Gold Line Foothill Extension: Antonovich takes on Snoble

Everybody is writing letters these days or talking about the proposed Gold Line Foothill Extension in the San Gabriel Valley.

Earlier this week, I posted about Rep. David Dreier campaigning to get Metro to fork over $80 million in funding for the line so that $320 million in federal funding can be sought to push the line to Azusa.

Yesterday, I posted about Metro CEO Roger Snoble sending a letter to Dreier, telling him that federal funding is hardly a sure thing and that Gold Line proponents would be better off backing the half-cent sales tax increase proposal Metro is trying to get on the Nov. 4. ballot

Today's letter comes from Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who writes to Snoble and tells him he heard differently from federal officials about their willingness to fund the Foothill Extension:

Dear Mr. Snoble,

The information in your letter to Congressman David Dreier is not consistent with what I was told last month when I was in Washington D.C. meeting with the Secretary of Transportation and the Chief Counsel of the Federal Transit Administration. Both made it quite clear that the reason the Gold Line Foothill Extension project has not been able to progress under the FTA’s “New Starts” program was due to the MTA’s failure to prioritize the project as part of its long-term project list.

By not allowing our Congressional delegation to pursue federal funding for this vital transportation project, you are holding the residents of the San Gabriel Valley hostage for the next 30 years to a flawed sales tax as there only saving grace to fund the extension.

The letter in its entirety is after the jump. All this arguing is likely a bit of a moot point for now -- it doesn't appear that the Metro Board will take up the Gold Line funding issue until after the Nov. 4 election.

Dear Mr. Snoble,

The information in your letter to Congressman David Dreier is not consistent with what I was told last month when I was in Washington D.C. meeting with the Secretary of Transportation and the Chief Counsel of the Federal Transit Administration.  Both made it quite clear that the reason the Gold Line Foothill Extension project has not been able to progress under the FTA’s “New Starts” program was due to the MTA’s failure to prioritize the project as part of its long-term project list.

By not allowing our Congressional delegation to pursue federal funding for this vital transportation project, you are holding the residents of the San Gabriel Valley hostage for the next 30 years to a flawed sales tax as there only saving grace to fund the extension.

In essence, you are telling our Federal Congressional representatives to take a hike and not lobby to get Federal dollars for the project and instead have San Gabriel Valley residents sign on to a sales tax plan that they were never a part of.

The MTA should both support our Congressional delegation in pursuing federal funding and simultaneously engage the San Gabriel Valley in a meaningful sales tax measure that incorporates completion of the Gold Line to Claremont. 

Sincerely,

MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH

Supervisor

cc: The Honorable Congressman David Dreier

The Honorable Congressman Adman Schiff

The Honorable Congresswoman Grace Napolitano

The Honorable Congresswoman Hilda Solis

Mr. Steve Hymon, Los Angeles Times

Mr. Dan Abendschein, San Gabriel Valley Tribune

-- Steve Hymon

Comments

[The Overhead Wire]

I've confirmed my previous post with a 2004 GAO report here:

http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d04748high.pdf

"Last year, in response to language contained in appropriations committee reports, FTA instituted a policy favoring projects that seek a federal New Starts share of no more than 60 percent of the total project cost—even though the law allows projects to seek up to 80 percent—in its recommendation for FFGAs. According to FTA officials, this policy allows more projects to receive funding and ensures that local governments play a major role in funding such projects. FTA describes the 60 percent policy as a general preference; however, FTA’s fiscal year 2005 New Starts report suggests that this policy is absolute in that projects proposing more than a 60 percent federal New Starts share will not be recommended for an FFGA."

This means as I said before that newer projects that weren't started in the late 90's early 2000's will only be funded up to 60%. However these days 50% will get you a more favorable rating and is thus more likely to receive funding.

[The Overhead Wire]

Many of these projects have cobbled together multiple funding sources including CMAQ, 5309 modernization funds, 5309 New Starts Funds, 5307 Bus formula funds, etc. All of the projects which use multiple funding sources such as that were started in the late 90s. early 2000's. It's up to the region to figure out how they want to dole out those monies. As for New Starts funds alone, none of these projects goes over 60%. The ones that do started in the late 90s, early this decade.

