tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6609536178570975752.post5919966865969931774..comments2024-01-12T00:32:20.149-08:00Comments on The Overhead Wire: Why LA Won't Get 80% Federal Funding on the Gold LinePantograph Trolleypolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17833159138533550544noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6609536178570975752.post-7568204844981698332008-09-11T10:12:00.000-07:002008-09-11T10:12:00.000-07:00Did you even read what I wrote?Did you even read what I wrote?Pantograph Trolleypolehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17833159138533550544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6609536178570975752.post-83542190248029617332008-09-11T07:22:00.000-07:002008-09-11T07:22:00.000-07:00New Starts is not the only federal funding program...New Starts is not the only federal funding program for rail transit. As I pointed out <A HREF="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/08/antonovich-to-s.html#comment-128633084" REL="nofollow">in the post on the Bottleneck blog</A>, in the process pointing to the link supplied in your post, several projects have received 60-80% of FEDERAL funding, while only a portion of it was New Starts funding, although some have had all of it be funding from the New Starts program. I'm not to sure whether it matters to people whether it's money from one pot in D.C. or another. <BR/><BR/>The implication, when discussing federal matches, is that we have to pony up 50% of local dollars for transit projects, because the feds have a cap imposed by law. They don't. It's an inaccurate statement.<BR/><BR/>MTA is recognized as a "bad agency" by the FTA. These are words from mouths in D.C.'s to my ears. Their problems in receiving a good piece of the pie has nothing to do with restrictions, and much more to do with bad planning and operations from the Planning Department to the fare box.<BR/><BR/>And again, I'm not saying Foothill Extension will or won't qualify for a 80% federal match. Has anyone said it would be from all New Starts funding? I don't think they have. And the statement would be accurate if it were 50% New Starts and 30% some other federal source, would it not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6609536178570975752.post-14512345960180004332008-09-06T10:43:00.000-07:002008-09-06T10:43:00.000-07:00The GAO report won't make any difference to the Sa...The GAO report won't make any difference to the San Gabriel Valley politicos, who are living in a state of denial.<BR/><BR/>In their world, one Congressman is all it takes to make these rules go away. Nevertheless, it's great that you dug this up as it can be thrown into any future discussions on the matter. <BR/><BR/>The politicos -- especially Supervisor Antonovich -- need to realize that Measure R is a much more secure source of funding if they want to see the line built before they all term out.Kymberleigh Richardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11532207490247719140noreply@blogger.com