|
Post by brady12 on Jun 9, 2021 2:49:40 GMT -8
I really hope they step up funding.
Realistically I think this country needs
200B in Mass Transit Rail alone 200B in HSR 100B in Road 50B in Bridges 100B in Airports 20B in Seaports 100B in Hospitals 150B in 5G and Broadband.
A number like 200B would allow every major rail project to be built. NY has 4 that need building. LA has by my count 5. Boston has 3. Chicago has 1. SF has 2. Austin has 2. Atlanta has 2. Think of what it would do ... the possibilities are endless. But I suppose this is fairytale
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 9, 2021 8:39:08 GMT -8
I really hope they step up funding. A number like 200B would allow every major rail project to be built. NY has 4 that need building. LA has by my count 5. Boston has 3. Chicago has 1. SF has 2. Austin has 2. Atlanta has 2. Think of what it would do ... the possibilities are endless. But I suppose this is fairytale Yes, but if you fund at that level all that will happen to the 200 billion is this 165 billion for outside consultants fees and salaries (nothin built for this 165 billion, possibly _Some_ designs could be made for 165 billion, but probably not) 15 billion for state agencies rubberstamping the consultant requests 20 billion for actual construction of mass transit. Now if we could get 200 billion with zero to consultants, then we'd get somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jul 29, 2021 13:39:25 GMT -8
Well it looks like the bipartisan bill with 39B for transit is probably going to pass the Senate. Whether it ultimately passes the House seems contigent on if the dems can get Sinema back onboard the separate reconciliation bill. As far as I'm aware, there is no additional money for transit in that bill, so if it does end up all passing the $39B for transit is all we'll have (and I'm not even sure how much of that is technically slated for transit expansion vs other things...Do we know if the small earmarks discussed earlier made it in as well?)
So if that's the size of the pot for the whole nation, how much does LA get? I have a hard time seeing us getting more than $5B or so at absolute most... I feel like at this point pretty much all the federal money that comes in from this will get sucked up into either the sepulveda or WSAB shortfall, with a slight chance the claremont/montclair stations and arts district stations could snag some as well. But seems there's very little chance that this will be in any way earth-shattering for LA.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 29, 2021 23:39:58 GMT -8
Well it looks like the bipartisan bill with 39B for transit is probably going to pass the Senate. Whether it ultimately passes the House seems contigent on if the dems can get Sinema back onboard the separate reconciliation bill. As far as I'm aware, there is no additional money for transit in that bill, so if it does end up all passing the $39B for transit is all we'll have (and I'm not even sure how much of that is technically slated for transit expansion vs other things...Do we know if the small earmarks discussed earlier made it in as well?) So if that's the size of the pot for the whole nation, how much does LA get? I have a hard time seeing us getting more than $5B or so at absolute most... I feel like at this point pretty much all the federal money that comes in from this will get sucked up into either the sepulveda or WSAB shortfall, with a slight chance the claremont/montclair stations and arts district stations could snag some as well. But seems there's very little chance that this will be in any way earth-shattering for LA. There is a 57-page summary here: www.cnn.com/2021/07/29/politics/read-bipartisan-plan-0729/index.htmlIn addition to $39 billion for transit, there is $66 billion for passenger and freight rail and $5 billion for a new “national infrastructure project grant” program, which could fund transit projects.
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Jul 30, 2021 3:00:11 GMT -8
This is just so embarrassing for this country. All these other countries build these massive projects that change so much for them and we pass what is supposed to be a major infrastructure package and that’s all that comes out of it for our mass transit systems? Just some rough estimates will tell you what some of these cities need: NYC: $40B; LA $30B; Boston $18B; SFBA $10B; Austin: $8B; Atlanta: $8B; Philly $5B; Seattle $8B. Imagine how much of a difference a package like this could have been? You could’ve had Sepulveda to LAX, Vermont, Crenshaw North, Orange Conversion all done in one fell swoop. And no one putting this bill together thought to step in and say wait a minute these projects need funding? PATHETIC
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 30, 2021 9:07:53 GMT -8
This is just so embarrassing for this country. All these other countries build these massive projects that change so much for them and we pass what is supposed to be a major infrastructure package and that’s all that comes out of it for our mass transit systems? Just some rough estimates will tell you what some of these cities need: NYC: $40B; LA $30B; Boston $18B; SFBA $10B; Austin: $8B; Atlanta: $8B; Philly $5B; Seattle $8B. Imagine how much of a difference a package like this could have been? You could’ve had Sepulveda to LAX, Vermont, Crenshaw North, Orange Conversion all done in one fell swoop. And no one putting this bill together thought to step in and say wait a minute these projects need funding? PATHETIC There's really no point funding transit at the scale you suggest with America's current consultant and project management cultures. If we've done nothing to address the runaway costs death spiral we're currently in with infrastructure we'll get very little additional for spending 200 billion instead of 40 billion. And 40 billion is only going to get us as much infrastructure as 10 billion would have gotten in 2008. If we threw 200 billion at the problem we will only accelerate the death spiral, we won't solve it. This is the bottom line on infrastructure to me: The minuscule value we will get from 40 billion is a far greater concern than the actual 40 billion number.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 30, 2021 9:38:49 GMT -8
How do we solve the problems?
