FTA Oversight Procedures - Federal Transit Administration - U.S. ...
FTA Oversight Procedures - Federal Transit Administration - U.S. ... FTA Oversight Procedures - Federal Transit Administration - U.S. ...
design-to-budget approach that maintains budgetary considerations within each stage of project development. (Emphasis added.) The point of using tools like project development risk isolation (PDRI) is to identify, characterize and precisely describe each critical element in a scope definition package. If this is performed as part of developing a project execution strategy, the scope reviews allow the PMOC to quickly develop factors that impact project risk, and then to recommend an execution strategy to address these factors. This review should comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the Grantee’s definition of project scope at any point during project implementation, including the basis for the design and execution approach applied to the project. During the Preliminary Engineering phase, this effort focuses on the identification and validation of functional requirements for the project. The review defines the type of capability that is needed and evaluates various options that meet the stated need of the Grantee’s proposed transit project and its benefits. At entry to final design, this review supports FTA’s evaluation of project readiness for advancement and funding recommendation. FTA’s intent is to accomplish its oversight mission with PMOC deliverables that evaluate the completeness, consistency and adequacy of the Grantee’s project scope definition and make recommendations to the Grantee on redirecting or reprioritizing its efforts to correct the inadequately defined areas prior to commencement or completion of Preliminary Engineering or Final Design. PMOC or Grantee efforts to analyze individual project scope elements with indications of poor definition will reveal or confirm the amount of risk each individual element brings to the project. This provides FTA with a cost effective approach in that the PMOC evaluates inadequately defined areas highlighted by the project scope. This ensures FTA’s products satisfy the oversight requirement for accuracy and completeness. 3.0 OBJECTIVES Assess and evaluate the Grantee’s project using TCRP’s Transit Capacity and Quality of Service, Report 100, 2nd edition (2003) Rail Capacity Manual and its procedures with respect to the capacity of individual rail transit system features or functions. Assess and evaluate the proposed level of service using the same TCRP manual. The capacity sections of the manual provide both planning and more detailed operations analysis procedures for assessing capacity for rail transit modes, and transit stops, stations, and terminals. A building-block approach to capacity analysis is presented, initially addressing the capacity characteristics of individual transit stops and station components, and then expansion of the concepts to address the capacity of broader transit services, facilities, and systems. 4.0 REFERENCES The statutes, regulations, policies, circulars, and guidance documents in OP 01 apply. 5.0 PROJECT SPONSOR SUBMITTALS Information required to accomplish this review will typically include all engineering studies, preliminary reports, drawings and other documents produced on the project to date, which describe the project details. OP 32A Project Capacity Review Revision 0, June 2008 Page 2 of 4
6.0 SCOPE OF WORK A building-block approach to capacity analysis is to be followed. Initially address the capacity characteristics of individual transit stops and station components, and then expand the concepts to address the capacity of broader transit services, facilities, and systems. Such analysis shall include: 1) “Line capacity” or theoretical capacity of the project is defined by TCRP Report 100 as “the maximum number of trains that can be operated over a section of track in a given period of time, typically one hour. . . The factor providing the lowest capacity—the weakest link—will constrain the capacity of a given section of a line.” As the report notes, “ideally, the combination of the train signaling system being used and the station with the longest dwell time will control the line capacity. However, under less-than-ideal conditions, any number of other factors may control line capacity.” The PMOC shall analyze other factors that may control line capacity including: 2) Line capacity and vehicle capacity, both relating to the number of trains that can be operated per hour, are equivalent terms for rail. 3) Station dwell time and the minimum train separation produced by the signaling system. 4) Signaling systems designed for the minimum planned train headway, rather than maximum capacity. 5) Speed restrictions due to sharp curves or steep downgrades on the approach to the station with the longest dwell time. 6) Line crossings and merges, particularly at-grade track junctions. 7) Time required to turn back a train at a terminal station, and 8) Mode-specific issues, such as light rail trains operating in mixed traffic or commuter rail trains sharing tracks with freight trains. 9) Traction power substation type and characteristics, DC distribution systems including the OCS, DC feeders, and return rails, and the power characteristics of the vehicles to be used on the system. 10) Person capacity after adjustments to line capacity. 11) Capacity modeling shall develop static and dynamically elements for traffic operations and other guideway elements such as vertical and horizontal curvature and line of sight restrictions. 12) Capacity of the project’s maintenance infrastructure (as-built) such as shops, yards, secondary maintenance, component rebuilds or capital inventory requirements using a structured and methodical approach that makes maximum use of previous TRB work and other existing engineering data. 13) Capacity of the light rail transit project as required to meeting the passenger load requirements forecasted for the revenue operations date (peak hour passenger boardings) and the recommended “mature capacity“ identified in TCRP 100 (ref. Page 5-49). 14) This assessment shall also address the engineering economy issues associated with determining what project elements were to be constructed at what time. OP 32A Project Capacity Review Revision 0, June 2008 Page 3 of 4
