119 STAT. 1576
PUBLIC LAW 109–59—AUG. 10, 2005 ‘‘(A) the results of the alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering for the proposed project; ‘‘(B) the reliability of the forecasting methods used to estimate costs and utilization made by the recipient and the contractors to the recipient; ‘‘(C) the direct and indirect costs of relevant alternatives; ‘‘(D) factors such as— ‘‘(i) congestion relief; ‘‘(ii) improved mobility; ‘‘(iii) air pollution; ‘‘(iv) noise pollution; ‘‘(v) energy consumption; and ‘‘(vi) all associated ancillary and mitigation costs necessary to carry out each alternative analyzed; ‘‘(E) reductions in local infrastructure costs and other benefits achieved through compact land use development, such as positive impacts on the capacity, utilization, or longevity of other surface transportation assets and facilities; ‘‘(F) the cost of suburban sprawl; ‘‘(G) the degree to which the project increases the mobility of the public transportation dependent population or promotes economic development; ‘‘(H) population density and current transit ridership in the transportation corridor; ‘‘(I) the technical capability of the grant recipient to construct the project; ‘‘(J) any adjustment to the project justification necessary to reflect differences in local land, construction, and operating costs; and ‘‘(K) other factors that the Secretary determines to be appropriate to carry out this subsection. ‘‘(4) EVALUATION OF LOCAL FINANCIAL COMMITMENT.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In evaluating a project under paragraph (2)(C), the Secretary shall require that— ‘‘(i) the proposed project plan provides for the availability of contingency amounts that the Secretary determines to be reasonable to cover unanticipated cost increases; ‘‘(ii) each proposed local source of capital and operating financing is stable, reliable, and available within the proposed project timetable; and ‘‘(iii) local resources are available to recapitalize and operate the overall proposed public transportation system, including essential feeder bus and other services necessary to achieve the projected ridership levels without requiring a reduction in existing public transportation services or level of service to operate the proposed project. ‘‘(B) EVALUATION CRITERIA.—In assessing the stability, reliability, and availability of proposed sources of local financing under paragraph (2)(C), the Secretary shall consider— ‘‘(i) the reliability of the forecasting methods used to estimate costs and utilization made by the recipient and the contractors to the recipient;
VerDate 14-DEC-2004
13:51 Oct 26, 2006
Jkt 039194
PO 00002
Frm 00433
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL002.119
APPS06
PsN: PUBL002
�
