Massachusetts Ferry Compact
Final Project Evaluation Criteria for the FTA Passenger Ferry Grant Program
The federal MAP-21 transportation funding legislation included a $30 million yearly Passenger Ferry Grant
program for FY2013 and FY2014. The Massachusetts Ferry Compact has identified this federal grant program as
resource to support its principal mission of providing for the transportation of people, goods, and vehicles by
water in the Commonwealth. The Compact will work with its members to identify the top priority projects for
water transportation in the Commonwealth through a competitive evaluation process. Projects selected by the
Compact will be recommended to receive support from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation
through the provision of state matching funds and a letter of support from the Secretary of Transportation. This
document outlines the FTA Passenger Ferry Grant program and the procedures that will be followed to evaluate
and select the priority ferry transportation projects in the Commonwealth for recommendation to MassDOT.
The Federal Transit Administration released its notice of funding availability for the program on August 21, 2013.
Basic Facts about the FTA Passenger Ferry Grant Program
Applications Due: October 21, 2013 at 11:59 PM
Total Funding Amount Available: $29.9 million
Date Decisions Expected: September 2013 Note: as the deadline for submission is in October, this information is
likely a typo in the NOFA
Eligible Entities: Only direct recipients for Section 5307 funds engaged in providing a public transportation ferry
service are eligible for funding under this program. The practical implication of this requirement is that the
MBTA or an RTA must be the applicant of record and administer the funds.
Eligible Projects: Capital projects including ferries, terminals, and related infrastructure. Funds may not be used
for operating expenses, planning, or preventive maintenance. The FTA has established a program emphasis of
state of good repar projects and projects that provide multimodal connectivity to other transit service.
Important Dates for Ferry Compact Review
August 28, 2013 – Distribution of Preliminary Project Evaluation Criteria
September 6, 2013 – Comments on the Preliminary Project Evaluation Criteria Due to MassDOT
September 11, 2013 – Distribution of Final Project Evaluation Criteria (this document)
September 18, 2013 – Draft Applications Due to MassDOT
September 20, 2013 – Draft Applications Submitted to Ferry Compact Members for Review
October 2, 2013 thru October 9, 2013 – Ferry Compact Meeting to Select Projects
October 21, 2013 – Final Applications Due to the Federal Transit Administration
MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning
Page 1
October 3, 2013
Preliminary Project Evaluation Criteria
The ferry projects will be evaluated based on the ten criteria outlined below. The first six criteria
(Demonstration of Need; Demonstration of Benefits; Planning and Local/Regional Prioritization; Project
Readiness; Technical, Legal, and Financial Capacity to Implement the Particular Project; and Connectivity to
Other Modes of Transportation) will be used by the Federal Transit Administration in selecting projects for
funding. The last four criteria (Environmental Sustainability; Contribution to State of Good Repair; Level of Local
Financial Contribution; and Intensity of Use/Diversity of Ridership) have been added to address the priorities
discussed by the Ferry Compact to ensure that projects best reflect their overall goal of improving the
transportation of people, goods, and vehicles by water.
1. Demonstration of Need
The Ferry Compact will evaluate each project to determine its need for resources. In addition to the projectspecific criteria below, it will include evaluating the project’s impact on service delivery and whether the
project represents a onetime or periodic need that cannot reasonably be funded from FTA program formula
allocations or State and/or local resources.
a. For vessel replacements or rehabilitation projects:
 The age of the asset to be replaced or rehabilitated by the proposed project, relative to its useful
life.
 Condition and performance of the asset to be replaced by the proposed project, as ascertained
through inspections or otherwise, if available.
b. For infrastructure (facility) improvements or related-equipment acquisitions:
 The age of the facility or equipment to be rehabilitated or replaced relative to its useful life.
 The degree to which the proposed project will enable the agency to improve the maintenance and
condition of the agency’s fleet and/or other related ferry assets.
c. For expansion requests (vessel or facility-related):
 The degree to which the proposed project addresses a current capacity constraint that is limiting the
ability of the agency to provide reliable service, meet ridership demands, or maintain vessels and
related-equipment in a state of good repair.
