Local Control and Negotiation Politics

In 2000 a man many people called the Hammer decided that Houston Metro wasn't going to get any funding for a light rail project that scored very high on the FTA's cost effectiveness index because he didn't like it.  Tom Delay kept Metro from getting money that would have saved Houston local funds.  The city decided the line was worth it and built it anyway.  The line now has the highest ridership per mile of any new light rail line in the country.  Later on Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison got Houston some money for credit, but the precedent had been set.  Conservative House members were now going to insert language in appropriations bills against individual transit projects they didn't like.  This was the precursor to last weeks THUD appropriations bill which featured not one, but three transit projects which had individual language against them. 

This morning I got an email this morning from a friend pushing back against Cincinnati area Representative Steve Chabot who had put language in the T-HUD appropriations bill that forbids the Cincinnati Streetcar from receiving federal funding.  While I understand the rabid Tea Party sentiment that wants to kill transit projects, I don't quite understand the need for suburban representatives to write riders in bills that would keep locally popular projects from moving forward.  I guess it means they can say they tried to kill the project, but that Senate was just too much for them.  If you live in Ohio, contact Senator Brown to say this isn't cool. 

But Cincinnati is not the only place this is happening.  San Francisco's Central Subway, which isn't anyone's favorite project yet still zombies forward with the support of Chinatown merchants and big time DC politicos, is also under attack from Rep McClintock.  While I'm no fan of the project, I'm also not a fan of wasting more money on the project by delaying it even further, especially since we know it will get built. It's also annoying to have someone representing Tahoe to the Oregon border getting involved in San Francisco transit issues.  I don't think Rep. Nancy Pelosi would ever step in because some road project in Truckee wasn't to her liking.  But if these guys really cared about keeping costs down, they would do more to stop building worthless freeways and subsidizing endless sprawl.

But this THUD bill individual project hate doesn't even stop at Cincinnati and San Francisco!  No our old nemesis Representative John Culberson is at it again and put language in the bill that would deny funding to the University Light Rail Line in Houston.  Where did he learn how to do such things?  Why Tom Delay's great example of course.  Now Culberson's district is on the edge of this line, but he and the neighbors can't stand the fact that it would go through a major employment center.  This has been going on with him for at least 6 years and he can't let it go.  In fact, the first post on this blog was about Culberson being a jerk.

Some things never change, and lots of transit opponents apparently don't want cities making their own decisions about transit projects.  Even though many of those projects go through stricter approvals in the New Starts process than any freeway ever built.  But get ready to see more and more of these riders with a Tea Party slanted house.  Like with the transportation bill, they are just going to throw more stuff at the wall to see if it sticks.  And we end up happy that they didn't cut transit, when all the crazy stuff they tried to pull was just a way to rig the negotiating table.  The more times an individual project can get stuffed into a bill, the easier it is for them to use it as leverage against things that transit backers want.  Perhaps we should start throwing stuff against the wall as a counter bargain.  Where is my Geary Subway?

Playing with Matches

It looks like an amendment was put into the federal transportation budget that would allow Detroit to use a LRT line that it builds with its own money for a federal funding match of the next segment. The funding for the initial segment would come from foundations. While lines have been funded philanthropically before such as Galveston's trolley, I believe this is a first to be funded primarily with foundation money.

The interesting thing about this amendment is that it would allow the Woodward Ave LRT to be constructed much faster than it would have otherwise under the usual new starts process. The general wait time for funding is 10 years and many cities find that such a time commitment increases costs and stretches political will. But there is a catch, the amendment doesn't say anything about the NEPA environmental process which could hamper the project. The amendment reads as follows:

SEC. 173. Hereafter, for interstate multi-modal projects which are in Interstate highway corridors, the Secretary shall base the rating under section 5309(d) of title 49, United States Code, of the non-New Starts share of the public transportation element of the project on the percentage of non-New Starts funds in the unified finance plan for the multi-modal project: Provided, That the Secretary shall base the accounting of local matching funds on the total amount of all local funds incorporated in the unified finance plan for the multi-modal project for the purposes of funding under chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code and title 23, United States Code: Provided further, That the Secretary shall evaluate the justification for the project under section 5309(d) of title 49, United States Code, including cost effectiveness, on the public transportation costs and public transportation benefits.

But the reason why the amendment had to be created is because federal funding has lots of strings and these matches are quite tricky. And while many cities would like to skip the new starts process initially by building the first line themselves, the NEPA rules are not structured to allow this. Several different cities have tried successfully and unsuccessfully to do something similar with their match process however the key sticking point is always the NEPA process and following the environmental rules.

Initially Houston looked into using the Main Street Line as a match for the next projects but that idea smoldered. Metro did however get an investment "credit" in the form of an Earmark for future fixed guideway construction. What happened to this money is unknown, though it seems as if it was just put into the pot for the five line expansion.

