Details:

Alternative Title:
A review of capital improvement grant program and the need for a uniform project selection process.
Creators:
Sriraj, P. S. ; Snow, Jordan ; Kane, Jenny ; Wilberding, Jane ; Ganesh, Divyanga
Sriraj, P. S. ; Snow, Jordan ; Kane, Jenny ; Wilberding, Jane ; Ganesh, Divyanga Less -
Corporate Creators:
University of Illinois at Chicago. Urban Transportation Center
Corporate Contributors:
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research
Subject/TRT Terms:
[+]
Capital Improvements Capital Investments CTA Federal Aid Grant Aid Metra Public Transit Transportation Planning Transportation System Management Urban Transit Urban Transportation
Resource Type:
Tech Report
Geographical Coverage:
Chicago Metropolitan Area ; Chicago (Illinois) ; United States
Chicago Metropolitan Area ; Chicago (Illinois) ; United States Less -
Abstract:
Large scale public investment initiatives are always subject to tremendous scrutiny and are looked at through the prism of multiple stakeholders and constituents. It is thus imperative to ensure a level of transparency when it comes to the decision making process associated with project selection, prioritization, and ranking. This report reviews the programs and policies of the United States Department of Transportation (DOT)’s project selection and evaluation process to fund new capital-intensive projects in the transportation sector. The Federal formula programs administered and overseen by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are the basis for this review. Within the federal formula funding programs, the Capital Improvement Grants (CIG) is the primary funding program assigned for transit capital investments like heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, streetcars, bus and other rapid transit projects. There are over 70 projects across the nation under the Capital Investment Grant program. According to a APTA study (2013), as of 2010, 78 rail systems were operating in the US, with ridership growing 36% between the years of 1995 to 2012. It is interesting to note that the growth in transit seems to be happening alongside a depletion of transit funds and even in instances that funding was received, they seemed to have come from appropriations and not from flex funding sources. The APTA study also specifically discusses “pipeline” projects, in which projects have obtained a status of preliminary engineering or higher. This helps to materialize the current state of new start funding allocations and project future trends. To provide a better understanding of how the CIG program works, this report traces the origins and history of the evolution of this funding program at the federal level, combined with a review of the program’s administration across different metropolitan areas around the country. A series of semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted to catalogue and understand the project prioritization process at the local level leading to selection of candidate projects for FTA CIG consideration from each of these regions. It is expected that this report will provide an insight into the complexities associated and embedded in the project prioritization and selection process both at the regional and federal levels. The report is expected to be used as a guide and a resource for applicants to the CIG Program. 4.0 HISTORY OF THE NEW STARTS-CIG PROGRAM The Capital Investment Grant Program was first introduced in Section 3 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act (UMTA) of 1964 (P.L. 88-365). The earliest versions of the New Starts program were introduced by the forerunner to the FTA, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA). The US Department of Transportation (USDOT), under which UMTA operated, responded to congressional delegates from large urban areas that demanded an increased federal presence in funding mass transit projects (source 78, p. 3). The UMTA itself was created in 1964 in response to the deteriorating condition of mass transit systems in many large metropolitan areas. Suburbanization and the construction of urban interstates prompted the popularization of commutes by private vehicle from outlying areas to jobs located in central business districts (source 81). These changing land use patterns combined with a shift in transportation modal utilization combined to bankrupt many privately run bus and rail lines in American cities (Ibid). By the early 1960s public officials at every level of United States government began to realize that the failure of privately-run mass transit systems was enacting a burden on the residents living in metropolitan areas that depended on bus and rail transportation modes.
Format:
PDF
Funding:
UIC 2117-9050-02-C
Collection(s):
US Transportation Collection
Main Document Checksum:
[+]
urn:sha256:b278d1a2ffa36a0634af99f9fc2ffd83d81d6de4dba480898673abd19ec7f6a4
Download URL:
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/32624/dot_32624_DS1.pdf
File Type:

Supporting Files

• No Additional Files

More +