X hits on this document





8 / 17

is not ISO14001 certified, but is conducted under a formal environmental management system (EMS) will receive a medium rating for this factor.  A transit agency whose capital construction program is not ISO14001 certified and is not conducted under an EMS (http://www.epa.gov/ems/index.html) will receive a low rating for this factor. 


EPA rating (http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/comments/ratings.html#rating): A project whose most recent NEPA document has been rated “Lack of Objection” by EPA in its Federal Register notice, or was not rated by EPA, will receive a high rating for this factor.   A project whose most recent NEPA document has been rated “Environmental Concerns” by EPA will receive a medium rating for this factor.  A project whose most recent NEPA document has been rated “Environmental Objection” or “Environmentally Unsatisfactory” by EPA will receive a low rating for this factor.


Person-days of exposure to “bad air” within the service area: Using the most recent year for which EPA air monitoring data has been published, compute the sum of the population for all census tracts wholly or partly within 0.5 miles of a proposed station using the most recent U.S. Census, times the number of days in that year that the air in that tract exceeded the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for one or more transportation-related pollutant (ozone, NO2, PM2.5, PM10, or CO).  A day is counted as a "bad air" day if any of transportation-related NAAQS is exceeded.  If more than one NAAQS is exceeded, it is still just one day of bad air.  When the results of this factor have been received for all projects in the pipeline, FTA will sort the results from greatest number of person-days of exposure to “bad air” to lowest and group them into three groups with the highest group receiving a high rating for this factor, and the middle group a medium rating, etc.  

1.1.2 New Starts Cost Effectiveness

Since 2002, user benefits have been used as the sole denominator for its measure of New Starts cost effectiveness.  This focus on mobility has not meant that FTA believes that there are not other important benefits, like economic development, which should be considered in evaluating the merits of proposed New Starts projects.  Rather, it is a consequence of the state of the practice of measuring mobility, which, despite some deficiencies in some local travel forecasting models, is still far more advanced than the tools and measures used to estimate the economic development impacts of major transit investment projects.  In addition, beginning in 2002, FTA no longer included the rating for mobility improvements in the rating of a New Starts project’s project justification rating, leaving a mobility-based cost effectiveness measure as a logical compliment to the measures used to capture the transit supportiveness of the land use, land use policies, and policy performance (and, implicitly, the anticipated economic development impacts) of communities in which New Starts projects are proposed.

As previously noted, FTA proposes to provide both mobility improvements and economic development/land use with a significant weight in the rating for project effectiveness (for the specific weight, please refer to the NPRM).  

1.1.3 New Starts Reliability

FTA proposes that the reliability rating be based on the following measures: 1) transit-orientation of existing and future land use plans and policies; 2) project sponsor experience with

Federal Transit AdministrationPage 8

Guidance on New Starts Policies and ProceduresJuly, 2007

Document info
Document views33
Page views33
Page last viewedWed Oct 26 19:54:12 UTC 2016