In 2005 Kay Bailey Hutchinson sought to fund 100% of two lines in Houston through the same mechanism while the city saved up for three others. This was blocked by Tom Delay and John Culbertson (who is still blocking the University Line) because they didn't feel it was following the law. Of course this was just a good excuse to block light rail for those two jokers. Houston eventually put the lines into the New Starts process and is seeking 49% of two out of five lines. Because they weren't able to use the first two lines as a match, they are likely leaving $270M on the table because they are not going for funding on two they are building on their own.

Salt Lake City looked to build their five lines faster by creating a memorandum of understanding whereby 20% of the total projects cost was funded by the FTA. This would fund the Mid Jordan Line at 78% federal and the remainder of the Draper line while UTA built the others as a match. However the office of management and budget rescinded this deal in 2008 when they felt that it was in violation of NEPA. It is believed that the feds decided that this wasn't legal because when the MOU was signed all of the lines entered into the contract with the federal government. Because not all the lines went through the NEPA process, it was thought that they would be constructed outside of the rules set forth by the federal government for environmental process. The FTA is said to still be honoring the deal, even if it is outside of the MOU document.

This was also worrisome to the FTA because it was seen as a precedent that would set off a wave of deal making which it eventually did with Charlotte. In 2008 Charlotte tried to make a deal that would have funded the Northeast Corridor at 80% while platform extensions for the South Corridor and the Northeast Corridor were constructed with local funds. This deal never came to pass. Finally San Francisco built the T Third line with local funds but went through the NEPA process therefor allowing it to be used as a match legally within the federal process. Nancy Pelosi still had to put an amendment in a spending bill but the line is currently being used as a match for the Central Subway project.

With all these examples, the federal match amendment still doesn't address the NEPA issue that came up in Salt Lake City and San Francisco. Ultimately it would be nice for cities to make big deals so that they can build transit networks faster than they would ultimately be able to under the current rules that keep lines in planning for ten years. So while Detroit might have gotten this match language, I would expect the OMB to jump in at some point and derail it because once the match project is seen as part of the whole deal, it is likely that they will believe the first segment would be subject to the rules of the new starts process including NEPA as well.

The Sound of Freedom

The Katy Freeway is complete. This Houston mega freeway is hopefully the last of its kind in the United States. Stretching from Katy to Houston, this 18 lane monstrosity is now officially double the initial project cost stated at $1 to $1.2 Billion dollars. The final cost? $2.8 Billion. Presumably some of that will be made back with tolls on the center Hot Lane. But as Culbertson says, it didn't use a single earmark yet he was key to getting the money. How does that work? Too bad it used billions of dollars of taxpayer money that could have been spent more wisely. But it's the sound of freedom!

Perry noted the roar of traffic below, above and around the crowd, which was gathered on a frontage road overpass. "This is the sound of freedom we hear," he said. "These people need roads to get to work, to church and to school."

If that is the sound of freedom, I have a war in Iraq for you Governor. Sure people need roads, but do they really need the particulate matter and increased sprawl this will cause? This is all the pet project of Rep. John Culbertson, who loves him some roads. He promised that the next mega project would be US 290 but hopefully he doesn't get his way. With the Katy Freeway, Culbertson basically had the railroad right of way that paralleled the road paved over. There is a similar situation on 290 that shouldn't happen again.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority, which already plans light rail on Westpark, paid to have Katy Freeway overpasses beefed up to carry its trains if space there ever is available for them. But Culberson, whose ability to get federal dollars was crucial to the widening project, pledged not to give up a single freeway lane for Metro rail. Brandt Mannchen, the Sierra Club regional air quality chairman, expressed regret at what he termed a missed opportunity to have rail on the Katy.

The Culbertson who wanted to kill light rail all together and was a major reason for me starting this blog. Now I'm not a huge fan of rail in the freeway, especially an 18 lane freeway. But getting rid of that right of way was a mistake. And I wouldn't doubt if it were on purpose. Showing this guy the door would be a huge win for livable communities in Houston. Unfortunately at this juncture, the race isn't that close but it's tightening. We'll be watching this one on election night with the ballot measures. Mostly because this guy is a danger to himself and transit in general.

All Rails in Space City

This afternoon the Metro board finally approved rail on Richmond putting the best line forward they could even if it wasn't the best line (Thanks Afton Oaks!). In a shocker that I don't think anyone expected, they also voted for light rail on all 5 lines! But after reading Christof's blog I was wondering if what he said about funding and the FTA was true? I haven't noticed any change in the funding mechanisms so what is going on down there? Is it possible that because Tom Delay is gone they have better support from their legislators (sans "I don't like rail" Culbertson)?

This was made possible by the other surprise of the day — the Southeast Line on Scott, along with all the other 2012 lines, will be light rail, thanks to new FTA funding rules. Thus, the Southeast Line and University Line will be able to share track on Scott. And that amended idea carried.

