CIG-Analyzer 5.2 — Multi-Alternative Evaluation
CIG-Analyzer 5.2
RTA
Report date: October 08, 2026
Prepared by: Bibhas K Dey
Copyright: © Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
(report format adapted from CIG-AR 4.1).
Active alternatives: 3 (capacity: 20 or more Excel
columns).
Executive Summary
| Alternative | Mobility Improvements | Cost Effectiveness | Congestion Relief | Environmental Benefits | Land Use | Economic Development | Project Justification | Local Financial Commitment | Overall CIG Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gratiot | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
| Woodward | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium-High | Medium-High | Medium | Medium | Medium |
| Michigan | Medium | Medium | Medium-Low | Medium | Medium | Medium-High | Medium | Medium-High | Medium-High |
1.0 Introduction
This report summarizes the estimated federal funding ratings of the Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program for qualifying multimodal projects. The user provides the assumptions (of inputs and scenarios), the project ratings are computed by this program and reported via a HTML file.
This CIG-AR report:
Allows potential project sponsors to quickly determine a project’s (or projects’) estimated CIG rating based on technical analysis performed to date, but ahead of detailed technical analysis and/or a formal FTA CIG rating evaluation.
Makes the estimated CIG rating performance easier to communicate to others via unique graphics and visualization.
Allows potential project sponsors to analyze how the potential CIG rating may differ due to changes in the project’s outcomes. During project development, project benefits and costs usually shift in response to the
Section 2 provides a dashboard of the project’s estimated CIG rating. Section 3 contains dashboards for up to 17 alternate scenarios; the exact number depends on the user-provided settings. Section 4 contains analytical charts explaining the effects of average weekday trips on project and capital cost on various rating scales. Section 5 provides a cross-alternative analysis, comparing CIG ratings, key performance measures, project costs, and sensitivity results across the evaluated alternatives to highlight differences in project performance. Appendix provides an overview of the CIG rating evaluation, including the computations and rating scales.
This report provides potential project sponsors with an assessment of how a potential transit capital project may fare under current CIG standards and thresholds. The rating computations and estimates in this report are faithful replications of the computations performed in spreadsheets and associated documentation provided by the FTA (https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/capital-investments/how-apply), but they do not imply endorsement or confirmation by the FTA, nor do they imply that FTA will agree with the results. From time to time, FTA updates the CIG rating criteria, including their type, computation and weight. The information in this report reflects the CIG rating criteria, computations and weights as of FTA’s August 2025 technical guidance and materials. This report may not accurately reflect FTA’s CIG rating criteria, computations and/or weights, if FTA provides an update to their guidance after August, 2025.
1.1 Inputs
The CIG-Analyzer requires a number of user-provided assumptions.
These assumptions are recorded in a excel file, and are similar to the
values that are entered into FTA’s CIG Workbook for a formal rating
evaluation.This report evaluates each alternative independently using
the Inputs_Codebook sheet. Missing numeric inputs are
treated as zero, subject to the required denominator and rating
validations. The calculated results are exploratory and are not official
FTA ratings.The input file is as tabulated below.
