# Preliminary evaluation of public transportation projects eleigible for funding by the Florida Department of Transportati...

## Material Information

Title:
Preliminary evaluation of public transportation projects eleigible for funding by the Florida Department of Transportation : background report
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Florida. Department of Transportation
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

## Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Transportation--Florida-- Finance   ( lcsh )
Transportation--Florida--Planning   ( lcsh )
Genre:
letter   ( marcgt )

## Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - C01-00227
usfldc handle - c1.227
System ID:
SFS0032320:00001

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
controlfield tag 008 s flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00227
040
FHM
049
FHmm
2 110
Florida. Department of Transportation.
0 245
Preliminary evaluation of public transportation projects eleigible for funding by the Florida Department of Transportation : background report
260
Tampa, Fla
b Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
c 1988 December
650
Transportation--Florida-- Finance
Transportation--Florida--Planning.
710
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research.
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.227

PAGE 1

1. 2. 3. 4. s. CORRESPONDENCE Relative to CU T R's Work on FOOT Policy on Transit Capitol Investment To Gary from Patrick J. McCue (with attachme n ts) To Gary from Patrick J McCue (with attachments) From Gary L Brosch to Patrick J. McCue (with attachments) From Gary L Brosch to Patrick McCue (with attachments) Fascimile to CUTR from FDOT 8-30-88 12-29-88 1 -20-89 2-21-89 '3

PAGE 2

60S S uw.11nnee Stn:e-t. 'Y:sl l.ahdsee Fforid3 32399-0.tSO, {9041 48&35-ll ='1.11t:fDVl.S' ;.l1 Gary Brosch Center 7or Urban Tnu:sportatior. Fesearch University of South Florida College cf Tampa, Florida 33520-5350 August 30, 1988 Dear Mr :)Yosch&:r-;Y This letter is;.( follow to our 18 in Tallahassee. Based on our conversation, I would like to request that your research center un
PAGE 3

t lr. Gary Brosch Ausust 30, 19BI1 Pase 2 The Interim Policy >dll be circulated to tht t..etropo1itan for their review and input. lie share their comments with yo'J for considerat.ion in your review. The end prcduct c ;' this work effort would be a report and presentation to the December 'i, 1988/ The report 11ould make specific recommtncations en the and methodologies to be used for c:letermining st.:te partjcipation in new fixed guideway systenos. Your recor.mtenoat ions will be ccr:s ide reo by the and the Transporta t. io n Commission in reccmmendaiions fer the 19eS legislative session. Because o 7 shon tir.;e frame tc r--:rform c.r.a lysis .. a mening with ri'& staff ana JOUl'S 1:0 finalize tht.> sco p e and the responsibilities of ou.r Thank you for 'greeing t" work liith us en this important poljcy initiative. PJIVkk cc: Mr. David Kerr Secretary Kaye Henderson Asst. sec. John Goodknight Sincert?ly. J. McCue State lransport<.tion Planne r

PAGE 4

Approved: Effective: Responsible Off.: Policy Planning Topic No.: 525-30_ INTERIM PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING STATE INVESTMENT IN PUBLIC TRANSPORI'ATION FACn.rrms PURPOSE: To detail criteria for successful implementation of each of the five steps in the feasibility process for detennining state investment in public transportation facilities. To ensure that the proposed facility meets a transportation need and supports state and local growth management policies. AUTHORITY: Section 334.044(1), F.S. Section 187.201(20)(a), F.S. GENERAL: State funds for preliminary engineering, right-of way and construction for public transportation projects may be programmed in the Work Program after a feasibility study has been completed and the project has been determined to be feasible. State investment in a public transportation project will only be programmed in the FDOT Work Program as each step in this procedure is successfully completed, and a decision has been made by the central office and the district to continue investment in the proposed facility. The feasibility study in Step 2 will be programmed upon successful completion of Step 1; programming of preliminary engineering, right-of-way, and construction phases is dependent on successful completion of Steps 2-5. The types of projects subject to this procedure include the facilities listed below: 1. Heavy rail 2. Light rail 3. Co=uter rail 4. Other fixed-guideway technologies 5. HOV lanes This procedure will be expanded to other applications as appropriate. DRAFT 10/4/88 DRAFT

PAGE 5

PROCEDURE: STEP 1: INITIAL SCREENING 525-30-_ Page2of4 FDOT will determine whether the project has the support of the affected cities, counties, and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and is potentially economically feasible. The project will be advanced to Step 2 if: It is backed by appropriate local funding share for Step 2; and Preliminary analysis of the project by FDOT using computer models and project performance standards specified for this procedure shows the proposed facility to be potentially economically feasible. Backed by appropriate local funding share means that: 1. Sufficient funds will be appropriated to defray the non-state share of the costs of Step 2, the feasibility study, by a majority of the affected cities and counties. Affected cities and counties are those in which the proposed facility is located, or which the facility may substantially impact. Cities and counties which provide funding will be considered participating parties, for the purposes of this procedure; and 2. The MPO provides documentation to the department that the project is consistent with and/or included in the long range transportation plan for the affected urban area. The absence of local funding shall preclude FDOT financial varticivatjon in Step 2. the feasibilit,y stu.dy. The preliminary analysis will be based on FSUTMS and PAM models, and is the joint responsibility of the FDOT central office and the district. The assumptions used in the models must be agreed upon by both the central office and the district. The results of both models must show that the folloWing Performance standards would be jnet? . .... . .,,.,,.,.,. 1. The facility would have ridership in the base year and/or in the first year of operation sufficient to produce an operating ratio '(total revenue excluding earned interest on divided by total operating costs) of at least 35 percent; o.r' 2. HOV expressway lanes would have at least 3000 passenger trips per HOV lane in the peak hour; or 3. HOV arterial lanes would have at least 1500 passenger trips per HOV lane in the peak hour. The preliminary analysis must assume current !and use and no changes in the adopted L
PAGE 6

525-30-_ Page 3 of4 If the results of the preliminary analysis s/ww that the proiect is not potentially economically feasible. then the state will not invest in the prqoosed facility. STEP 2: FEASIBTI..ITY STUDY A comprehensive feasibility study will be completed. T he study will be subject to the following conditions and criteria: Study Conditions -If the study is for a facility not initiated by FDOT, and the initiator may request state funds at any point for the project, the department must concur in the scope of the study, including agreement on the assumptions of both the study and the model, and agreement on the forecast methodologie s for ridership, revenue, and cost. -Public-private cooperation in the study must be encouraged. -Appropriate federal requirements must be addressed. Minimum Study Feasibility Criteria -A comprehensive alternatives analysis must be completed, which includes a "do nothing option and available highway alternatives, and which addresses each of the following feasibility criteria for each of the alternatives: Planning Changes needed for the MPO long range transportation plan and the Local Government Comprehensive Plan(s) (LGCP) to support the success of each alternative will be identified. Eco nomic Feasjbilit,y -The potential economic viability of each alternative will be assessed using, as a minimum, the performance standards applied by the department during Step 1: Initial Screening and the life cycle cost per design year passenger mile. Life cycle cost is equal to construction costs plus the present value (current year) of cumulative operating deficits of the system between the start-up and design years. Operating deficits are equal to annual operating costs minus farebox revenues and other earned revenues. Design year passenger miles are equal to annual system ridership during the design year multiplied by average trip length. Regulation Policies, regulations and ordinances for zoning, specific corridor development, right-of-way protection or preservation, and parking which must be in place to support each alternative will be identified. Funding A comprehensive funding plan for design, right-of way, construction, and continuing operation and maintenance DRAFT 10/4188 DRAFT

PAGE 7

525-30-_ Page4of4 of each alternative, including private sector financing where applicable, will be developed. If the feasibility study conditions and criteria are not met. the project will be considered not feasible. and state investment will not continue. STEP 3: SELECTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE PARTICIPATING PARTIES Based on the results of the feasibility study, a majority of the participating parties must agree on the selection of the alternative. Those parties which do not agree to the majority decision may discontinue their investment for the subsequent steps. The decision to proceed with the selected alternative must be unanimous among the (remaining) participating parties. The affected parties who have decided to discontinue investment will lose their right to known beneficial effects of the facility, e.g., no stations for a fixed guideway system will be located in non-participating cities or counties. If no "best" gltematiue can be agreed upon by participating parties, and no decision to oroceed can be agreed UJ!Oil, then the state will discontinue its investment. STEP 4: ADOPTION OF PLANS AND REGULATIONS The planning, economic feasibility, regulatory, and funding requirements identified in Step 2 as necessary to support the selected alternative must be officially adopted in the participating city and county LGCP's, and the MPO plan for the area. Implementing regulations and ordinances must be put in place by each participating city and county. If the participating parties do not take o{ficigl action to implement the factors identified as necessary to the success of the selected alternative. it will be considered wt feasible and state investment will not continue. STEP 5: BINDING COMMITMENTS The participating parties will sign binding commitments (contractual agreements) to meet the planning, regulatory, and funding requirements for construction and operation and maintenance of the facility. The commitments will include means of enforcement and pay-back provisions for non-compliance. If all 5 steos re successfully comoleted as defined hy these procedures, thea the proiect will be considered potentially fegsible and eligible for state investment in the preliminary engineering. right-of-way. and construction I!fwses of the Work Program. DRAFT 10/4/88 DRAFT

PAGE 8

tOKIDA DEPARTMENT Of' TRANSPOKTATIOI' 60S Suwannee Strt. florida 32399-0.tSO, Telephone (904 ) M.l't "-t1:::10eSS December 29, 1988 Mr. Gary Brosch, Director Center for Urban Transportation Research College, of Engineering 4202 East Fowler. Avenue Tampa, Florida 33620-5350 Dear Gary: $C<:kL"TAA'I" As a follow-up to our meeting yesterday, I have enclosed for your review our proposed "Policy on State Transportation Investments and "Interim Procedures for .Determining State Investment in Public Transportation Facilities Be assured of my willingness to work with you through the review process. Sincerely, Patrick J. McCue State Transportation Planner PJM/ss PAGE 9 .. ... ... .... . . ORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 60S Strttl. Talla.h&S$CC. florida 32.J99-04$0, 1'cJcphcmc (904) 48(1..8.541 Ml't 1'(.$
PAGE 10

70 R A F T 12-07-1988 PROPOSED POLXCY ON STATE TRANSPORTATXON XNVESTMEN'l'S This policy states that the Florida Department of Transportation will provide appropriate, cost-effective transportation infrastructure that satisfies its role in promoting mobility. Any utility or amenity beyond this level must .be .funded-extex:nally to FOOT's own revenue sources. * * * * * * * * It is the responsibility of the FOOT to build, operate, and maintain transportation that meet or exceed standards of public utility, safety, amenity, and cost effectiveness. This policy addresses the criterion of cost effectiveness, assuming that all other criteria have been met. The FOOT will work with local governments to identify those locations where investments in transportation improvements are required. A list .. of possible alternatives that meet o r exceed standards of public utility (e.g., level of service), public safety (e.g., engineering soundness), and.public amenity (e.g., environmental soundness and aesthetics) will be developed by the FDOT as potential candidate projects for. each location. The project advanced from this list of alternatives as the preferred alternative will be the project with the minimum life-cycle cost. Life-cycle cost is the sum of preconstruction costs, construction costs, and the capitalized (present) value of the recurring operating and maintenance costs of a transportation investment. Preconstruction costs include planning, design, and right-of-way expenses. Construction costs include earthwork, structures, drainage, pavement, and other materials and activities. If a local government recommends that a substitute project, other tha n the preferred alternative, be built to meet specialized needs present in and around the site, the FOOT will require the following: i. The substitute project must meet or exceed accepted standards for public utility, safety, and amenity. ii. All costs above and beyond those associated with the preferred alternative as identified by the FOOT must be borne by a local government or by private parties working through a local government. This funding may not come from FOOT's own revenue sources. iii. In the case of public-private partnerships, local governments must act as the ultimate guarantor of the private share of project costs.