In this section, the proposal should also demonstrate the needs of the ferry passengers and discuss how the
proposed project will address the identified needs.
2. Demonstration of Benefits
In this section, proposals should identify expected project benefits. Possible examples include how the
project: will improve the state of good repair of the system, impact ridership, increase reliability of service,
improve operations or maintenance capabilities, or provide more mobility options, intermodal connections,
or economic benefits to the community. Benefits can be demonstrated quantifiably or qualitatively.
Proposers should document, explain or show the benefits in whatever format is reasonable to present them.
3. Planning and Local/Regional Prioritization
In this section, the applicant should describe how the proposed project is consistent with planning
documents and local priorities. This will involve assessing whether:
MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning
Page 2
October 3, 2013
a. The project is consistent with the transit priorities identified in the long range plan and/or
contingency/illustrative projects. Proposer should note if the project could not be included in the
financially constrained Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)/Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) due to lack of funding (if selected, project must be in federally approved STIP before
grant award).
b. Local support is demonstrated by availability of local match for this and/or related projects and letters of
support.
c. In an area with both ferry and other public transit operators, the proposal demonstrates coordination
with and support of other related projects within the proposer’s Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) or the geographic region within which the proposed project will operate.
4. Project Readiness
In this section, the applicant should describe the extent to which the project is ready to be implemented.
This will involve assessing whether:
a. The project is a Categorical Exclusion (CE) or required environmental work has been initiated or
completed for construction projects requiring an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS).
b. Project implementation plans are ready, including initial design of facility projects.
c. The TIP/STIP can be amended (evidenced by MPO/State endorsement).
d. Project funds can be obligated and the project implemented quickly, if selected.
e. The project will require a Buy America waiver.
The applicant demonstrates the ability to carry out the proposed project successfully.
5. Technical, Legal, and Financial Capacity to Implement the Particular Project Proposed
In this section, the applicant should address all of the following points:
a. The proposer has the technical capacity to administer the project.
b. There are no outstanding legal, technical, or financial issues with the proposer that would make this a
high risk project to implement quickly.
c. The proposer has good financial systems in place that meet generally acceptable accounting standards
that can be audited and has identified the source of local match if selected (no deferred local share will
be allowed).
d. The grantee is in fundable status for grant-making purposes.
6. Connectivity to Other Modes of Transportation
The proposals should include information about transfer connections to other modes of transportation,
including but not limited to: rail, bus, intercity bus, and private transportation providers. Supporting
documentation should include data that supports the number of trips (passengers and vehicles), the number
of walk-on passengers, and transfers to other modes (if applicable).
7. Environmental Sustainability
The proposals should include information on aspects of the project that promote environmental
stewardship and sustainability. Applications will be favored if they incorporate strategies to improve air
and/or water quality, reduce energy use, encourage smart growth land use, and/or reduce the use and
disposal of materials and toxic substances.
MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning
Page 3
October 3, 2013
8. Contribution to Overall State of Good Repair
In this section the applicant should expand on the project benefits provided by meeting the ferry system’s
overall state of good repair. An asset or system is in a state of good repair when no backlog of needs exists
and no component is beyond its useful life. State of good repair projects correct past deferred maintenance,
or replace capital assets that have exceeded their useful life.
9. Intensity of Use/Diversity of Ridership
The applicant should provide additional information on the type of trips (including commuters, students,
and tourists) that are expected to be served as a result of the project. Applications will be favored if they
serve multiple types of trips throughout the day.
Note: the following criteria were discussed by the Ferry Compact but not included in this document.
A. Financial Sustainability – this is included in the FTA criterion Technical, Legal, and Financial Capacity to
Implement the Particular Project Proposed
B. Project Readiness – this is already include in the FTA criteria
C. Level of Local Financial Contribution – the Federal share for each type of project is established in the
NOFA. If desired by the Compact, we could include consideration of a local match that exceeds the
Federal share prescribed in the NOFA as on one of the criteria.
MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning
Page 4
October 3, 2013