What are the problems?
1. Scope creep
2. Over design
3. Over building
4. Consultant rent-seeking
5. Contractor rent-seeking
6. Project management asymmetries of labor and expertise
7. Political ignorance and/or corruption
8. Legislative requirements to take on a hundred years of deferred fixes in a project budget
And there's a hundred other causes. and these are all interactive too. 1 2 and 3 are caused by 4 5 and 6 and all six of those are in destructive death spiral negative feed back loops as a result.
7 is as old as time, universal and is never going to be corrected. It can only be minimized by empowering technocrats, but if technocrats are empowered 4 & 5 interact because they're then incentivized to aggressively pursue regulatory capture strategies, so the likely outcome of fighting corruption is the corruption just being moved around.
8 is more a matter of public sector disinvestment. When the blue line was constructed it had years of delays because at virtually every intersection, they uncovered utility issues, Legally they're required to both correct the problem and rebuild to a higher standard. Jurisdictional issues means that even though the rail construction budget has to pay to fix everyone else's clusterf**k mess, each utility has jurisdiction over that fix.
Utilities get to delay as much as they want--which is often just flexing--because there is no penalty for them delaying and no legislative mandate on them to expedite their oversight.
And because the utility gets a state of the art fix and the utility doesn't have to pay for it, they get to ask for the moon for every single fix and the rail construction has to do whatever they ask, they could fight back, but doing so generates more delays, so they usually just pay.
This is a pain in the ass when one utility delays every intersection by six weeks. it adds up to hundreds of millions of dollars in overages and years of delay when there are six to fourteen utilities all eagerly cashing in as much as possible.
So there's a possible fix for this last one. First would be requiring utilities to expedite issues uncovered by infrastructure projects and penalize the utilities heavily if they delay--This means basically an inspector general--utility executive jobs have to be on the line with mandatory oversight reviews and legislatively required executive firings if the utilities fail to hit minimum standards of cooperation with construction.
Second would be for utilities and project construction to share in the costs to implement upgrades and fix problems. No more blank checks.
Third would be for the IG to have a stringent focus on the standards so that they are maximally cost effective with value for the money. We want everything to be safe and quality but we do not want to overbuild every upgrade and fix with state of the art if it isn't necessary: because often the value earned from going from a 90% state of the art solution to a 100% state of the art solution is very minor and the costs can easily triple or quadruple to go the last little mile.
Utilities are a really good first step at reform because they are generally public sector and there's a lot of possibility to create a template that fixes the death spiral in utility relocation costs. That template could then be applied to addressing the tripartate 4 5 and 6 death spiral. There is also more appetite for utility reform in California right now, so it's possible that the annual trillions in PG&E caused wildfires could generate reform and we could get infrastructure oversight and reforms to ride along with the reforms that may happen because of the fires.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jul 31, 2021 14:15:27 GMT -8
So let’s talk about what’s actually available from state and federal sources and what might get funded.
The state surplus has $1B specifically for LA olympic project acceleration, which i have to imagine will be thrown to 28 for 28 projects. Then there’s another $1B for other transit and rail (statewide), and $500M for grade separation (statewide).
Federal bill has a paltry $8B for nation-wide capital investment grants for transit, and then that $5B general ‘national infrastructure project grant’ fund. In intercity rail, it has $16B for nationwide the amtrak network outside of the northeast (which gets $6B all on its own), plus a $5B pot for safety improvements on rail infrastructure.
So, let’s start with Amtrak. They want the surfliner electrified and the tracks to san diego straightened, which involves a tunnel. The latter is a safety issue (due to a collapsing bluff) and can pull from that $5B fund. The entire ask is $2-3B, and considering the surfliner is the busiest service left in that $16B pot, I think it’s highly likely this entire ask will get funded with federal dollars.
Metrolink has an $8B funding deficit on its expansion plans, and specifically wants $3-4B for electrification between burbank and anaheim, but i have a hard time seeing where that money comes from in the state or federal breakdowns right now. I would say it might get a tiny amount but its not looking good for fully funding any of its asks.
Metro has that guaranteed $1B from the state… but between other federal and state sources, I honestly have a hard time seeing Metro getting more than $2B more, at most. There will be SO much competition for that money. So that’s a measly $3B to metro, $1B of which would be slated for its 28 for 28 projects.
I think WSAB is probably first in line. If the MOS becomes just the green line to pioneer, the shortfall is only $650M and can be easily funded out of the state money. If it’s slauson-pioneer, the shortall is 2.15B and will eat up almost all of LA’s ask… which makes me think that Metro staff, in recommending alt 3, will probably also recommend it be phased in order to get something operating by 2028.