PAGE 11

Approved: Effective: Responsible Off.: Policy Planning Topic No.: 525-30-_ INTERIM PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING STATE INVESTMENT IN PUBLIC TRANSPORI'ATION FACILITIES PURPOSE: To detail criteria for successful implementation of each of the five steps in the feasibility process for detennining state investment in public transportation facilities. To ensure that the proposed facility meets a transportation need and supports state and local growth management policies. AUTHORITY: Section 334.044(1), F.S. Section 187.201(20)(a), F.S. GENERAL: State for preliminary engi neering, design, right-of-way acquisition, construction and continuing operation and maintenance for public transportation projects may be programmed in the Work Program after a feas i bility study has been completed and the project has been determined to be feasible. State investment in a public transportation project will only be programmed in the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Work Program as each step in this procedure is successfully completed, and a decision has been made by the central office and the district to continue investment. in the proposed facility. The feasibility study in Step 2 will be programmed upon successful completion of Step 1; programming of preliminary engineering, right-of-way, and construction phases is dependent on successful completion of Steps 2-5. The types of projects subject to this procedure include the facilities listed below: 1. Heavy rail 2. Light rail 3. Commuter rail 4. Other fixed-guideway technologies 5. High occupancy vehicle lanes Thi.s procedure will be expanded to other applications as appropriate: DRAFr 12113/88 DRAFr

PAGE 12

PROCEDURE: STEP 1: INITIAL SCREENING 525-30-_ Page2of4 FDOT will determine whether the project has the support of the affected cities, counties, and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and is potentially economically feasible. The project will be advanced to Step 2 if: It is backed by appropriate local funding share for Step 2; and Preliminary analysis of the project by FDOT using computer models and project performance standards specified (or this procedure shows the proposed facility to be potentially economically feasible Backed by appropriate local funding share means that: 1. Sufficient funds will be appropriated to defray the non-state share of the costs of Step 2, the feasibility study, by a majority of the affected cities and counties. Affected cities and counties are those in which the proposed facility is located, or which the facility may substantially impact. Cities and counties which provide funding will be considered participating parties, for the purposes of this procedure; and 2 The MPO provides documentation to the departmeiit that the project is consistent with and/or included in the long range transportation plan for the affected urban area. -' The af;>sence of local funding shall vreclude FDOT financial particiPation in Step 2. the feasjf;>ility study. The preliminary analysis will be based on Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS) and Preliminary Analysis Model (PAM) models, and is the joint responsibility of the FDOT central office anc:i the district The assilmptions used in the models must be agreed upon by both the central office and the district The results of both models must show that the following performance standards would be met: 1. The facility would have ridership in the base year and/or in the first year of operation sufficient to produce an operating ratio (total revenue excluding earned interest on tax collections divided by total operating costs) of at least 35 percent; or, 2. HOV expressway lanes would have at least 3000 passenger trips per HOV lane in the peak hour; or 3 HOV arterial lanes would have at least 1500 passenger trips per HOV lane in the peak hour. DRAFT 12/13/88 DRAFT

PAGE 13

525-30-_ Page3of4 The preliminary analysis must assume current land use and no changes in the adopted Local Government Comprehensive Plan(s) If the results of the preliminao sb.ow that th vro.iect is not potentially economicallY feasible, then the state will not inuest in the proposed facility STEP 2 : FEASffiiLITY STUDY A comprehensive feasibility study will be completed The study will be subject to the following conditions and criteria: Study Conditions If the study is for a facility not initiated by FDOT, and the initiator may request state funds at any point for the project, the department must concur in the scope of the study, including agreement on the assumptions of both the study and the model, and agreement on the forecast methodologies for ridership, revenue, and cost. Public-private cooperation in the study must be encouraged. Appropriate Federal requirements must be addressed Minimum Study Feasibility Criteria A comprehensive alternatives analysis must .!Je completed, which includes a "do nothing" option and available highway alternatives, and which addresses each of the following feasibility criteria for each of the alternatives: .. Planning Change/ needed for the MPO long-range transportation plan and the Local Government Comprehensive Plan(s) (LGCP) to support the success of each alternative will be identified. Economic Feasibility The potential economic viability of each alternative will be assessed using, as a minimum, the performance standards applied by the department during Step 1: Initial Screening and the life cycle cost per design year passenger mile. Life cycle cost is equal to construction costs plus the present value (current year) of c umulative operating deficits of the system between the start-up and design years. Operating deficits are equal to annual operating costs minus farebox revenues and other earned revenues. Design year passenger miles are equal to a.mlual system ridership during the design year multiplied by average trip length. Regulation Policies, regulations and ordinances for zoning, specific corridor development, right of-way protection or preservation, and parking which must be in place to support each alternative will be identified. DRAFT 12113188 DRAFT

PAGE 14

525-30-_ Page4of4 Funding A comprehensive funding plan for preliminary engineering, design, right-of-way acquisition, construction, and continuing operation and maintenance of each alternative, including private sector financing where applicable, will be developed. If the feasibility study conditions and criteria are not met. the project will be considered not feasible .. and investment will not continue. STEP 3: SELECTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE PARTICIPATING PARTIES Based on the results of the feasibility study, a majority of the participating parties must agree on the selection of the alternative. Those parties which do not agree to the majority decision may discontinue their investment for the subsequent steps. The decision to proceed with the selected alternative must be unanimous among the (remaining) participating parties. The affected parties who have decided to discontinue investment will lose their right to known beneficial effects of the facility, e.g., no stations for a fixed guideway system will be located in non-participating cities or counties. If no "besC alternative can be agreed upon by participating pqrties. and no decision to proceed can be agreed upgn.. then the state will discontinue its investment .. STEP 4: ADOPTION OF PLANS AND REGULATIONS The planning, economic feasibility, regulatory, and funding requirements identified in Step 2 as necessary to support the selected alternative must be officially adopted in the participating city and county LGCP's, and the MPO plan for the area. Implementing regulations and ordinances must be put in place by each participating city and county. If the participating parties do not take offlial action to implement the factors identified gs necessary to the success of the selected alternative. it will be oonsidered not feasible and state invest&nt will not continue . STEP 5: BINDING COMMITMENTS The participating parties will sign binding commitments (contractual agreements) to satisfy the planning, regulatory, and funding requirements for construction, operation and maintenance of the facility. The commitments will include lt" .. Ana of enforcement and pay-back provisions for non-compliance. If all 5 steps are success[ully comDiekd as defined Q.y these procedures.. then the prokt will be considered potentially feasible and eligible [or state

PAGE 15

525_ PageS of4 investment in the preliminary engineering. right-o(Oway. and con.structjon vbases of the Work Progmm DRAFT 12113/88 DRAFI'

PAGE 16

BACKGROUND PAPER PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS ELIGIDLE FOR FUNDING BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of Policy December 13, 1988

PAGE 17

1 INTRODUCI'ION This pape r discusses the Florida Department of Transportation's (FDO T ) proposed policy on State investment in public transportation facilities. This proposed policy is the FDOT's response to Governor Marti nez's direc ti ves that the State: (1) participate in only those public transportation projects that possess some reasonable degree of merit, and (2) assure the quality and integrity of those planning studies used to ascertain this merit. The proposed policy requires that a candidate project must meet minimum standards of: (1) local government support, (2) transportation benefit, and (3) cost effectiveness in order to be eligible for State financial participation. The first criterion refers to compelling evidence of policy, planning, arid financial support of the project by affected local government(s) The latter two criteria refer to compelling evidence of economic feasibility or viability, and require that the proposed project: (1) serve a significant portion of pe.rson trips within existing, congested corridors; (2) provide a reasonable degree of user support of operating C!)St through the farebox and other sources of revenue that avoid. excessive subsidies; and (3) demonstrate long-term cost effectiveness relative to investments in alternative transportation projects. In addition, any planning or engineering studies funded i n part or whole through State sources would be required to meet minimum standards of analytical quality and would be subject to review by FPOT. The policy allows for an orderly public process in which the input of all affected parties can be obtained, weighed, and incorporated into the transportation choices under consideration The analytical techniques involve the use of ridership estimation models--both "sketch planning" and "systems" models--to determine whether or not a proposed transportation investment s a tisfies the requirements of the proposed policy 1.1. Scope ' The public transportation projects affected by .this policy are "exclusive use," surface transportation facilities. Exclusive use facilities (henceforth EUF) include guideway transit systems (e.g., Miami's Metrorail) and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes (e. g carpool lanes and busways). The definition specifically excludes bus fleet replacement, the revision of existing fixed route bus service, and the revision of Transportation Disadvantaged services. These exclusions are

PAGE 18

based on the assumption that the majority of Florida's bus transi t passengers in 1988 are captive riders, and as such, no meaningful tradeoff between highways and transit exists for these citizens' transportation needs. The operations of intra-airport, amusement, historical, and sightseeing vehicles and systems are excluded from this policy because those Operations do not provide significant urban transportation services to the general public. 2 POLICY The proposed investment policy is based upon the need to rationally allocate increasingly scarce Federal and State funds only to those investments that demonstrate the ability to provide meaningful transportation benefits to the public. Opponents of EUF investments point out that these facilities are politically justified on the basis of unrealistic projections of future travel behavior that never materialize; estimates of project construction and operating costs; and unreal i stic expectations about the effectS of the project on urban development pattems.1 When the elements necessary for the success of these facilities fail to materialize, large operating deficits, useless high occupancy vehicle lanes, and empty trains can be the end results In addition it is often the case that high profile (and high cost) investments carry fewer riders at a considerably higher cost than the buses, vans, and carpools that they replace 2 In these cases it is those members of the public most dependent on bus transit wno are forced to endure poorer service as existing services are "rationalized" to force riders onto the high profile facility or to free up oper11oting subsidy for the new facility. FDOT's proposed policy seeks to prevent State funds from being used in these wasteful, counterproductl.ve proje cts. 2.1. Local Government Support The proposed policy makes local support of a candidate EUF project a requirement for State financial participation. This element of the proposed policy reflects the assumption that the most significant nontechnical factor in the success of EUF projects is local government support. Local government support has a number of meanings in the present context including: (1) financial support of planning, construction, operation, etc; (2) policy support of the project in local planning and regulatory activities; and (3) cooperation between affected levels of government. 2 1.1. Local Financial Support The proposed policy would require loca l governments to make appropriate financial commitments to a candidate EUF from initial planning to ultimate operati on. Currently, local governments and the State share equally in transit capital projects, while the bulk of operating subsidy is provided by local sources. The draft policy proposes to extend the practice of cost sharing to tbe planning phase (including feasibility studies) for all EUF. The rationale behind this element of the policy is that when thl! financial (or in-kind) resources of local governments are involved in a project : Page2