| Code | Description | Gratiot | Woodward | Michigan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ProjectName | Name of the Project | RTA | RTA | RTA |
| Scenario | Scenario Name | Gratiot | Woodward | Michigan |
| AuthorDate | Analysis date (MM/DD/YYYY). Date validation enabled; calendar popup depends on Excel version. | 46303 | 46304 | 46305 |
| User | User Name | Bibhas K Dey | Bibhas K Dey | Bibhas K Dey |
| ProjectType | CIG project type (select separately for each alternative): New Starts or Small Starts | Small Starts | New Starts | New Starts |
| IsWarranted | Project warranted? Select TRUE (Yes) or FALSE (No) from dropdown. | FALSE | FALSE | FALSE |
| CY | Current Year | 2025 | 2025 | 2025 |
| CY_TOP | Average Weekday Trips on Project (Current Year) | 11200 | 14500 | 13200 |
| CY_Share_TD | Share of Transit Dependant Trips (Current Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| CY_TD | Average Weekday Transit Dependant Trips (Current Year) | 2500 | 2700 | 2600 |
| CY_Share_NR | Share of New Rider Trips (Current Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| CY_NR | Average Weekday New Riders Trips (Current Year) | 200 | 250 | 300 |
| CY_VMTD_NR | VMT per new rider (Current Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| CY_VMTD | Average Weekday VMT (Current Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| HY | Horizon Year | 2050 | 2050 | 2050 |
| HY_TOP | Average Weekday Trips on Project (Horizon Year) | 13800 | 17600 | 16000 |
| HY_Share_TD | Share of Transit Dependant Trips (Horizon Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| HY_TD | Average Weekday Transit Dependant Trips (Horizon Year) | 3500 | 3700 | 3600 |
| HY_Share_NR | Share of New Transit Trips (Horizon Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| HY_NR | Average Weekday New Rider Trips (Horizon Year) | 500 | 600 | 750 |
| HY_VMTD_NR | VMT per new rider (Horizon Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| HY_VMTD | VMT (Horizon Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| AnnFac | Annualization Factor | 300 | 300 | 300 |
| Cap_Cost | Capital Cost (In Million $) | 520 | 610 | 575 |
| Cap_Cost_ACF | Capital Cost annualization factor (%) | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Cap_Cost_Annualized | Annualized capital cost (In Million $) | NA | NA | NA |
| Federal_share | Requested Federal Share Funding (%) | 50 | 50 | 50 |
| OM_Cost | Annual Operations and Maintainence Cost (In Million $) | 18.5 | 21 | 19.5 |
| Attainment_CO | Environmental attainment for carbon monoxide (1=Attainment; 2=Maintenance; 3=Non-Attainment) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Attainment_NO2 | Environmental attainment for nitrogen dioxide (1=Attainment; 2=Maintenance; 3=Non-Attainment) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Attainment_O3 | Environmental attainment for ozone (1=Attainment; 2=Maintenance; 3=Non-Attainment) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Attainment_PM25 | Environmental attainment for particulate matter (1=Attainment; 2=Maintenance; 3=Non-Attainment) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| CY_VMT_auto | Average Weekday Delta VMT Savings for Auto mode (Current Year) | -1000 | -1020 | -1050 |
| CY_VMT_Bus_D | Average Weekday Delta VMT Savings for Bus - Diesel mode (Current Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| CY_VMT_Bus_H | Average Weekday Delta VMT Savings for Bus - Hybrid mode (Current Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| CY_VMT_Bus_C | Average Weekday Delta VMT Savings for Bus - CNG mode (Current Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| CY_VMT_Bus_E | Average Weekday Delta VMT Savings for Bus - Electric mode (Current Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| CY_VMT_HRail | Average Weekday Delta VMT Savings for Heavy Rail mode (Current Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| CY_VMT_LRail | Average Weekday Delta VMT Savings for Light Rail mode (Current Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| CY_VMT_CRail_DN | Average Weekday Delta VMT Savings for Commuter Rail (Diesel New) mode (Current Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| CY_VMT_CRail_DU | Average Weekday Delta VMT Savings for Commuter Rail (Diesel Used) mode (Current Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| CY_VMT_Crail_E | Average Weekday Delta VMT Savings for Commuter Rail (Electric) mode (Current Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| HY_VMT_auto | Average Weekday Delta VMT Savings for Auto mode (Horizon Year) | -500 | -530 | -550 |
| HY_VMT_Bus_D | Average Weekday Delta VMT Savings for Bus - Diesel mode (Horizon Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| HY_VMT_Bus_H | Average Weekday Delta VMT Savings for Bus - Hybrid mode (Horizon Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| HY_VMT_Bus_C | Average Weekday Delta VMT Savings for Bus - CNG mode (Horizon Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| HY_VMT_Bus_E | Average Weekday Delta VMT Savings for Bus - Electric mode (Horizon Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| HY_VMT_HRail | Average Weekday Delta VMT Savings for Heavy Rail mode (Horizon Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| HY_VMT_LRail | Average Weekday Delta VMT Savings for Light Rail mode (Horizon Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| HY_VMT_CRail_DN | Average Weekday Delta VMT Savings for Commuter Rail (Diesel New) mode (Horizon Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| HY_VMT_CRail_DU | Average Weekday Delta VMT Savings for Commuter Rail (Diesel Used) mode (Horizon Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| HY_VMT_Crail_E | Average Weekday Delta VMT Savings for Commuter Rail (Electric) mode (Horizon Year) | NA | NA | NA |
| LU_Rating | Land Use Rating | 1=Low; 2=Medium-Low; 3=Medium; 4=Medium-High; 5=High | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| ED_Rating | Economic Development Rating | 1=Low; 2=Medium-Low; 3=Medium; 4=Medium-High; 5=High | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| LFC_Rating | Local Financial Commitment | 1=Low; 2=Medium-Low; 3=Medium; 4=Medium-High; 5=High | 3 | 3 | 4 |
1.2 Scenarios
Various scenario cases are tested by varying ridership, capital cost, operating cost and annualization factor. The table presents the scenario inputs. These are presented in section 3.
