 |
Re: Trump wants to kill Gateway Tunnel project-This too shall pass......
Author: BOB2
Date: 03-04-2018 - 07:46
As you know, FTA rates everything low to medium lately, because they have no money, either. I used the FTA criteria on a number of high performing projects, which never rated above low to medium....
The FTA "rating" of cost effectiveness is actually a good process for weeding out the real turkey's. But, the last time I used it was to look at the potential for FTA funding for the UP/West Santa Ana branch LRT, which had a cost of 2-3 billion depending on the alternatives into Downtown LA, but which the modeling predicted would carry 90,000 daily riders, and it was only rated as "medium" in cost effectiveness. It is actually more of a "ranking" system and IIRC UP/WSAB was "ranked" 43rd against "similar" projects in the US.
The only LA projects that were ranked above medium lately, were the Purple line extension and the cross town LRT connector, which are still well over half locally funded projects. And, it is a highly subjective "ranking" system, since Utah miraculously got a higher "ranking" for having two "Senators" and the "Olympics", for LRT projects that don't carry what just the Gold line does, in Salt Lake.
There is no likelihood of any significant new Federal transit funding any time soon in the current political environment. In LA, we will have already spent 90% local funds on the transit system, with some for the original Red Line, some for the Purple Line extension, and some for the cross town connector, with significant local "overmatch", being the only regional projects receiving any significant Federal funding. All of Expo, Blue, Green, Gold (all extensions), and Crenshaw lines have used 100% local funding on construction of the lines.
We really have no real national "Federal" transportation or infrastructure policy any more. We haven't had a "real" national transportation "policy" since Eisenhower actually funded and built the interstates.
The FTA "rating" of cost effectiveness is actually a good process for weeding out the real turkey's. But, the last time I used it was to look at the potential for FTA funding for the UP/West Santa Ana branch LRT, which had a cost of 2-3 billion depending on the alternatives into Downtown LA, but which the modeling predicted would carry 90,000 daily riders, and it was only rated as "medium" in cost effectiveness. It is actually more of a "ranking" system and IIRC UP/WSAB was "ranked" 43rd against "similar" projects in the US.
The only LA projects that were ranked above medium lately, were the Purple line extension and the cross town LRT connector, which are still well over half locally funded projects. And, it is a highly subjective "ranking" system, since Utah miraculously got a higher "ranking" for having two "Senators" and the "Olympics", for LRT projects that don't carry what just the Gold line does, in Salt Lake.
There is no likelihood of any significant new Federal transit funding any time soon in the current political environment. In LA, we will have already spent 90% local funds on the transit system, with some for the original Red Line, some for the Purple Line extension, and some for the cross town connector, with significant local "overmatch", being the only regional projects receiving any significant Federal funding. All of Expo, Blue, Green, Gold (all extensions), and Crenshaw lines have used 100% local funding on construction of the lines.
We really have no real national "Federal" transportation or infrastructure policy any more. We haven't had a "real" national transportation "policy" since Eisenhower actually funded and built the interstates.
