fta-2011-013-fy-2011-program-planning-proposal-form.docx

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration

Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program (Transit in the Parks Program) Planning Project - Proposal for Fiscal Year 2011 Funds

BASIC PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Name (Please provide a 1-2 sentence description of the project):

Proposed Funding Recipient:

Public land unit(s) involved:

Location of Project City:

County:

State:

Congressional District:

Federal Land Management Agency managing the above unit(s):

|_| Bureau of Land Management |_| Bureau of Reclamation |_| Fish and Wildlife Service |_| Forest Service |_| National Park Service |_| Other (e.g. Federal Trust) Describe:

Type of Project:

(Implementation projects, please use the alternate form) |_| Planning

|_| Proposal is to plan for a possible new alternative transportation system where none currently exists.

|_| Proposal is to plan for a possible enhancement of an existing alternative transportation system.

Transit in Parks Program Funding Requested during FY 2011 Total Cost of Planning Project at Completion (All sources)

Were you awarded Transit in Parks Program funds for this project in the past? |_| Yes |_| No If answer “Yes,” please provide amount awarded: $

Do you plan to request additional Transit in Parks Program funds in future years? |_| Yes |_| No (Note: If you wish to compete for future Transit in Parks Program fiscal year funds you must reapply).

If answer “Yes,” please specify Transit in Parks Program proposed funding levels for out years below:

FY 2011 Funding Amounts from sources other than Transit in Parks Program funds? |_| Yes |_| No If answer “Yes,” please specify funding levels per source below:

CONTACT PERSON

Address:

OTHER PROJECT SPONSORS (in addition to funding recipient)

REQUIREMENTS

|_| If a State, Tribal, or local government entity is proposing the project, the applicant has contacted the manager of the Federal land unit(s) and has the consent of the Federal land management agency or agencies affected.

|_| The project is consistent with the metropolitan and statewide planning process.

|_| The project is consistent with agency plans.

|_| The planning project will analyze all reasonable alternatives, including a non-construction option.

BASIC PROJECT DATA

Average Number of Vehicles per Day at Peak Visitation:

Current Road Level of Service at Peak Visitation:

(Please consult guidance where available on determining this variable. You may use observational accounts or pictures to provide an assessment of this datum for FY 2011 proposals).

What time of the year does your land unit experience Peak Visitation?

|_| Spring |_| Summer |_| Fall |_| Winter

Current Carrying Capacity of Existing Roads: (vehicles/day)

What percent of that capacity is the site operating at during peak periods? %

Current parking shortages during peak visitation:

Current Number of Persons who use the alternative transportation system (if one already exists) at peak visitation:

(average number of visitors/daily at peak)

Estimated Annual Number of Persons who will use the alternative transportation system at project completion: (anticipated number of riders or users/annually)

Average number of auto collisions with wildlife in the area? collisions/year

Executive Summary Please provide an executive summary of your proposal that is no more than one page in length. This should introduce the public land unit and/or applicant, summarize the need for an alternative transportation planning grant, and define the scope of the proposed study.

Project Description

Please provide a detailed description of the activities that would be funded with a Transit in Parks planning grant that is one-to-two pages in length. This description should outline the scope, methodology and timeline of the proposed study. You may refer to maps or other illustrations attached in an appendix.

Transit in Parks Program Planning Evaluation Criteria

This form is for planning projects only. Please use the implementation project proposal template for capital projects. For additional space, please delete this table and the detailed instructions from your response.

1. Demonstration of Need

50%

2. Methodology for Assessing:

Visitor Mobility & Experience Benefits of Project

15%

3. Methodology for Assessing: Environmental Benefits of Project

15%

4. Methodology for Assessing:

Operational Efficiency and Financial Sustainability of Alternatives

20%

Planning Justification Your responses to these questions must total no more than eight pages.

Planning Project Evaluation Factors:

1. Demonstration of Need

a. Visitor mobility and experience: Describe the site’s current and/or anticipated transportation problem or opportunity for improvement. You should include information on issues such as traffic congestion, traffic delays, parking shortages, difficulty in accessing destinations, safety issues, lack of access for persons with disabilities, lack of access for individuals with lower incomes or without cars, and visitor frustration. Please cite reports, plans, studies, and other documentation to support your description.

b. Environmental condition as a result of the existing transportation system: Describe the site’s current or anticipated problem or opportunity for improvement of the environment or resource protection. You should include information on current or anticipated problems such as air pollution, noise pollution, run-off, water quality, harm to vegetation and wildlife, and other impacts or stressors on natural, scenic, cultural and/or historic resources caused by the existing transportation system. Please cite documentation in agency plans, studies, reports and other documentation that will help to support your description.

Scope of Work and Methodology The planning study’s scope of work and methodology must assess and gather information relevant to the topics below in a thorough and professional manner. The planning project must have a basic scope of work and methodology to support the proposal, although it may be further refined later.

2. Methodology for Assessing - Visitor Mobility & Experience Please describe how the planning project’s scope and methodology will assess visitor mobility & experience factors related to an alternative transportation project in the following areas:

a. Traffic congestion: This includes the assessment of the potential to reduce motor vehicle trips during peak visitation, time lost to traffic delays, visitor frustration, and the current or future capacity of the entire transportation system.

b. Visitor mobility, accessibility, and safety: This includes the assessment of intermodal connectivity, public access to resources, access for those with disabilities and low incomes, traffic safety, pedestrian/cycling safety, and safety in the case of catastrophic events (i.e., natural disasters or security threats).

c. Visitor education, recreation, and health benefits: This includes the assessment of potential improvements to visitor access to recreation, visitor education, and health benefits, such as active transportation and recreation.

3. Methodology for Assessing - Environmental Benefits of Project Please address how the planning project’s scope and methodology will assess environmental factors related to an alternative transportation project in the following areas:

a. Protection of sensitive natural, cultural, and historical resources: This criterion includes energy conservation, energy efficiency, ecosystem sustainability, preservation of archeological and/or historical resources, viewshed and watershed preservation, reduction in auto-wildlife collision rates, improved habitat connectivity, ensuring that visitation does not exceed an area’s ability to handle increased levels of visitation or the “carrying capacity” of the land unit, and other protection benefits where applicable.

b. Reduced pollution: This criterion includes air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution, and visual pollution.

4. Methodology for Assessing - Operational Efficiency and Financial Sustainability Please address how the planning project’s scope and methodology will assess the operational efficiency and the financial sustainability of an alternative transportation project in the following areas:

a. Operational efficiency: This includes considerations of how a potential alternative system may or may not meet identified management goals and objectives for this site, including the evaluation of multiple alternatives.

b. Financial feasibility: This includes the development of financial plans for multiple alternative transportation project alternatives and the budget for the proposed planning study.

c. Cost effectiveness: This includes the development of a cost effectiveness analysis for multiple project alternatives.

d. Partnerships and funding from other sources: Planning projects that would be carried out or funded in partnership with other entities are encouraged. Documentation (e.g., partnership agreements, letters of partnership support, letters of confirmation of financial contribution, letters of in-kind contributions, etc.) that supports and verifies involvement of partners and level of partnership must accompany the proposal.

FY 2011 Transit in Parks Program Planning Project Proposal image1.emf