FY 2026 Pilot Program for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Planning

FY 2026 Pilot Program for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Planning

This is a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) competition for State, local, and territorial entities to fund planning work that links transit investment to land-use outcomes along new fixed-guideway or core-capacity improvement projects.

The program is not a construction grant, and it is not an infrastructure procurement mechanism. It is specifically a planning grant cycle: it funds studies and deliverables that align corridor and station-area transit development with transportation outcomes, TOD economics, safety, and implementation readiness. It is still open as of 31 May 2026, with a final application deadline of 11:59 p.m. ET on 10 July 2026.

This matters for people building transport, planning, and local development applications because the opportunity shape is precise. It is competitive, formula-free, and targeted: you are being judged as much on how grounded your partnership and implementation path are as on your ideas.

Key details

What this opportunity actually funds

The NOFO states that FTA is funding planning and associated studies tied to eligible transit capital activity. FTA frames the program as support for comprehensive or site-specific planning that should produce stronger transit, land-use, and development alignment.

The grant is explicitly tied to MAP-21 planning outcomes. Those outcomes are not abstract. The NOFO lists six practical program goals that proposals are expected to strengthen:

1. economic development and ridership goals,
2. multimodal connectivity and accessibility,
3. better pedestrian and bicycle access to transit hubs,
4. mixed-use development,
5. infrastructure needs identification,
6. private sector participation.

In practice, this means the grant funds teams that can show how better planning improves long-term performance around transit investments, not teams that are trying to cover broad redevelopment plans not linked to current transit capital activity.

What makes this competitively attractive compared to broader urban development grants is the explicit link to transportation project sequencing. FTA is filtering out projects that are too detached from an actual fixed-guideway or core-capacity project. If your corridor team cannot show this link, you are more likely to spend budget on narrative than on a winning strategy.

The total FY 2026 pool is publicly listed as $28,492,618. Prior-year structure indicates multiple projects were funded at varying scales, with a published prior award range from roughly $351,233 to $2,000,000. For your planning, that helps set expectations: this is a meaningful pool, but not a guarantee that any submission can assume a large, unconstrained award.

Who this is for

This opportunity is written for government entities, not private firms. The primary applicant set is:

• State, territory, D.C., and local government entities that are already FTA grant recipients;
• project sponsors of eligible transit capital projects;
• entities with land-use authority in the project study area;
• applicants that can partner effectively with related project sponsors and land-use authorities.

This means the program is best for municipalities, regional planning bodies, transit agencies, and their planning authorities that already carry a capital project context.

A practical fit check before you proceed:

• Do you have a qualifying fixed-guideway or core-capacity improvement project that is in or near implementation planning?
• Does your team already coordinate with land-use authority counterparts and can they sign a concrete partnership commitment?
• Do you have the technical, financial, and administrative capacity to run a full planning submission plus required federal-level reporting?
• Can your project produce deliverables that are genuinely implementable by the corridor or region planning system?

Teams that are strong in this competition usually satisfy these four conditions before writing prose. Teams that fail often are excellent at idea generation but weak on corridor governance and practical implementation sequencing.

Eligibility and disqualifiers

The eligibility language is specific enough that a large share of weak applications get screened out during review. At minimum, applicants must be:

• an existing State/local/territorial government FTA grant recipient;
• involved as project sponsor and/or land-use authority in a corridor with an eligible transit project;
• able to demonstrate legal, financial, and technical capability;
• applying for planning activities, not construction activities.

The NOFO also sets explicit review-level disqualifiers through its activity list. For example, it says no awards for:

• land acquisition;
• demolition, station design engineering, environmental analysis for construction projects;
• utility relocation;
• other reimbursable transit capital activities that should be handled under construction-related grant lines.

The one-complicated rule many people misread is the “one corridor” limit for comprehensive planning applications. FTA may reject multiple comprehensive planning submissions from the same corridor because that signals weak partnership alignment. If you submit multiple site-specific studies, each must be clearly separated in place and governance. This is not a trick rule—it is a program integrity rule to keep projects from overlapping and saturating review with redundant studies.