Perhaps they have been behind the scenes like Salt Lake City working out a deal with the feds to pay for their lines in bulk since they have a master plan. I think that might be the wave of the future so other cities might want to look close at how to plan a system then get funding for it rather than going line by line. We'll probably hear about it more in the coming days. From the Chronicle:

"We now feel we can pass federal muster (to obtain 50 percent funding) by going to light rail on all five lines at once," board chairman David Wolff said. "We can't help but believe that people will be thrilled by it."

In 2005, residents and elected officials along the planned North, East End, Southeast and Uptown lines were dismayed to learn that Metro analysis showed cost and ridership on them would be too low to justify federal funding for rail.

Check out the link to Christof for a new system map.

Breaking Development in the Transit Space Race

Something big happened today. The Utah transit authority and the FTA signed an agreement that would allow the federal government to pay for 20% of Salt Lake Cities 5 line rail expansion. I'm not quite sure yet who got the better deal, but I think it was the Utah Transit Authority. According to the Deseret News:

UTA general manager John Inglish said the letter of intent, known as a memorandum of understanding, was an unprecedented agreement between a state agency and the Federal Transit Administration. Normally, transit agencies approach the federal government for funding on projects one-by-one, not as a package deal, he said.

Because the letter of intent applies to all five projects, Inglish said his agency will save what would have been years of waiting through a lengthy federal funding process.

So instead of going through the New Starts process while waiting for the FTA to reject their projects or cause cost inflation and change station locations to fit the ridership model which favors bus projects, they can actually plan to come in under budget and on time and with the projects the voters wanted. The memorandum of understanding states that UTA will fund two light rail lines and a commuter line on it's own while the FTA pays for 80% of two other light rail lines.

Ever since the New Starts program started, the federal share has been dwindling for fixed guideway projects. Starting out on the same footing as highways, federal funding began at 80% of the project cost but has since dwindled to 50% with a 10 year waiting period. While 20% overall might be a little low, the signing of the document today by the UTA has opened up options for cities that want to get into the transit space race. Cities that have been able to raise local money yet have a master plan to build a transit system. This fits into one of the reasons why I started this blog, which is to document the transit space race.

This might be a good model for cities that are just now looking to build light rail networks or who might want to get back into the hunt. Now it should be said that in keeping up with Denver and Portland, Salt Lake City had a referendum to raise their sales tax to fund their rail extensions. I know there have been a few thoughts that this might be happening but UTA was traveling under the radar until this announcement. Other cities might take notice and see this as an opportunity to make a deal with the FTA. Minneapolis is looking to build 3 more LRT lines, Tampa just announced a new rail plan and Birmingham is starting to think about it.

Houston tried to do this a few years ago but the idea got blocked by former Rep Tom Delay and John Culbertson. They asked that the FTA fund the first two rail lines while they built the next two locally. They were asking for 50% of the total and before that they were trying to use the main street line as a match. Because they couldn't get it through though, they had to downgrade some lines to BRT.

As I said before, this is a pretty big deal. It might signal a big change in how transit expansion is going to get funded. Hopefully it moves back up from 20% and perhaps the death of the process that has caused so many problems by taking quick decision making away from local jurisdictions.

Culbertson Gets Catcalls and Boos

The Houston Chronicle reports today that Congressman Evil got Booed at a light rail meeting last night.

When Culberson said that "97 percent of residents on or near Richmond oppose" a light rail line there, the audience of about 200 erupted in "boos" and catcalls.

That's what happens when you lie straight to people's faces about things. Hiding behind people with familiar viewpoints in public settings and writing op-eds that make sense to no one but yourself make one believe that they are always right. However we learned last night that folks who live on Richmond that want the rail are fed up with Culbertson's crap, and showed it. Way to go!

Kay Railey Hutchison?

Kay Bailey Hutchison has this to say about transit in Texas. She's a supporter but how much? Enough to tell Culbertson to shove it? I guess we should ask her.

Culbertson Not the Coldest Beer in the Fridge

So here is another idiotic writeup by Mini Tom Delay. Rep. John Culbertson asks Metro to put the rail down Westpark which in his opinion is a good idea. What he doesn't know however is that the FTA would never fund that route. The ridership is too low to get a favorable rating in the New Starts program yet he pushes it anyways. Any guess as to why? Well he thinks that he needs to hold metro accountable but really it's because he hates transit. Can't we get rid of this guy like we got rid of Tom Delay?

Welcome to The Overhead Wire

Well here goes nothing. Today is the first day of the Overhead Wire. This blog is going to be all about transit and transit oriented development. Sometimes irreverent but mostly commentary on the news of the day...which often will be ripped to shreds because someone was asking for it.

Today's News...The Houston Chronicle Reports that Metro gave in to Culbertson's demands. Now light rail to the Galleria is screwed. I'll write more about this when it's not 2 am but the fact remains the same. The folks in Houston are scared of chicken little. Don't let someone who doesn't know anything about transit tell you where to build. I hope that line gets put back into shape but don't expect anything any time soon with the leadership letting it go the way its been going. The road warriors need to wake up and get a clue.