Sepulveda is a clear priority as well, although it’s hard to say how much additional money it will need since we know neither the mode (…sigh) or what a potential PPP funding split would be. But I would expect the second largest chunk to go toward sepulveda.
Both the centinela (ugh) and flower street junction grade separations could get some money out of that state $500M. Flower Street i imagine will need much more.
After that, it feels like the montclair extension, flower street grade separation (looking for additional cash), arts district station, green line platform extensions, and inglewood people mover will probably knife fight for the remaining scraps.
At the end of the day, I think the Surfliner and WSAB (for the short MOS) will be the big funding winners, and that Sepulveda is always bound to get the money it needs somehow. The rest may get some funds, but I doubt that anything else will find itself *fully* funded out of this money.
Thoughts?
EDIT: actually I think since there's no way sepulveda will be open by the olympics, the inglewood APM may be the lucky recipient of remaining $350M state money for LA after WSAB phase 1 takes its share... especially since those venues along the APM will be hosting olympic events.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 1, 2021 10:06:44 GMT -8
So let’s talk about what’s actually available from state and federal sources and what might get funded. The state surplus has $1B specifically for LA olympic project acceleration, which i have to imagine will be thrown to 28 for 28 projects. Then there’s another $1B for other transit and rail (statewide), and $500M for grade separation (statewide). Federal bill has a paltry $8B for nation-wide capital investment grants for transit, and then that $5B general ‘national infrastructure project grant’ fund. In intercity rail, it has $16B for nationwide the amtrak network outside of the northeast (which gets $6B all on its own), plus a $5B pot for safety improvements on rail infrastructure. So, let’s start with Amtrak. They want the surfliner electrified and the tracks to san diego straightened, which involves a tunnel. The latter is a safety issue (due to a collapsing bluff) and can pull from that $5B fund. The entire ask is $2-3B, and considering the surfliner is the busiest service left in that $16B pot, I think it’s highly likely this entire ask will get funded with federal dollars. Metrolink has an $8B funding deficit on its expansion plans, and specifically wants $3-4B for electrification between burbank and anaheim, but i have a hard time seeing where that money comes from in the state or federal breakdowns right now. I would say it might get a tiny amount but its not looking good for fully funding any of its asks. Metro has that guaranteed $1B from the state… but between other federal and state sources, I honestly have a hard time seeing Metro getting more than $2B more, at most. There will be SO much competition for that money. So that’s a measly $3B to metro, $1B of which would be slated for its 28 for 28 projects. I think WSAB is probably first in line. If the MOS becomes just the green line to pioneer, the shortfall is only $650M and can be easily funded out of the state money. If it’s slauson-pioneer, the shortall is 2.15B and will eat up almost all of LA’s ask… which makes me think that Metro staff, in recommending alt 3, will probably also recommend it be phased in order to get something operating by 2028. Sepulveda is a clear priority as well, although it’s hard to say how much additional money it will need since we know neither the mode (…sigh) or what a potential PPP funding split would be. But I would expect the second largest chunk to go toward sepulveda. Both the centinela (ugh) and flower street junction grade separations could get some money out of that state $500M. Flower Street i imagine will need much more. After that, it feels like the montclair extension, flower street grade separation (looking for additional cash), arts district station, green line platform extensions, and inglewood people mover will probably knife fight for the remaining scraps. At the end of the day, I think the Surfliner and WSAB (for the short MOS) will be the big funding winners, and that Sepulveda is always bound to get the money it needs somehow. The rest may get some funds, but I doubt that anything else will find itself *fully* funded out of this money. Thoughts? EDIT: actually I think since there's no way sepulveda will be open by the olympics, the inglewood APM may be the lucky recipient of remaining $350M state money for LA after WSAB phase 1 takes its share... especially since those venues along the APM will be hosting olympic events. I don’t have any thoughts on what project will get what funding, but here are comments on the funding availability: Keep in mind the $8 billion to the capital investment grants program is in addition to the normal funding level, which is about $2 billion per year. So it means giving them a $3.6 billion/year budget instead of $2 billion/year. The way the FTA gives out CIG grants, it would sign a deal for about $1 billion, but it actually pays that out over a decade, $100 million per year. So in the 2022 budget, they are paying $100 million for each of the Purple Line segments, a $300 million cost on their $2 billion budget, even trough each of those projects got a $1.2 to $1.3 billion CIG grant. Even without the infrastructure package, Metro would still be well-placed to get billion dollar CIG grants for their projects because of the way these grants are spread out and because these grants favor projects that have a lot of riders and have a strong local/state funding component. The transit stuff in the California budget is also in a one-year budget from a one-year surplus. There could also be surpluses in future years that lead to more transit funding. For state funding grants, unlike federal grants, there doesn’t seem to be a requirement that the project is fully funded before it receives the grant—WSAB received $300 million in a 2018 state TIRCP grant. catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/ctc-meetings/2020/2020-10/97-3-9.pdfMetro is pursuing a P3 for WSAB, which would mean a large part of any gap funding is filled up with private financing. The LAX People Mover project got about $1.6-$1.7 billion in private financing: www.infrapppworld.com/news/megaproject-1278-us-4-9-billion-automated-people-mover-p3-at-la-airport-achieves-financial-close
