LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[202_Cyclist]

Westsidelife-- this is from a friend who use to work at FTA:

"Sure, for example Roaring Forks Area Rapid Transit got a New Starts grant in addition to it's regular allotment from the Urbanized Area Formula (5307 funds) program. How they use those funds is up to the community so long as they're used as they were intended. it's important to note that FTA gives grants based on the census data as divided among the nation's urbanized areas (UZA). Sometimes funds are transferred from one UZA to another.

Also, FTA gave a Full Funding Grant Agreement plus 5307 funds to Salt Lake which was used for light rail and commuter rail. Salt Lake made heavy investments in their own system which FTA appreciated and therefore was able to work with them to accomplish what the community wanted. "

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

^ Any chance of repealing the Prop A and C ban?

Not in the near future.

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

FTA gave a Full Funding Grant Agreement plus 5307 funds to Salt Lake which was used for light rail and commuter rail. Salt Lake made heavy investments in their own system which FTA appreciated and therefore was able to work with them to accomplish what the community wanted. "

Westside, I think we're going to be in good shape and passing Measure R and then getting the Long Range Transit Plan passed will make a huge impact to DC that LA has it's act together.

However a strategy that I could see Metro going with these two projects and it's mentioned in the Regional Connector ridership counts is that about the Red/Purple Line boardings will drop by 7-9K overall because those passengers will shift to using the Regional Connector to make their trips. By that reduction (though small it may seem) of that ridership on the Red/Purple subway combination Downtown frees-up the needed capacity to extend the subway westward. So the Regional Connector is needed to reduce the true potential of overloading and travel inbalance in the Downtown portion of the subway which reduces the ability to have capacity outside of Downtown such as those Metrolink riders using the Purple Line extension to reach Westwood or Century City.

This is the same factor in some of New York's projects that they are cohesively used to relieve needed congestion on the existing part of the network.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Wright Concept

Not in the near future.

Then I don't see how we will be able to fund the West Hollywood and Santa Monica subways. Measure R doesn't cover them and we can't use Prop A & C money. There's no local money to show for.

[Quixote]

I'm convinced that the FTA rule I spoke of earlier is now null and void. Take a look at this...

http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/appor...cing_7790.html (#13)
http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/appor...cing_9562.html (#11)

Many MSAs got New Starts funds for multiple projects. New York, especially, got hefty sums. The Second Avenue Subway...

http://search.google.dot.gov/FTA/FTA...&btnSearch.y=0 (see first source)

... is more or less the same cost as the Westside Subway and is getting $1.3 billion in New Starts. Pretty reassuring, no?

Finally, another interesting tidbit I found...

Match: The statutory match for New Starts funding is 80 percent Federal, 20 percent local. However, FTA continues to encourage project sponsors to request a Federal New Starts funding share that is as low as possible. The Congressional Conference Report that accompanied the FY 2002 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act instructs “FTA not to sign any new full funding grant agreements after September 30, 2002 that have a maximum Federal share of higher than 60 percent.”

So, it looks like we are entitled to up to 60% in federal funding, as opposed to 50% (what you told me, Wright!).

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

I'm convinced that the FTA rule I spoke of earlier is now null and void. Take a look at this...

http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/appor...cing_7790.html (#13)
http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/appor...cing_9562.html (#11)

Many MSAs got New Starts funds for multiple projects. New York, especially, got hefty sums. The Second Avenue Subway...

http://search.google.dot.gov/FTA/FTA...&btnSearch.y=0 (see first source)

... is more or less the same cost as the Westside Subway and is getting $1.3 billion in New Starts. Pretty reassuring, no?

What percentage of that funding is for the project.

"Federal Transit Administrator Jim Simpson was joined today at Grand Central Station by members of the congressional delegation and state and local leaders to sign a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA), which gives assurance that the federal government will provide its share—$1.3 billion, or 27 percent—of the $4.9 billion Second Avenue Subway Phase I project over a seven-year period."

Finally, another interesting tidbit I found...

Match: The statutory match for New Starts funding is 80 percent Federal, 20 percent local. However, FTA continues to encourage project sponsors to request a Federal New Starts funding share that is as low as possible. The Congressional Conference Report that accompanied the FY 2002 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act instructs “FTA not to sign any new full funding grant agreements after September 30, 2002 that have a maximum Federal share of higher than 60 percent.”

So, it looks like we are entitled to up to 60% in federal funding, as opposed to 50% (what you told me, Wright!).

http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/news...ment_9063.html

That 60% is if a project has a Medium-High to High FTA cost-effectiveness rating.
Regional Connector (subway only) FTA rating is at $18-19
Wilshire Subway to Westwood FTA rating at $23-24

These two projects are at Medium rating based on the first chart, the second chart tells us that a medium rating project will require at least 50% Local/State matches to get the conversation going.