The report also provides unique heatmaps (charts colored to reflect changes in CIG ratings) and tables that offer insight into the relative potential of the alternatives. For certain CIG rating criteria, the report provides alternate ratings estimates assuming +/- 50% variations in ridership and capital costs. These two important project aspects tend to vary the most throughout project planning and engineering. The alternate ridership and capital cost estimates are made in 10% unit increments. Criteria based on only on ridership are presented with heatmaps that represent 11 alternate ratings per alternative. Similarly, criteria based on both ridership and capital costs are presented with heatmaps that represent 121 alternate ratings estimates per alternative. In this way, the relative strength of the alternative’s CIG ratings can be understood and applied as desired.
| Scenario_Code | Description | Value | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Change in Ridership | -40 | % |
| 2 | Change in Ridership | -20 | % |
| 3 | Change in Ridership | 20 | % |
| 4 | Change in Ridership | 40 | % |
| 5 | Change in Capital Cost | -15 | % |
| 6 | Change in Capital Cost | -10 | % |
| 7 | Change in Capital Cost | 10 | % |
| 8 | Change in Capital Cost | 20 | % |
| 9 | Change in Operating Cost | -20 | % |
| 10 | Change in Operating Cost | -10 | % |
| 11 | Change in Operating Cost | 10 | % |
| 12 | Change in Operating Cost | 20 | % |
| 13 | Annualization factor | 275 | NA |
| 14 | Annualization factor | 300 | NA |
| 15 | Annualization factor | 312 | NA |
| 16 | Annualization factor | 325 | NA |
| 17 | Federal Share | 60 | % |
| 18 | Federal Share | 70 | % |
2.0 RTA CIG Ratings Dashboards
Each alternative has its own dashboard, accessible by selecting its name below.
2.1 Speed Gauge
Gratiot
Woodward
Michigan
2.2 Sunburst
Gratiot
Woodward
Michigan
2.3 Summary Visualization
This summary displays the calculated overall rating, Project Justification, Local Financial Commitment, and six project justification criteria. The dashed threshold marks the start of Medium for the three headline ratings. All triangle markers show the selected alternative’s actual calculated ratings.
Gratiot
Woodward
Michigan
3.0 Scenarios
As in CIG-AR V4.1, each scenario recalculates the complete nine-indicator CIG rating dashboard. Each alternative uses its own baseline inputs and its Excel-selected New Starts or Small Starts classification. Ridership, VMT, and transit-dependent/new-rider counts are scaled proportionally; capital costs and annualized capital costs change together. These are sensitivity assumptions, not new travel demand forecasts.