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 2, 2021 9:01:17 GMT -8
So let’s talk about what’s actually available from state and federal sources and what might get funded. The state surplus has $1B specifically for LA olympic project acceleration, which i have to imagine will be thrown to 28 for 28 projects. Then there’s another $1B for other transit and rail (statewide), and $500M for grade separation (statewide). Federal bill has a paltry $8B for nation-wide capital investment grants for transit, and then that $5B general ‘national infrastructure project grant’ fund. In intercity rail, it has $16B for nationwide the amtrak network outside of the northeast (which gets $6B all on its own), plus a $5B pot for safety improvements on rail infrastructure. So, let’s start with Amtrak. They want the surfliner electrified and the tracks to san diego straightened, which involves a tunnel. The latter is a safety issue (due to a collapsing bluff) and can pull from that $5B fund. The entire ask is $2-3B, and considering the surfliner is the busiest service left in that $16B pot, I think it’s highly likely this entire ask will get funded with federal dollars. Metrolink has an $8B funding deficit on its expansion plans, and specifically wants $3-4B for electrification between burbank and anaheim, but i have a hard time seeing where that money comes from in the state or federal breakdowns right now. I would say it might get a tiny amount but its not looking good for fully funding any of its asks. Metro has that guaranteed $1B from the state… but between other federal and state sources, I honestly have a hard time seeing Metro getting more than $2B more, at most. There will be SO much competition for that money. So that’s a measly $3B to metro, $1B of which would be slated for its 28 for 28 projects. I think WSAB is probably first in line. If the MOS becomes just the green line to pioneer, the shortfall is only $650M and can be easily funded out of the state money. If it’s slauson-pioneer, the shortall is 2.15B and will eat up almost all of LA’s ask… which makes me think that Metro staff, in recommending alt 3, will probably also recommend it be phased in order to get something operating by 2028. Sepulveda is a clear priority as well, although it’s hard to say how much additional money it will need since we know neither the mode (…sigh) or what a potential PPP funding split would be. But I would expect the second largest chunk to go toward sepulveda. Both the centinela (ugh) and flower street junction grade separations could get some money out of that state $500M. Flower Street i imagine will need much more. After that, it feels like the montclair extension, flower street grade separation (looking for additional cash), arts district station, green line platform extensions, and inglewood people mover will probably knife fight for the remaining scraps. At the end of the day, I think the Surfliner and WSAB (for the short MOS) will be the big funding winners, and that Sepulveda is always bound to get the money it needs somehow. The rest may get some funds, but I doubt that anything else will find itself *fully* funded out of this money. Thoughts? EDIT: actually I think since there's no way sepulveda will be open by the olympics, the inglewood APM may be the lucky recipient of remaining $350M state money for LA after WSAB phase 1 takes its share... especially since those venues along the APM will be hosting olympic events. I don’t have any thoughts on what project will get what funding, but here are comments on the funding availability: Keep in mind the $8 billion to the capital investment grants program is in addition to the normal funding level, which is about $2 billion per year. So it means giving them a $3.6 billion/year budget instead of $2 billion/year. The way the FTA gives out CIG grants, it would sign a deal for about $1 billion, but it actually pays that out over a decade, $100 million per year. So in the 2022 budget, they are paying $100 million for each of the Purple Line segments, a $300 million cost on their $2 billion budget, even trough each of those projects got a $1.2 to $1.3 billion CIG grant. Even without the infrastructure package, Metro would still be well-placed to get billion dollar CIG grants for their projects because of the way these grants are spread out and because these grants favor projects that have a lot of riders and have a strong local/state funding component. The transit stuff in the California budget is also in a one-year budget from a one-year surplus. There could also be surpluses in future years that lead to more transit funding. For state funding grants, unlike federal grants, there doesn’t seem to be a requirement that the project is fully funded before it receives the grant—WSAB received $300 million in a 2018 state TIRCP grant. catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/ctc-meetings/2020/2020-10/97-3-9.pdfMetro is pursuing a P3 for WSAB, which would mean a large part of any gap funding is filled up with private financing. The LAX People Mover project got about $1.6-$1.7 billion in private financing: www.infrapppworld.com/news/megaproject-1278-us-4-9-billion-automated-people-mover-p3-at-la-airport-achieves-financial-closeThe text of the draft bill is out: www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/e/a/ea1eb2e4-56bd-45f1-a260-9d6ee951bc96/F8A7C77D69BE09151F210EB4DFE872CD.edw21a09.pdfPages 2686-2687 makes it clear the $8 billion for capital investment grants is an additional $1.6 billion per year for 5 years. Given how the CIG funding is doled out, I wouldn't describe it as $8 billion going towards some small set of projects, but probably meaning that more projects that apply will be able to get grants. This report on CIG funding shows the types of projects that get these awards and the way the FTA doles it out to each project in $100m annual payments. www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2021-05/FY22-Annual-Report-on-Funding-Recommendations.pdfLA Metro recently has only applied for the highest scoring projects (Regional Connector, Purple Line). The ones that would score highly in the pipeline are WSAB and Sepulveda. Crenshaw North and Vermont would also score highly, except there isn't any local funding secured (and you need to have the local funding secured to apply). Metro staff recently did a report saying they wanted to only pursue CIG grants for WSAB and Sepulveda, so its not clear if they will change their tactics with increased CIG funding: metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4909619&GUID=7D1E9811-589B-413D-826F-FC5C68CEACA1&Options=ID%7CText%7CAttachments%7COther%7C&&FullText=1
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 2, 2021 10:50:04 GMT -8
Politico says California will get $9.4 billion in transit funding from the infrastructure bill:
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 2, 2021 12:16:26 GMT -8
So, let’s start with Amtrak. They want the surfliner electrified and the tracks to san diego straightened, which involves a tunnel. The latter is a safety issue (due to a collapsing bluff) and can pull from that $5B fund. The entire ask is $2-3B, and considering the surfliner is the busiest service left in that $16B pot, I think it’s highly likely this entire ask will get funded with federal dollars. Electrifying and Straightening surfliner will be the single greatest and best transit achievement in California history if it happens. Seriously, and without the slightest hesitation, I consider this a much bigger deal than CAHSR, and is likely to have ridership above CAHSR for the first thirty years that both are operating. if this gets funded, nothing else really matters because nothing is remotely as big a deal as this. Metrolink has a public meeting this month about their phase 1 and phase 2 SCORE plans for the Antelope valley line, I would say all the projects proposed are good candidates to get small annual federal CIG grants if the breadth of projects securing funding expands. Btw, metrolink is doing this public meeting because they decided to do an OPTIONAL environmental review of phase one that is no longer required by law, because old habits die hard. Participating in this public meeting and DEMANDING metrolink stop doing optional environmental reviews would be a good way to try and help them break that habit. Also you can weigh in on which platform options you like best on the proposed platform tweaks they're doing in phase 1, center or side. taking a cynical view of socal political history and applying it to this list: I would say Montclair extension is FIRST in line of all LA projects because for the foothill political community, both republicans and democrats have a forty year history of supporting foothill rail and have a sophisticated network in place to shepherd their foothill rail projects through federal approval. Downtown LA does not and the flower street grade separation will drop to last on your list. Arts district station is also a candidate for last because who's the champion? even metro doesn't want to do it. Only rail enthusiasts are lobbying for this. and it's a slam dunk but for the fact it lacks advocates. The Inglewood people mover has strong political backing and a substantive political network that's going to bludgeon it through. it's not the sophisticated glide Montclair will have to successful funding, but it will be muscled through regardless. Likely the same thing will happen for Centinela, but they really should just close Centinela at Warren Lane. Such, stupid, stupid thinking grade separating this. The Green Line platform extension, if Janice Hahn gets on board could tap a strong network. but this is likely a project orphaned without an advocate. If the inglewood/centinela boosters are worried about not being enough funds to go around, they will simply kill this outright and it completely dies.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 2, 2021 12:24:40 GMT -8
So, let’s start with Amtrak. They want the surfliner electrified and the tracks to san diego straightened, which involves a tunnel. The latter is a safety issue (due to a collapsing bluff) and can pull from that $5B fund. The entire ask is $2-3B, and considering the surfliner is the busiest service left in that $16B pot, I think it’s highly likely this entire ask will get funded with federal dollars. Electrifying and Straightening surfliner will be the single greatest and best transit achievement in California history if it happens. Seriously, and without the slightest hesitation, I consider this a much bigger deal than CAHSR, and is likely to have ridership above CAHSR for the first thirty years that both are operating. if this gets funded, nothing else really matters because nothing is remotely as big a deal as this. Metrolink has a public meeting this month about their phase 1 and phase 2 SCORE plans for the Antelope valley line, I would say all the projects proposed