PAGE 19

(1) it is more likely that the projects under consid eration will be well thought out; and (2) it introduces an incentive to maintain quality and focus in the study. The major problem associated with improved transit service is the need for support of operating deficits. When EUF projects are promoted to the public, deficits are usually downplayed (and occasionally downsized as well) Mass transit is an expensive proposition--even in "established" American cities with tremendous levels of transit usage relative to Florida--see Attachment 1. Increased efficiency, labor reform, and privatization may reduce the need for subsidy, but cannot eliminate it entirely. Thus, any locality that contemplates the introduction of a "world class" transportation system must be ready, willing, and able to support the deficits known to be associated with mass transit nationwide. The policy requires that affected local governments have at their disposal the financial resources necessary to liquidate the project's expected operating deficit (beyond any Federal, State, or private source of operating support) as a requirement for State participation. 2.1.2. Local Policy Support Different units of government must not work at cross.purposes when State funds are involved. Thus, when State funding is involved in some phase of a candidate EUF project, the policies, regul.ations, and goals of the Stat,e, the policies, regulations, and goals of the affected local government(s), and the conditions necessary fot:the success ofthe EUF must be mutually consistent. The proposed policy would make policy COJ!sistency a requirement for State f;nancial participation in a candidate EUF project. Consistency of a candidate EUF project with local planning activities would be indicated by the presence of the project in the latest Approved LongRange Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) plan. Further proof of local planning consistency, as well as consistency with State planning policy would be indicated by the presence of the candidate EUF project in the Mass Transit Element of the Local Government Comprehensive Plan (LGCP). In addition, all details of the candidate EUF project must be consistent between the MPO Plan and the LGCP Another requirement for State financial participation is local regulatory support of the conditions necessary for the success of the candidate EUF project. Zoning and parking ordinances, corridor protection, and other local regulations must be consistent with the environment that can best assure the success of the candidate EUF project. As the project rpoves from concept to concrete, continued State participation would be contingent on the continuance of the favorable regulatory climate for the project. 2.1.3. Intergovernmental Cooperation The final element of the requirement for local support is in the area of cooperation between affected local governments. Affected parties must agree in a binding fashion at the outset, to the concepts, mechanisms, and goals of a joint

PAGE 20

EUF project to maximize its chances of suc.cess. Failure to provide an acceptable interlocal agreement or the breach of an existing agreement would disqualify a candidate EUF project for further State financial support. The ioterlocal agreement establishes the duties and responsibilities of all affected parties in a flexible and voluntary fashion It will ensure that those measures necessary for the success of the candidate EUF project will have been identified and agreed to by all in advance 2.2. Transportation Benefit Candidate projects for State financial participation must demonstrate evidence of transportation benefit. Transportation benefit refers-to the extent to which an EUF's actual ridership provides trip capacity in a congested corridor. Two examples illustrate the principle involved A light rail system: that merely shifts 10,000 daily person trips from fixed-route bus to rail transi t with no other benefits fails to meet the transportation benefit criterion. On the other hand, a project that shifts 10,000 peak period person trips from congested, general service expressway lanes to a reserved HOV lane would meet the criterion. 2.2.1. Transportation Benefit of Transit Investments Candidate transit projects will be judged in the following manner. The study area will be analyzed using existing land use and tripma.k.ing patterns. This provides a conservative vantage point from which to establish the startup ridership of tliEl EUF project. Each analysis will have a minimum of three alternatives: (1) the candidate transit project: (2) a "no-build" or status-quo alterRative; and (3) a general-use highway alternative. The alternatives pertinent to this discussion are the candidate EUF project and the no -build alternative If there is no evidence that the candidate transit can attract more riders than the existing bus routes in the area (i.e., the no-build alternative), or that the project reduces highway congestion through the diversion of highway trips, then the p r oject l acks transportation benefit and would not be eligible for State funds. 2 2.2 HOV Transportation Benefit Investments in HOV lanes would be judged in the following manner. The study area wil l be analyzed using existing land use and tripma.k.ing patterns. Each analysis will have a minimum of three alternatives: (1) the candidate HOV project; \ (2) a "no-build" or status-quo alternative; and (3) a general-use highway alternative. The alternatives pertinent. to this discussion are the candidate HOV project and the general use highway alternative. To fulfill its intended mission, an HOV lane must carry not only: Page4

PAGE 21

(1) the existing sharedride trips in the study area but also, (2) some trips diverted from general use lanes. The worst case for peak hour vehicle trip generation involves the saturation vehicle occupancy rate of one person per vehicle. The "rule of thumb'' for highway capacity is 2,000 I 1,000 vehicles per hour for an expressway I signalized arterial lane, respectively. Application of the saturation vehicle occupancy rate to these vehicle capacities yields a saturation trip capacity of 2,000 I 1,000 person trips per lane per hour for expressway I arterial lanes, respectively. The specific numerical target set by the FDOT for an HOV lane is a minimum loading of 150 percent of the general use lane trip capacity. This amounts to 3000 I 1500 person trips per peak hour per expressway I arterial HOV lane. A minimum occupancy of 2 persons per vehicle would be required in the HOV lane. 3 The 50 percent differential in passenger trip potential reflects the differential cost of building and operating an HOV facility.4 2.3. Cost Effectiveness Cost effectiveness refers to the ability of an EUF to (1) defray a reasonable proportion of its operational cost through user-produced revenue (applicable only to transit and toll facilities) and (2) provide transportation services at the minimum cost of all alternatives considered. Candidate EUF projects must meet these criteria in order to be eligible for State funding. 2.3.1. User Cost Recovery Standards.(or Transit Based on the performance of existing fixed guideway systems, as well as academic research on funding regponsibility, the FDOT has adopted two standards for operating cost recovery. 5 In the startup year of a transit project, user revenues may account for no less than 35 percent of operating cost, with the standard ultimately rising to 50 percent in the design year. The design year refers to the forecast year, usually 20 years after startup, during which the full ridership potential of the project is realized. The ultimate standard, a 50 percent cost recovery ratio, is based on the performance data of actual guideway transit systems currently operating in the United States--see Attachment 1. The national averages for cost recovery by mode operated are: Co=uter Rail, 50 percent; Heavy Rail, 55 percent; Light Rail, 38 percent; and a composite figure of 52 percent. The 50 percent target is the 52 percent composite figure rounded down slightl,y. The 50 percent target is also applied to light rail, despite the mode's 38 percent average cost recovery. The light rail average cost recovery rate is strongly influenced by a number of some older systems [Boston, Pittsburgh, San Francisco] that have lower cost recovery than newer systems [Portland, San Diego]. The newer systems were specifically designed to recover a high percentage of operating costs. The older systems are often remnants of more complete systems that were once geared to high cost recovery, but now serve as downtown circulators, urban amenities, or tourist PageS

PAGE 22

attractions. When these special cases are removed, the average cost recovery rises to about 50 percent. The startup cost recovery target of 35 pereent is based upon the average cost recovery of all transit modes operated within the United States as reported by the American Public Transit Association in 1987. 2.3.2. Least Cost Alternative Analysis The second cost-effectiveness criterion is the selection of the preferred alternative based on minimum cost per unit of mobility. For the purposes of the proposed policy, unit cost will be defined as life cycle cost per design year passenger mile carried by the system. Each analysis will have a minimum of three alternatives: (1) the candidate EUF project; (2) a "no-build" or status-quo alternative; and (3) a general-use highway alternative. Each alternative bas associated with it specific levels of: (1) capital cost; (2) operating and maintenance cost; (3) ridership; and (4) user-derived revenues. Over the'lifetime:of a transportation investment, public funds must be used for construction and operation of the system, to the extent thatthese costS are not covered by explicit, u5er-derived revenues. Life cycle costs are equal to the present, or discounted, value of: (1) capital costs and (2) net operating costs. Capital c osts include the costs of engineering design, right-of-way acquisition, construction, vehicle acquisition, and the like. Net operating costs are the difference betwee n operating costs and user-derived revenues. The basic measure of mobility is the anumber of passenger miles carried by a system. One passenger mile of service is provided when one passenger is moved one mile. Alternatively, the passenger miles produced by a transit system are given by the product of total ridership multiplied by the average distance traveled. Design year passenger miles rep resent the ultimate quantity of mobility that is produced by a transportation investment that has fully matured in its urban setting. The philosophy behind this criterion is based on the need to compare transit investments with highway segments. The common denominators between highways and transit are cost, discussed above, and the provision of mobility. User revenues are another question entirely. Transit operations have easily identified sources of direct or explicit user revenues through passenger fares and other operating revenues. No such simple relationship exists, however, for a Page6 ..

PAGE 23

specific highway segment, in the absence of traditional tolls. Thus, the highway projects are compared to transit projects solely on the basis of cost impact to taxpayers. If tax revenues provide more mobility in a corridor through the diversion of trips to transit than they would in the form of additional highway lanes, then the best use of funds would be transit. Otherwise, the highway lanes would be the superior alternative. The least cost criterion measures the costs of building and operating a transportation alternative until utilization by the public reaches its zenith. This criterion recognizes the fact that if a locality is to enjoy the long-term benefits of transit, i t must be willing to bear the longterm costs, including accumulated deficits, during the period of "land use germination" within the study area. 3 MKI'HODS The modeling methodology recommended for the proposed investment policy is based on the need to concentrate on p r ojects with good ridership and cost-recovery prospects in the near-term. Thus, emphasis is placed on: (1) diversions of automobile trips and (2) cost recovery during the first year of operation At a preliminary level, the FDOT will assess proposed investments in EUFs using 1980 Census data [1990 data when it becomes available in 1993] and validation year data from Urban Are;i Transportation Study Updates using sketch planning .and systems models as appropriate. Despite the age of this data, it iS highly unlikely that corridors established after 1980 or 1985 will have a constellation of density, and habituation that is. favorable to transit and HOV. Furthermore, given the unfavorable trend in overall transit use in Florida (statewide transit ridership in 1980 was higher than in 1986), the age of the data is unlikely to affect the outcome of the analysis.6 Please refer to Attachment II for a stylized example of a life cycle cost analysis of a light railllnk versus a pair of highway lanes. 3.1. Standards, Review, and Replication The key feature of the FDOT's methodology for implementing its proposed investment policy is the use of peer review. FDOT will assure that all studies receiving State funds meet minimum standards of quality That is, all assumptions must be fully documented and justified; and only professionally accepted methods of ridership forecasting may be used to determine the feasibility of projects All results will be subject to review and challenge That is, all parties (including the FDQT) are subject to a thorough review of the reasonableness of assumptions, methods, and findings used in the modeling process. Finally, the FDOT must be able to replicate the findings of the analysis in-house. This is the equivalent of the scientific principle of :Skepticism''-the notion that results must be proven to the satisfaction of one's peers to b e valid. It is the opinion of the FDOT that these minimum standards of professional review are not only "good

PAGE 24

scientific practice", but are also the minimum standards that should be acc e pted when dealing with public monies in any set of circumstances. 3 2. Sketch Planning The Preliminary Assessment Model (PAM) is a sketch planning model whose purpose is to provide planners with a forecasting tool that is fast, flexible, portable, and simple. It is based in part on the methods used by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Urban Mass Transportation Administratio (UMTA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the late 1970s for quick response modeling for air quality analysis 7 PAM is a microcomputer based corridor modeling system that operates a the level of the Census Tract (CT) rather than the Traffic Analysis Zone. Thus, the amount of data processing is substantially reduced relative to Urban Transportation Planning System (UTPS), Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure
PAGE 25

Based on the test cases used during the developm ent of the software, the entire modelling process takes about 16 hours Actual computer running time for the package is le s s than one houi for the complete chain PSUMMARY, PMODEL, LIMDEP, PNET, AND PNETSUM "What if' anal y ses only require the use ofPNET and PNETSUM and take l ess than 5 minutes. A complete update of the model for the Miami urbanized area to 1986 took 40 hours, including gen e ration and aggregation ofUTPS trip tables, downloading, and mult iple runs for each of three trip purposes 3 3. Systems Modeling The FDOT currently supports the use of the FSUTMS.8 This systems planning model is taken to be the FDOT s standard for general purpose transportation modeling. FDOT will require that consultants use FSUTMS as part of any approved feasibility analysis The review process will involve the inhouse replication ofFSUTMS startup and design year patronage estimates and a comparison between PAM results and startup year estimates. In this fashion, the FDOT maintains a full round of peer revi e w between models and modelers 3.4. Financial Analysis Costs and revenues a r e estimated through the use of "off the shelf' analysis .. . Facllity and vehicle requirements are determined on the.basis ofthe !ink loadings produced by PAM and FSUTMS. Unit capital costs are drawn from Characteristics of Urban Transportation Systems (CUTS) and summaries prepared by the FDOT Estimates Engineer, and are in turn, used to cost-out the system configuration suggested by the ridership modeling analysis. 9 Historical costs are updated through the use of price indexes for highway and other construction. Operating costs are determined o n the basis of the service configuration (speed, frequency, distance, etc.) assumed in the ridership analysis. Unit operating costs are drawn from CUTS, American Public Transit Association (APTA) Operating Reports, UMTA Section 15 data and even Interstate Commerce Commission reports. Historical costs are updated through the use of appropriate price indexes Both PAM and FSUTMS provide reports on: (1) passenger trips by mode, (2) passenger mi l es by mode, and (3) transit transf ers. In the case of transit projects, these data are used in conjunction with the assumed fare structure to determine revenue potential. Page9 ...