1) The Pittsburgh North Shore Connector LRT is being constructed with an 80% federal match. I know much about that project being that it is 100% grade separated LRT.

---The North Shore connector is a subway under a river and its 1.2 miles long. It doesn't even cross any roads. Glad you can toss in an expo punch wherever possible, even if its not relevant. It's a 54% NEW STARTS match.

2) The Utah project is an 80% fed match - all New Starts funding.

---Salt Lake City signed an MOU that the Feds would pay 80% of the first project which is 20% of their 4 line plan. The deal was that they would fund all the other lines locally. So it was hailed officially as a 20% match.

http://theoverheadwire.blogspot.com/2007/09/breaking-development-in-transit-space.html

3) The Chicago modernization project is 80% fed match.

--- Half of the federal match are modernization funds because this was a rebuild. That is funding that MTA can't use for new construction. They did on the Gold Line somehow, I think because they were extending the Gold Line I.

4) The Portland project is a 75% fed match

--- The Portland project is a 60% match. It decided on an alternative in 1998 and will be complete and running at the end of this year or the start of next. I highly doubt that the MTA is going to use 5309 bus money for LRT, or GARVEE bonds.

5) The Norfolk project is a 70% fed match.

-- The EIS was completed in 1999. The new starts match was 55%. Again 5309 and 5307 funds.

6) The Denver project is a 60% fed match - all New Starts funding.

-- This one is 60% but was started early in the decade and the feds are still paying it off even though it was completed in 2006. The MIS was done in 1997! Proving my about 10 years point.

7) The Washington DC project is a 60% fed match - all New Starts funding.

--- Not sure which DC project you're talking about. The first one is the LARGO project which was completed back in 2004 is still being paid off. Again started before 2000. The Dulles project is 30%. It says so on the page. That's why its so crazy that the FTA has so much say over how they spend most of their money.

Again, most of these projects were started in the late 90s as I stated and if they are more recent the match is lower. 50-60% is the most you can get today. Back in the day, cities cobbled together CMAQ funds, bus funds, new starts funds, modernization funds to get the match. Today you get projects like Dulles and Salt Lake City that get 20-30% matches with special deals made.

Also, take a look at the small starts projects. All BRT except for the Portland Streetcar. That was supposed to be the streetcar fund. But it was co-opted by the FTA's Right Wing for their BRT experiment. Also, how many times have you heard the term cost-effectiveness. When seeking funds, cities are downgrading rail lines during alternatives analysis because the feds won't look at the benefits of rail transit. Cities then downgrade to BRT thinking they can get funding for it. Instead of building what works, they downgrade for what they can get funding for. That is BS.

And yes, whether the GL deserves funding is another issue entirely.

[Damien Goodmon]

Quite a few transit projects have qualified for much greater than 50% in federal matches. I mean did anyone look at the list of project supplied by The Overhead Wire's links? The evidence is right there. Just click on the "Projects with Full Funding Grant Agreements" and look at the charts with the financial breakdowns.

1) The Pittsburgh North Shore Connector LRT is being constructed with an 80% federal match. I know much about that project being that it is 100% grade separated LRT.

2) The Utah project is an 80% fed match - all New Starts funding.

3) The Chicago modernization project is 80% fed match.

4) The Portland project is a 75% fed match

5) The Norfolk project is a 70% fed match.

6) The Denver project is a 60% fed match - all New Starts funding.

7) The Washington DC project is a 60% fed match - all New Starts funding.

And the feds don't "favor BRT" at the detriment of LRT. The feds are just less susceptible to local contractors and developers, so they really have no problem blowing the lid on local transportation agencies who come up with unsubstantiated estimates of cost, ridership, long-term benefits, comparative analysis, etc.

Given that their pot is so small the feds really have no other choice but to blow the lid on some of our projects. Now that doesn't mean that bad projects don't make it through the process with a lot of political prodding, just that it's more difficult to do at the federal level. And contrary to belief, that's never prevented them from taking on big ticket projects that prove themselves. Several multi-billion dollar projects currently have Full Funding Grant Agreements.