3.1 Change in Ridership (-40%)
Gratiot
Woodward
Michigan
3.2 Change in Ridership (-20%)
Gratiot
Woodward
Michigan
3.3 Change in Ridership (20%)
Gratiot
Woodward
Michigan
3.4 Change in Ridership (40%)
Gratiot
Woodward
Michigan
3.5 Change in Capital Cost (-15%)
Gratiot
Woodward
Michigan
3.6 Change in Capital Cost (-10%)
Gratiot
Woodward
Michigan
3.7 Change in Capital Cost (10%)
Gratiot
Woodward
Michigan
3.8 Change in Capital Cost (20%)
Gratiot
Woodward
Michigan
3.9 Change in Operating Cost (-20%)
Gratiot
Woodward
Michigan
3.10 Change in Operating Cost (-10%)
Gratiot
Woodward
Michigan
3.11 Change in Operating Cost (10%)
Gratiot
Woodward
Michigan
3.12 Change in Operating Cost (20%)
Gratiot
Woodward
Michigan
3.13 Annualization factor (275)
Gratiot
Woodward
Michigan
3.14 Annualization factor (300)
Gratiot
Woodward
Michigan
3.15 Annualization factor (312)
Gratiot
Woodward
Michigan
3.16 Annualization factor (325)
Gratiot
Woodward
Michigan
3.19 Reverse warranted status
Gratiot
Woodward
Michigan
3.20 Custom Interactive Scenario
Adjust multiple assumptions simultaneously and immediately recalculate the nine CIG gauges. This section runs entirely inside the generated HTML and does not require Shiny.
Ridership changes proportionally scale the same count and VMT fields as V5.2 Section 3. Capital cost and annualized capital cost scale together. Project type is selectable; manually assigned Land Use, Economic Development, and Local Financial Commitment ratings remain fixed. The calculations run locally in the browser, without re-knitting.
4.0 Analytical Charts — Effect of Average Weekday Trips and Capital Cost
As in CIG-AR 4.1, Mobility Improvements and Congestion Relief show horizontal estimates with ±10% and ±20% variations. Cost Effectiveness, Project Justification, and Project Rating show sensitivity heatmaps (weekday project trips on the X-axis and capital cost on the Y-axis); the black diamond marks the baseline (100%, 100%). Rating Points displays the six Project Justification criteria as stacked bars across scenarios. Each alternative retains its Excel-selected New Starts or Small Starts classification.
4.1 Mobility Improvements
Gratiot
In the above graph, the thick black line is the estimate of mobility improvement value. Dotted grey lines represent a 10% buffer region of the estimate, while dashed blue lines represent a 20% buffer region.
Woodward
In the above graph, the thick black line is the estimate of mobility improvement value. Dotted grey lines represent a 10% buffer region of the estimate, while dashed blue lines represent a 20% buffer region.
Michigan
In the above graph, the thick black line is the estimate of mobility improvement value. Dotted grey lines represent a 10% buffer region of the estimate, while dashed blue lines represent a 20% buffer region.
4.2 Cost Effectiveness
Gratiot
In the above graph, the intersection of the horizontal and vertical black baseline lines represents the current scenario. The horizontal line indicates the current Capital Cost, and the vertical line indicates the current Average Weekday Trips on Project (TOP). The BLUE box represents a ±25% change in TOP and Capital Cost, while the GREY box represents a ±50% change. Each small colored cell indicates its CIG rating; hover over a cell to see the rating, Average Weekday TOP, and Capital Cost.
Woodward
In the above graph, the intersection of the horizontal and vertical black baseline lines represents the current scenario. The horizontal line indicates the current Capital Cost, and the vertical line indicates the current Average Weekday Trips on Project (TOP). The BLUE box represents a ±25% change in TOP and Capital Cost, while the GREY box represents a ±50% change. Each small colored cell indicates its CIG rating; hover over a cell to see the rating, Average Weekday TOP, and Capital Cost.
Michigan
In the above graph, the intersection of the horizontal and vertical black baseline lines represents the current scenario. The horizontal line indicates the current Capital Cost, and the vertical line indicates the current Average Weekday Trips on Project (TOP). The BLUE box represents a ±25% change in TOP and Capital Cost, while the GREY box represents a ±50% change. Each small colored cell indicates its CIG rating; hover over a cell to see the rating, Average Weekday TOP, and Capital Cost.
4.3 Congestion Relief
Gratiot
In the above graph, the thick black line is the estimate of congestion relief value. Dotted grey lines represent a 10% buffer region of the estimate, while dashed blue lines represent a 20% buffer region.
Woodward
In the above graph, the thick black line is the estimate of congestion relief value. Dotted grey lines represent a 10% buffer region of the estimate, while dashed blue lines represent a 20% buffer region.
Michigan
In the above graph, the thick black line is the estimate of congestion relief value. Dotted grey lines represent a 10% buffer region of the estimate, while dashed blue lines represent a 20% buffer region.