PAGE 26

4. CONCLUSION This paper discussed the theory and meChanics of the proposed FDOT policy on EUF. The aim of this policy is not to deprive the public of transportation services, but to direct State transportation funds to those projects that provide the greatest amount of mobility for each dollar spent and to assure the taxpayer that his or her transportation dollar purchases the largest "bang for the buck." PagelO

PAGE 27

FOOTNOTES [1] See "20 Years of Federal Mass Transit Assistance: How Has Mass Transit Changed?", Comptroller General of the U.S. [GAO/RCED-85 -6 1], September 1985. [2] Florida's anecdotal example of bus route reduction is Metro Dade Transportation Authority's Metrorail system and the conversion of major portions of the bus system into a feeder system for Metrorail. [3] Generally, HOV lanes operate with a 3 person minimum occupancy. However, experience on the KATY Freeway in Houston, Texas shows that a 2 person minimum attracts substantially more riders (and fewer violators). See "The Effectiveness of High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities", Report of ITE Technical Committee 6A-37, August 1986. [4] See "Characteristics of Urban Transportation Systems", Arlee T. Reno and Ronald H. Bixby [UMTA-MA-06-0173-85-1], October 1985 and "The Effectiveness of High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities", Report of ITE Technical Committee 6A37, August 1986 for cost estimates ofbusway and HOV project costs and actual passenger volumes [5] The 50 percent user cost recovery J;igure follows the "benefit-based" cost sharing prop. osal recommended in "Intergovernmental Responsibilities for Financing Public Transit Facilities", Robert Cervero [DOT-I-83-30], August 1983. [6] "Florida Transit Profile 1986", FDOT, Page 18, Figure 3. [7] "Transportation Air Quality Analysis-Sketch Planning Methods", vols. 1 and 2, Cambridge Systematics, Inc [EPA 400/1-800 -00lb], December 1979. [8] "FSUTMS Reference Manual", FDOT, August 1988. [9] "Characteristics of Urban Transportation Systems", Arlee T. Reno and Ronald H. Bixby [UMTA-MA-06-0173-85], October 1985. Pagell

PAGE 28

; I! . : -. = t ; - 3:; : : E d .. : = = .. : -l" ; : t Si! t : : . -: -: =- -. s ;: : t s a i e a :=: "' .... .. g a : .. 5 l 0 : : : : = = : : = : --. - . .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . . . -. .. .. . .. .. ft : : : : = : ; : : : : : .. ... .. .. .. . . . . ... . : : t : : n : : : : . . . . .. . = J .. .. .. .. .. = : : : = = : : : : ; : ft .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . . .. ... .. . .. .. .. .. ... --.. -... .. . .. . .. . .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. ... ... . .. .. . . . .. ... ... .. -. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... : : : : = : : : : : : . . .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . .. .. : -.. : : = : : = : : : .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 0 .. ft ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. . . . : : : : = = ; : : : -. -.;: ........ .,; .. . .. .. -.... .. : : : : : : : = = : : : . .. . . .. .. .. = : = : : : = : ; : : : .. : .. "' ............ : .. = : : : = ; = : = -- - . .. ... - - - . .: .: - = : : : : = : : ; : = = : ft -ft ft ft ; . ; ; -. : : : : : : .. .. ft "" .. .. -.. . -. .. . . . . .. . . . . . ; . -. . . . . . . . . . ; . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. "" .. . . . .. .. -"" .. .. .. .. .. -.. .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. -" .. .. "" .. .. "" . . "" .. "" .. . .. : : : : : = : : "" : . ... .: .; ... .: .. . . .. .. .. .; .; 6 J .; .. ft .. .. .. .. . . "" .. . . . ; . . . . . . . .. . .. . -: : : : = : : : : ; .; .; A ; ; .; . .. . .. -.. .: : : : : : : : = : = : . .. .. . . .. . . . . . ... . .. "" = : = = : -.. ... : : : : = = .. ft : .. .. a 5 ; ; : : = = = = : = i E : 3 = : E : E : : = : = ; : : .. . -. ::::::::: :::: .: - ,; .; .: - .; : .. = .. - : .; v a : ii : : : : : = : = : : .. ... . .. . .. . . .. .. .. "" . 8 .. ... - -.. .. .. p ... .. : : : : = : = : : . . . . . --... 0 .. : : : : : ; : : ; ; ... .-.; ....... .: : : : : = : = : = i .. 0 0 0 " E : a E : 5 S 5 i . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. .. " - d .. .. . . . " .. w .. . . . -. .. .. 0 0 .. 0 .; .: .: .: .. .. . -. . -: : : : i : : = -.. . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . -. " -. . . . .. .. -" . ... : : : : : : : : : : : .: .; .. .. .; ... .. .. .. . = : : t - = : s .; .: .; : .; - = = = i .: .: - .: - E = - : 11 : - - i : - : = i a