These two charts summarizes the relationship between FTA rating and % grant match potential.

Originally Posted by FTA 1st Chart

Table II-2 Cost Effectiveness Breakpoints

• High $11.99 and under
• Medium-High $12.00 - $15.49
• Medium $15.50 - $23.99
• Medium-Low $24.00 - $29.99
• Low $30.00 and over

Originally Posted by FTA 2nd Chart

The summary local financial commitment rating considers the non-Section 5309 New Starts funding share of project capital costs. The following ratings are assigned to this criterion:

• >60 percent = Low rating

• 50-60 percent = Medium rating

• 35-49 percent = Medium-High rating

• < 35 percent = High rating

FTA rates the capital and operating finance plans according to the standards defined in Tables III-1 and III-2 on the following pages. Additional detail on FTA’s process for rating local financial commitment is contained in its Guidelines and Standards for Assessing Local Financial Commitment.

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

Then I don't see how we will be able to fund the West Hollywood and Santa Monica subways. Measure R doesn't cover them and we can't use Prop A & C money. There's no local money to show for.

But let's be honest how soon do you think these projects will get started in construction, the projected EIR's will be completed around 2010-2011? If we do need another voter measure to finance transit projects let's say in 2012, 2014 or 2016 (when a couple Measure R projects are under construction or successful completion and operation) repealling Prop A and C ban on Subways could be part of the program.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Wright Concept

What percentage of that funding is for the project.

"Federal Transit Administrator Jim Simpson was joined today at Grand Central Station by members of the congressional delegation and state and local leaders to sign a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA), which gives assurance that the federal government will provide its share—$1.3 billion, or 27 percent—of the $4.9 billion Second Avenue Subway Phase I project over a seven-year period."

We got 55% for Gold Line Eastside II. I don't know exactly how the procedure works; it's always been fuzzy to me. The point I was trying to make is that the FTA is obviously willing to make such a large FFGA commitment for a very important project such as the SAS. I don't see why they wouldn't do the same for the WS.

http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/news...ment_9063.html

That 60% is if a project has a Medium-High to High FTA cost-effectiveness rating. If the project is getting by on a medium we'll need 50% Local/State matches to get the conversation going. These two charts summarizes the relationship between FTA rating and % grant match potential.

I was going to ask you what the FTA rating was for WS (MOS #3) and RC. I've always assumed that they were at least Medium-High.

[Quixote]

FTA 2nd Chart...

Yeah, I saw that too. Doesn't it basically mean that the higher the rating, the less local funds you need to show?

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

FTA 2nd Chart...

Yeah, I saw that too. Doesn't it basically mean that the higher the rating, the less local funds you need to show?

Yes. It does. But what rating do our projects have?

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

We got 55% for Gold Line Eastside II. I don't know exactly how the procedure works; it's always been fuzzy to me. The point I was trying to make is that the FTA is obviously willing to make such a large FFGA commitment for a very important project such as the SAS. I don't see why they wouldn't do the same for the WS.

The original percentage was 50% of the subway project to go to 1st/Lorena which had a medium rating but when Prop A and C ban on subway funding passed, they had to replace the project with the LRT and used that federal $$$ to pay for the subway tunnel. If Prop A and C weren't so bulletproof I think this project would not have happened because the Feds would have pulled the money out and re-allocated it like they did for the original Mid-City subway extension to Pico/San Vicente.

I was going to ask you what the FTA rating was for WS (MOS #3) and RC. I've always assumed that they were at least Medium-High.

FTA Rating value for Regional Connector
FTA rating value for Purple Line to Westwood

[Quixote]

^ You edited your post after I quoted you.

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

^ You edited your post after I quoted you.

Because I knew that question was going to be asked.

[Quixote]

Judy Chu Highlights Metro Board Meeting, Still No Answers from Metro

By Albert
September 25, 2009

Get a nice good look at that image above. Take your time. Print it. Analyze it. Maybe even write notes on it – that big green blob over New York has plenty space to write on, but not Los Angeles. See anything awfully wrong and off with that image?

The Metro Board of Directors did, and yesterday they held their monthly Board meeting – with one of its main focuses on a new federal funding agreement Metro is hoping to pursue with the U.S. Department of Transportation. Metro’s current federal funding agreement netted the agency $491 million for the construction of the Gold Line Eastside Extension (NOT Foothill Extension, just to clarify). And with the last batch of federal dollars from that agreement coming in this year, Metro has had its sights set on pursuing funds from the New Starts program for the Subway to the Sea and Regional Connector.

