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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. FTA Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Program Overview (cont.)
Project Justification Criteria is 50 percent of overall rating (six criteria); each equal to 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”)

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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).

12. 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.

13. 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).

14. 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.

15. 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