4.4 Project Justification
Gratiot
In the above graph, the intersection of the horizontal and vertical black baseline lines represents the current scenario. The horizontal line indicates the current Capital Cost, and the vertical line indicates the current Average Weekday Trips on Project (TOP). The BLUE box represents a ±25% change in TOP and Capital Cost, while the GREY box represents a ±50% change. Each small colored cell indicates its CIG rating; hover over a cell to see the rating, Average Weekday TOP, and Capital Cost.
Woodward
In the above graph, the intersection of the horizontal and vertical black baseline lines represents the current scenario. The horizontal line indicates the current Capital Cost, and the vertical line indicates the current Average Weekday Trips on Project (TOP). The BLUE box represents a ±25% change in TOP and Capital Cost, while the GREY box represents a ±50% change. Each small colored cell indicates its CIG rating; hover over a cell to see the rating, Average Weekday TOP, and Capital Cost.
Michigan
In the above graph, the intersection of the horizontal and vertical black baseline lines represents the current scenario. The horizontal line indicates the current Capital Cost, and the vertical line indicates the current Average Weekday Trips on Project (TOP). The BLUE box represents a ±25% change in TOP and Capital Cost, while the GREY box represents a ±50% change. Each small colored cell indicates its CIG rating; hover over a cell to see the rating, Average Weekday TOP, and Capital Cost.
4.5 Project Rating
Gratiot
In the above graph, the intersection of the horizontal and vertical black baseline lines represents the current scenario. The horizontal line indicates the current Capital Cost, and the vertical line indicates the current Average Weekday Trips on Project (TOP). The BLUE box represents a ±25% change in TOP and Capital Cost, while the GREY box represents a ±50% change. Each small colored cell indicates its CIG rating; hover over a cell to see the rating, Average Weekday TOP, and Capital Cost.
Woodward
In the above graph, the intersection of the horizontal and vertical black baseline lines represents the current scenario. The horizontal line indicates the current Capital Cost, and the vertical line indicates the current Average Weekday Trips on Project (TOP). The BLUE box represents a ±25% change in TOP and Capital Cost, while the GREY box represents a ±50% change. Each small colored cell indicates its CIG rating; hover over a cell to see the rating, Average Weekday TOP, and Capital Cost.
Michigan
In the above graph, the intersection of the horizontal and vertical black baseline lines represents the current scenario. The horizontal line indicates the current Capital Cost, and the vertical line indicates the current Average Weekday Trips on Project (TOP). The BLUE box represents a ±25% change in TOP and Capital Cost, while the GREY box represents a ±50% change. Each small colored cell indicates its CIG rating; hover over a cell to see the rating, Average Weekday TOP, and Capital Cost.
4.6 Rating Points
This V4.1-style stacked chart shows how the six Project Justification criteria contribute to total rating points across the baseline and scenarios. The colored background bands indicate the five Project Justification rating thresholds.
Gratiot
Woodward
Michigan
5.0 Alternative Analysis
5.1 Overall CIG Rating
5.2 Criteria Heatmap — All Alternatives
5.3 Capital Cost and Ridership
5.4 Cost Effectiveness
5.5 Numerical Comparison
| Alternative | Mobility | Cost_Effectiveness | Congestion_Relief | Environmental_Benefits | Land_Use | Economic_Development | Project_Justification | Local_Financial_Commitment | Overall_Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gratiot | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2.67 | 3 | 3 |
| Woodward | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3.00 | 3 | 3 |
| Michigan | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3.00 | 4 | 4 |
5.6 Key Inputs by Alternative
| Alternative | CY_TOP | HY_TOP | Capital_Cost | OM_Cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gratiot | 11200 | 13800 | 520 | 18.5 |
| Woodward | 14500 | 17600 | 610 | 21.0 |
| Michigan | 13200 | 16000 | 575 | 19.5 |
5.7 Individual Alternative Rating Profiles
Gratiot
Woodward
Michigan
5.8 Cross-Alternative Sensitivity
APPENDIX A — CIG Rating Evaluation Overview
The project, or overall, rating is calculated by averaging the Project Justification and the Local Financial Commitment ratings. This rating determines whether the alternative can qualify for CIG funding. A project cannot be recommended for CIG funding unless the overall project rating is Medium or higher. However, FTA requires that the Project Justification and Local Financial Commitment ratings individually must be Medium or higher to achieve a Medium or higher project rating. If the average of the Project Justification and Local Financial Commitment ratings is Medium or higher, but both ratings are not Medium or higher, the project is assigned a Medium-Low rating.