At yesterday’s meeting, Metro staff reported that the county faces the prospect of losing out on hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government, starting in 2011, if they do not pursue any local rail projects for the New Starts program (at this point, the Metro Board had not formally recognized the Subway and Regional Connector as their choices). The comments that followed from the Board and staff were no less grim. Chairman Ara Najarian stated, “we are terribly underfunded as a region.” Using the old use-visuals-for-greater-effect method, Metro staff presented a map (see image above) of the FY2010 projection for New Starts funding throughout the nation – which saw many other (and some less populous) cities having federal funds that dwarfed the amount for Los Angeles County. Metro staff jokingly referred to the New Starts program as the “New York” program, seeing as the east coast region is set to receive nearly half of all the federal funds from New Starts. And in facing this situation, the Board unanimously voted to direct Metro CEO Art Leahy to pursue a federal funding agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation to construct the Subway to the Sea and Regional Connector.

So now Chairman Najarian is going to send a few delegates to Washington to test the waters, and the county isn’t going to lose out on hundreds of millions of federal dollars right? This would’ve been an easy question to answer were it not for a small detail Metro staff had potentially used in error.

That error was brought to light at the meeting courtesy of a representative from Congresswoman Judy Chu’s office – who pointed out during public comment that Metro’s staff had given an unrealistic timeframe of 3 years to receive federal funding for the Subway and Regional Connector. In fact, it takes 7-10 years for rail projects from the beginning to receive federal money. Judy Chu’s office proposed Phase 2B (Azusa to Montclair) of the Foothill Extension as a project that is further ahead in the pipeline than the Subway or Regional Connector, and one that could receive federal funds in as soon as 5 years. Seeing as how the Foothill Extension has had much more Congressional work done on its behalf, this wouldn’t be surprising. Judy Chu’s office stated:

“We need a federal strategy that truly leverages the billions of dollars being raised by Measure R and gives the county the most bang for its buck. If the Gold Line Foothill and East Side extensions and Crenshaw Line are excluded from entering the federal process, myself and the rest of the local Congressional Delegation will very literally have our hands tied from helping meet our community’s transit needs.”

So our question before the meeting was: how is the Foothill Extension going to get its federal money? After the meeting, that question still stands. However, it was alluded to during the meeting that Metro would try to find other sources of federal money for the extension. We’ll see.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Wright Concept

Because I knew that question was going to be asked.

You're quite the practical visionary.

[Quixote]

Rendering of the proposed AnsaldoBreda
manufacturing and assembly plant at
Washington and Santa Fe.

Rail Car Approval Means Manufacturing Plant at Washington and Santa Fe

By Eric Richardson
September 25, 2009

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Despite serious concerns about AnsaldoBreda's past performance, Metro's Board of Directors yesterday decided to approve a $300 million contract with the firm for new rail cars.

That's a big win for the Mayor and the Community Redevelopment Agency, both of which have been counting on the firm as an anchor tenant for their proposed Cleantech Manufacturing Center just southeast of Downtown.

The Italian rail firm has pledged to construct a manufacturing and assembly facility on the site, located near Washington and Santa Fe. In a press release sent out yesterday after the vote, CRA said that the facility would create over 1,000 jobs, roughly 70% of them permanent.

The Manufacturing Center site is a former brownfield that once housed Crown Coach's school bus manufacturing facility. 14 of its 20 acres will be occupied by AnsaldoBreda, though some of that land is surface parking that could be reclaimed for future development.

The Metro Board twice postponed a decision on the rail car contract, claiming that vehicles the company had delivered were 6,000 pounds overweight, used too much electricity and were behind schedule.

[Wright Concept]

That error was brought to light at the meeting courtesy of a representative from Congresswoman Judy Chu’s office – who pointed out during public comment that Metro’s staff had given an unrealistic timeframe of 3 years to receive federal funding for the Subway and Regional Connector. In fact, it takes 7-10 years for rail projects from the beginning to receive federal money.

Judy Chu’s office proposed Phase 2B (Azusa to Montclair) of the Foothill Extension as a project that is further ahead in the pipeline than the Subway or Regional Connector, and one that could receive federal funds in as soon as 5 years. Seeing as how the Foothill Extension has had much more Congressional work done on its behalf, this wouldn’t be surprising. Judy Chu’s office stated:

“We need a federal strategy that truly leverages the billions of dollars being raised by Measure R and gives the county the most bang for its buck. If the Gold Line Foothill and East Side extensions and Crenshaw Line are excluded from entering the federal process, myself and the rest of the local Congressional Delegation will very literally have our hands tied from helping meet our community’s transit needs.”

So our question before the meeting was: how is the Foothill Extension going to get its federal money? After the meeting, that question still stands. However, it was alluded to during the meeting that Metro would try to find other sources of federal money for the extension. We’ll see.

She's being slightly dishonest here. It does take time to get the funding inline but 7-10 years is not the case once the FEIR are done. It takes less time than that, Foothill Gold Line will still need to get its EIR cleared by the Metro Board which is will be the lead agency that will be in charge of managing whatever Federal Funds we recieve.