are good candidates to get small annual federal CIG grants if the breadth of projects securing funding expands. Btw, metrolink is doing this public meeting because they decided to do an OPTIONAL environmental review of phase one that is no longer required by law, because old habits die hard. Participating in this public meeting and DEMANDING metrolink stop doing optional environmental reviews would be a good way to try and help them break that habit. Also you can weigh in on which platform options you like best on the proposed platform tweaks they're doing in phase 1, center or side. taking a cynical view of socal political history and applying it to this list: I would say Montclair extension is FIRST in line of all LA projects because both republicans and democrats have a forty year history of supporting foothill rail and have a sophisticated network in place to shepherd their rail projects through federal approval. Downtown LA does not and the flower street grade separation will drop to last on your list. Arts district station is also a candidate for last because who's the champion? even metro doesn't want to do it. Only rail enthusiasts are lobbying for this. and it's a slam dunk but for the fact it lacks advocates. The Inglewood people mover has strong political backing and a substantive political network that's going to bludgeon it through. it's not the sophisticated glide Montclair will have to successful funding, but it will be muscled through regardless. Likely the same thing will happen for Centinela, but they really should just close Centinela at Warren Lane. Such, stupid, stupid thinking grade separating this. The Green Line platform extension, if Janice Hahn gets on board could tap a strong network. but this is likely a project orphaned without an advocate. If the inglewood/centinela boosters are worried about not being enough funds to go around, they will simply kill this outright and it completely dies. Antelope Valley Line will not get federal funding because it did not do a federal NEPA EIS. Foothill Extension also can't get it because they don't have a federal NEPA EIS. CIG funding is less based on political support and more based on how things will score under the federal grant formulas. There's been a lot of political support for the Foothill Gold Line, but it never got CIG funding because of the poor ridership. There was a staff report discussing the priorities for CIG funding, and they only focused on major lines: metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4909619&GUID=7D1E9811-589B-413D-826F-FC5C68CEACA1&Options=ID%7CText%7CAttachments%7COther%7C&&FullText=1
|
|
|
Post by andert on Aug 3, 2021 10:05:28 GMT -8
Politico says California will get $9.4 billion in transit funding from the infrastructure bill: Is this meant to be the breakdown of where the CIG funding is slated to go?
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 3, 2021 10:22:17 GMT -8
Politico says California will get $9.4 billion in transit funding from the infrastructure bill: Is this meant to be the breakdown of where the CIG funding is slated to go? Its locked behind a paywall, so its not clear what its about. The NYT reported that Chuck Schumer says NY will get $10.7 billion from the bill, so the numbers seem to fluctuate depending on what it includes or not. His summary seems to include CIG funding, as it mentions the Gateway Project and the Second Avenue Subway. www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/nyregion/nyc-mta-infrastucture-bill.html
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 3, 2021 11:04:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 3, 2021 11:18:54 GMT -8
CAHSR believes they can compete for $20-$30 billion in funds in the infrastructure bill.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Aug 3, 2021 12:40:44 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by andert on Aug 3, 2021 13:03:43 GMT -8
So, let’s start with Amtrak. They want the surfliner electrified and the tracks to san diego straightened, which involves a tunnel. The latter is a safety issue (due to a collapsing bluff) and can pull from that $5B fund. The entire ask is $2-3B, and considering the surfliner is the busiest service left in that $16B pot, I think it’s highly likely this entire ask will get funded with federal dollars. Electrifying and Straightening surfliner will be the single greatest and best transit achievement in California history if it happens. Seriously, and without the slightest hesitation, I consider this a much bigger deal than CAHSR, and is likely to have ridership above CAHSR for the first thirty years that both are operating. if this gets funded, nothing else really matters because nothing is remotely as big a deal as this. I would love this trip going down to 2hr so much. I visit friends in San Diego pretty often and almost always take the surfliner, and generally love the experience. It already beats driving to me, even if it takes a little longer, but if it becomes faster than driving even with clear traffic, much less during high-traffic times? That will funnel SO many people onto the train, and by extension onto the metro to get to and from union station.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Aug 4, 2021 8:31:39 GMT -8
One thing I still do not quite understand in the bill is the $19.15B of "increased contract authority" under transit funding:
"The transit title reflects an increase of 43% above baseline levels for contract authority, for $69.9 billion over the next five years. When combined with the supplemental appropriations of this section, this package provides an 83% increase for transit funding compared to FAST Act levels."
Been searching for an explanation of this and can't find it. That video doesn't really explain it either. Anyone have some insight?