- Page 98 and 99: Note: SSMP Element Compliant with D
- Page 100 and 101: SSMP Element Compliant with DRAFT G
- Page 102 and 103: APPENDIX F: DISCUSSION OF CONTENTS
- Page 104 and 105: candidates for the committee so tha
- Page 106 and 107: US DOT Federal Transit Administrati
- Page 108 and 109: the time. During preliminary engine
- Page 110 and 111: • Plans - who prepares, who can m
- Page 112 and 113: U.S. Department of Transportation F
- Page 114 and 115: • Serve as a resource by lending
- Page 116 and 117: c. Peak Vehicle Requirement include
- Page 118 and 119: 3 PMOC review of Grantee’s Operat
- Page 120 and 121: Requirement PMOC Review Comments 5C
- Page 122 and 123: waiver is requested are not produce
- Page 124 and 125: (5) To provide PMOCs with recommend
- Page 126 and 127: 4.1.2 Pre-Award Purchaser’s Requi
- Page 128 and 129: 5.0 PMOC REVIEW OF PROJECT SPONSOR
- Page 130 and 131: • If no, examine contract files,
- Page 132 and 133: 6.3.2 Corrective Action: The Grante
- Page 134 and 135: 8.0 APPENDICES 8.1 Sample Review Ce
- Page 136 and 137: comply? 5.3.1.5 Are the vehicle bod
- Page 138 and 139: US DOT Federal Transit Administrati
- Page 140 and 141: including: the applicability of Fed
- Page 142 and 143: • Each document addresses the int
- Page 144 and 145: APPENDIX A: CHECKLIST OP Section Is
- Page 146 and 147: orders: 5.6.2.1 Is PDR consistent w
- Page 150 and 151: 15) Step the project forward using
- Page 152 and 153: 2.2 The New Starts Process New Star
- Page 154 and 155: 3.0 OBJECTIVES During the initial e
- Page 156 and 157: 7.0 REPORT, PRESENTATION, RECONCILI
- Page 158 and 159: provisions) to make detailed design
- Page 160 and 161: 6) Identify any unknown or uncertai
- Page 162 and 163: APPENDIX A Scope Review Checklist E
- Page 164 and 165: o Development of strategies for min
- Page 166 and 167: to then be backfilled or would othe
- Page 168 and 169: • Major or critical work details;
- Page 170 and 171: It is important to select a project
- Page 172 and 173: 6.2 Preliminary Document Review Upo
- Page 174 and 175: U.S. DOT Federal Transit Administra
- Page 176 and 177: o Level 4: Subdivide Level 3 as fol
- Page 178 and 179: • Is integrated with and makes ad
- Page 180 and 181: APPENDIX B Cost Estimate Review Che
- Page 182 and 183: o Confirm that cost estimates are b
- Page 184 and 185: 12) Appendices a) Grantee Project I
- Page 186 and 187: This sample of 118 cost items was s
- Page 188 and 189: consistently accurate. In addition,
- Page 190 and 191: SCC-10.02 Earth Excavation Although
- Page 192 and 193: The scope review identifies risk in
- Page 194 and 195: • Producer Price Index (PPI) - Th
- Page 196 and 197: APPENDICES PROJECT COST ESTIMATE ([
6.0 SCOPE OF WORK<br />
A building-block approach to capacity analysis is to be followed. Initially address the capacity<br />
characteristics of individual transit stops and station components, and then expand the concepts to<br />
address the capacity of broader transit services, facilities, and systems.<br />
Such analysis shall include:<br />
1) “Line capacity” or theoretical capacity of the project is defined by TCRP Report 100 as “the<br />
maximum number of trains that can be operated over a section of track in a given period of<br />
time, typically one hour. . . The factor providing the lowest capacity—the weakest link—will<br />
constrain the capacity of a given section of a line.” As the report notes, “ideally, the<br />
combination of the train signaling system being used and the station with the longest dwell time<br />
will control the line capacity. However, under less-than-ideal conditions, any number of other<br />
factors may control line capacity.” The PMOC shall analyze other factors that may control line<br />
capacity including:<br />
2) Line capacity and vehicle capacity, both relating to the number of trains that can be operated<br />
per hour, are equivalent terms for rail.<br />
3) Station dwell time and the minimum train separation produced by the signaling system.<br />
4) Signaling systems designed for the minimum planned train headway, rather than maximum<br />
capacity.<br />
5) Speed restrictions due to sharp curves or steep downgrades on the approach to the station with<br />
the longest dwell time.<br />
6) Line crossings and merges, particularly at-grade track junctions.<br />
7) Time required to turn back a train at a terminal station, and<br />
8) Mode-specific issues, such as light rail trains operating in mixed traffic or commuter rail trains<br />
sharing tracks with freight trains.<br />
9) Traction power substation type and characteristics, DC distribution systems including the OCS,<br />
DC feeders, and return rails, and the power characteristics of the vehicles to be used on the<br />
system.<br />
10) Person capacity after adjustments to line capacity.<br />
11) Capacity modeling shall develop static and dynamically elements for traffic operations and<br />
other guideway elements such as vertical and horizontal curvature and line of sight restrictions.<br />
12) Capacity of the project’s maintenance infrastructure (as-built) such as shops, yards, secondary<br />
maintenance, component rebuilds or capital inventory requirements using a structured and<br />
methodical approach that makes maximum use of previous TRB work and other existing<br />
engineering data.<br />
13) Capacity of the light rail transit project as required to meeting the passenger load requirements<br />
forecasted for the revenue operations date (peak hour passenger boardings) and the<br />
recommended “mature capacity“ identified in TCRP 100 (ref. Page 5-49).<br />
14) This assessment shall also address the engineering economy issues associated with determining<br />
what project elements were to be constructed at what time.<br />
OP 32A Project Capacity Review<br />
Revision 0, June 2008<br />
Page 3 of 4