A1 Project Justification
The Project Justification rating is the unweighted average of 6 criteria ratings: Mobility Improvements, Cost-Effectiveness, Congestion Relief, Environmental Benefits, Land Use and Economic Development. The following sections presents the components in Project Justification rating evaluation.
A1.1 Mobility Improvements
Drivers: Project ridership, project transit-dependent ridership, annualization factor
Mobility improvements are evaluated using the weighted number of trips per average weekday on the alternative. The trips on the alternative (TOP, Trips On Project) are subdivided into trips from transit dependents and non-transit dependents (i.e., choice riders). Transit dependent riders are weighted twice their actual amount, and then added to the number of trips from non-transit dependent riders. This sum is annualized using the 300 annualization factor provided by the project sponsor. In equation form, this is expressed as:
\[MobilityImpValue = [(5 * TranDepTOP) + NonTranDepTOP] * AnnFactor\]
Where, MobilityImpValue is the Mobility Improvements value evaluated against the rating thresholds, TranDepTOP is the number of transit dependent trips on project, NonTranDepTOP is the number of non-transit dependent trips on project (i.e., ‘choice’ riders), AnnFactor is the local annualization factor for ridership, and
\[TotalTOP = TranDepTOP + NonTranDepTOP\]
In case, if Trips on project information is available for base and horizon year, the average of the base and horizon year information is used to estimate the mobility improvements value.
The Mobility Improvements value is calculated separately for each active alternative and compared with the rating thresholds below. See Section 2 for the alternative-specific results.
The estimated value is compared with the thresholds to rank MI value. The threshold values are as tabulated below.
| Mobility Improvements Value | Rank |
|---|---|
| <2 million | Low |
| 2 to 2.9 million | Medium-Low |
| 3 to 11.9 million | Medium |
| 12 to 29.9 million | Medium-High |
| >=30 million | High |
A1.2 Cost Effectiveness
Drivers: Capital cost, project ridership, annualization factor, federal share (Small Starts projects only), operating cost (New Starts projects only)
Cost-effectiveness is the comparison of project costs and ridership. The computation and rating scales are slightly different for New Starts and Small Starts projects. For New Starts projects, the annualized capital and operating costs are combined into the numerator of the cost-effectiveness equation (detailed below). Small Starts projects use only the annualized federal share of the capital costs in the numerator of the cost-effectiveness equation. The capital costs are annualized using annualization factors by Standardized Cost Category (SCC) item from FTA’s SCC Workbook (refer Section 10.2). In both types of projects, the denominator of the cost-effectiveness equation is the annualized number of trips on project, which is the product of the daily value multiplied by annualization factor. The annualized costs are then divided by the annualized trips on project.
In equation form, the New Starts cost-effectiveness equation is:
\[CostEffValue = \frac{AnnualizedCapCost + OperatingCosts}{DailyTOP \times AnnFactor}\]
In equation form, the Small Starts cost-effectiveness equation is:
\[CostEffValue = \frac{AnnualizedCapCost \times FederalShare}{DailyTOP \times AnnFactor}\]
The Cost Effectiveness value is calculated separately for each active alternative using the applicable New Starts or Small Starts methodology and compared with the thresholds below. See Section 2 for the alternative-specific results.