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 4, 2021 12:43:11 GMT -8
One thing I still do not quite understand in the bill is the $19.15B of "increased contract authority" under transit funding: "The transit title reflects an increase of 43% above baseline levels for contract authority, for $69.9 billion over the next five years. When combined with the supplemental appropriations of this section, this package provides an 83% increase for transit funding compared to FAST Act levels." Been searching for an explanation of this and can't find it. That video doesn't really explain it either. Anyone have some insight? Here is an explanation (bottom of page 10 and the top of page 11 is the most relevant part): www.enotrans.org/wp-content/uploads/membersOnly-Origins_of_Contract_Authority_article.pdfIt is because Congress actually is supposed to fund the budget of the agencies each year. For example, every year, a budget is passed and in the budget they give the FTA around $2-3 billion or so for the CIG program. The way that the FTA is able to sign CIG grants for billions of dollars that will be doled out in future years (even though the budgets for those years won't be passed until later) is because they have "contract authority"--they received approval to enter into contracts up to a certain limit. Congress kind of guarantees that they will make sure they will fund the FTA in the later years so that it can fulfill its contracts.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 5, 2021 10:16:26 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by andert on Aug 5, 2021 16:09:18 GMT -8
I'm confused, does that mean that it's $9.45B of free money that wasn't there before to distribute to California transit projects? And if so, do those projects have the same requirements (some local funding, NEPA review, high score on various metrics) to be eligible for that money?
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 5, 2021 16:38:52 GMT -8
I'm confused, does that mean that it's $9.45B of free money that wasn't there before to distribute to California transit projects? And if so, do those projects have the same requirements (some local funding, NEPA review, high score on various metrics) to be eligible for that money? Formula funding is funding provided usually based on population, though I think some formula funding is also based on transit service hours/miles. Based on the wording, I think some of it is what is already a baseline that is expected to be given, and some of it is increased funding. This tweet lists the various formula funding program for transit, though it doesn’t compare it to the “normal” level of funding. It compares it to the House’s proposal:
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 5, 2021 16:45:27 GMT -8
I'm confused, does that mean that it's $9.45B of free money that wasn't there before to distribute to California transit projects? And if so, do those projects have the same requirements (some local funding, NEPA review, high score on various metrics) to be eligible for that money? Formula funding is funding provided usually based on population, though I think some formula funding is also based on transit service hours/miles. Based on the wording, I think some of it is what is already a baseline that is expected to be given, and some of it is increased funding. This tweet lists the various formula funding program for transit, though it doesn’t compare it to the “normal” level of funding. It compares it to the House’s proposal: This Metro funding sources guide might be helpful in explaining how Metro spends all the funds it receives and what it can spend it on: media.metro.net/2020/Metro-Funding-Sources-Guide-2020.pdf
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 5, 2021 19:06:20 GMT -8
Formula funding is funding provided usually based on population, though I think some formula funding is also based on transit service hours/miles. Based on the wording, I think some of it is what is already a baseline that is expected to be given, and some of it is increased funding. This tweet lists the various formula funding program for transit, though it doesn’t compare it to the “normal” level of funding. It compares it to the House’s proposal: This Metro funding sources guide might be helpful in explaining how Metro spends all the funds it receives and what it can spend it on: media.metro.net/2020/Metro-Funding-Sources-Guide-2020.pdfI've given up following this complicated discussion and look forward to andert's video summary. 😂
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 9, 2021 12:45:00 GMT -8
The rough details on the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill that will follow the bipartisan infrastructure bill are out. Basically, each of the Senate committees is told how much they can spend. www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/MEMORANDUM%20for%20Democratic%20Senators%20-%20FY2022%20Budget%20Resolution.pdfOverall, there won't be as much of a focus on transportation, but there are some bits in there that could lead to some transportation funding. The bits that could help fund transportation seems to be the following: The Banking Committee receives an instruction of $332 billion. ● Creation and preservation of affordable housing by making historic investments in programs like the Housing Trust Fund, HOME, the Capital Magnet Fund, and rural housing ● Improve housing affordability and equity by providing down payment assistance, rental assistance, and other homeownership initiatives ● Community investment, development and revitalization through initiatives like Community Land Trusts, investments in CDBG, zoning, land use, and transit improvements and creating healthy and sustainable housing● Public Housing Capital Investments and Sustainability The Commerce Committee receives an instruction of $83 billion. ● Investments in technology, transportation, and more● Research, manufacturing, and economic development ● Coastal resiliency, healthy oceans investments, including the National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund ● National Science Foundation research and technology directorate The Energy Committee receives an instruction of $198 billion. ● Clean Electricity Payment Program ● Consumer rebates to weatherize and electrify homes ● Financing for domestic manufacturing of clean energy and auto supply chain technologies (Metro has been trying to setup a railcar testing/manufacturing facility in LA County) ● Federal procurement of energy efficient materials ● Climate research ● Research infrastructure for DOE National Labs ● Hard Rock mining ● Department of Interior programs The Environment and Public Works Committee receives an instruction of $67 billion. ● Clean Energy Technology Accelerator that would fund low-income solar and other climate-friendly technologies ● Environmental justice investments in clean water affordability and access, healthy ports and climate equity ● EPA climate and research programs ● Federal investments in energy efficient buildings and green materials ● Appalachian Regional Commission and Economic Development Administration economic development and transition programs ● Investments in clean vehicles
● Methane polluter fee to reduce carbon emissions Finance Committee will be raising revenue (taxes), but they also mention creating "clean energy, manufacturing, and transportation tax incentives."
