S.F. (Central) subway project gets full funding

[BTinSF]

I figured this was more than a "tidbit".

Friday, October 26, 2007
S.F. subway project gets full funding
San Francisco Business Times - by Eric Young

One of San Francisco's most ambitious subway projects finally has funding in place, thanks to budget cutting and an unexpected windfall from the state.

The Central Subway project, which will create a new Muni line linking South of Market to Chinatown, has lined up $1.3 billion, officials said this week.

"It's great news we have the funding in place," said John Funghi, project manager for the Central Subway. "It's quite special to have a project at this early stage have such strong funding."

Last year city transportation officials were trying to close a funding gap of more than $400 million. Since then, planners at the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency found ways to cut costs. Engineers reduced the length of subway station platforms 20 percent to 200 feet, reducing construction costs. They also changed the sequence of the construction schedule to require only five years of work instead of seven.

Some fortuitous events helped as well. Voters in California last year passed Proposition 1B, which will make nearly $20 billion available for transportation improvements through the sale of general obligation bonds. San Francisco's subway project will get $200 million from that measure.

The federal government is providing the lion's share of money with more than $700 million. Local funding comes from a half-cent sales tax passed in 2003 plus money collected at city-owned garages and parking spaces.

San Francisco transportation projects have a history of cost inflation. Consider the Third Street light rail project. A few years ago, the MTA said the work would cost $580 million and be completed in 2005. The project opened this year at a final cost of $648 million.

Muni planners said the budget for the Central Subway already has cash -- at least $221 million -- set aside for inflation.

City planners won't start digging the subway tunnels for three years at the earliest. The project is now in its environmental review phase. The environmental impact report was published last week, and the city is hosting community meetings on Oct. 30, Nov. 8 and Nov. 13 to discuss it.

Transit planners are considering three different routes for the subway. Each extends 1.7 miles, but they vary slightly in their alignment between the existing station at Fourth and King streets and the terminus near Stockton and Clay streets. Transit planners said comments from residents and businesses will be factored in their final decision for a route.

The route of the planned subway is served by buses that are running at capacity now. City planners said the expense of a subway is warranted because it will speed travel time.

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...ml?t=printable

[suga]

Does anyone know how they got the federal funding so easilly, is it becuase of Pelosi's powerful position? It seems like projects down here in LA are having a lot of trouble getting state and federal funding, and was wondering what the discreprency was from.

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by suga

Does anyone know how they got the federal funding so easilly, is it becuase of Pelosi's powerful position?

Duh! Also, one of our Senators was our Mayor. and the other, who is Chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is from Marin County.

[bmfarley]

Originally Posted by suga

Does anyone know how they got the federal funding so easilly, is it becuase of Pelosi's powerful position? It seems like projects down here in LA are having a lot of trouble getting state and federal funding, and was wondering what the discreprency was from.

Transit agencies seeking federal funds for major transit expansion projects do so by guiding their projects through the FTA 'New Starts Program.' Federal particpation ($) is related to how the projects score. FTA will fund up to 50% of the project cost if it scores well.

I am not familiar with the LA projects, but the SF one is a no-brainer.

San Diego may one day soon consider putting the trolley underground downtown. ...something certainly to be about the same cost... $1b give or take.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by bmfarley

I am not familiar with the LA projects, but the SF one is a no-brainer.

It's not considered a no-brainer in SF. I'd guess most of the SF SSP forumers (other than me) have expressed opposition to it at one time or another. Most often, the view seems to be that the money could be spent elsewhere to better effect but, of course, one reason I favor it is that there is not much reason to think the money would be available to spend elsewhere if it isn't spent on this project. If somebody would say, "You can have the $700 million to spend on either this project or a Geary subway" I'd go for the Geary line every time, but nobody is saying that and nobody ever would.

"How did (we) get the funding so easily" was asked and it's a fair question but a slightly mistaken premise--that it was easy. This project has been in the works for a long time. Basically, its genesis was the 1989 earthquake which damaged the Embarcadero Freeway beyond repair. But when it was proposed that that simply be torn down and replaced with the surface boulevard we have today, there were wails of protest from some pretty politically powerful folks in Chinatown--big Democratic fundraisers and contributors--who protested that the absence of the freeway would inhibit people from coming to Chinatown and hurt business there. A "deal" was worked out and I believe Nancy Pelosi, as a Democratic power broker, had a direct hand in that deal: that a crosstown subway to Chinatown would be built to bring business to Chinatown if Chinatown dropped its objections to the removal of the Embarcadero Freeway. This was 15 years or so ago and Pelosi was a rising star in Congress but her future roll as Speaker was not evident to anyone. Nevertheless, it seems likely to me that she still feels obligated to carry out the deal she helped broker and used her present power to make it happen.

