Future Construction FasTracks Corridors Federal Funding Analysis

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Planning and Development Committee West Corridor Update May 10, 2007.
Advertisements

FTA’s Small Starts Program Charlotte, North Carolina October 11, 2007.
Northwest Rail Update Nadine Lee, Northwest Rail Project Manager Regional Transportation District March 21, 2012.
Commuter Rail Vehicle Technology September Commuter Rail Vehicle Technologies for FasTracks Diesel & Dual Mode Locomotive Hauled Coaches (LHC) Electric.
Chicago Transit AuthorityJune, 2007 Chicago Transit Authority Regional South Metro Transportation Summit June 16, 2007 Matteson, Illinois.
Infrastructure Planning and Funding MID-REGION COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS MID-REGION METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MARCH 19, 2015 NAIOP-NEW MEXICO CHAPTER.
Capital Investment Program Listening Session Presented at APTA Annual Meeting -- 10/03/2012 RailVolution /14/
Commuter Rail Vehicle Technology Analysis | 1 May 2007 Commuter Rail Vehicle Technology Analysis May, 2007.
Federal Transit Administration New Starts Project Development Process
FasTracks Moving Forward: Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Amendment Staff Recommendation Phillip A. Washington and Team August 7, 2012.
Citizens Advisory Committee Quarterly Meeting Rick Clarke, Assistant GM – Capital Programs June 20, 2012.
Materials developed by K. Watkins, J. LaMondia and C. Brakewood Planning Process & Alternatives Analysis Unit 7: Forecasting and Encouraging Ridership.
FY 2012 President’s Budget Released February 14, 2011.
AFF TOPIC LECTURE SCFI INCREASING TRANSPORTATION FUNDING Benefits.
Large Starts Issues for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking New Starts/Small Starts Listening Session and Seminar San Francisco, CA February 15-16, 2006.
Michigan’s Roads Crisis: Study Findings, Conclusions and Where Do We Go From Here? Best Practices Conference Rick Olson, State Representative, 55 th District.
MAP-21: Impacts to New Starts and Small Starts Senate Transportation Finance and Policy Committee Mark W. Fuhrmann Program Director, New Starts February.
Citizens Advisory Committee Quarterly Update Bill Van Meter, Assistant General Manager, Planning September 19, 2012.
Portland North Small Starts Alternatives Analysis Coordination Meeting June 16, 2009.
Project Information Brief project description Cairo, Egypt Bus Rapid Transit System with potential capacity of 45,000 people per person per direction Phase.
New Starts/Small Starts and BRT: An Update APTA Bus Conference Seattle, WA May 5, 2009.
Portland North Small Starts Alternatives Analysis Coordination Meeting June 15, 2009.
Metro’s Capital Improvement Needs Presented to the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board By Tom Harrington, Director of Long Range Planning.
Getting on the Ballot… and Getting the Ballot Right June 25, 2013.
Item 14 Re view of Budget and Outline for the FY2015 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) 1 Gerald Miller Acting Co-Director Department of Transportation.
June 9, 2009 VTA 2009 Annual Conference DRPT Annual Update 2009 VTA Conference Chip Badger Agency Director.
FlexBRT Project Briefing. Background Feasibility Study began in – $750,000 TEA-21 Grant to study an ITS Circulator in North Orange County/South.
NEW STARTS/SMALL STARTS. New Starts Eligibility  Based on the results of planning and Alternatives Analysis  At least 50% or more of the total project.
IFTA Annual Business Meeting Virginia Beach, VA August 17, 2011 Federal Highway Administration.
Metropolitan Council 1 Twin Cities Region Transportation Policy Plan Nacho Diaz Metropolitan Council Evaluating Economic and Community Impacts of Transit.
Company LOGO Georgia Truck Lane Needs Identification Study Talking Freight Seminar March 19, 2008 Matthew Fowler, P.T.P Assistant State Planning Administrator.
1 Perspectives on Reauthorization Robert Tuccillo Associate Administrator for Budget and Policy/ CFO Federal Transit Administration State of Good Repair.
Proposed Interim Guidance – Small Starts. 2 Purpose Before Final Rule, evaluate and rate projects to: Advance projects into project development Provide.
2016 REQUESTED BUDGET RTD Financial Administration and Audit Committee October 20, 2015.
DESTINATION 2030 Regional Local Personal Adopted May 24, 2001.
Presentation to the Joint Committee On Transportation Oversight 1 Jack Basso Chief Operating Officer and Business Development Director American Association.
RTD FasTracks Projects for the DRCOG 2040 RTP (Baseline Report) FasTracks Monitoring Committee July 8, 2014.
Review of 2016–2021 Strategic Budget Plan Development Process and 2016 Budget Assumptions Financial Administration and Audit Committee April 14,
Federal Update for the Regional Transportation District Board of Directors December 1, 2015.
2014 Annual Program Evaluation (APE) Status Update April 1, 2014.
TRANSIT SYSTEMS PLANNING Module 3, Lesson 4. Learning Objectives Define systems planning Understand the steps required for plan selection and the key.
2015 – 2020 Strategic Budget Plan Financial Administration & Audit Committee June 10, 2014.
Southeast Rail Extension FasTracks Monitoring Committee July 14, 2015.
2015 Annual Program Evaluation (APE) Status Update July 14, 2015.
Update: Reports to DRCOG RTD Baseline Report to DRCOG on FasTracks RTD SB 208 Report to DRCOG Planning & Development Committee June 3, 2014.
Multi Agency Exchange May 16, 2017.
Planning Department Update
2018 – 2023 Strategic Budget Plan
Northwest Area Mobility Study FasTracks Monitoring Committee
A Presentation to: River to Sea TPO Board October 26, 2016.
Review of 2018–2023 Strategic Budget Plan Development Process and
Understanding the Asset Management/TAM Regulations
A Presentation to: River to Sea TPO BPAC November 9, 2016.
Regional Roads Committee
River to Sea TPO - CAC/TCC
Heather Copp – CFO and AGM of Finance and Administration
NGTA Halton Planning and Public Works Committee
2017 Annual Program Evaluation Update
Regional Transit Formula Fund Policies Section 5307/5340 – Urbanized Formula Fund Section 5337 – State of Good Repair Section 5339 – Bus and Bus Facilities.
Southwest LRT Project Craig Lamothe, AICP Senior Project Manager
Legislative Issues Concerning Transit Procurement
Transit Systems Planning
Status Report on Rochester’s DMC Transportation Plan
I-81 Corridor Improvement Plan
North-South Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project
I-85 Corridor Light Rail Transit Feasibility Study
Durham and Orange Transit Plan Funding Needs
February 2017 New Starts Financial Plan
2014 Annual Program Evaluation (APE) Status Update
Chicago Transit Authority
Presentation transcript:

