CORE CAPACITY MOBILITY IMPROVEMENT AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS TEMPLATE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
PROJECT NAME: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mobility Improvements | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Line | Item | Daily | Annualization Factor* | Annualized (annualization factor x daily) |
Source/Calculation | |||||||||||||||||||
1a | Existing Daily Linked Trips on the existing line(s) as defined in the project definition | Non-transit-dependent | 0 | Average Weekday On/Off Counts, see Reporting Instructions | ||||||||||||||||||||
1b | Transit-dependent | 0 | <select source of transit-dependent data> | |||||||||||||||||||||
1c | Overall percentage of transit-dependent trips | - | Line 1b / (Line 1a+Line 1b) | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Total trips with extra weight given to transit dependent trips (value used in rating) | 0 | Line 1a annualized + 2*(Line 1b annualized) | |||||||||||||||||||||
- | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
*Attach documentation describing annualization factor assumed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cost Effectiveness | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Line | Item | Values | Source/Calculation | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Annualized Core Capacity capital cost (constant 2017 dollars) |
Source: SCC Build Annualized worksheet | ||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Annual linked trips on the existing line(s) as defined in the project definition (no extra weight given for transit dependent trips) |
0 | Line 1a + Line 1b (unweighted annualized sum) | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Annualized Core Capacity cost per annual linked trip (value used in rating) | $0.00 | Line 3 / Line 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
- |
CORE CAPACITY NEEDS AND CONGESTION RELIEF TEMPLATE | ||||||
PROJECT NAME: | ||||||
Vehicle and Service Characteristics | ||||||
Line | Item | Existing | At Opening | Increase | Source/Calculation | |
1 | Total usable space per peak hour, in the peak direction | 0 | 0 | 0 | From Project Description Template, Page 3 | |
2 | Total available seats per peak hour, in the peak direction | - | - | - | From Project Description Template, Page 3 | |
Capacity Needs | ||||||
Line | Item | Existing | Source/Calculation | |||
3 | Existing Ridership per peak hour, in the peak direction | Peak hour average load from counts, see Reporting Instructions | ||||
4 | Total Usable space per passenger per peak hour, in the peak direction | Line 1 / Line 3 (Light Rail/Heavy Rail only) | ||||
5 | Percent Seated Load per peak hour, in the peak direction | - | Line 3 / Line 2 (Commuter Rail only) | |||
6 | Existing Capacity Needs (Value used in Rating) | Line 4 (Light Rail/Heavy Rail) or Line 5 (Commuter Rail) | ||||
- | ||||||
Congestion Relief | ||||||
Line | Item | Existing | At Opening | Increase | Source/Calculation | |
7 | Total usable space per passenger, in the peak hour, in the peak direction | Line 1 /Line 3 (Light Rail/Heavy Rail only) | ||||
8 | Percent Seated Load per peak hour, in the peak direction | - | - | - | Line 3/ Line 2 (Commuter Rail Only) | |
9 | Congestion Relief (Value used in Rating) | Line 7 (Light Rail/Heavy Rail) or Line 8 (Commuter Rail) | ||||
- |
CORE CAPACITY RATING ESTIMATION | ||||||||||
PROJECT NAME: | ||||||||||
Use this tool to calculate potential ratings for your Core Capacity project. Complete yellow cells with the ratings you anticipate for local financial commitment. * | ||||||||||
Project Justification | Local Financial Commitment | |||||||||
Criterion | Weight | Estimated Rating | Source/Calculation | Do you anticipate that your project will qualify for the simplified financial assessment? (See the Local Financial Commitment section of the Core Capacity portion of the CIG Program Final Interim Policy Guidance for the qualifying criteria.) | <Select YES/NO> | |||||
Mobility Improvements | 16.66% | - | Mobility & Cost-Effectiveness Template | |||||||
Cost Effectiveness | 16.66% | - | Criterion | Weight | Estimated Rating | Source/Calculation | ||||
Congestion Relief | 16.66% | - | Capacity Need & Congestion Relief Template | Current Financial Condition | 25% | <select> | Enter your estimations of these ratings. See the Local Financial Commitment section in the New Starts chapter of the CIG Program Final Interim Policy Guidance for information on how FTA rates these factors. | |||
Capacity Needs | 16.66% | - | Commitment of Capital and Operating Funds | 25% | <select> | |||||
Environmental Benefits | 16.66% | MEDIUM | Automatic MEDIUM for Core Capacity projects | Reasonableness of Financial Plan | 50% | <select> | ||||
Economic Development | 16.66% | MEDIUM | Automatic MEDIUM for Core Capacity projects | Core Capacity Share (Please complete the Finance Template) | - | - | Finance Template | |||
Summary Rating | - | Ratings are assigned to each criterion on a five-point scale, with Low = 1, Medium-Low =2, Medium = 3, Medium-High = 4, and High = 5. Individual criterion ratings are then weighted 16.66% each to develop the summary Project Justification rating. | Summary Rating | - | Ratings are assigned to each subfactor on a five-point scale, with Low = 1, Medium-Low=2, Medium=3, Medium-High =4, and High = 5. Individual subfactror ratings are then weighted as shown to develop the summary Local Financial Commitment rating. If the summary rating is at least Medium and Core Capacity share is less than 50%, the summary rating is increased one level. If project qualifies for the simplified financial evaluation, the rating is High if the Core Capacity share is 50 percent or less; otherwise it is Medium. | |||||
Estimated Overall Project Rating: (The Project Justification and Local Financial Commitment summary ratings are each weighted equally at 50%. However, both must be at least Medium to obtain a Medium or better overall rating.) |
Complete all templates and the highlighted cells in this worksheet to see the estimated overall rating. | |||||||||
Link to CIG Program Guidance on the FTA Website | ||||||||||
* FTA is providing this tool solely to help project sponsors understand how their projects may rate. Any anticipated ratings entered into this spreadsheet will not inform the ratings that FTA assigns, and any ratings computed in the templates are subject to verification by FTA. FTA has sole responsibility for assigning project ratings according to the evaluation and rating framework described in the Capital Investment Grants Program Final Interim Policy Guidance. |
File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet |
File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
File Created | 0000-00-00 |