Almost any transit project is eligible to apply for Federal funds.

(Quick clarification – the Bay Area gets a lot of “formula” funds for transit.  How they are used are up to MTC and the transit agencies, but, in general, these are all spoken for – if they were transferred for other purposes, such as a major capital project, then that means a whole lot of over-the-hill buses would not be replaced at the ends of their useful life, a lot of rail lines will not be given required maintenance, etc.  In addition to the transit programs – of which 49 USC 5307 is by far the largest – there are also three highway “flexible” funds, with CMAQ and STP being the vast majority.  These can be used for transit, again, pretty much at the option of MTC, but, given the extreme underfunding of Bay Area road maintenance, unlikely to occur.  What we are probably talking about is the Federal discretionary capital grant program for transit, which is mainly 49 USC 5309 “new starts.”)

Since the Obama administration has pretty much changed the rules so that factors like ridership, etc., aren’t really part of the evaluation process any more, so, if the Bay Area made this a high priority, it would likely have a chance.  However, there is only so much money to go around nationally, and there is a limit to how much money any region is going to get, and there is an unlimited amount of other requests for this funding, so the real question is, how far up to the top of the list this will be.

The other interesting factor is that it is getting real questionable how much money for transit programs there is going to be.  With the Republicans controlling both houses, and the D’s not really into the program, there hasn’t been a new transportation authorization bill for quite a while, just short-term extensions and, right now, it is difficult to see how there will be a long-term extension any time soon.  Without that, not a whole lot of money for any new projects.  Not saying impossible, am saying makes it more difficult.

OK, let’s step back and take a wild turn.  Let’s say that the objective is to create a transit system that will carry the most people, get it done the quickest, and do it at the lowest cost to taxpayers.  Not really the way things are done, of course, particularly in the Bay Area, but, just as a thing to think about.  OK, going down that road, the way to go is to run long-haul commuter buses on an I-580 HOT lane from the Central Valley to the existing BART end station.  Such lines can be started within two years (the biggest time-taker is getting the buses delivered, now that the roadway is getting close to completion), there are just about no costs for the right-of-way, and this is the type of transit service that has the highest farebox recovery ratio – over 90% is not at all uncommon, although I’m not going to make that kind of prediction without a lot of study.

This would have also been the right way to go before BART went over the hill to the Tri-Valley.  Of course, it was never even considered as an option.

– TR, Transit specialist

This pretty much back up what many of us have been saying for some time. The SFMTA and other municipal transit authorities are not in the transportation business, they are in the construction business. They are also in the empire building business. The more the construct the bigger the public debt to the industry grows since the maintenance and operations costs escalate accordingly. This is why many people are saying NO MORE MONEY for the bottomless pit that claim, “if we build it they will come.”

To the desert valley where there is no water?

Advertisements

Negotiations, approvals still await Muni’s plans to extract Central Subway tools

By: Will Reisman : SFExaminer – excerpt

While Muni negotiates with a North Beach property owner on how it will remove boring tools for the Central Subway project, major planning and approval decisions regarding the controversial extraction process await.
Outrage among residents and merchants over plans to remove the machines at Columbus Avenue led the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which operates Muni, to propose taking out the equipment at the Pagoda Palace, a derelict former movie theater.:…  (more)

CENTRAL SUBWAY/ PAGODA THEATER COMMUNITY MEETING

CENTRAL SUBWAY/ PAGODA THEATER COMMUNITY MEETING

TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2013, 6:30PM

Telegraph Hill Neighborhood Center, 660 Lombard St. (Columbus & Powell)

ANNOUNCEMENT:  http://us5.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c178f3dd9100b6963a6cf2cea&id=b683f2f23f&e=8676f27def

EVERYONE AGREES that North Beach merchants and neighbors need not suffer economic losses because the Central Subway stops 2,000 feet away in Chinatown (Stockton & Washington Streets).  In 2005, the northerly tunnel extension from Chinatown was a political decision—to gain support from organizations who criticized the Central Subway’s high costs for small benefits (which is still true).  The northerly tunnel variant was never discussed with North Beach—because it was only an option.  And SFMTA was careful to avoid meeting with North Beach organizations.

LATEST PROPOSAL is to lease the Pagoda Theater for 2 years for TBMs (Tunnel Boring Machines) extraction—demolishing the building and creating a Special Use District for the owner’s development project.  SEE ATTACHED ORDINANCE. 

EXAMINER:  “Negotiations, approvals still await Muni’s plans to extract Central Subway tools”

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2013/01/negotiations-approvals-still-await-muni-s-plans-extract-central-subway

MORE QUESTIONS need to be answered because many merchants will still suffer. 

  • As stated in the Project Specifications, will the tunnel in North Beach/ Pagoda Theater be used to move materials/ equipment to the Chinatown construction site?  What deliveries, storage and street-use will be required?  For how long?
  • How will adjacent buildings and streets be protected?
  • Will vertical ventilation shafts and exit shafts be required?
  • Why not bury TBMs in the ground at Chinatown—saving $21-$70 million that can implement the 2003 Stockton Street Transit Improvement Project and improve transit throughout the northeast quadrant?

KEEP OPEN OPTIONS FOR BURYING TBMs

New York City’s new subway construction is leaving TBMs in the ground for cost-savings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/nyregion/deep-below-park-avenue-a-200-ton-drill-at-rest.html?_r=1&src=un&feedurl=http://json8.nytimes.com/pages/nyregion/index.jsonp  

http://www.mta.info/news/stories/?story=320

In 2005, the original Central Subway design was to retrieve TBMs at Chinatown (Stockton & Clay Streets).

Also, tunneling reduces high risk construction and cost overruns.  The older historic districts of North Beach, Chinatown and Downtown are extremely susceptible to unstable ground conditions.

COLOGNE BUILDING COLLAPSE: 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cologne-archive-catastrophe-were-subway-builders-cautious-enough-a-612129.html

http://www.theage.com.au/world/fears-for-missing-three-after-building-collapse-in-germany-20090304-8ogm.html

SAO PAULO SUBWAY’S DEADLY COLLAPSE

http://enr.construction.com/news/transportation/archives/070129a.asp

KOREAN SUBWAY TUNNEL COLLAPSE

http://kojects.com/2012/02/20/subway-construction-suspected-in-incheon-street-collapse/

Regards, Howard Wong, AIA

www.SaveMuni.com