Light Rail Funding Hits Possible Snag

[ghettopalmetto]

Having lived in the DC area, expansion of Metrorail with a line to Dulles, a line to BWI, a line to Frederick, MD, and a line to Fredericksburg, VA is a worthy goal to pursue. It will get people out of their cars and on to the trains. Metrorail also need to run 24 hours. Metrorail is great to get from one place to another. Metrorail would be cheaper if they didn't want to build the Taj Mahal every time they built a station. The stations could be more austere and still serve the purpose.

Sure. Why not just build a Metro line all the way to Florida too? And maybe another one to Boston, and another one to Pittsburgh and one more to Chicago. Oooh, and my favorite idea, a Metro line to Rehoboth Beach!

I'm sorry that you place no value on public architecture. I would normally make some sort of Soviet crack, but Moscow has probably the finest subway stations in the world.

[Whitehouse]

Oh yes this is good. Go read it, again. Instead of just focusing on time saved en route to somewhere and costs as the primary ways to award federal funds for projects, the criteria is being made FAR more comprehensive and all-encompassing.

Okay, but if the review finds out that there's not enough people living near the proposed track who would use this mode of transport regularly, the project is in danger of becoming a white elephant. An investment that will never become a provitable enterprice. In reality the Channel tunnel between England and France is a connection like that. It ammassed too much debt during construction that it will take centuries to earn it's money back.

Any project like this is leaning strong on optimism, the believe that progress is around the corner. That said, a project like this could also be the catalist to urban redevelopment.

[ghettopalmetto]

Whitehouse neatly tied into the point that I was trying to make regarding the Washington Metro, which pertains to any light rail system constructed in Detroit.

You cannot build a capital-intensive, high-capacity mode in areas that will see primarily rush-hour usage. Why run a light rail train, with a capacity of over 200 people, every six minutes, to destinations that are only going to see peak hour traffic? It doesn't make sense from an operations or a capital standpoint.

If one looks at the Washington Metro system, the stations beyond the Beltway see very little use compared to those in the urban core, and at that, those outer stations see heavy usage only in the peak travel direction of rush hour. This means that for the vast majority of the day, those trains are running virtually empty to outer destinations.

Station access will define the performance of a so-called urban rail system. If one can walk, bike, or take a short bus ride to a station, the performance will be far greater than if access is required by private automobile. These "urban" forms of access help with creating adjacent development too, as transit riders will have ready access by foot to destinations instead of being surrounded by a sea of parking.

The livability requirements, I think, will require new projects to fit this urban model so that we're not spending billions of dollars on white elephant projects.

[Mikeg]

Okay, but if the review finds out that there's not enough people living near the proposed track who would use this mode of transport regularly, the project is in danger of becoming a white elephant.

The old criteria basically rewarded those proposed projects that have the potential to get the most folks out of their cars and into the proposed transit system [[reduced commute time) for the least amount of dollars. That's a step above just blindly swallowing projected ridership estimates that tend to be more dependent on the number of people living near the proposed track. Now, there will be additional criteria that can be considered by the feds when awarding federal funds to the most worthy transit proposals. The applicants will now be able to include estimates of the positive "livability" impacts they anticipate [[and you can bet that any potential negative impacts will be ignored).

While ghettopalmetto may be right when he states that "the new criteria will be spelled out in FTA policy" and "all applications for federal transit funding are subject to federal review for compliance with the funding criteria", any such review is prior to award. There is no penalty for missing the projected costs and benefits once a project is awarded federal funds. Many of us remember how the Detroit People Mover came in with a 50 percent cost overrun and a ridership that was 80 percent less than projected. [[1)

[ghettopalmetto]

Mikeg, the "penalty" is that cost overruns are covered by the states and localities, as Virginia is already finding out with the cost increases on the Dulles Metro line [[funded under the old criteria).

There's nothing "blind" about the new criteria. Ridership estimates will still have to be developed, and I may add that this estimating has become far more reliable and accurate since the DPM was constructed. Most new light rail systems project ridership far below what it actually ends up being once the system opens, as in Minneapolis and Houston.

Now, this may be news to some people, but the old criteria is bunk, simply because as long as there is available roadway capacity, transit isn't going to "take people out of cars". For every person who leaves his car behind and takes transit, there's another person who sees a less congested roadway and rushes to fill that space with his vehicle. That's not political--that's just the reality of our system of a heavily-subsidized system of driving, or what economists call a "free good". On top of that, the old criteria doesn't account for those already taking transit, or who do not own automobiles, that will benefit greatly by enhanced transit service. Think about it. Does it make sense to measure the effectiveness of New York's Second Avenue Subway by the number of cars it takes off the road?

[tkelly1986]

Does anyone have a map of what the People Mover was supposed to look like? I understand that the loop was supposed to have feeder lines going out of downtown. I assume there was a plan developed, but have never seen one.

[Mikeg]

the "penalty" is that cost overruns are covered by the states and localities,

Given your use of quote marks around the word, I take it you are agreeing with me that there is no penalty for accepting federal money based on overinflated cost/benefit projections.

[ghettopalmetto]

Given your use of quote marks around the word, I take it you are agreeing with me that there is no penalty for accepting federal money based on overinflated cost/benefit projections.

It's not a hard penalty, in that money wouldn't need to be repaid to the federal government.

Again, the process is designed to ensure that certain cost/benefit criteria are met, and the benefits have been underestimated time and again on construction of new rail systems in the U.S.. Once the federal money is awarded, that's it. The federal government doesn't cover cost overruns.

No one is proposing to eliminate cost/benefit analyses, construction cost estimates, and ridership projections. Transit has historically been held to higher scrutiny than highway projects with regard to federal funding. This is a step to equalize that imbalance by recognizing that transit has a greater effect than simply "taking cars off the road".

Of course, if you know of any recent rail projects that have "overinflated" their cost/benefit analysis in order to obtain federal funding, I'm sure you'd be happy to share those with us.

I'm curious to know if you hold highway projects to the same level of scrutiny.

[dtowncitylover]

I have a commuter rail question.

The railway near me is owned by Canadian National. This is the tracks between Detroit and Pontiac, the ones Amtrak uses. If CN wanted to, like Grand Trunk back in the day and SEMTA, could they implement their own private commuter rail between Detroit and Pontiac?

[hudkina]

Of course they could. However, they never would because it would be unprofitable. It also messes with their freight schedules.

[dtowncitylover]

Two things I learned while reading SEMTA's Annual Report from the late 70s and early 80s:

-The plan to get light rail was first to be built upon Woodward to go to the Boulevard, along Gratiot at least to the Ford Fwy, and along Michigan Ave. to the city limits. The People Mover was to be the downtown loop, unconnected to the light rail.
-SEMTA had plans to extend commuter rail service to Ann Arbor and Mt. Clemens. The proposed stations were: for Mt. Clemens: Warren, Roseville, Fraser, and Mt. Clemens. And for Ann Arbor: Dearborn, Inkster, Wayne, Canton, Ypsi, and AA.
-I think the reason for the current plan to extend light rail to 11 Mile on Woodward is because that was in the original plan.

Reading all these reports one can get that they were so hopeful of achieving greater mass transportation for the region. It's just too bad the Big 3 and politicians got in the way. Had all this been built or upgraded, I don't think Detroit would be in the wreck it's in.

[Russix]

Trying to cross 8 Mile is what killed it. That's why the City's modernized version of this plan stopped there. The city would have still been wrecked by the 1980's like most other cities, the difference being that if this had been built it would have recovered alot faster then its current trickle.