[bmfarley]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

It's not considered a no-brainer in SF. I'd guess most of the SF SSP forumers (other than me) have expressed opposition to it at one time or another.

I was thinking it was a no-brainer for one main reason... ridership would likely be very high.

[munkyman]

now that they have full funding, what is the timeline for construction?

[Richard Mlynarik]

Originally Posted by bmfarley

I was thinking it was a no-brainer for one main reason... ridership would likely be very high.

Such an outcome does indeed seem likely to those with no brains.

A couple billion dollars of pure pork -- and worse transit in SF for decades to come -- seems a more likely outcome to the non-no-brainer contingent, both the rent-seeking public-defrauding faction (ie contractor mafia, SFCTA, SFMTA, etc) and the transit-promoting one.

SF: building on the "success" of the likewise no-brainer Third Street "light" rail project and every other (likewise grotesquely incompetent, ineffective, inutile and massively priced) Muni capital project of the last few decades.

We're doomed.

My suggestion: jump on the PBQD gravy train.

[bmfarley]

^^^ Ouch! I am hurt. You should run for public office.

[Richard Mlynarik]

Originally Posted by munkyman

now that they have full funding, what is the timeline for construction?

Issuing a press release claiming something based on cooked capital numbers and outright fraudulent ridership figures is one thing, actually having a billion or so pork barrel dollars in one's pocket is another.

It will go ahead, of course, but not because it is "fully funded" at this point, or because the actual costs and (hugely negative) benefits are anything like those presented by the project sponsors.

Note that VTA, in a exactly parallel move, and one actively coordinated politically with Muni, has funnelled something like $300 million public dollars into the pockets of the contractor mafia for its BART extension project which is several billion dollars away from being fully funded. The important thing is to spend the money as fast as possible -- that way the public is committed to throwing bad money after good.

And note that these Muni and VTA rail projects (both fronting for the same engineering mega-company -- what are the odds?!) are respectively the worst and second-worst projects anywhere on the planet as measured by capital cost-effectiveness. That's no coincidence!

It's not like we haven't been down this path many many times.
(BART to Millbrae, Bay Bridge East Span, etc, etc, etc.)
"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

[Richard Mlynarik]

Originally Posted by bmfarley

Transit agencies seeking federal funds for major transit expansion projects do so by guiding their projects through the FTA 'New Starts Program.' Federal particpation ($) is related to how the projects score. FTA will fund up to 50% of the project cost if it scores well.

In the case of the Central Subway federal law was explicitly rewritten to exempt the project from being scored on even the pretense of a level playing field. (Likewise BART to SJ/Santa Clara and WMATA Dulles über-dog pork troughs.

H.R.3 from the 109th Congress:

SEC. 3011. CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS.

(a) In General- Section 5309 is amended to read as follows:
[...]
(f) Adjustments- The adjustments made in the Federal Transit Administrator's Dear Colleague letter of April 29, 2005, to require a `medium' for the cost-effectiveness rating, in order for fixed guideway projects to be recommended for funding by the Federal Transit Administration, shall not apply to the following:
(1) San Francisco Muni--Third Street LRT Phase I/II.
(2) Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority--Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor.
(3) Washington County, Oregon--Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail.

Now why would they have to do that it it was a "no brainer" that this project will serve a billion zillion people?)

Federal "participation" ("shakedown" is more accurate) has nothing to do with this project's (complete lack of) merit.

[POLA]

Originally Posted by Richard Mlynarik

Such an outcome does indeed seem likely to those with no brains.

A couple billion dollars of pure pork -- and worse transit in SF for decades to come -- seems a more likely outcome to the non-no-brainer contingent, both the rent-seeking public-defrauding faction (ie contractor mafia, SFCTA, SFMTA, etc) and the transit-promoting one.

SF: building on the "success" of the likewise no-brainer Third Street "light" rail project and every other (likewise grotesquely incompetent, ineffective, inutile and massively priced) Muni capital project of the last few decades.

We're doomed.

My suggestion: jump on the PBQD gravy train.

so, are you saying were going to be worse off with the central subway? or are you just assuming muni will fuck up regardless. what's your point?

[Richard Mlynarik]

Originally Posted by POLA

so, are you saying were going to be worse off with the central subway? or are you just assuming muni will fuck up regardless. what's your point?

1. Yes. It will increase costs, make 30/45 bus service worse, carry a negligable number of riders, be slower for riders than the 30/45 surface routes and thus not replace 30/45 service in any way, it will consume SF's transit fiscal capital and cash-seeking political capital for several decades, and actively prevent realistic system-wide improvements to Muni operations being made. It's a disaster from every perspective, except from that aboard the gravy train.

