Posted on 01/12/2005 4:50:07 PM PST by Phantom Lord
Feds hit brakes on rail money
A federal agency questions the assumed benefits of commuter rail in the Triangle.
The Federal Transit Administration has changed its rating of the Triangle's proposed commuter rail service from "recommended" to neutral, saying it cannot endorse the $695 million project until it resolves new doubts about its benefits.
The Triangle Transit Authority, which hopes to start running commuter trains in 2008, is counting on federal funding to cover 61 percent of the system's cost. Without that money, the project is dead.
Federal officials are not questioning how fast TTA trains will run or how many people will ride them. Instead, they are skeptical about how slow the alternatives would be.
They told the TTA in late November that they didn't think the region's highways would be as choked with traffic in 2030 -- with cars and buses moving at a snail's pace -- as local transportation planners have predicted.
"They were saying things like, 'unbelievable, beyond comprehension' " about the local planners' projections, Don S. Carnell, TTA assistant general manager, told TTA trustees Tuesday.
If the federal agency decides the benefits are not worth the cost of building the tracks and operating the trains, it will issue a "not recommended" rating. That would set the Triangle project back at least a year; the TTA would have to overhaul its proposal and try again for federal approval in 2006.
TTA officials said they would try to regain their "recommended" rating by mid-March, in time to stay on schedule with major construction and spending planned for this year.
"It could be a schedule delay, but I don't think anybody should interpret it as anything other than that," said Carter Worthy of Raleigh, chairman of the TTA trustees. "It's an issue to be worked out, and there have been hundreds of them, believe me."
The authority hopes in March to award the first major construction contract for a train operation and maintenance yard near Research Triangle Park. Also in March, it will reach a deadline on its option to buy 32 rail cars for $90 million. Federal approval is needed for both transactions, and the TTA said federal officials were working with it to settle the issues quickly.
The Federal Transit Administration judges mass transit projects primarily by two measures: a sound financial plan to pay for construction and operations, and project costs compared with estimated user benefits. User benefits are calculated in a formula that includes travel time savings and the numbers and socioeconomic status of riders.
The rail project is compared with an alternative -- in this case, serving the proposed TTA rail stops with buses instead of trains. The result is expressed as the cost of providing every "transit system user-benefit" hour.
It's known as the TSUB number, and no transit project can survive with a TSUB number higher than $25. Every effort to reduce costs and improve benefits is focused on reducing that number.
In August, the TTA told the federal agency its rail project would cost $20.68 for every transit system user-benefit hour. If the Federal Transit Administration concludes that the TTA overstated the benefits of its trains -- or understated the benefits of taking the bus -- the TSUB number will rise.
"If you can't get under $25, you might as well pack your bags and go home," consultant Bill A. Davidson of Parsons Brinckerhoff, a national engineering firm, told TTA trustees Tuesday. Davidson and a federal transit official created the TSUB method of analysis.
The Federal Transit Administration has three ratings for rail projects seeking federal construction funding in its New Starts program: highly recommended, recommended and not recommended. Projects that have received partial federal funding but not final approval, such as the TTA's, are re-evaluated annually.
The TTA has received $85 million in federal money so far. It expects 14,300 daily riders when it launches service in 2008.
A Federal Transit Administration spokesman said the TTA's "not rated" classification means the federal agency needs more information before it can make a recommendation. He declined to comment on the TTA project.
At least one other transit project, in Miami, was moved recently from "recommended" to "not rated," Davidson said. He said several "not rated" projects have won renewed recommendation and ultimate approval in recent years.
Rising construction costs forced the TTA last year to scale back from 16 stations on 35 miles of track to 12 stations on 28 miles. In August, the TTA increased its federal funding request from 50 percent to 61 percent, with the rest to be split between state and local funds.
Gregory P. Benz, also a TTA consultant with Parsons Brinckerhoff, told TTA trustees that a key U.S. House subcommittee, which reviews projects recommended by the Federal Transit Administration, would frown on requests for more than 50 percent federal funding.
"Legally you can ask for and get up to 80 percent," Benz said. "Functionally, with this subcommittee, if you ask for more than 50 percent, you're going to get a lower rating."
Worthy said it would not be difficult to reduce the TTA request.
"If we had to go back to 50 percent, it wouldn't wreck our financial plan," Worthy said.