This means teams should pre-clear scope boundaries and prove that each application has unique station corridors, distinct authorities, or truly non-overlapping study areas.

What deliverables should you propose

The NOFO includes sample deliverables and expectations that clarify what “success” could look like. Good proposals normally include concrete planning outputs such as:

• TOD plans and policy frameworks for station areas and corridors;
• transport, land-use, housing, and access policy changes that improve corridor outcomes;
• staged implementation logic and measurable performance criteria;
• financing or implementation tools such as value capture, financial policy options, and transit-supportive zoning approaches.

Because this is planning-focused, your strongest applications tend to be specific and operational:

• define the study boundaries;
• define the deliverables and dates;
• identify each partner’s role and authority;
• show how recommendations translate to implementation in regional planning systems.

The NOFO expects applicants to include a map of study boundaries, an explicit corridor/station area description, and evidence that agencies are aligned on implementation mechanics. If these are missing, the proposal is likely to feel like a good report concept rather than an executable planning agreement.

Application process and submission materials

This is a Grants.gov-only submission process:

• Get your SAM registration and UEI in place early;
• Prepare SF-424 and the TOD Supplemental Form;
• Submit electronically via Grants.gov APPLY by 11:59 p.m. ET on 10 July 2026;
• Do not send by mail or fax;
• Resubmit all original attachments if corrections are required.

The NOFO indicates that confirmation is sent through Grants.gov and that rejections should be corrected before deadline. It also advises submission at least 72 hours before deadline to allow technical fixes, which is important in these federal systems where timing issues can sink late-cycle quality.

The required package includes:

• SF-424 complete form;
• Supplemental Form for the program (the year-specific form, not a legacy/frozen prior-year version);
• study-area map;
• partnership documentation;
• funding commitments for match and delivery.

Also required in practice: a clean budget and a funding structure that reflects the 80% federal cap.

Because FTA emphasizes electronic form completion, converted PDFs from prior years or scanned submission exports can be rejected. Build your document structure in the current-year form natively.

The NOFO’s submission tips include practical timeline advice and registration requirements:

• SAM registration may take time and can require additional data steps;
• existing grants recipients are not exempt from updating registration details before a submission;
• all required fields should be complete and consistent across forms and attachments.

Review and award mechanics

The review process is staged. First comes responsiveness and eligibility. If eligibility is not met, the application is rejected regardless of narrative strength.

After that, review committees score based on criteria that include:

• planning merit against MAP-21 outcomes,
• demonstrated need tied to the transit project,
• work plan quality and schedule practicality,
• partnership depth and technical capacity,
• funding commitments and the quality of matching commitment,
• additional considerations (safety, families and accessibility, innovation, opportunity zone impact, where applicable).

The NOFO makes it explicit that local context and implementation readiness matter. Applications with purely aspirational TOD concepts and thin commitment structures generally underperform compared with applications that show how plans are folded into regional planning systems and municipal processes.

The committee can classify proposals as Highly Recommended, Recommended, or Not Recommended and then the final award amounts are determined by the FTA Administrator. This is an important nuance: you are not merely scoring to pass a threshold; you are also positioning for relative competitiveness.

FTA may also review applicant-level context and risk indicators. The NOFO references responsibility/qualification records and emphasizes that unresolved compliance history and match quality can impact outcomes. This is standard in federal transport awards and should influence pre-application planning: run an internal administrative risk check before submission.

Practical preparation roadmap

A reliable way to prepare is to work backwards from the scoring areas.

1. Build the eligibility matrix first.

   • Confirm entity is an FTA grant recipient,
   • confirm official role as project sponsor or corridor land-use authority,
   • confirm you have one clean non-overlapping comprehensive or site-specific scope.

2. Fix the partnership evidence.

   • Include written collaboration roles,
   • define who owns implementation sequencing,
   • define who owns data and who owns deliverables,
   • attach signatures/letters where required.

