Appendix ACase Study ReportFebruary 12, 2007.ppt

New Starts Program Assessment - Case Study Report Contents Introduction Approach to New Starts Case Studies Summary of Key Findings Detailed Findings and Recommendations Analysis by New Starts Phases Summary Descriptions of All Case Study Projects New Starts Projects GCRTA – Euclid Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Valley Metro – Central Phoenix / East Valley Light Rail Transit DART - Northwest / Southeast Light Rail Transit CATS – South Light Rail Transit LACMTA - Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension UTA – Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail Non-New Starts Projects NJ Transit – Southern NJ River Line Light Rail Transit St. Louis Metro – MetroLink Cross County Extension Tri-Met – Portland Airport MAX Extension Approach to New Starts Case Studies Summary of Key Findings Frequent FTA changes in interim and/or final guidance created issues for many of the project sponsors (see details on slides 17-36). Grantees were frustrated with their inability to obtain status information or any indication of FTA’s expected response timeframe for their submittals. FTA should consider reevaluating the New Starts (NS) phase nomenclature to more accurately describe the required activities and avoid unnecessary confusion. The New Starts process would benefit from more clearly defined roles and responsibilities for the regional office and headquarters. FTA needs to develop clearer guidance and parameters for the Baseline Alternative requirements. Grantees desire some type of an agreement between the FTA and the project sponsor early in the development process to secure a mutual understanding of all parties’ expectations (e.g., Project Development Agreement). The Risk Assessment (RA) frustrated grantees and delayed project development due to inconsistent implementation, changing RA guidance, and inexperienced Program Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC). Grantees felt that they had to endure the learning pains of the PMOCs as they tried to implement the new FTA RA review process. St