Whether the Gold Line Foothill Extension deserves/will get an 80% fed match is for another post. The point of my post is to point out that this whole "feds don't provide over 50% matches" is one of those false pieces of information that have constant been recited as truth in transit circles for some unknown reason. The reality is the blame for not getting more federal funding is MTA's and MTA's alone. The agency is very poor at planning for the region, modeling their projects, identifying the appropriate mode, etc., and their running such a huge structural deficit, and have for a really long time now.

[Kymberleigh Richards]

Why should we believe Supervisor Antonovich, who was one of those who tried to keep Measure R off the ballot?

His response to Roger Snoble was filled with personal opinions, whereas Mr. Snoble's letter was based on fact. (And to those who believe otherwise, you need to educate yourself on how the process works; it doesn't matter how high ranking Rep. Dreier is, he can't circumvent the process at the FTA.)

[The Overhead Wire]

Even if the Gold line is done with its alternatives analysis and has environmental review, that just lets you into preliminary engineering with the 30 other cities looking for money in the process. That is where you engineer the system to get another cost estimate. Then you have to go through final design where you do the exact engineering, then get a record of decision and full funding grant agreement with the FTA. Through all that time the cost goes up and gets scrutinized through a federal process that has shredded rail lines in favor of BRT. All of this takes about 10 years at today's rate. Just ask Phoenix, Charlotte, Oceanside, and Seattle who are just completing or have completed their lines in the last year when they started the process. 1998 to 2000! Here's the proof from the New Starts process.

http://www.fta.dot.gov/publications/reports/reports_to_congress/planning_environment_2796.html

Next, I dare you to go through this years new starts document and tell me when anyone has gotten 80% funding such as they are asking for. ZERO. Only highways get that much. 50% you have to pay for to get federal money.

http://www.fta.dot.gov/publications/reports/reports_to_congress/planning_environment_7754.html

[BOB2]

The blatently false statements by Roger Snoble are compounded by the disinformation provided by "overland wire". This is someone who needs to turn over his beach house in Arizona. David Drier is number three in the House Republicans, but has strong support from the local Democrats on this, including those who can't stand Roger Snoble who sit on the House appropriations, and Transportation and Infrastructure committee. So there is every evidence the Gold LIne extension would move very quickly.

The Gold Line extension to Azusa has completed it's entire New Start process, up to certification of the envrionmental documen, which is held up because of MTA. It competes in ridership with the ELA extensiuon at less than half the cost. The only thing holding back final certification is MTA's failure to address the operating funds and prioritization in the Long Range plan. While I have been no fan of the "play the victim" antics of John Fasana, Mayor Villagraigoza and Roger Snoble have consistently tried to hold this project hostage. This project is shelf ready and would likely be funded and to construction within one year.

BOB2

[Fran]

It amazes me that Federal Congressman David Drier, who's sole responsibility is to bring funds FROM Washington DC, is trying to get $80 million from our local transportation coffers - Shouldn't it be the other way around?

[Shane]

Eight years of a Republicans in power in Washington and Republicans Drier and Antonovich have delivered nothing. There are several more projects in Los Angeles that will have a greater impact on traffic reduction that are much more likely to receive federal funding. It's time these misguided politicians get behind a locally controlled, locally funded comprehensive solution that benefits everyone in Los Angeles County.

[Kyle]

Don't forget that Drier is probably one of the top 3 republicans in the house. I would bet he knows a little better than most about securing federal funds.

[The Overhead Wire]

Snoble is right. Projects that go to the FTA take 10 years to go through the New Starts Process. The wait is 50 years long for that funding since they only give out $1.7 billion dollars a year. It is severely underfunded and there is NO WAY they would get as much funding as they are asking for either. 60% is the highest i've seen and there haven't been any like that recently. More like 50% and below.

If Mr. Drier really believes that the FTA is telling the truth, I have a beach house in Arizona....