2. Yes. Muni will fuck up. Muni has fucked up. This isn't a transporation project and does nothing to improve Muni service. Quite the contrary. I mean, look at the T-Third and how it "improved" transit to the Bayview. This is a disaster of three times the magnitude. (And note that running the 9X -- a bus!!! -- the horror -- 7 days a week has done far more to improve Bayview service than the worse-than-15-bus T will ever do.)

3. My point is that the public (and the environment) are going to be reamed.
This makes some people happy (and some people wealthy), but not me.

[Gordo]

Richard got to this thread before I could - and is 100% right on everything regarding the Central Subway. There is one hole in the ground from the Caltrain terminus that needs to be drilled for train service- unfortunately, this is not the one. The word "boondoggle" will be redefined with this project - making other projects that have had this name in the past (the Bay Area projects mentioned by Richard, the Big Dig in Boston, etc, etc) look like wonderful, cheap projects.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

It's not considered a no-brainer in SF. I'd guess most of the SF SSP forumers (other than me) have expressed opposition to it at one time or another. Most often, the view seems to be that the money could be spent elsewhere to better effect but, of course, one reason I favor it is that there is not much reason to think the money would be available to spend elsewhere if it isn't spent on this project. If somebody would say, "You can have the $700 million to spend on either this project or a Geary subway" I'd go for the Geary line every time, but nobody is saying that and nobody ever would.

Everyone concentrates on the "free Federal money". What about the remaining $600 million that is not coming from Federal sources? What about the millions of dollars per year in new operational costs? Could these not be better spent other places?

$300 million spent on other projects would do more to improve transit that $1.3 billion will on this project - I think that is the point being made by many in SF.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by bmfarley

^^^ Ouch! I am hurt. You should run for public office.

Don't take Richard to heart. He's like that to everyone--doesn't realize how much it decreases the effectiveness of what he says. But he's right it isn't a given that the line will be heavily used as presently configured. Most locals wish they would extend it at least at far as North Beach (Washington Square) making it a true crosstown line. That might make it more heavily used. But as it is (and as I tried to say), it's mostly a political payback to Chinatown. I support it mainly because, as I said, I think we are better off with it than without it and if we don't build it we wouldn't be able to use the money for something that makes more sense (e.g. a Geary line).

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Everyone concentrates on the "free Federal money". What about the remaining $600 million that is not coming from Federal sources? What about the millions of dollars per year in new operational costs? Could these not be better spent other places?

$300 million spent on other projects would do more to improve transit that $1.3 billion will on this project - I think that is the point being made by many in SF.

Well, "many in SF" don't have to take the 30 Stockton and don't much care about the plight of those who do--or the Chinatown merchants. I think the line will be useful and will be used. At the very least, it will provide a direct route from CalTrain (and BayView) to Market St. (a few blocks west of the TransBay) and Union Square.

Of the other money, $200 million is from the state bonds and whose to say what we would get for something else. That means we might really only use about $400 million for other uses and that's over quite a number of years. I don't know if there would be better ways to spend that or not.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Richard Mlynarik

1. Yes. It will . . . make 30/45 bus service worse, carry a negligable number of riders, be slower for riders than the 30/45 surface routes

I simply don't believe that. The 30 crawls along and takes a very long time just to load passengers on 3rd between Market and Mission.

[suga]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

Duh! Also, one of our Senators was our Mayor. and the other, who is Chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is from Marin County.

Well, no duh, in LA we have the most congested boulevard(s) on the west coast yet federal and state funding STILL seems always quite out of reach to get these projects built. I've followed the central subway for years now (as well as LA rail projects) and it seems like things in the bay area get moving much quicker despite a stronger need statistical ridership basisi than LA. Right now wilshire in LA (as well as whittier blvd) get over 50k ridership a day, Vermont, Western and Olympic all hit well above 30k a day, yet not even an MTA study for rail.

My question basically is:
Is it LA's politico/MTA's ineptitude, or is it the aptitude of SF politico's/transit agencies that gets $$$ to the yay area easier than in socal?

[bmfarley]

Originally Posted by suga

My question basically is:
Is it LA's politico/MTA's ineptitude, or is it the aptitude of SF politico's/transit agencies that gets $$$ to the yay area easier than in socal?

From my humble observations... the SF Bay Area is much more open and progressive toward public transportation and has been for many years. Los Angeles County is catching up. San Diego is behind them.

Orange County and every rural county.. well, do I need to say where they are at?