood Transit Connector
CA Los Angeles, West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor Project
CA San Francisco, Transbay Downtown Rail Extension Project
FL Miami, Northeast Corridor Rapid Transit
IL Chicago, Red Line Extension
MN Twin Cities, METRO Purple Line BRT
NJ-NY Secaucus, Hudson Tunnel
OR Portland, Southwest Corridor LRT
PA King of Prussia, King of Prussia Rail Project
SC Charleston, Lowcountry Rapid Transit
TX Austin, Blue Line Light Rail Transit Project
TX Austin, Initial Investment of the Orange Line Light Rail Transit
TX Houston, University Corridor BRT
TX San Antonio, Advanced Rapid Transit (ART) North-South Corridor
VA Fairfax County, Richmond Highway BRT

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

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

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

------------High
------------High
---

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

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

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

State, City, Project

Core Capacity Engineering
NY New York City, Canarsie Line Power and Station Improvements
Core Capacity Project Development
VA Northern Virginia, Northern Virginia Core Capacity Project
--- The project sponsor has not yet requested a rating.
NEW STARTS PROJECTS
Phase
State, City, Project

# In March 2021, the project sponsor began a process of public outreach on several revised alignments under consideration.
--- The project sponsor has not yet requested a rating.

Table 2C -- Detailed Summary of FY 2023 Project Justification Ratings
SMALL STARTS PROJECTS
Phase
State, City, Project

Small Starts Project Development
AZ Flagstaff, Transit Spine BRT
CA Los Angeles, Restoration of Historic Streetcar in Downtown Los Angeles
CA Monterey Bay, SURF! Highway 1 Busway and BRT
+++ CA Sacramento, Downtown Riverfront Streetcar Project
CA San Bernardino, West Valley Connector BRT Project
CO Denver, Colfax Avenue BRT
CO Fort Collins, West Elizabeth Corridor
FL Miami, East-West Corridor Rapid Transit Phase 1 Project
FL Orlando, SunRail Connector to the Orlando International Airport
& FL Tampa, Tampa Streetcar Extension and Modernization
GA Atlanta, Clayton Southlake BRT
IN Indianapolis, IndyGo Blue Line Rapid Transit
MN Rochester, Rochester Rapid Transit
NC Chapel Hill, North-South Bus Rapid Transit
NC Raleigh, Wake Bus Rapid Transit: New Bern Avenue Project
NC Raleigh, Wake Bus Rapid Transit: Southern Corridor Project
NC Raleigh, Wake Bus Rapid Transit: Western Corridor Project
NV Las Vegas, Maryland Parkway High Capacity Transit Project
 NY New York City, Woodhaven Boulevard Select Bus Service
OH Cleveland, MetroHealth Line BRT
OH Columbus, East Main Street BRT
OH Columbus, West Broad Street BRT
 PA Pittsburgh, Downtown-Uptown-Oakland-East End Bus Rapid Transit
TN Memphis, Memphis Innovation Corridor Project
TX Austin, Expo Center Bus Rapid Transit Project
TX Austin, Pleasant Valley Bus Rapid Transit Project
TX Waco, Rapid Transit Corridor
UT Salt Lake County, Midvalley Connector Project
VA Alexandria, West End Transitway
WA Everett, Swift Orange Line BRT
WA Seattle, RapidRide I Line
WA Seattle, RapidRide J Line
WA Seattle, RapidRide K Line BRT
WA Seattle, Seattle Center City Connector
WA Tacoma, Pacific Avenue/SR 7 BRT
 WI Madison, Madison 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

--High
--Under Review
Medium
--------Under Review
--High
Medium-Low
Medium-Low
Medium-High
------Medium
------High
Medium
Low
Low
--High
--Medium
Medium
Medium
--High
High
Medium

--Low
--Under Review
Low
--------Under Review
--Medium-Low
Medium-Low
Medium-Low
Low
------Medium
------Medium
Medium-Low
Medium-Low
Medium-Low
--Low
--Low
Medium-Low
Medium
--Medium
Low
Medium

--Medium-Low
--Under Review
Medium-Low
--------Under Review
--Medium
Medium
Medium-Low
Medium-Low
------Medium
------Medium
Low
Medium-Low
Medium-Low
--Low
--Low
Medium-Low
Medium-Low
--Medium
Medium-Low
Medium

--Medium
--Under Review
Medium
--------Under Review
--Medium-High
Medium-High
Medium-High
Medium-High
------Medium
------Medium
High
High
High
--Medium-Low
--Medium-High
High
High
--High
Medium
Medium

--Medium-High
--Under Review
Medium
--------Under Review
--Medium-Low
Medium-High
Medium
Medium-Low
------Medium-Low
------Medium
Medium
Medium-Low
Medium-Low
--Medium-Low
--Medium
Medium
Medium-High
--High
Medium
Medium

--High
--Under Review
Medium
--------Under Review
--Medium
Medium
Medium-Low
Medium
------Medium
------Medium-High
Medium-Low
Medium
Medium
--Medium-Low
--Medium
Medium-Low
High
--High
Medium
Medium

--Medium
--Under Review
Medium
--------Under Review
--Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
------Medium
------Medium-High
Medium
Medium
Medium
--Medium-Low
--Medium
Medium
Medium-High
--Medium-High
Medium
Medium

+++ In September 2020, the project sponsor adopted a shortened project alignment but has not yet provided FTA with the information needed to update the rating.
& In February 2021, the Florida Supreme Court ruled a key funding source is unconstitutional.
--- The project sponsor has not yet requested a rating.
 Project qualifies for Project Justification warrants outlined in FTA's Final Interim Policy Guidance.