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 9, 2021 17:41:30 GMT -8
The rough details on the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill that will follow the bipartisan infrastructure bill are out. Basically, each of the Senate committees is told how much they can spend. www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/MEMORANDUM%20for%20Democratic%20Senators%20-%20FY2022%20Budget%20Resolution.pdfOverall, there won't be as much of a focus on transportation, but there are some bits in there that could lead to some transportation funding. The bits that could help fund transportation seems to be the following: The Banking Committee receives an instruction of $332 billion. ● Creation and preservation of affordable housing by making historic investments in programs like the Housing Trust Fund, HOME, the Capital Magnet Fund, and rural housing ● Improve housing affordability and equity by providing down payment assistance, rental assistance, and other homeownership initiatives ● Community investment, development and revitalization through initiatives like Community Land Trusts, investments in CDBG, zoning, land use, and transit improvements and creating healthy and sustainable housing● Public Housing Capital Investments and Sustainability The Commerce Committee receives an instruction of $83 billion. ● Investments in technology, transportation, and more● Research, manufacturing, and economic development ● Coastal resiliency, healthy oceans investments, including the National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund ● National Science Foundation research and technology directorate The Energy Committee receives an instruction of $198 billion. ● Clean Electricity Payment Program ● Consumer rebates to weatherize and electrify homes ● Financing for domestic manufacturing of clean energy and auto supply chain technologies (Metro has been trying to setup a railcar testing/manufacturing facility in LA County) ● Federal procurement of energy efficient materials ● Climate research ● Research infrastructure for DOE National Labs ● Hard Rock mining ● Department of Interior programs The Environment and Public Works Committee receives an instruction of $67 billion. ● Clean Energy Technology Accelerator that would fund low-income solar and other climate-friendly technologies ● Environmental justice investments in clean water affordability and access, healthy ports and climate equity ● EPA climate and research programs ● Federal investments in energy efficient buildings and green materials ● Appalachian Regional Commission and Economic Development Administration economic development and transition programs ● Investments in clean vehicles
● Methane polluter fee to reduce carbon emissions Finance Committee will be raising revenue (taxes), but they also mention creating "clean energy, manufacturing, and transportation tax incentives." This tweet from Jeff Davis say the reconciliation bill adds $35 billion for transportation: An earlier tweet of his says it is an extra $24 billion plus $60 billion:
|
|
|
Post by andert on Aug 9, 2021 18:38:43 GMT -8
I love this but why did it have to happen after I already did most of the animation. sigh.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 9, 2021 22:06:28 GMT -8
The rough details on the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill that will follow the bipartisan infrastructure bill are out. Basically, each of the Senate committees is told how much they can spend. www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/MEMORANDUM%20for%20Democratic%20Senators%20-%20FY2022%20Budget%20Resolution.pdfOverall, there won't be as much of a focus on transportation, but there are some bits in there that could lead to some transportation funding. The bits that could help fund transportation seems to be the following: The Banking Committee receives an instruction of $332 billion. ● Creation and preservation of affordable housing by making historic investments in programs like the Housing Trust Fund, HOME, the Capital Magnet Fund, and rural housing ● Improve housing affordability and equity by providing down payment assistance, rental assistance, and other homeownership initiatives ● Community investment, development and revitalization through initiatives like Community Land Trusts, investments in CDBG, zoning, land use, and transit improvements and creating healthy and sustainable housing● Public Housing Capital Investments and Sustainability The Commerce Committee receives an instruction of $83 billion. ● Investments in technology, transportation, and more● Research, manufacturing, and economic development ● Coastal resiliency, healthy oceans investments, including the National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund ● National Science Foundation research and technology directorate The Energy Committee receives an instruction of $198 billion. ● Clean Electricity Payment Program ● Consumer rebates to weatherize and electrify homes ● Financing for domestic manufacturing of clean energy and auto supply chain technologies (Metro has been trying to setup a railcar testing/manufacturing facility in LA County) ● Federal procurement of energy efficient materials ● Climate research ● Research infrastructure for DOE National Labs ● Hard Rock mining ● Department of Interior programs The Environment and Public Works Committee receives an instruction of $67 billion. ● Clean Energy Technology Accelerator that would fund low-income solar and other climate-friendly technologies ● Environmental justice investments in clean water affordability and access, healthy ports and climate equity ● EPA climate and research programs ● Federal investments in energy efficient buildings and green materials ● Appalachian Regional Commission and Economic Development Administration economic development and transition programs ● Investments in clean vehicles
● Methane polluter fee to reduce carbon emissions Finance Committee will be raising revenue (taxes), but they also mention creating "clean energy, manufacturing, and transportation tax incentives." The thing I linked to and quoted only listed the Senate committee instructions. I guess some House committees also get some say. The full text of the resolution says House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will decide on $60 billion in spending: www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HEN21B52.pdf
|
|