PAGE 29

ATTACHMENT II ILLUSI'RATIVE EXAMPLE OF LIFE CYCLE COST EE 'Ji'E CTIVENESS IIIGHWAY ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE LENGTH= 1.0 MI. VEHOCC= 1.00 FAREIMI= 15 0 CENTSIMI Capital Annual Daily Daily Net Capital Annual Daily Annual Year Cost 0&.1'.1 Cost Veh. Pass. Cost Year Cost O&MCost Pass. Rev. Net Cost $1000$1000 1000. 1000 $1000$1000 $1000 1000$1000 $1000 PV= 2,177 7 96 6 2 274.3 PV= 5,046 7 7,583 7 5,288.5 7,341.9 12,162.5 0.0 .. 0 0 0.0 2,162.5 1 5,400.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 5,400 0 2 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 2 0.0 785.1 10.0 547.5 237.6 3 10.0 10. 0 10.0 10.0 3 0.0 785.1 10.0 547.5 237.6 4 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 4 0.0 785 1 10 0 547 5 237 6 5 10 0 10. 0 10.0 10.0 5 0.0 785.1 10. 0 547.5 237.6 6 10.0 10. 0 10.0 10.0 6 0.0 785.1 10.0 547.5 237.6 7 10.0 10.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 7 0.0 785.1 10.0 547.5 237.6 8 10 0 10 0 10.0 10 0 8 0.0 785.1 10 0 547 5 237 6 9 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9 0 0 785.1 10.0 547.5 237.6 10 10.0 1 0.0 10. 0 10.0 10 0.0 785.1 10.0 547.5 237 6 11 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 11 0.0 785.1 10.0 647.5 237 6 12 10 0 10.0 10.0 10.0 12 0 0 785.1 10.0 547.5 237.6 13 10 0 10.0 10. 0 10.0 13 0.0 785.1 10 0 547.5 237.6 14 10.0 10.0 10. 0 10.0 14 0.0 785.1 10 0 547 5 237.6 15 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 15 0.0 785.1 10.0 547.5 237 6 16 462.5 10.0 10.0 10.0 4 7 2 5 16 0.0 785.1 10.0 547.5 237 6 17 10.0 10.0 10.0 10. 0 17 0 0 785 1 10.0 547.5 237.6 18 10.0 10.0 1 0.0 10 0 18 0.0 785.1 10.0 547.5 237.6 19 1 0.0 10. 0 10 0 10.0 19 0.0 785 1 10.0 547.5 237.6 DY 10.0 10.0 10.0 10 0 DY 0.0 785 1 10.0 547.5 237.6 Ute Cycle Cost Per Design Year Passenger Mile Highway Transit$227 43 $734 .19 PAGE 30 CENTER FOR URBAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING OEPARTMEt-rr OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND MECHANICS TAMPA, FLORIDA 33620.5350 813:974-2581 Patrick J. Mccue State Transportation Planner Florida Department of Transportation 605 suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Dear l1r. McCue, January 20, 1989 We are moving ahead on our review of the State's "Interim Procedures for Determining State Investment in Public Transportation Facilities". We are currently developing quite extensive comments and recommendations. A short summary of the key areas of is attached. The issues we are raising would require substantial reworking of the interim procedures, hence, I wanted bring them issues to your attention as early as possible. Overall we believe that the process should be modified to build on the that has been gained by transit planning professionals in working the Ul1TA defined alternatives analysis process rather than developing an entirely new approach. We certainly support the efforts to develop a State procedure and anticipate that our initial work can be completed the next weeks. We are to work closely with your staff to put together a revised interim procedure. Do not hesitate to contact me or my staff with any questions. Once again, we anticipate making our detailed comments in a few weeks. Sincerelv. Gary Sroseh, Director Attachments THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FI.OAIOA IS AN AFfiRUATl\15 ACT10NUAt. OPPOR'Tl.>ITY INSTmJTION PAGE 31 summary of Comments on Interim Procedures for Determining State Investment in Public Facilities Florida procedures for determining state investment in public transportation facilities should be integrated with the Federal process for conducting alternatives analysis. How the process would work for both projects that do and do not seek federal funds should be clarified. The initial screening of project eligibility should focus on local identification of a transportation "need" and evidence of a "potential" for a transit alternative to be successful. A premature commitment to a project should be avoided at this phase of the planning, as it tends to lock people into supporting a system or technology before determining what is the most cost effective investment. Initial screening criteria should focus on capital and operating cost effectiveness and be able to be applied equitably to various modes and technologies. Evaluation of project ridership and cost should look at both near term and design year performance. Design year data should be included in the evaluation in rapid growth environments and where t ransit is anticipated to be used as a tool in shaping urban growth. The evaluation process should have a broader required range of alternatives looked at including a Transportation Systems Management alternative and a "do something latter" alternative. The evaluation should determine not only that a fixed alternative is appropriate but it is appropriate. PAGE 32 this page IS blank PAGE 33 flBE .... , . .. .,. CENTER FOR URBAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DEPARTMEN T OF CIVIL ENGINE E RING AND MECHANICS TAMPA, FLORIDA 33620-5350 813:974-2581 Patrick J. Mccue State Transportation Planner Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwaunnee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Dear Mr. Mccue, February 21, 1989 In order to proceed as quickly as possible with more detailed comments on the Interim Procedures for Deter1nining state Investment in PUblic Transportation Facilities, I have asked Dr. Jones and Dr. Polzin to begin working directly with your staff in Tallahassee. I have enclosed a copy of a draft memo from Dr. Polzin which discusses many of the key issues in greater detail. Cop ies have been provided to your staff for review. Should you or your st.aff have any q)lestions do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Gary Brosch Director Attachments cc: Nick Serianni Richard Stasiak Jim Charlier f'I.IE UNIVERSnY OF SClUTI-I IS AN AFJ'w.tAl'tVE ACT'ION EOUAL OPPORTUNITY INSTIT\JTION PAGE 34 To: From: Date: Gary Steven Polzin February 21, 1989 subject: Draft Comments and Issues outline for an FDOT Policy for Capital Assistance to Fixed Guideway Projects The following discussion is divided into a number of sections, each of which describes various aspects of developing a process for the allocation of state assistance for fixed guideway projects. The discussion goes beyond commenting on the FDOT prepared draft interim procedures to make some specific recommendations and raise some key issues that I feel have to be considered in deciding how the process should be structured. However, this is not written as or meant to be a revised draft policy and will benefit from additional review, discussion and refinement to incorporate the specific concerns and objectives of the various interested parties. A large number of policy issues are raised, which when resolved, will influence specification of the subsequent aspects of the p rocess. I go into a fare amount of detail in discussing the preliminary policy issues and in discussing the initial screening step (systems planning) in the process. lly comments on the feasibility study and subsequent steps in the process are not completed and will very much be shaped by the reactions from FOOT to several of the issues raised in discussing the initial screening component of the process. I feel that these initial materials should be followed by discussions with FOOT staff to reach a consensus on key issues. Following their resolution we can map out to proceed in detailing the process and completing a revised set of draft procedures. PAGE 35 Comments and Recommendations on Procedures for Determining FOOT Investment in Public Transportation Facilities Table of Contents Section Page Introduction & Program Objectives 1 Funding Allocation Process 2 Project Types 4 General Definition 4 Project Scale 6 Ne" Starts 6 Operable Segments 6 Renovation P rojects 7 Component Funding 7 Landbanking 7 Federal Alternatives Analysis Projects 7 Number of Projects Under study 8 Coordination the Federal Alternatives Analysi s Process 8 The Federal Process as a Model Responsiveness Relevance sensitivity to Local Conditions Sensitivity to Intangibles Consistency 8 9 9 10 10 10 Process Steps and Decision Sequence 10 Initial Screening 11 Initial Screening Criteria 10 The Req uired Commitment 11 Evidence of Transit Potential 13 Additional Comments on the Decision Sequencing 14 Technical Considerations in Developing Screening Criteria 15 Evaluation Reference Year 15 Avoid Recovery Ratio Measures 16 Use Standardized Measu res Ac ross Modes/Technologies 16 Establish Rigorous Revie" of Assumptions 16 i PAGE 36 Table of Contents Section Page Recommendations for Initial screening Measures 17 Public Transit Market overview 18 Economic Performance 19 Transportation/Land Use Plan/Policy coordination 21 The Feasibility Study 21 comments on Draft Feasibility Study Criteria 22 Heasuring Local Support 22 Economic Feasibility 22 Technical Approach 23 Step 3. Selection of Alternatives 23 Step 5. Binding Commitment 23 ii PAGE 37 comments and Recommendations on Procedures for Determining state Investment in Public Transportation Facilities Introduction & Program Objectives A more substantial introduction and statement of the States objectives which drive the procedures for determining state investment in fixed guide,Jay projects should be included in the introductory section of the procedures. The objectives of the State will influence the process for allocating funds as well as the level of funds allocated to fixed guideway projects. It is strongly recommend that a limited number of precisely worded objective statements be developed that drive the process as well as the evaluationjallocation criteria. The greater the acceptance of the objective statements and the clearer the linkages to the process and evaluation/allocation criteria, the easier it will be to build support for the program. A number of specific subject areas could be covered by the objective statements. This should start with a general statement describing the State's role in public transportation funding including a statement of why the state feels it has a role to play in financial assistance to public transit. Among the s1,1bjects that might be referenced are: Public Transportation plays a major role in attaining the states goals relative to land use planningjmanagement; Public Transportation responds to public demands for more transit services or facilities; State funding of public transportation is a more efficient way of collecting resources and spreading the burden of costs; The State can provide a concentration of specialized technical expertise necessary for highly technical planning and implementation of fixed guideway systems; Public transit is a key componen t in supporting state level economic development goals; It is the State's responsibility to insure that the resources do not compete with highway investments but rather complement them; or, It is the State's responsibility to insure that the State resources are wisely spe!)t and that the state's taxpayers "'ill 1 PAGE 38 not be faced with unanticipated or extraordinary expenses. In addition to the above a statement as to the State's objectives relative to fixed guideway financial support versus other capital funding versus operating assistance for transit would be appropriate. This might be an appropriate place to address the issue of why the funds are allocated in a discretionary manner rather than given to the various jurisdictions on a block grant basis. These concepts are discussed extensively bela' To the extent possible the goal statements should relate directly to the proposed evaluation criteria in the fixed guideway evaluation process. Funding Allocation Process As referenced in the above discussion, the policy statements and evaluation process for determining State investments in fixed guideway facilities should be preceded with a discussion of the overall State program for financial assistance to public transportation. This >Till serve the objective of explaining the motives for State involvement in fixed guide,ay financial support and may well significantly influence the extent and nature of requests for State for capital assistance for fixed guideay projects. lvhile the method of allocation obviously may have implications beyond financial assistance to fixed guideway facilities, it is mentioned here because it is felt to have an oven/helming influence on the extent of interest by local jurisdictions and on the degree of technical specification and oversight required. From a strategic planning perspective local officials will consider a number of issues when deciding whether or not to seek State funds. Similarly, numerous other interests groups whose position on fixed guideway transit will be influential, may well be influenced by the nature of the funding allocation process used by the State. The significance of the funding allocation process relates to whether or not there are financial tradeoffs associated with applying for state assistance for a fixed guideway transit project. Not surprisingly, there 'ill be far greater interest in seeking "our fair share" of new discretionary funds. one of the primary objectives often cited for transit projects is to realize the economic stimulus effect of bringing major additional capital expenditures into the region. The extent to >lhich the funds are net ne' money for the locality or region very much influences the economic impacts of the project. similarly, the greater the extent of non-local funding available the greater the stimulus and the greater the interest in pursuing the funds. As alternatives to being net ne' monies, the funding allocation for fixed guideway projects could have other tradeoffs. The use of funds for a fixed guideway project might influence the amount of 2 PAGE 39 funds available for other transit capital or operating projects (potentially increasing other subsidies if they a r e d riven by operating costs or service level s could go up the expansion of service to a fixed project, or possibly reducing other subsidies if receipt of funds for a fixed guideway facility depletes a larger pot of resources). Is the money above and beyond the funding for the p rogram o r do the projects implicitly or explicitly compete with roadway projects, a n d if so a t the district level or at the state level ? Is there a fixed pot of money such that only the best projects get funded or do all projects meeting a threshol d requirement get funded? I f more projects are accepted is the l e vel of fun d ing for each lmer e d ? A r e better project s given more funds in actual or percentage terms? A r e amen i t ies and reserve capacity above and beyon d the level s that appear cost effective at the desig n year funded? HoiJ are cost overruns and cost escalation funded? The to these types of questions coul d significantl y affect the motivations and 1dllingness to p ursu e discretionary fun d ing for a transit project. A local official >10ul d m ost probabl y have a d iffer e n t perspective on supporting a transi t project i f use of state funds for i t resulted in levels o f funding being available for other transit or hig hway projects i n the region as opposed to the project rece i ving ent i r e l y discretionary funds that would increase the total funding received in the district. In additio n to a decision on the overall level o f funding for transportation b y the State, there are potentially three major decisions that are made concerni n g the allocation o f State transportation funds. The sequencing of these decisions determines the natur e of the competition for funds and consequently the impact s associated with a given allocation approach. T hese decisions are the allocation among modes (transi t versus the allocation among functions >Iithin transi t (operati o ns, routine c apital, major capital) and the locational allocation (i. e which districts/projects get funds) By specifyin g a process for fixed gui deway transit allocation the Stat e has implicitly sai d that they will not give State funds to districts or local jurisdictions f o r allocation a mong modes and/or functions at the district level of decision mak ing. The three types of sequences of decision decisions making: 1 2 3 Mode Mode Function Fu nction Location Location Location Function !1ode Of these possibilities, 5 and based o n the fact that the create six d ifferent possi b l e 4 5 6 Fu nction Location Location Mode Mode Function Location Function Mode 6 have in effect been eliminated S tate has chose n t o develop an 3 PAGE 40 evaluation and allocation scheme for fixed guideay projects. Options 3 and 4 auld involve selecting hor the funds ere allocated among the functions ( operations, routine capital and fixed guideway capital) then determining the split by mode and lastly determining the split by location. It is highly unlikely that the functional allocation auld be done before the modal allocation decisions. Table 1 portrays decision sequence options 1, 2, (the most likely options for Florida) and option 5 for allocating State transportation funds. A final consideration relating to the allocation scheme deals ith the complexity and scrutiny involved in evaluating technical ark produced in studies supporting requests for discretionary allocations of funds. The competitive nature of the requests for funds creates very strong pressures for the technical result to give every advantage to the politically favored alternatives in order to increase the probability that they can receive funds. This then requires ever greater scrutiny of the technical procedures and assumptions to insure both accuracy and comparability (to insure that all competitors are equally optimistic or pessimistic) for those assumptions that should be standardized. For example, all cities should assume the same basic change in fuel costs and auto efficiencies hen calculating auto operating costs for patronage forecasting purposes. While there are a number of reasons, the competitive environment for receiving funds may have contributed to an extremely poor record of performance for fixed guideYTay transit forecasting of capital and operating costs, ridership and fare revenues, and implementation schedules. See Attachment 2. Project Types General Definition A detailed statement of project types to which the specified process would apply should be provided. The draft itemization implies help for the very high capital cost types of projects but does not address whether this is complemented by a different program for more routine capital needs (YThich e presume it is). several types of projects may or may not be covered by the fixed guideay or other transit capital allocation program and may or may not be treated the same by the process. It is desirable to specify relatively clear break points betYTeen projects eligible for the various programs. This might include establishing a definitional and/or dollar limit break point between fixed guideYTay and routine transit capital projects. In some instances major programs (for example building a dozen major park and ride/transit center facilities) could result in financial needs approaching those of fixed guideYTay systems, it may be appropriate to clarify hoYT these 4 PAGE 41 1 -Table 1 FLORIDA STATE TRANSPORTATION REVENUES I Transit Highways I >perakions Roukine MaJor capital I 7' I >istrict/ District/ District/ ?roperty Property Property I 2 FLORIDA STATE TRANSPORTATION REVENUES I Transit I listrlct/ Diskrict/ I Prolerty\ \P:operty )perations Routine Major Capital Capital I Highways 5 FLORIDA STATE TRANSPORTATION REVENUES I I District/ Property Transit I I Routine Capital I \ \ District/ Prolerty -.MaJor Capital \ \ \ District; Property Highways 5 (Modal allocation) (Functional Allocation) (Location Allocation) . (Modal allocation) (Location Allocation) (Functional Allocation) (Location Allocation) \ etc. . . ( Modal allocation) (Functional Allocation) PAGE 42 types of projects are evaluated and why it is not the same as for fixed guide>ray projects. Project Scale A number of types of projects may be potential candidates of the process depending on the size and scale of the project. Arterial bus lanes or High Occupancy Vehicle lanes may be quite modest in cost yet fixed guideway in nature. Similarly, bus bypass ramps, conversions of inside shoulders to HOV lanes and other similar types of projects may also be relatively low in cost but technically be fixed guide>ray projects. It might be appropriate to specify whether very small fixed guideway systems (circulation, people mover type projects) >rould be eligiblejrequired to undergo this process as opposed to seekin g more routine transit capital grants. New Starts An additional recommendation would be to specifically address >rhether the same process applied to Starts" (the first segment of a fixed guideway system in a region none currently existed) as well or extensions and expansions of existing systems. One would typically expect the performance of different types of projects to vary. T h e first piece of a system might perform more marginally if part of the cost and capacity is intended to support more than the initial facility that is being built as a first phase (or minimal operable segment in UMTA terminology). The evaluation could require each project to stand on its own merits or the evaluation measures could be adjusted to reflect that some share of the invest.ment has a value for subsequent system expansion that should not be fully considered in a cost effectiveness type analysis at this time. Minimal Operable segments Another tool the federal government uses to influence the nature of projects and the financial implications is to require that the rail proposals seeking federal financial assistance be submitted in segments with the first piece being the "minimal operable segment". This serves to control the potential financial obligation the federal government makes at a given time and also to insure that poor performing segments or lines of a rail system are not being "carried" by including them as part of a larger system where the better components of the system might be carrying the poor parts. This approach is also logical in that it allows some feedback from early parts of the system to influence the decisions to expand the system or changes various design, cost and 6 PAGE 43 other aspects of subsequent investments. A similar approach be recommended for adoption by the State. Renovation Projects Eventually it be necessary to define >That type of program would provide assistance for major costs associated with rehabilitation and renovation of major transit facilities (for example the Washington Netro system is forecast to have rehabilitation costs in the$150 million range annually before the turn on the century). Whether or not these types of projects are evaluated by the same criteria or compete for the same funds should be determined. Retrofits, technological updates and other modifications can create extensive financial needs. Component Funding The policy should address whether components related to a rail project will be eligible for consideration as major capital projects or otherwise eligible for State capital assistance if the project that they support does not undergo the State evaluation process. For instance, a property may choose not to solicit state funds for a major project wanting to avoid the time and risks of going through the evaluation but may solicit State funds for components of the system (i.e. rail vehicles, maintenance facility) if these "routine" capital items are not subject to the evaluation required for major projects. Landbanking The availability of these funds for less well defined long term projects should be considered. This might include things such as funding the additional right-of-way in a corridor to build a fixed system at some point in time in the future or buying a rail right-of-way or other piece of property so as not to preclude some long term transit opportunity. Preserving a station site for an as yet undefined system may be a very investment is some congested corridors. Federal Alternatives Analysis Projects Finally tlie State may to take a position as to or not is will require the locality to seek federal assistance for the fixed guideway project if such a program continues to exist. This requirement could be logically supported by noting the desire for Florida to get its fair share of the Federal funds and potentially reduce the local funds required. It also forces the project to go through the Federal process and undergo the scrutiny of the Federal 7