TTA General Manger John D. Claflin said that, spurred in part by Congress, the federal agency had grown stricter in its project analysis in the past year. The agency is accustomed to evaluating commuter trains that travel between one city and its suburbs, but the TTA line would be different -- running from Raleigh through Research Triangle Park to Durham.
"The difficulty they had was comparing this to a typical suburban commute," Claflin said, "but it's not."
The federal agency scoffed at long-range projections of widespread traffic jams on most of the region's freeways and thoroughfares. The projections come from a computer model used by state and regional planning agencies.
The TTA said in August that a 28-mile trip from downtown Raleigh to downtown Durham would take 47 minutes by train in 2025 -- and more than four hours in a bus on clogged highways.
"We're showing some real advantages to rail," Claflin said. "And they're saying congestion will not be that bad."
RAIL TIMETABLE:
THURSDAY: Officials with Triangle Transit Authority and Federal Transit Administration meet in Washington to discuss questions about project benefits.
EARLY FEBRUARY: Federal Transit Administration releases annual recommendations for transit project funding. TTA project, rated "recommended" in 2004, could be marked "not rated" this year.
MID-MARCH: TTA hopes to award contract to build rail-car operation and maintenance yard and exercise option to buy 32 rail cars. Federal recommendation needed for both transactions.
FALL: TTA hopes to receive "full funding grant agreement," which promises federal funding.
DECEMBER: TTA hopes to begin construction on 12 train stations and 28 miles of track.
DECEMBER 2008: TTA hopes to begin commuter train service.
This rail project is going to be the biggest waste of money in NC history. Will make the Global Transpark seem like a roaring success.
NC Ping
Boondoggle and massive waste of tax payers money. Period. End of story.
Regarding that 4 hour and 18 minute by bus projection in 2025. Today, the same route, by bus, takes over 3.5 hours.
Yeah, there's no way this thing can ever succeed. We're just too spread out. Except for Cary, the trains don't go where we live.
If it's a great idea, private funding will be no problem...
What type of rail system is this supposed to be?
Just don't tell Willie Green. He'll be depressed all night that another government boondoggle was avoided.
I say put the funds toward a real railroad. More people need Amtrak than that silly thing. There are people that cannot fly for health reasons, are afraid to fly for various reasons (incl. 9/11) and those that have the time and like to see various parts of our country at their leisure, getting off for a couple of days and getting back on again. America is beautiful! Don't be in such a hurry! See it sometime!
Oh yeah, AMTRAK. Now THERE'S a profitable venture if ever there was one. Talk about a government boondoggle.
The damned liberals are determined to put in light rail service from Nashville to Lebanon, TN about 25 miles east (rail already exists but needs millions in improvements plus there is ZERO infrastructure along the railbed). They completely ignore that practiaclly NOBODY would use it because the rail is not convenient as ONLY goes downtown Nashville where the vast majority of workers are city, state, and federal employees.
I didn't say it was Profitable, CRUMB. I did say it was a worthwhile venture because of the people that NEED it! If Gram & Gramps can't drive anymore but want to come out and see you or if you had an illness that would prevent you from flying, wouldn't you like to have the option to get across country if you needed to? Or would it be more comfy crunched up in your car, that is if you had two legs to drive? THink about others for a change.
I want a Federally subsidized stagecoach route across the country.
Pure pork then
"The Federal Transit Administration has changed its rating of the Triangle's proposed commuter rail service from "recommended" to neutral, saying it cannot endorse the $695 million project until it resolves new doubts about its benefits."
There is only so much money...
If we spend thousands of dollars per passenger to take Gram and Gramps across the country by train, that is a LOT of other people who cannot be helped...
Well, I'd rather put thousands of people (track workers, onboard, station employees, commissary, ticket sellers, coach cleaners, mechanics, electricians etc) out of work and make the economy more of a mess than support a company that still does help the infrastructure and ozone no matter how you look at it.
I'll bet if we checked we would find that politicans own much of the property and construction businesses that would be involved.
Not going to the airport is insanity. But think of the lower parking fees collected.
Also, how are people going to get from the RTP station to work?
If they want to ease I40 traffic, why not get the big players in RTP to stagger starting times.
IBM shifts starting at 7, Nortel at 7:30 or 8 and so on.
As I said, then let's put the thousands of railroaders on welfare or unemployment then. That oughta' help the economy out, huh?
There is no doubt in anyone's mind about that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.