3. Define performance criteria in ways reviewers can measure.

   • Include explicit metrics tied to ridership, connectivity, and corridor development,
   • define what success looks like at least at three milestones,
   • include fallback “minimum viable plan” options in case award size is reduced.

4. Design the submission stack around the SF-424 + Supplemental flow.

   • Don’t overbuild narrative pages that duplicate form fields,
   • keep attachments referenceable to exact sections,
   • keep file formats native and machine-readable where possible.

5. Make the funding section explicit.

   • State match commitment with evidence,
   • avoid treating in-kind commitments as the only non-Federal source,
   • explain any local match contingency if not fully finalized.

6. File early and validate timing.

   • Submit early enough to correct technical rejection,
   • do not assume Grants.gov will resolve incomplete submissions after the clock.

A useful tactical detail: the NOFO says that reduced award amounts can happen, and proposals should show what can still be delivered at a lower funding level. That usually helps panelists judge resilience and realism.

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

Corridor overlap confusion

Applications that propose multiple comprehensive applications for a single corridor can fail eligibility logic. Limit each corridor to one comprehensive study unless separated by non-overlapping station-level submissions.

Fuzzy partnership architecture

Some applicants list “partners” but do not define authority and implementation role. Reviewers then question readiness and delivery capacity. Every partner should have named responsibilities, not just logos.

Conflating planning with construction

This program is planning-specific. If the budget includes construction-heavy components, utility changes, station civil design, environmental mitigation unrelated to planning analysis, or design work suitable for separate engineering contracts, it weakens eligibility and scoring.

Underestimating form compliance

Legacy docs, mismatched attachment references, missing map fields, or incomplete SAM data lead to rejection even before substantive scoring. Federal submission quality is a technical filter.

Weak implementation timeline

Proposals often describe good ideas but no concrete scheduling linked to regional planning bodies. The review explicitly checks process and deliverables, so show month-level sequencing and deliverable deadlines tied to corridor implementation windows.

Unclear match strategy

The NOFO caps federal share at 80%; unfunded matching strategy is a visible weakness. Applicants should state committed local match and describe how that unlocks a plausible work package.

FAQ

Is this for private companies?

No. The opportunity is structured for government entities and associated public planning actors, not standalone private businesses.

Is there a minimum award amount?

No minimum award amount is published in the FY 2026 NOFO. Awards can be lower than requested based on budget pressure and ranking.

Can ineligible applications still enter evaluation?

No. Eligibility issues lead to rejection before scoring in responsiveness.

Can I submit scanned versions of required forms?

No. The guidance emphasizes that the Supplemental Form must be completed properly in the current year format and in an accepted electronic workflow.

What happens after submission?

Selected awards are published with recipient names and discretionary IDs on FTA channels. Unsuccessful applicants may request debriefs as provided in implementation guidance.

Why this is a good match for 2026/2027 planning cycles

Even though the NOFO is a FY 2026 opportunity, projects awarded from this pool can carry obligations beyond a single year and require multi-year implementation discipline. The NOFO states awarded money can remain available for obligation for up to three fiscal years. That timeline gives corridors time to incorporate studies into regional work programs after selection.

If you have a live fixed-guideway or core capacity project and your planning team is already in stakeholder coordination mode, this call creates a direct path for formalizing TOD planning as federal-assisted work with a competitive review process and clear policy linkage.

Official links

• FTA program page: https://www.transit.dot.gov/notices-funding/fy-2026-notice-funding-opportunity-pilot-program-transit-oriented-development
• FTA NOFO summary on Simpler Grants: https://simpler.grants.gov/opportunity/674b2df1-2bf3-465a-a9ce-06090d1498e5
• Federal Register text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-05-11/html/2026-09309.htm
• Supplemental Form page: https://www.transit.dot.gov/notices-funding/fy-2026-notice-funding-opportunity-pilot-program-transit-oriented-development and the linked supplemental form on that page
• Grants submission system: https://grants.gov