Federal Transit Administration Fast New Start Funding favors BRT over rail.

[CandOforprogress2]

https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/capital-investments/about-program

About the Program

Overview

Discretionary & Competitive Federal Grant Program

• Roughly $2.3 billion appropriated each year
• Funds light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail, streetcar, and bus rapid transit projects

FAST outlines: –Multi-year, multi-step process projects must follow to receive funds

• Points during process when FTA must evaluate and rate projects
• Evaluation criteria that must be used
• 5 point scale from low to high for ratings
• Annual Report to Congress that must include ratings for each project and the Administration’s funding recommendations

FAST Eligible Projects

New Starts

• Total project cost is equal to or greater than $300 million or total New Starts funding sought equals or exceeds $100 million
• New fixed guideway system (light rail, commuter rail etc.)
• Extension to existing system
• Fixed guideway BRT system

Small Starts

• Total project cost is less than $300 million and total Small Starts funding sought is less than $100 million
• New fixed guideway systems (light rail, commuter rail etc.)
• Extension to existing system
• Fixed guideway BRT system
• Corridor-based BRT system

Core Capacity

• Substantial corridor-based investment in existing fixed guideway system
• Project must:
  • Be located in  a corridor that is at or over capactiy or will be in five years
  • Increase capacity by 10%
  • "not include project elements designated to maintain a state of good repair"

Program of Interrelated Projects

• Program of interrelated projects is  the simultaneous development of-
• (A) 2 or more new fixed guideway capital projects, small start projects, or core capacity improvement projects; or
• (B) 2 or more projects that are any combination of new fixed guideway capital projects, small start projects, and core capacity improvement projects.

Bus Rapid Transit categories defined by FAST

Corridor-Based

• Separated right-of-way not required for entirety of corridor
• Makes a substantial investment in a specific corridor
• Defined stations
• Traffic signal priority for buses
• Short headway times
• Bidirectional services for a substantial part of weekdays

Fixed Guideway

• Majority of project operates in a separated right-of-way dedicated for public transportation use
• Makes a substantial investment in a single route within a defined corridor
• Defined stations
• Traffic signal priority for buses
• Short headway times
• Bidirectional services for a substantial part of weekdays & weekend days

Approval Process

New Starts

1) FTA approval: Project Development

• Complete environmental review process including developing and reviewing alternatives, selecting locally preferred alternative (LPA), and adopting it into the fiscally constrained long range transportation plan

2) FTA evaluation, rating, and approval: Engineering

• Gain commitments of all non-5309 funding
• Complete sufficient engineering and design

3) FTA evaluation, rating, and approval: Full Funding Grant Agreement

• Construction

Small Starts

1) FTA Approval: Project Development

• Complete environmental review process including developing and reviewing alternatives, selecting locally preferred alternative (LPA), and adopting it into fiscally constrained long range transportation plan
• Gain commitments of all non-5309 funding
• Complete sufficient engineering and design

2) FTA evaluation, rating, and approval: Construction Grant Agreement

• Construction

Core Capacity

1) FTA Approval: Project Development

• Complete environmental review process including developing and reviewing alternatives, selecting locally preferred alternative (LPA), and adopting it into the fiscally constrained long range transportation plan

2) FTA evaluation, rating, and approval: Engineering

• Gain commitments of all non-5309 funding
• Complete sufficient engineering and design

3) FTA evaluation, rating, and approval: Full Funding Grant Agreement

• Construction

FAST Evaluation and Rating Criteria

New Starts

Project Justification:

• mobility
• environmental benefits
• congestion relief
• economic development
• land use
• cost effectiveness (cost per trip)

Local financial commitment:

• acceptable degree of local financial commitment including evidence of stable and dependable financing sources

Small Starts

Project Justification:

• mobility
• environmental benefits
• congestion relief
• economic development
• land use
• cost effectiveness (cost per trip)

Local financial commitment:

• acceptable degree of local financial commitment including evidence of stable and dependable financing sources

Core Capacity

Project Justification:

• mobility
• environmental benefits
• congestion relief
• economic development
• capacity needs of the corridor
• cost effectiveness (cost per trip)

Local financial commitment:

• acceptable degree of local financial commitment including evidence of stable and dependable financing sources

Funding Recommendations

FTA’s decision to recommend a project for funding in the President’s Budget is driven by a number of factors, including:

• the “readiness” of the project for capital funding
• the project’s overall rating
• geographic equity
• the amount of available funds versus the number and size of the projects in the pipeline

Receipt of Construction Funding

• To receive a construction grant agreement a project must:
• Complete the Planning, Project Development, and Environmental Review Processes
• Meet Project Readiness Requirements (technical capacity, firm and final cost estimate, all funding committed)
• Receive a “medium” or higher overall rating
• Meet all other federal requirements

Updated: Friday, July 8, 2016

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

David P. Morgan once opined in the pages of TRAINS many years ago that rail transit is not always appropriate for every situation.  A bus operation might be a better fit when trying to get a completely new operation off the ground.  There is only a finite amount of dollars available and it isn't unreasonable to try to get the most bang for the buck, even if it means a rubber-tire operation rather than rail.

[CandOforprogress2]

The danger is "BRT Creep" where BRT gets built with exclusive lanes and then the local DOT paves over them when no one is looking.

[MikeF90]

CSSHEGEWISCH

A bus operation might be a better fit when trying to get a completely new operation off the ground.

I agree. Construction of the LAC Metro Orange Line BRT used a former railroad ROW. The only nearby high frequency transit corridor is insanely congested Ventura Blvd, so in retrospect the Orange Line success may have been natural. 

Fortunately, the design of this BRT line does not seem to have precluded eventual conversion to rail; time will tell.

If Los Angeles county is a guide, BRT may be a strategy to pacify politician 'luddites'. Extension of the Purple Line subway was (and still is) being opposed by hysterical NIMBYs due to potential methane issues. The Orange Line legislation prevented rail transit except for 'deep subway' but that restriction has been recently repealed.

[RME]

CSSHEGEWISCH

A bus operation might be a better fit when trying to get a completely new operation off the ground. There is only a finite amount of dollars available and it isn't unreasonable to try to get the most bang for the buck, even if it means a rubber-tire operation rather than rail.

I suspect that for a very significant percentage of communities that could benefit from reduced-time point-to-point travel, BRT is by far the preferable alternative.  That is particularly true for services that largely or wholly involve morning and evening commuting service, as opposed to distributed 'rapid transit' that is supposed to run on frequent headway and provide lower spot air pollution.

Most of the arguments GM brought up in the Fifties regarding advantages of coaches over 'classical' interurbans also apply in some measure to BRTs.  In particular the very substantial stranded cost of new (or made-as-new) rail equipment that is only gainful a few hours or trips per day cannot usually be spread over other routes or services, including charter service, as can be very simply achieved with even fairly large coaches. 

At least some of the additional advantage of rail in personnel cost can be expected to be reduced or even eliminated as autonomous operation, or semi-autonomous 'slaving', becomes commonplace.

One thing I have been expecting to see ... admittedly for a much longer time, and with the prospect of considerable additional 'waiting' ... is the use of hybrid buses that are true dual-mode: capable of running on external power from some combination of contact and induction charging, with engines that can run continuously at best efficiency and throttle up and down independent of applied load, to reduce harmful emissions to an absolute minimum.  This combined with the ability of autonomous assistance to handle large vehicles with greater moment-to-moment safety makes the remaining advantages of dedicated rail somewhat less important, and may begin to allow the number of passengers on a given bus 'trip' to come closer to that of a dedicated commuter-train consist... at what might usually be much lower necessary tare weight.