Future Construction FasTracks Corridors Federal Funding Analysis FasTracks Monitoring Committee July 5, 2016

Presentation Overview 2004 FasTracks Program Expectations Current Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Capital Investment Grant Program Overview and Justification Criteria Ridership and Cost Characteristics Anticipated Scoring Based on 2018 Entry into Project Development Discussion

2004 FasTracks Program Expectations Federal grant funding (New Starts) was anticipated for: East (University of Colorado A Line) West (W Line) Gold (G Line) Board approved Southeast Rail Extension as Federal grant candidate (Small Starts) in 2011; Small Starts Construction Grant awarded April 2016

FTA Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Program Overview Heavily re-structured under MAP-21 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century) and further refined under the FAST Act (Fixing America’s Surface Transportation) New Starts: CIG request at least $100 million or total project cost at least $300 million (fixed guideway or fixed guideway extension) Small Starts: CIG request less than $100 million and total project cost less than $300 million (fixed guideway, fixed guideway extension, or corridor-based BRT) Core Capacity: Existing fixed-guideway corridors only; not applicable for FasTracks

FTA Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Program Overview (cont.) Project Justification Criteria is 50 percent of overall rating (six criteria); each equal to 16.66 percent of total rating Local Financial Commitment is 50 percent of overall rating (three components with 25/25/50 breakout) Both are scored on a five-point scale Must maintain at least “Medium” on both Project Justification and Local Financial Commitment to stay in the program (i.e. average score of “3”)