PAGE 44

oversight providing further assurances that the projects getting State funds are (assuming that they pass the Federal technical tests). This could significantly affect the number and timing of projects. NUmber of Projects Under study A final consideration respect to the state involvement relates to the number of projects that might simultaneously be proposed by a single urban area at a given time. The Federal government, for example, has a policy of trying to limit a given local area to a single corridor under study for a major capital project at one time (after the ;systems level planning is completed). This serves to both limit the potential levels of expenditure and provides some control of the work load relating to review of the technical work and grant requests. Without such controls a single urban area could potentially overload the Federal technical staff and lay claim to a large share of the available resources. It is often helpful to constrain the project scope and number of projects s imultaneously under consideration in order to insure prudent progress on high priority project before committing to too many. coordination with the Federal Alternatives Analysis Process A critical element of a process for allocating State capital assistance to fixed guideway projects is developing the process to interface with Federal processes that are prerequisites to receiving Federal funds. Since it is very common for major capital projects to solicit Federal capital funds, the process adopted by the State of Florida should be coordinated with or complement the Federal alternatives analysis process. This should include a processes capable of being used both in cases where Federal participation was sought and in cases were it was not being sought. Additionally, it is recommended that many other aspects of the Federal process be adopted. The Federal process provides a good mode l for development of a State process yet the State process can be designed to accommodate local goals and objectives and improve on some of the constraints and shortcomings of the Federal approach. The Federal Process as a Model I n selecting the Federal process as a base model some comments on the nature of the Federal process and its general acceptance are i n order As would be the case with any process, it has both advantages and disadvantages. The Federal process is evolving and 8

PAGE 45

has been modified at various times over the years. Parts of the process are specified in Federal regulations and other aspects have evolved in the form of recommended procedures. Changes are still taking place concerning the technical evaluation measures and the performance criteria. Shortcomings and virtues of the Federal process are mentioned below. Responsiveness The process is perceived to be lengthy primarily because the ID1TA budget situation has resulted in limited staff available to perform the necessary reviews. This has given the process a perception as being slow. Other have argued that the process is slow on purpose in order to slow the drain on Federal resources. The argument is that is unable to afford the number of projects that are currently in the queue and that the only alternative is to design the process so as to slow the work and potential flow of funds without the political consequences of actually rejecting any projects. Thus, it is common for projects to continue to be in the study phase for a long period of .time. It has been noted that UMTA's um1illingness to make political enemies results in them being willing to let cities continue through various studies but funding constraints and project performance makes them reluctant to allow projects to receive implementation funding commitments. Relevance The process has been argued to be irrelevant. This argument stems from the perception of some that the t'echnical findings of UMTA sponsored work are not necessarily relevant in the decision making as to projects get funded. I t has been argued that the earmarking that the Congress does invalidates the technical evaluation and prioritization process implied in the alternatives evaluation process. While the extent to which this does or is perceived to exist can be debated, it is clear that the long run merit of any process will be very dependent upon the extent to which it is supported in the decision making that follows. This points out a very critical consideration associated with committing to a needs based project evaluation mechanism. The distribution of "needs" for transit fixed guideway projects may not (most probably will not) be allocated across the state in a manner proportional to the population, tax revenue collections or political power. The program may not be equitable as measured by the uniformity with which funds are allocated to major metropolitan areas. 9

PAGE 46

sensitivity to Local Conditions The Alternatives Analysis process has been argued to not be sensitive to local desires and local conditions. In various forms this argument can vary from the extreme that it is none of Ut-ITA' s business how we choose to spend "our tax dollars" to more subtle concerns that the technical measures do not reflect characteristics of the local situation such as air quality compliance concerns. Sensitivity to Intangibles Others have argued that technical processes, particularly those oriented to using cost effectiveness or cost benefi t type measures, do not account for all the intangible benefits of fixed guideway rail systems and hence are not sufficiently favorable to rail projects. The technical measures use system ridership as a surrogate measure of all the transit benefits such as energy saving and air quality. Economic stimulus, land use impacts and other impacts associated with transit fixed systems are not explicitly quantified. The counter arguments are that all these benefits are strictly proportional to the ridership of the system or that they can not be used in comparative evaluations and project rankings because there is no reliable method of estimating or forecasting them. consistency A virtue of the Federal process is the fact that is provides a consistent set of methods and technical measures that both insure some reasonableness of the planning work and enable across context comparisons. The vast majority of transportation planning professionals that have experience on fixed guideway facilities are familiar with the Federal process. The technical measures are standardized and benefit from the substantial experience and d iscussions that resulted in a fairly well defined approach. A substantial amount of comparative data from other studies are available for reasonableness checking and comparative evaluation. Process Stees and Decision sequence Figure 1 portrays the Federal alternatives analysis process on the left hand side of the page and the proposed State process on the right hand side. The processes as currently described do not have any clear linkages. The following discussions will move sequentially through the various steps commenting on each. In some instances recommendations are noted and in others only informational comments are provided. The general objectives are 10

PAGE 47

to develop a process compatibie the Federal process and to refine it to incorporate general technical improvements and to make it more sensitive to the considerations felt to be important in Florida. Initial Screening Conceptually I disagree with the initial screening concept as described and prefer a process closer to that prescribed by the Federal alternatives analysis process. The initial screening should be limited to indicating a need for and the potential of a fixed guideway project in a corridor. It should be the outgr01

PAGE 48

Fixed Guide"Tay Evaluations Processes Federal A lternatives Analysis Process systems Planning UMTA consent for A.A. Required Alternatives Analysis/ Draft EIS UMTA consent for P.E. Required Preliminary Engineering Final EIS Letter of Intent Final Design Full Funding Contract Construct BOLD = Decisions 12 State Proposed Evaluation Procedure Initial screening FOOT Consent for Feasibility study Required Feasibility Study Satisfy Criteria selection of Alternative Adoption of Plans Regulations Binding commitments P.E. ROW acquisition, const. BOLD = state and/or Local Decisions

PAGE 49

the analysis in subsequent studies and often create public perception problems as ne" updated information is developed ("those planners keep changing the cost and ridership estimates"). Establishing enough of a coalition this early in the process often leads to a rigidity in the expectations. Any subsequent changes are controversial and any modifications in design, alignment or performance could be greeted with threats that the coalition will not be sustainable and this jeopardizes the prospect that anything is accomplished. Having been sold on a solution to a transportation problem a politician could be real reluctant to change a position and the technical staff may be equally hesitant to deliver the ne" findings if they are different than the findings at a prior much more preliminary level of analysis. Unfortunately, the history of planning for fixed guideway projects suggests that there are indeed very substantial changes in key decision parameters such as capital and operating costs, ridership, implementation schedule, and public acceptance as the project progresses toward implementation. In simple terms earl y commitments create a tremendous resistance to any changes in the original plan that was offered and used in building the coalition. This pr.oblem is heightened if the original project is also the basis for establishing or staffing up an agency or establishing a local funding mechanism. While a willingness to support subsequent study is indeed desirable, a specific project should not be incorporated in the long range plan at this time rather it should be designated as a "study corridor" or a "fixed guideway corridor". l
PAGE 50

in the process. Obviously, the definition of corridor influence the ability to satisfy this criteria. The cost effectiveness indicator is a relatively generous indicator of cost effectiveness of the capital investment) appropriate for use at this stage of planning), (see procedures for how to calculate the index) It is frequently rumored that UMTA has some deviation fro_m these standards in accepting projects for alternatives analysis study. A number of additional or different indicators could be used at this preliminary stage of evaluation and are discussed following some comments on technical considerations in calculating screening measures. Additional Comments on the Decision sequencing The referenced process has two steps before decision making commitments are required. Traditionally the implementation of major capital transit projects has more steps (Table 1) with more detailed information becoming available at each step. These include a systems level planning, a corridor level planning some conceptual engineering and Draft environmental impact preliminary engineering and preparation of a final environmental impact statement and then final engineering and implementation. The issue becomes one of determining at which step it is most appropriate to make commitments to a mode and relatively detailed plan including funding of implementation. Unfortunately the cost and performance information has typically varied considerably as one moves into the more detailed engineering. It should be carefully considered at point in the process involved agencies should be expected to make commitments and the nature of the commitments. A process that forces commitments too early in the process could have the impact of locking in poor investments or treating potentially more attractive alternatives only superficially as there has already been a consensus built up around a given plan. Specifically, there should be possibilities in the process whereby if significant new information is developed the commitment can be altered or voided. If it is not done this way, uncovering bad news in subsequent engineering steps can create a difficult situation. Technical Considerations in Calculating Screening Measures These comments relate to the screening measures sighted in the draft FOOT procedures, however, the comments be equally relevant for many alternative criteria. 14