The Metro Board will still need to approve the Foothill Gold Line in it's LRTP. Couple this information with the fact that Congress is delaying the next new Starts funding cycle 18 months to 2011 to re-evaluate some things, by 2011 the FEIR for the Regional Connector and Wilshire Subway towards the Ocean will have been completed.

What is the cost-effectiveness of Crenshaw LRT or BRT?
Not within that Medium level.

What about Eastside Phase 2?
Rating is poor based on current projects completed, it will need Regional Connector and Wilshire Subway to work.

What about Foothill Gold Line from Pasadena to Azusa ?
(Revised, refer to Table 5-13)
The cost-effectiveness is Medium to Azusa only, past Azusa to Montclair the cost-effectiveness drops to a borderline Medium/Medium-Low. I will note that these values do NOT include the full cost of the Heavy Maintainance Facility that will be needed to operate, store and fix LRV's, add about $100-140M to the cost and that will adjust the FTA cost-effectiveness ratings to lower levels because we've increased costs but not added any ridership. Also the costs of the project appear very low since it is in (2005$).

All of these other projects have funding with Measure R and given the funding cycle for FTA is within a 6 year window, what is to say that they won't pursue the Eastside Phase 2 or other projects once the other pieces are built to help that cost-effectiveness for the next FTA funding window?

So what this boils down to is Judy Chu only thinking about the Foothill Gold Line and chucking the other projects as a lap-dog.

[Quixote]

^ Good to know. What about Expo II? It doesn't need the Regional Connector, as it already has a Medium rating. If it's not pursuing New Starts and the Westside Subway and Regional Connector are hogging up the Measure R money, how will we fund the project? Through Prop A & C?

That prompts me to ask you a question you've left unanswered twice. In what fashion do we plan on distributing the Measure R funds? As you know, Measure R only reserves 35% ($14 billion) for rail expansion. Are we simply going to take 35% of the revenue generated each fiscal year, or are we going to prioritize and just deduct from that $14 billion pot? For instance, in the interest of jump-starting both the Westside Subway and Regional Connector, we could take the approximately $3 billion generated in the first three years and dedicate it solely to those two projects, but that would mean delaying other improvements (such as highways).

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

Posting just for the sake of posting. Notice at 2:09 there's what looks like an additional station north of Hollywood/Highland. Of course, it could just be a station with a tunnel connecting to Hollywood/Highland. It probably has something to do with the Pink Line platform being directly underneath the existing station.

EDIT: It's a station at the Hollywood Bowl. Nice.

• Video Link

From the video...



The Fairfax option...


From The Transit Coalition, by Dan Wentzel

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

^ Good to know. What about Expo II? It doesn't need the Regional Connector, as it already has a Medium rating. If it's not pursuing New Starts and the Westside Subway and Regional Connector are hogging up the Measure R money, how will we fund the project? Through Prop A & C?

Through Prop A and C and Measure R funding. Through Measure R there is a projected allocation of $925M for the project.

That prompts me to ask you a question you've left unanswered twice. In what fashion do we plan on distributing the Measure R funds? As you know, Measure R only reserves 35% ($14 billion) for rail expansion. Are we simply going to take 35% of the revenue generated each fiscal year, or are we going to prioritize and just deduct from that $14 billion pot? For instance, in the interest of jump-starting both the Westside Subway and Regional Connector, we could take the approximately $3 billion generated in the first three years and dedicate it solely to those two projects, but that would mean delaying other improvements (such as highways).

I didn't leave it answered, my response was that I wasn't 100% sure. It does me no good to give mis-information. As of now some of the answer is still a tad murky.

Part of how they will allocate the money is based on priority(if projects completed the EIR and the potential to leverage Federal Funds), the other piece is that within Measure R there is a dedicated amount of projected funds for the projects that are guaranteed. The monies are also based upon regional area. Such as the Foothill Gold Line has $735M that is spent for that project any cost savings for the project can not get thrown in the general pot, it stays in the regional area which would be the San Gabriel Valley.

For the Regional Connector, under Measure R they only allocated $160 M for that project, if they want to accelerate it they will need to come with another source of funding to do it (Federal New Starts and bonding against future Measure R transit revenues) the Highway money can't get touched here, unless there is a change in the language acted upon by the State Assembly, which is one of the provisions written in Measure R.

Part of what they are working out within the discussion of the Long Range Transit plan are what is the procedure for doing that within Measure R, that needs to be finalized.

[Quixote]

^ Of course the leftover funds must stay within their respective regions. But the Measure R plan was drafted strictly with the intent of pursuing federal dollars, so there are bound to be leftovers. Do you think that's one way we could fund the subway extensions to West Hollywood and Santa Monica, the second leg to Claremont, etc.?