Project Justification Criteria Key Features Mobility Improvements: total linked trips on the project Environmental Benefits: reduction in vehicle miles traveled Congestion Relief: number of new transit trips Cost-Effectiveness: capital and operating* costs per trip (*O&M not included in Small Starts) Economic Development: transit supportive plans and policies Land Use: Legally binding affordability restricted housing; existing corridor and station character

Local Financial Commitment Key Criteria Current Financial Condition (fleet age; bond ratings; ratio of assets to liabilities; service history) Commitment of Funds (committed vs. budgeted vs. planned; private contributions)(applies to both capital and ongoing operations + maintenance) Financial Capacity and Reasonableness of Assumptions (assumptions compared to history; reasonableness of cost estimates; state of good repair; ability to withstand shortfalls or overruns)(applies to both capital and ongoing operations + maintenance)

FTA Compliant Ridership Current (2018) Horizon (2035) Average (Current and Horizon) Central Extension 3,200 4,100 3,700 North Metro Completion 3,100 3,900 3,500 NW Rail 5,400 4,800 SW Extension 4,500 Current (2015) Horizon (2035) Average (Current and Horizon) Southeast Extension (for comparison) 4,400 6,600 5,500

Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates Capital Cost (2018$) Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost (2018$) Central Extension $140.0 Million $2.6 Million North Metro Completion $280.0 Million $3.6 Million Northwest Rail $1.5 Billion $20.6 Million Southwest Extension $170.0 Million $3.2 Million

Project Justification Criteria (50 percent of overall rating) Mobility Improv. Environ. Benefits Congest Relief Cost-Effect. Econ. Dev’t. Land Use Summary Central L H M-L M-H M 3.0 (M) N. Metro 1.7 (L) NW Rail SW Ext. 2.3 (M-L) L = Low; M-L = Medium Low; M = Medium; M-H = Medium-High; H = High Note: Southeast Rail Extension (SERE) received a project justification summary rating of Medium Central and Southwest rated under Small Starts; N. Metro and NW Rail under New Starts

Local Financial Commitment Criteria (50 percent of overall rating) Current Condition (of the agency) (25% of financial rating): All four projects likely to receive a rating of Medium (consistent with Southeast Rail Extension). Commitment of Funds (for the project) (25% of financial rating): All four projects likely to receive a rating of Low. RTD does not have capital and operating funds committed or budgeted for these projects. This rating could be raised (with 3rd party funding) by committing or budgeting 10, 30, 50, or 75 percent of the non-Federal funding (SERE rating was Medium-High).

Local Financial Commitment Criteria (50 percent of overall rating) Reasonableness of the Financial Plan (for the project) (50%): All four projects likely to receive a rating of Low. RTD cannot currently identify access to funds necessary to cover capital and operating cost increases or capital and operating funding shortfalls related to these projects. This rating could be raised by identifying 10, 15, 25, or 50 percent of the funds (from 3rd parties) necessary to cover cost increases or funding shortfalls. SERE received a rating of Medium-High.

Local Financial Commitment Criteria Conclusion on Financial Commitment: These four projects would not achieve a Medium rating based on current and anticipated RTD financial projections and forecasts. Significant RTD and non-RTD sources would need to be committed and budgeted to raise the rating above Low. (SERE received an overall Financial rating of High due to significant non-5309 overmatch by RTD and stakeholders).

Conclusions Regarding New and Small Starts Only one project, Central Rail Extension, is likely to achieve a Medium rating for Project Justification Criteria. None of the projects, absent significant financial movement, are likely to receive a Medium rating for Financial Commitment. For these reasons, none of the four projects is a candidate to enter Project Development in the foreseeable future without significant external resources and commitments.

Moving These Projects Forward While not eligible for Federal Capital Investment Grant funds, other strategies will continue to be explored Any successful funding strategy likely to include significant non-RTD funds RTD has previously used non-Federal funds to initiate FasTracks project construction (I-225; North Metro) Additional information will be presented with the 2016 Annual Program Evaluation