This ratio is then evaluated against the following thresholds.
| Cost Effectiveness Value <br/> New Starts | Cost Effectiveness Value <br/> Small Starts | Rank |
|---|---|---|
| >35$ | >6$ | Low |
| 20$ to 35$ | 5$ to 6$ | Medium-Low |
| 10$ to 20$ | 2$ to 5$ | Medium |
| 8$ to 10$ | 1$ to 2$ | Medium-High |
| <8$ | <1$ | High |
A1.3 Congestion Relief
Drivers: Transit new riders
Congestion relief is determined by comparing the number of new transit trips per average weekday to the category thresholds. New transit trips are defined as the increase in linked transit trips that result from each alternative as compared to the No Build. In equation form, this is expressed as:
\[CongReliefValue = TransitTripsBuild - TransitTripsNoBuild\]
Where, \(CongReliefValue\) is the Congestion Relief value evaluated against the rating thresholds, \(TransitTripsBuild\) is the number of system wide linked transit person trips generated by the Build alternative and \(TransitTripsNoBuild\) is the number of system wide linked transit person trips generated by the No Build alternative. All values are evaluated at an average weekday level.
The Congestion Relief value is calculated separately for each active alternative and compared with the thresholds below. See Section 2 for the alternative-specific results.
This ratio is then evaluated against the following thresholds.
| Congestion Relief Value | Rank |
|---|---|
| <500 | Low |
| 500 to <2,499 | Medium-Low |
| 2,500 to 9,999 | Medium |
| 10,000 to 17,999 | Medium-High |
| >18,000 | High |
A1.4 Environmental Benefits
Drivers: Annualization factor, environmental attainment rating (attained, maintained, not attained)
FTA evaluates the environmental benefits criterion based on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), per the Clean Air Act. EPA designates geographic areas as meeting (attainment) or not meeting (nonattainment) the NAAQS. “Maintenance” areas are geographic areas that were previously designated as “nonattainment” for a particular pollutant and have since met air quality standards but are still subject to requirements in their Maintenance Plan and transportation conformity. Projects in nonattainment or “maintenance” areas for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), or particulate matter (PM2.5) will receive a High rating; projects in “attainment” areas for those pollutants will receive a Medium rating.
Measure FTA evaluates and rates the environmental benefits criterion for New Starts projects based on the EPA air quality designation given to the geographic area in which the project is located for the transportation-related criteria pollutants, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3) (2015 standard), and particulate matter (PM2.5) (2012 standard). This information is readily obtained from the EPA Green Book (https://www.epa.gov/green-book). Projects located in areas designated as nonattainment or maintenance for any of the four criteria pollutants will receive a High rating, and projects located in areas designated as attainment in all four criteria pollutants will receive a Medium rating.
Source of Information The EPA Green Book (https://www.epa.gov/green-book) provides detailed information about NAAQS designations, classifications, and nonattainment status.
Breakpoints Projects located in geographic areas designated as nonattainment or maintenance for any of the four criteria pollutants will be rated High, and projects located in areas designated as attainment in all four criteria pollutants will be rated Medium.
The Environmental Benefits rating is calculated separately for each active alternative based on its environmental inputs. See Section 2 for the alternative-specific results.
The estimated value is compared with the thresholds to rank environmental benefits value. The threshold values are as tabulated below.
A1.5 Land Use
Driver: User-provided rating
A number of elements are used collectively to determine the Land Use rating, including the development around the stations, the Central Business District (CBD) parking supply, and legally binding affordability restricted housing. Specifically, the individual elements are:
- The employment served by the system (i.e., the modal system to which the project belongs),
- The average population density within 1/2 mile of the stations,
- The typical CBD parking cost per average weekday,
- The ratio of parking spaces to employees within the CBD, and
- The proportion of legally binding affordability restricted housing in the corridor compared to the proportion of legally binding affordability restricted housing in the counties through which the project travels.
Developing the quantitative data for these elements requires GIS and other analysis. Consequently, this analysis is not usually developed until the project has advanced to the CIG Project Development phase. At this stage of project development, the estimated Land Use rating relies on an externally provided assessment of the corridor’s rating potential. This initial assessment is not too different from what is performed in Systems Planning, Feasibility, or Pre-Project Development studies. One of four possible values is provided for this initial assessment, “Poor”, “Fair”, “Good” and “Strong”.
The following chart displays the user-provided initial assessment and the estimated Land Use rating for each alternative. Please note that, generally, the same rating will apply to all alternatives since the information used to determine the rating is related to the corridor and not the individual alternatives.