PAGE 51

Evaluation Reference Year The logic of using the initial year as a determinant of feasibility should be rationalized. Major capital investments a r e traditionally planned to serve for decades into the future and their effectiveness should be evaluated on some indication of their overall benefits over their useful lives. I concur that an indication of initial performance is important to eliminate the temptations to make current investments whos'e benefits are almost wholly dependent upon some long range forecast materializing, however, the long range impacts (particularly if transit is seen as a tool in shaping land use) should be considered. Follotfing the same logic as stated above, the reference to .'assume current land use and no changes in the adopted Local Government Comprehensive Plan(s)" shoul d be detailed. Presumabl y this refers to current land use at the time of opening of the fixed guideay system. Given the time frame for implementation of fixed guideway projects and the growth expectations for many Florida c ities, current
PAGE 52

operating cost ratios at the expense of capital investment (since no capital cost e ffectiveness measures are shown). I would also note that almost inevitably the fare levels in real dollars are dramatically higher than have politically been practical for most metropolitan areas and that the financial analysis assumes that these high fares will increase with inflation when in practice most transit fares have increased at only about half the rate of inflation in the past several years. It is also not uncommon for the revenue forecasts to overlook the extent of discounting (senior citizens, students, monthly pass discounts, bulk purchase discounts, free rides for employees, etc.) or the financial implications to the bus recovery ratio resulting from how the transfer revenues are handled, when doing preliminary farebox recovery estimates. use Standardized Measures Across Modes/Technologies The proposed criteria use a different standard for bus and rail projects could be controversial and presupposes alternatives for the subsequent Alternatives Analysis study. Furthermore, the measures are very different the rail project criteria measuring operating cost effectiveness (presumably the virtue of rail systems) and the HOV criteria measures the effectiveness of attracting riders to the HOV alternative. Would HOV passenger measures include carpools and if so \;hat size? 2+?, 3 + ? I think that a similar measurement regardless of mode be preferred here. The HOV criteria does not have a comparable measure for rail alternatives and thus, there is no basis for knowing whether the initial screening criteria are equally tough or easy for the various modes to enter step two of the process. This also argues in favor of a capital cost effectiveness measure. It is not clear to me that the cost or other implications of HOV arterial lanes are of such a magnitude that they should even be considered as major capital projects. These projects would more likely be part of a Transportation System Management alternative for the corridor. Establish Rigorous Review of Assumptions Both the current measures could be very subject to manipulation through less than judicious use of key assumptions. The process states that the assumptions would be agreed upon by the central and district offices of FOOT but does not acknowledge' the role that the NPO or transit authority might have in the specification of assumptions particularly as they relate to fare and parking cost policies, levels of service and related policies. Reviewing assumptions is a very critical aspect of insuring reliable results. The compounding nature of the myriad of assumptions and the relative technical complexity of the requires a 16

PAGE 53

sophisticated reviewer. Among the critical assumptions often not wel l supported are: total demographics and their distribution, CBD employment, attained system operating speed, CBD parking cost assumptions and highway system performance assumptions. Recommendations Initial Screening Measures The UMTA required indicators for entry into an alternatives analysis study should be among those required by the State as products of the initial screening so that the decision step following the initial screening study corresponds with the UMTA decision concerning the funding of the Alternatives Analysis study. The actual sequencing of these decisions requires some additional consideration. The state may to the Federal decision before making a commitment to the second step (currently labeled feasibility study) or they may wish to make a determination independent of UMTA making a decision. I would recommend a set of data more extensive than that required by UMTA for use in decisions about proceeding with subsequent study. Much of this same material .,ould be provided in the context of a grant request to perform an alternatives analysis study however making it more explicitl y required and of a standardized format will help in the evaluation. !1uch of the information requested is not in the nature of a threshold requirement for subsequent study but rather the type of detail that 1dl1 the evaluation of the reasonableness of the technical findings and enable the reader to put the information in perspective. the amount of technical materials recommended for inclusion may appear to be substantial, it is. the type of information that would surely be required before more serious consideration of the multi-million dollar fixed projects. Three basic types of data be requested. The first wou l d be a summary of the public transit market characteristics -past, present, and future. The second be a cost effectiveness type report where the UMTA indices as well as other capital and operating characteristics were reported and the third would be a report on the project would be supported by and coordinated with the overall regional land use and transportation p lanning efforts. This include discussions of the supporting policies and assumptions implicit in the specification and evaluation of the alternatives. It should be recognized going into the process that the evaluation of the potential cost-effectiveness and feasibility of rail projects in Florida is likely to be more difficult than is the case for many other transit markets. The Florida markets do not have the same transit history as do many of the older large North American cities and are going to be more dependent on growth and 17

PAGE 54

changes in travel behavior and land use patterns to support fixed projects. Fixed guideway transit will not simply be a substitution of a rail mode for busses in an established travel corridor such as is the case in such locations as Buffalo and Baltimore. Accordingly, the uncertainty and risks of proceeding with fixed guideway investment in this environment will be greater and require more information for evaluation. The disappointments surrounding the Miami System and the modest success of other systems being implemented in "new" auto dependent markets will result in a great deal of scrutiny and skepticism of rail proposals for Florida. To add perspective, total transit boardings in the State of Florida are considerably less than on the bus and 30 mile MARTA system in Atlanta and below the number of boarding on either bus or rail on the Washington D.C. Metro system. Public Transit Market overview This technical report contain a variety of data about key transit measures for past, current and forecast future conditions in order to show historical and forecast trends in terms of key indicators. At this stage in the analysis a "no build" and preferably a few other a lternatives should be included. The sample data requirements for a transit market analysis (Table 2) would provide a great deal of required to put the performance of an alternative investment into perspective. By providing historical, current and forecast future ridership one can appreciate the magnitude of the changes in demographics and travel behavior required to attain the forecast levels of ridership. I t is well established that current transit ridership is a good indicator of the magnitude of future ridership thus forecasts of significant changes in ridership would have to be supported by extraordinary other conditions (growth, land use planning and policy and other transit incentives and auto disincentives). The level of detail in the demographics reporting is important since the regional demographic trends are not often a good indicator of the demographic conditions in the corridors where rail is planned. Typically population gro>lth occurs at the fringe areas of the metropolitan region and even in newer cities the inner areas where the first rail lines are built are often areas where the population is in declining as a result of smaller household size and the fact that near buildout precludes significant dwelling unit growth. Thus, from a residential accessibility perspective the potential transit market is often not growing as fast as the region as a for the first few rail line segments. When subsequent extensions reach the growth areas or if there are strong residential growth markets in areas closer to the Central Business District then this situation might be different. It is particularly important to understand the growth forecast for 18

PAGE 55

the Central Business District. This forecast can be as critical as all the other characteristics of the ridership forecasting process yet it typically receives less attention and is often not supported by empirical data, policy or location decision theories. The sample data sheet would show the empirical trends in CBD growth. A number of the other indicators such as regional mode share help put the transit investment in perspective. Narrative discussions or tabular data on conditions such at transit dependency, special generators or other conditions felt to be key to the forecasts might also be included. Economic/Financial Performance In addition to the transit market characteristics report a second report (or a second section in a single larger reportJy on the economic/financial performance of the project should be prepared. This should include the reporting of the UMTA indices for cost effectiveness as as basic operating and performance statistics. Some historical trend as well as peer city comparison data may be appropriate to require at this point. Some financial analysis may also be desired at this point in time to help put things i n perspective, however, it is very early in the overall process to try and detail any financing proposals at this point i n time. 19

PAGE 56

Table 2 Sample Data Required for Public Transit Market Analysis Demographics of Service Area -20 years Population/Employment Region Primary Service Area corridor Walk Market Area CBD Transit Ridership (Linked Trips) Annual total Average Weekday Work Non-work 0/D in CBD In Corridor Transit Mode Share Region Key cordon lines Corridor CBD Mode of access summary walk Feeder Bus Park & Ride Other Time of Day Ridership Distribution Peak Off-Peak Trip Purpose Work Other 20 current Design Year NoBuild Alt.jfl

