Quote:
Originally Posted by numble
If you get funds for this project, you can only get 25% federal funding for this project. Metro is probably seeking 40-50% federal funding if they ever seek federal funds for Purple, Sepulveda, WSAB, Vermont or Crenshaw.
|
Not the same program, but the Obama-era TIGER program worked in a similar way. That program was designed to channel money directly from the executive branch to municipal governments so as to circumvent obstructionism by Republican-controlled state governments.
However, the city where I live elected a Tea Party Democrat (yes, such a thing existed) and he wasted the TIGER grant applications on pet projects for his rich donors. None of the projects had any chance of winning (he actually submitted a vehicular bridge proposal with no bike or public transportation feature for a federal grant aimed at...bikes and public transportation), but he got to tell his donors that "he tried".
The problem with the way rail is funded in the United States since about 1980 is that the selection process has favored light rail that uses existing ROW's (like the Expo Line). With 30 years of hindsight, we know that light railways have failed to transform any U.S. city, even Portland and Dallas, where they have built very large networks.
Traditional subways, by contrast, can and do completely transform cities when built on a large scale, but we only have two postwar examples in the United States - Washington and San Francisco.
I was in Miami last weekend for the first time in 20 years and the Metrorail system, despite being completely grade separated and very fast, has failed to significantly shape that city in the 40 years that it has been in operation. Miami Beach, which has no rail transit, is somehow significantly more dense than Miami, which does.