A1.6 Economic Development
Driver: User-provided rating
This criterion attempts to evaluate the extent to which the alternative is likely to induce additional, transit-supportive development in the future. The rating is determined from an assessment of transit supportive plans and policies in the corridor, as well as demonstrated performance of such policies in the corridor or immediate region. This assessment should be done as part of a detailed corridor effort. Please note that this rating is likely to be consistent across all alternatives.
An estimate of the rating is usually performed once the project has advanced to the CIG Project Development phase, as it requires a thorough understanding of available planning documents related to transit-supportive policies. Consequently, the process uses a user-defined initial assessment as the determining factor for the Economic Development rating estimate. This assessment can be one of four possible values, “Poor”, “Fair”, “Good” and “Strong”. (check this)
A1.7 Warrants
Warrants are pre-qualification approaches that allow certain New and Small Start projects to be automatically assigned Medium ratings for three Project Justification criteria: Mobility Improvements, Cost-Effectiveness and Congestion Relief. Documentation of the capital costs and existing corridor ridership is needed to demonstrate qualification for a warrant.
Warrants provide two benefits. The first is that they provide beneficial Medium ratings to three of the six Project Justification criteria. The other is that warrants reduce the burden of the project sponsor in subsequent New/Small Starts application packages, since the documentation supporting the warrant qualification is provided only once to FTA.
There are five potential warrant qualifications categories:
| Warrant | Capital Cost | Average Weekday Transit Trips |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Less than $50 million | Greater than 3,000 |
| 2 | Less than $100 million | Greater than 6,000 |
| 3 | Less than $175 million | Greater than 9,000 |
| 4 | Less than $250 million | Greater than 12,000 |
| 5 | Less than $500 million | Greater than 15,000 |
A2 Local Financial Commitment
Driver: User-provided rating
The demonstrated commitment of local funding is half of the project rating. FTA computes the Local Financial Commitment (LFC) rating as a weighted average of three criteria:
Current Capital and Operating Conditions (25% weight),
Commitment of Capital and Operating Funds (25% weight), and
Reasonableness of Capital and Operating Cost Estimates and Planning Assumptions/Capital Funding Capacity (50% weight).
Aspects of the current capital and operating conditions include the average bus fleet age, the project sponsor’s bond ratings within the past two years, the ratio of current assets to current liabilities, historic cash flows, and recent service history. FTA’s policy guidance states that a majority of the emphasis is placed on fleet age and current ratio. The assessment of capital and operating fund commitments is based on the percentage of funds that are committed or budgeted compared to the total number of local funds. Funds that are planned or unspecified are rated lower than funds specifically committed or budgeted. The reasonableness of the financial plan is based on whether the cost estimates and assumptions are comparable to past experience, the reasonableness of the cost estimates, whether state of good repair needs are met, and whether the project sponsor has the financial capacity to cover cost increases or unexpected decreases in funding. In addition, the rating considers the amount of CIG rating being requested, relative to the total project cost.
Small Starts projects qualify for a simplified financial evaluation if all the following criteria are met:
the project sponsor can demonstrate a plan to secure funding for the non-federal share of capital costs,
the project operating costs are less than 5% of the sponsor’s current operating budget, and
the project sponsor is in reasonably good financial condition. Small Starts projects that meet this criterion and request no more than 50% in CIG funding are assigned a High LFC rating. Those requesting more than 50% of the project capital cost in CIG funding are assigned a Medium LFC rating.
The Local Financial Commitment rating generally does not vary by alternative because many of the assumptions and aspects pertain to all alternatives or the project sponsor directly.
An estimate of the Local Financial Commitment rating is generally performed once the project has advanced to the CIG Project Development phase, as it requires detailed information on the financial plan and the project sponsor’s financial reports. Consequently, this evaluation uses a simplified analysis. New Starts projects are assigned a Medium rating for Local Financial Commitment. This rating assumes that the project sponsor would not pursue CIG funding without having adequate financial capacity, the cost estimates are reasonable, and that funding will be committed at the appropriate time. For Small Starts projects, the evaluation assumes the simplified financial evaluation: the project’s Local Financial Commitment rating is High if the proposed federal share of capital costs is 50% or less. Otherwise, the Small Starts project is assigned a Medium rating.