PAGE 57

Transportation/Land Use Plan Coordination The third elell\ent of reportii\g the results of the systems planning process is the report on the coordination of the transit project with the overall transportation and land use plan for the region. This be the location there the extent of interaction betteen the transit project and land use plans would be reported as would the extent of local public support generated to date. Supporting public policies required to make the forecast assumptions materialize could be itemized here. Among the major topics that would be addressed would be the capacity and level of service envisioned on the facilities that competed with the fixed guideway, the parking supply situation in major commercial areas served by transit, and the activities that would be initiated to support the landuse patterns envisioned in the forecast. This should go beyond statements about the buildout capacity in the target growth areas to specifically address what constraints on development elsewhere or incentives are (till be) in place to direct to the target growth areas. Collectively these three brief summary products of the systems planning effort would provide adequate information to reach a decision by UMTA as to whether to fund or allow an. alternatives analysis process and whether the State wanted to go forward. A number of the key pieces of data provided in the reports could provide the basis for arguments supporting the decision. As described above the process be more detailed than typically is produced at the systems level of planning however, it would try not to lock in expectations as to a specific alignment or technology for a fixed guideway and would be prescribed in a manner that would acknotledge that the subsequent study phase may result in findings different than at the initial screening stage of analysis. The Feasibility stydy Given a decisions to proceed, the next step in the process is to conduct the feasibility study. The objective. of this study is to produce technical materials in enough detail that a decision can be made on technology, project alignment, an implementation schedule, a finance plan, and assorted other considerations such as how to mitigate negative environmental impacts, how to handle handicapped accessibility and how to respond to neighborhood concerns relating to station location and access. This phase of the study produce refined conceptual engineering and more detailed capital and operating cost information. To the extent that this study were structured similar to the Federal alternatives analysis process the study would take about 18 months and cost approximately $1 million dollars (with a great deal of variation 21 PAGE 58 depending on the number and nature of the alternatives and the level of effort required to produce reliable patronage forecasts and engineering data). The feasibility study (or alternatives analysis) process, products and methodology could require considerable additional detailing i f indeed it is desired to prescribe the technical process. in any degree of detail. A number of issues which may be appropriately referenced include, the public participation process, additional requirements or the facilities such as handicapped accessibility, environmental requirements and related issues. Extensive procedures manuals detailing the technical methods, process documents requiring review by technical staff, and related considerations could be detailed if this approach is chosen. Before that step is initiated though, it is important to agree on the conceptual aspects of the State r o l e i n the feasibility study Miscellaneous Comments on Draft Feasibility study Criteria Measuring Local support The vast majority of transit major capital projects are very controversial for a number of reasons ranging from they are funded to business and neighborhood disruption to whether or not rail is a good idea to who gets the first line. Thus, measuring a consensus or gauging the degree of private-public cooperations for a given project can be very difficult, particularly as the project moves toward implementation and the costs become more clearly understood. Any measure of the degree of support may be very subjective and fluid. If the degree of public and private support is used as an indicator in evaluating State financial participation, the nature of the measures should be referenced. Economic Feasibility There are a variety of quantitative measures of Economic performance. The life cycle cost measure referenced is, I believe, a measure of cost effectiveness rather than feasibility. I would recommend that measures be considered in both areas and that to the extent possible, the performance expectations be spelled out. An additional difficulty in evaluating capital cost effectiveness for a project that is part of a transit system is defining the marginal capital or operating costs. The capital costs (or cost savings) relative to existing or TSM conditions can be complicated by including the impacts the fixed element has on the bus system. Capital costs for supporting bus can be either higher or lower and the operating cost and revenues can be allocated in 22 PAGE 59 manners that substantially swing the performance parameters for the facilities. I would steer away from aggregate measure that net out the operating revenues as this complicates reasonableness revie,l and hides a lot of information about critical assumptions like fare policy that should be Is there an absolute level of performance that is required, or ill the "x" highest scoring projects be favorably considered? Measures that take into account the expectation of private sector cost off-sets or revenues should be closely scrutinized for reasonableness. The willingness and ability of the private sector to donate joint development revenues, for example, is highly dependent on the economic conditions at the time and the willingness of the public agencies to cooperate in matters such as zoning upgrades, parking concessions, expedited permitting and related matters. Technical Approach The Preliminary analysis is stated to rely on the FSUTMS and the PAM models and to be done by the FOOT central office and the District office. One would presume than that these models would be acceptable for UMTA funded work and that the resources existed to indeed do the work on these models. The process would seem to preclude the more traditional rol e in many other urban areas where the MPO and/or the local transit authority, often the help of consultants, do the systems level planning as well as the alternatives analysis A more generic approach that allows various technical methods to be used subject to concurrence might give greater flexibility and sensitivity to local conditions. step 3. Selection of The nature of the commitment should be more detailed, council adoption? referendum? policies and legislation relative to financing be required at this point i n time? Often the decision making for this type of project is very conditional with the parties prefacing their support on the expectation of support from other levels of government. The legal implications of the commitment and the ability to opt out at a latter date have to be considered. step s. Binding commitment The process as described implies a binding commitment prior to preliminary engineering. In my opinion this is too early in the process to make such a commitment. Transit projects have a history of significant changes in costs, impacts, performance and ridership as the planning and implementation proceed. At a minimum binding commitments should await preliminary engineering or the that changes in costs and other factors that would affect the commitments should be specifically dealt in the commitments. 23 PAGE 60 24 PAGE 61 SUN 10:Z3AM TR P.02 BABIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CUTR'S APPROACH AND FOOT'S INTERIM POLICY FIXED eUIOEWAY TRANSIT AND HOV LANE PROJECTS Th UMTA F>r'eli minal"y sc:l"eening makes the generation of tr .. nf>it proposal!;; pa...t; o f the MPO yat.om planning proc:er.a, nut .an .add-on procosG. Tho crnino is based on e minimum trip le>viPl of 15,000 linked tran-.it trips par wcrkday in a candidate c:orl"idol" .and .a cor.t .an.alyair. out as en adjunct to the Urban Arwa Transportation Study Updale. Only four Florida c:ountic might tn lS,OOO tr.anit trips within majol" corridors. Gainesville, for eample, has only about 6,000 total transit trips pr workday. The FOOT'" intel"im PI"CCe!!lf> MS:91J!::age, deviation from the MPO proc:e Thr> FOOT i-.. put inta the position of retopo,uing to pol.l.tic:al propo,.al'3 r.ather than the outcome" of a statutory, public precess. This could have a strong impact to FOOT workload but little impact en the MPO workload. The pub,lic pwrcepticn could be of FOOT killin; local while in reality, the anould not nave moved cut of the MPO planning In contrast, the CUTR/UMTA approach has the MPO's determine if any of the corridors the tnrsnold potential. The MPOa then perform system planning and make a sketch analysis of cot effectiveness. Only then i s the FOOT possibly raquird to taka po'lition en the proposal. If tna n..: .. little mei"H, UMTA mey kill it witn the FOOT not to take .a public: position. Tha FOOT pprc4ch concantrtes teo heavily on the highway !f.J' transit tradeoff and teo little on c:oat of transit in their own settings. Th& FOOT approac:ll risks baing parco.f.vad toe conservativ,. and ccntrcv .. rsid!. UIUmat .. ly FOOT's approach is not much bette r thiPn the UMTA AA process. The UMTA approach is weak in the are of locking in policy e.l the local level Me.anwhi Ia, the FOOT approach requires leo PAGE 62 ;-21-89 SUN 10:05AM TR a, All and ordinances will i n place. b. Funding package developed with any taing districts be reedy for a vote. e The MFO and LGCF plans will be amended for the prnJect. d. High density zoning including incentives are in place in the corridor. e. A wcrkabllll parking p lan for th01 corridor will bw in place. f. Evidence of a dherence to low g rowth outside of the Servica Ar mua t 3. The FOOT will make a full funding commitm e n t at the stArt of conmtruction if1 a. The neceesary policies, zoning ordinances, regulations, and taing powers are i n place, and b. Evidence of p&st And futur" .adharenc to necetos.sry zoning nd regulatory changes exists. Other chanljes aroo primarily technical and wi II be draftO>d in conjunction with CUTR, PAGE 63 ;-21-S9 SUN &0:35AM T R P.04 llllD llltD&flOKS PIOC166IS Ulfl ILTII!lfl!IS iRiLT&lS PIOCII& STITI ITlLDITJOJ PJOCIS& rmom !!PACT Ol IDOT nuum !IPiet ow nor tiK PLAIIIIIG 1 lllfllL ICIIJJ!IG 1 JlitlDI 1ldtrfMP I rould be lhltCI! 'tit!DIII\ P11f0111 dltlrjcl '!f { corrl or ave eterflee l' tel lrtnalt l I lllf 11,,1 0 I Ct ala I CO eel eta lor 15 toi u '' IIIIC II ll /Or IPO' t, allma Itt be 1\.a a lt!arr faaalb!lltr mal rln. m r a o a t {flecll" &!Ilea plaualtr IDOl &IJfh Pfttaler or .,it' COlJII'''' or ceatral ll1 '11'1 m H :r':!'ft ,. 'J &DI '( 11 u1ef \o 0 Cl '! or e corridor 10 Ill I II I I I 0 r.rmae o "r'l''' tl l !fled r1 arah!f11a Jtlr ft!!.:t r,t,. pead!DC on tle epl o 101 f. or 0Jt!4 OD II D I I attlfl 1 reqalrtd. foracael Jear I oltYI reqY!{''f'l' io!5\he ttarlup tN!cbt tbroYch l!c:l tltff l'tcl'' Ia rm ic v 'tt rrml nra II It 0 ur u r T '!' a 1 1 or 1 mtlo o 14 loofl rttl{oo 1 mlec 1 lr il IP 0!1111 r lov rae lttea a ke PO ltll otrrJ 1lD :t bol' p raon-tr p oa a 1 l r.,1ct oa roor retle o I' al!te litera ltrtfce 11011. proun. !10 Jlot}dtl doouatttatlot !bia proctat requires lDOT I lecoaaedatloDADD: t' rro eel tD 111111. th !oar 111ft traotporla !oa thlllr tuull 1 4 dtta JU UUI{f PIID. I ''f''J If lf a e I I I Cl '!Joloca a ''f '' eta of ol of ,, ... .. r. tal el poltal a !If II IOU I lt!Ulfl other atatarea of !tOiiYI'UI mh II l too1. tJa aaJ 111 et frot I foDel!letil of rotld rtqulrt li till l I S(Dlll!tt o t tot 'I t nmuo te : I OD lfl\11, r I1COIID4atloaADD: ltct bJJIIlll \he the 'l' aOI Pro I t l Itt II rntc on broa et If t ll b e lt 11 apprmd J illt{llf's!lmm B. J!ASIBIL!ft lf8Dt 11nt l o t-' '' flDIICiall&l d !Dkild Perfor !liJI Jllh rDor Btlflrea fDOJ ,oollorlf' ud : a oa et er o lo p Ulllfl'"' ooacurraaor lfli4 it f' IC U m Cftln o proJec 1 lt' ae. o erar, reill'1'l 1 re11 f. I IJittl tO I 11 J toirldora tta proareaablo pa o pr 1111 cootrtlloa b 8 111,1 lft liiiOII t IICOUr&ll i lllt!lll tit PAGE 64 > -21-S9 SUN 10:Z6AM TR for IICelll ltiiJt l a i aclvdlt! 'IJ\IIJ lt\1 !I 1dlea corrldoLala cl d rll lhmlal P l mtt a d liraa !DOT aoaltorte c 'l!laatfl o 11 !Jc .let 'lppor! f o r ihe 'ft atdlc rlfltt. I flU l ei It' l' 111 II f.l I IIIII j projtc\ laf IOI( U dttt! \ 1 1 II C al t tiC I ldl iletJlftl iael ,!,Ia for It II Gt Jcu!i 111't!la ''llcfltted tale parllclpa\ oa. 1 '' f'' 1 Jllbou IGd Pllllll lt fur Gf ht n111 1111 D Ill IJI\11 p llll Dl PIOCIII. ;no m . i [ frtimei {Dol 111l'' bt 1ea(lh7 1 li' eport 11ba llted f II I I I II llt 0 I 1 1\ [!llell lo 1 up!lctl tc t& a ;e pre! 'm u.1 ,011 .,, u lq; 111 m tn It 111 elf& II II II I !!ei lj'l er ICltll II JIOCIII, ltl It In II I 10 lOll I 111011 1&1. : tecttur jldu tor lfl 1!!1 ; \tlll\111 I tiCII f11 111 rntlt h p. JDOI 1culd coadti' 111 r11 COICQI Ia t Q f l l lll. l!illllliiG C. lLTilVlTlll IILICt!OI 't=t IDOl parllcl' ft' (Ia It f1tfraatltf1 ttltf!f' oa llt 's'lft' citt o rDOI l l tk .,. :i rt 11 or 4oet ft' Ia 1 1 t t 1111 II I o( I IIIII I l 1 0l111t1 lltenst t l r ,. m capac r coal par .,littler a lit .,. 1t' I I lfl It I n' It I 1 1 l I flllotck It far lltl rtl r cl '' 1 1o I PIIOIII. ''lfh !' to,14 tit'' lh !lat l federfl aee4J 111, tlc t l ''! 'I'''' :111 Ill! bell t '!' t Ill 'j \be It t I IIIII I epee eal 0 u1 !! ( ealre I &AI tf fto I 11 10 &I I e$ Ill PIOCIII T 101 Oil hi f!OCIIIo Cltl f It ,1uru !i:l'l'.lt! \tea 'l''l''i lor 'ltt'lrltt4 lor lttla fPOT' t l hltl lht co,la of I II (' 't 't'' C Oil I ICIO l ) 'l' f tlrott I IIlli I 1'0 IC I lltt ,,. 1 Ill PfO IC 1 1\b c lll lfl l l:tt If 0 f'oru: U 'I' ,,u latter of 1 111 It roto ort Pro r11 1 1 1 ra o eat! lt4 11 t f' II II II CI"TI t to \ lti i:I c r .,. or lbl )!QJOU UIJ!OIC lOCI ll I c Ill! II en If ltcoml4alioa .. &DD llat policlj t II H' 11, Jl''{''!'f a1 t I 11 olbar If\ ftC et 0 .,11 !o. m OQr"t' It l.:ol' f: lar, I I JUCf!" Of I e II I 0 OllliJ r atrth alfafra1 I 'f of1load ocr! ftal!., 'lftet 11 '21 1 00!1 sa1of.lfm to or u4 11 11 eotp mt. .,, pact. iAL Dl$101 D. IDOPfiOI 01 PUJ& t IGIIJIIOJS Iter of Itl tad 101ld !otlloot lo l''f'l tlltl F!IItlll ' ll' tf' II( mu!'l 101 lor pro 10\. II tO 0 II Ill I ec; I Plf lc P I II l \ 1 1 D olbor 11 OM mt 01 H'b c!e 0 I I .. 1 1 o oct! ba all\, .... t11u bld l(O u, I p emlt u, te. "dlr .m Jl II I VI {JOT ooalf 4tlt:JI11 tlellar octl fill lu u ollcr PAGE 65 'I Ptrllclpalloa rate I ted, llstlllt'IIOI .,,,,.,!l{{f a 101 tal coanno ue11 f' l!UcltJ *t4 nlct 11 q 11101 111 ptr arrttl tll, dtcltlof f beta ttde. If to, 00 vo; i noJl4 f G i d 11 IP lo Ill ooal aatc o r ,.r9tal of projeo l coal, Ia len.$co 1. JJDIH &nons 'lui ,;, lf; of (jr I 1101 Itt I IO J I I 9DdJDf lftlllll 01 IOAIIIU C IOI 1114 OJtrtl n 1"'.06 JP0[1 fajlt ltjl !Aio 1 IOD 0 1 Dl 10 1.