Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

monsoon

Proposed 2007 Transit Funding for the USA

Recommended Posts

This is where Bush proposes to spend money on transit in 2007. If your favorite rail project isn't list here, then it probably won't get any federal money until at least 2008. There don't appear to be any new starts for 2007.

  • ACE Gap Closure San Joaquin County, California, $5,000,000.

  • Alaska and Hawaii ferry projects, $15,000,000.

  • Ann Arbor/Detroit Commuter Rail, Michigan, $5,000,000.

  • Atlanta Beltline/C-Loop, Georgia, $1,000,000.

  • Baltimore Central Light Rail Double Track Project, Maryland, $12,420,000.

  • Baltimore Red Line and Green Line, Maryland, $2,000,000.

  • Boston/Fitchburg, Massachusetts Rail Corridor, $2,000,000.

  • Central Corridor/St. Paul-Minneapolis, Minnesota, $2,000,000.

  • Central Florida Commuter Rail, $11,000,000.

  • Central Phoenix/East Valley LRT, Arizona, $90,000,000.

  • Charlotte South Corridor Light Rail Project, North Carolina, $55,000,000

  • City of Miami Streetcar, Florida, $2,000,000.

  • City of Rock Hill Trolley Study, South Carolina, $400,000.

  • Commuter Rail, Albuquerque to Santa Fe, New Mexico, $500,000.

  • Commuter Rail, Utah, $9,000,000.

  • CORRIDORone Regional Rail Project, Pennsylvania, $1,500,000.

  • CTA Douglas Blue Line, Illinois, $45,150,000.

  • CTA Ravenswood Brown Line, Illinois, $40,000,000.

  • CTA Yellow Line, Illinois, $1,000,000.

  • Dallas Northwest/Southeast Light Rail MOS, Texas, $12,000,000.

  • Denali Commission, Alaska, $5,000,000.

  • Detroit Center City Loop, Michigan, $4,000,000.

  • Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project, Virginia, $26,000,000.

  • East Corridor Commuter Rail, Nashville, Tennessee, $6,000,000.

  • East Side Access Project, New York, $340,000,000.

  • Euclid Corridor Transportation Project, Ohio, $24,774,513.

  • Fort Lauderdale Downtown Rail Link, Florida, $1,000,000.

  • Gainesville-Haymarket VRE Service Extension, Virginia, $1,450,000.

  • Hartford-New Britain Busway, Connecticut, $6,000,000.

  • Houston METRO, Texas, $12,000,000.

  • Hudson-Bergen Light Rail MOS 2, New Jersey, $100,000,000.

  • Kansas City, Missouri, Southtown BRT, $12,300,000.

  • Metra, Illinois, $42,180,000.

  • Metro Gold Line Eastside Light Rail Extension, California, $80,000,000.

  • Miami Dade County Metrorail Extension, Florida, $10,000,000.

  • Mid-Coast Light Rail Transit Extension, California, $7,160,000.

  • Mid-Jordan Light Rail Transit Line, Utah, $500,000.

  • Mission Valley East, California, $7,700,000.

  • N. Indiana Commuter Transit District Recapitalization, $5,000,000.

  • New Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor, New Jersey, $12,315,000.;

  • North Corridor Interstate MAX Light Rail Project, Oregon, $18,110,000.

  • North Shore Connector, Pennsylvania, $55,000,000.

  • North Shore Corridor and Blue Line Extension, Massachusetts, $2,000,000.

  • Northeast Corridor Commuter Rail Project, Delaware, $1,425,000.

  • Northern Branch Bergen County, New Jersey, $2,500,000.

  • Northstar Corridor Commuter Rail Project, Minnesota, $2,000,000.

  • Northwest New Jersey-Northeast Pennsylvania Passenger Rail, $10,000,000.

  • Oceanside Escondido Rail Project, California, $12,210,000.

  • Odgen Avenue Transit Corridor/Circle Line, Illinois, $1,000,000.

  • Regional Fixed Guideway Project, Nevada, $3,000,000.

  • Rhode Island Integrated Commuter Rail Project, Rhode Island, $6,000,000.

  • San Francisco BART Extension to San Francisco International Airport, California, $81,860,000.

  • San Francisco Muni Third Street Light Rail Project, California, $25,000,000.

  • San Juan Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico, $8,045,487.

  • Santa Barbara Coast Rail Track Improvement Project, California, $1,000,000.

  • Schuylkill Valley Metro, Pennsylvania, $4,000,000.

  • Seattle Sound Transit, Washington, $80,000,000.

  • Second Avenue Subway, New York, $25,000,000.

  • Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Project, Santa Clara County, California, $6,500,000.

  • Silver Line Phase III, Massachusetts, $4,000,000.

  • Sounder Commuter Rail, Washington, $5,000,000.

  • Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Project (T-REX), Colorado, $80,000,000.

  • Stamford Urban Transitway, Connecticut, $10,000,000.

  • Triangle Transit Authority Regional Rail System (Raleigh-Durham), North Carolina, $20,000,000.

  • Washington County Commuter Rail Project, Oregon, $15,000,000.

  • West Corridor Light Rail, Colorado, $5,000,000, of which $100,000,000 is for section 5309(e). (Department of TransportationAppropriations Act, 2006.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Okay, I'm not going to try to be an expert on politics or money or urban planning...but how do you spend $4-5 Million on a study? What exactly is this money spent on? What time frame do they have to spend this money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, statedude3, at this point in the so-called NEPA process a metropolitan organization performs an alternatives analysis study. Conceptual engineering is done to get a rough idea of how much different options cost to build, e.g. light rail, trolley, busway, whatever. Some attempt is made to identify alignments. Also, a detailed computer model is made that can simulate travel patterns both for the current situation and for a future projected horizon (usually 25 years from now) based on possible growth of a region.

If an alternative is found to be feasible then the agency will apply to the FTA to do a full environmental impact study and also start the design.

To answer more specifically, this is a year's worth of money. From glancing at the FTA website they're studying a 55 mile corridor all the way from downtown Detroit to Ann Arbor. Most likely they've hired a large nationwide engineering firm that does this kind of think all the time.

The same kind of study happens for all public works projects, actually. It's just that for transit projects, in particular, things are different enough that a lot of study is required. Also, there's a whole lot of projects nationwide clamoring for a relatively small amount of money (at least compared to highway spending!) so they have to make a good case to get funded beyond the initial study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silver Line Phase III, Massachusetts, $4,000,000.
That's interesting, the T has said they aren't going to do that.

Is there a link that explains what these projects are, I'm not sure what this one is:

Rhode Island Integrated Commuter Rail Project, Rhode Island, $6,000,000.

There's a bunch of commuter rail projects/proposals in RI. I'm assuming this is the airport station which is supposedly breaking ground any day now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a link that explains what these projects are, ........

I got this from reading the especially painful to read Bush Budget for 2007. There was no explaination but I assume more details will be forthcoming from the FTA in the next few days. This is of course subject to congressional changes, but generally in the past, they have not done so when it comes to transit funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More updates on the above. This is where the money is going to actually build new transit systems in the United States. Below is the list of Current, Pending, and under design FFGAs. If a transit system will be requiring federal funding, it must go through this process if the amount being requested is more than $75M.

FFGA - Full Funding Grant Agreements

Current FFGAs (Thse are currently under construction and were approved in prior years)

  • Phoenix, Central Phoenix / East Valley Light Rail

  • Los Angeles, Metro Gold Line East Side Extension

  • San Diego, Mission Valley East LRT Extension

  • San Diego, Oceanside-Escondido Rail Corridor

  • San Francisco, BART Extension to San Francisco Airport

  • Denver, Southeast Corridor LRT

  • Chicago, Douglas Branch Reconstruction

  • Chicago, Ravenswood Line Extension

  • Chicago, Union Pacific West Line Extension

  • Baltimore, Central LRT Double-Track

  • Charlotte, South Corridor LRT

  • Northern New Jersey, Hudson-Bergen MOS-2

  • Cleveland, Euclid Corridor Transportation Project

  • Portland, Interstate MAX LRT Extension

  • San Juan, Tren Urbano

  • Seattle, Central Link Initial Segment

Pending FFGAs (These will be built, but work as not started)

  • Long Island Rail Road East Side Access

  • Pittsburgh, North Shore LRT Connector

The above projects are reflected in the amounts shown at the beginning of this thread

The following projects have applied for a FFGA but have not been awarded yet. They will most likely be built or not built as indicated below.

Final Design

  • Denver, West Corridor LRT - Ranked Medium, Recommended for funding in 2007

  • Raleigh-Durham, Regional Rail System - Ranked Low, Not Recommended for funding 2007

  • Portland, South Corridor I-205 / Portland Mall LRT - Ranked Medium, Recommended for funding in 2007

  • Washington County, Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail - Ranked Medium, Recommended for funding in 2007

  • Nashville, East Corridor Commuter Rail - Not Rated as it is exempt from New Starts, but funding has been appropriated. Line will open in 2006

  • Dallas, Northwest/Southeast LRT - Ranked Medium, - Recommended for funding in 2007

  • Salt Lake City, Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail; - Ranked Medium, Recommended for funding in 2007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a link that explains what these projects are, I'm not sure what this one is:

There's a bunch of commuter rail projects/proposals in RI. I'm assuming this is the airport station which is supposedly breaking ground any day now.

Descriptions of all the projects can be found here.

The Rhode Island funding seems to be for preliminary engineering funding to extend the commuter rail to Wickford Junction/North Kingston.

Edit: Try here, now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would think that the Administration, and particularly Congress would see this trend that mass transit is becoming an important component for the viability of a region. Of course they have realized that transit is a component with previous transportation authorization (was it the 2000 legislation that began to diversify funding grants? or was it before? 1994?)

If there are more and more projects that are viying for scarce federal funding...then that should signal the Feds to allocate more funding for transit projects. Of course some can argue that transit funding should come locally since it does directly affect the regional economy, instead of nationally?

And as much cost as transit/highway projects are I would hope that maintenance of infrastructure would be encouraged more. Some highways, like I-95/I-295 reconstruction in Jacksonville, Florida and the I-85 corridor reconstruction in Durham, NC would be discouraged in future funding options, why rebuild when it is effective to maintain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would think that the Administration, and particularly Congress would see this trend that mass transit is becoming an important component for the viability of a region. Of course they have realized that transit is a component with previous transportation authorization (was it the 2000 legislation that began to diversify funding grants? or was it before? 1994?)

If there are more and more projects that are viying for scarce federal funding...then that should signal the Feds to allocate more funding for transit projects. Of course some can argue that transit funding should come locally since it does directly affect the regional economy, instead of nationally?

And as much cost as transit/highway projects are I would hope that maintenance of infrastructure would be encouraged more. Some highways, like I-95/I-295 reconstruction in Jacksonville, Florida and the I-85 corridor reconstruction in Durham, NC would be discouraged in future funding options, why rebuild when it is effective to maintain?

Yes, in a perfect world. But as I'm sure many know, there's this thing in Iraq, plus still money being spent on the Gulf because of Katrina, so the budget is tight. States and locals are relying more on creative means for funding transportation options. If you give more funding to FTA, that has to come from some other program... or the taxpayers.

I'm not a FTA transit expert, but I think even FTA funds require an 80/20 match (20% from locals). Someone correct me if I'm mistaken on that. But if Congress amended that requirement to say 70/30 or whatever, than I would garuantee a lot of people and lobbying groups would raise a stink about it, saying that well if FHWA is 80/20, why would FTA require more funds from locals who already tight on cash, especially poor cities and regions (then you get into social equality issues I bet).

A growing problem with transportation bills in recent years is that more and more of them are filled with pork projects. Does anyone see an end in sight for that? I don't. In this case, funding becomes increasingly political, so I don't see how Congress would give up their collective pet highway projects for more generic funding allocation for FTA. But then again, I'm no Washington insider.

Maybe when oil reaches a zillion dollars a barrel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until recently, the New Starts program was a 60/40 match, but the Feds would not consider a system unless it was more like 50/50. This restriction was removed in 2005, but there is so much red tape and other requirements now, that very few systems are going to qualify under the new rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until recently, the New Starts program was a 60/40 match, but the Feds would not consider a system unless it was more like 50/50. This restriction was removed in 2005, but there is so much red tape and other requirements now, that very few systems are going to qualify under the new rules.

I didn't realize it was that much for 5309. I'm assuming that's 60/40 for construction and/or everything? For a completely new rail system? That's a lot of competition and bureaucracy for 60/40, or even 50/50 for a major project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be the capital amount to either build a new system or expand an existing system. Most localities would be better off these days if they found a way to pay for their systems without federal funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the $55 million for Pittsburgh's North Shore subway is locked down, now if ONLY they could get that thing dug A L R E A D Y! Well hopefully my grandkids can enjoy it :P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nashville, East Corridor Commuter Rail - Not Rated as it is exempt from New Starts, but funding has been appropriated. Line will open in 2006

Why is this "Not Rated"? This IS a new system, Nashville's first rail, so why is it exempt from new start status? anyone have an explination?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this "Not Rated"? This IS a new system, Nashville's first rail, so why is it exempt from new start status? anyone have an explination?

Because it does not meet the minimum amount ($100M - $150M) to trigger the New Start evaluation process. If it had, Nashville''s system would be caught up in federal paperwork rather than being under construction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would think that the Administration, and particularly Congress would see this trend that mass transit is becoming an important component for the viability of a region. Of course they have realized that transit is a component with previous transportation authorization (was it the 2000 legislation that began to diversify funding grants? or was it before? 1994?)

If there are more and more projects that are viying for scarce federal funding...then that should signal the Feds to allocate more funding for transit projects. Of course some can argue that transit funding should come locally since it does directly affect the regional economy, instead of nationally?

And as much cost as transit/highway projects are I would hope that maintenance of infrastructure would be encouraged more. Some highways, like I-95/I-295 reconstruction in Jacksonville, Florida and the I-85 corridor reconstruction in Durham, NC would be discouraged in future funding options, why rebuild when it is effective to maintain?

There's probably also a political element to that. Remember that most transit systems are built focused on inner cities which are largely democratic strongholds. As they don't serve the suburbs or rural areas (Republican strongholds) nearly as well, the current administration sees no political benefit to contributing. They wouldn't exactly be leaping over themselves to draw more people and concentrate them in the Democratic areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The head of the transportation department on the national level(can you tell I don't remember the person's title?) has approved 750 million dollars to help pay for light rail expansion in Seattle. The specific line is from downtown to the University of Washington via Capitol hill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.