KCRag Forum

Are we confident or like super confident?

And is backup plan realistic?

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:13 pm Are we confident or like super confident?

Super confident in the rating (staff), less confident in the appropriation (electeds). Here's how the latter might work:

(a) Trump names the project in his budget (least likely)
(b) Congress reopens earmarks ("Article I Projects") and our bi-state delegation earmarks the federal match (most likely)
(c) We wait until someone else is elected in 2020 or 2024, using the time to finish engineering and design (likely, but only if b does not occur first)

The FAST Act (and Small Starts) is authorized through 2020, but Congress rarely passes a new authorization by the time the previous one expires. They end up passing Continuing Resolutions multiple times and that's where the earmarks are likely to appear.

What is the timeline of (b)? Is that this month?

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:47 pm

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:13 pm Are we confident or like super confident?

(b) Congress reopens earmarks ("Article I Projects") and our bi-state delegation earmarks the federal match (most likely)

If earmarks come back, would that make it easier to get federal funds on other future extensions? (vs. going through a program such as FAST or Small Starts)

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:52 pm What is the timeline of (b)? Is that this month?

No clue.

normalthings wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:47 pm

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:47 pm

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:13 pm Are we confident or like super confident?

(b) Congress reopens earmarks ("Article I Projects") and our bi-state delegation earmarks the federal match (most likely)

If earmarks come back, would that make it easier to get federal funds on other future extensions? (vs. going through a program such as FAST or Small Starts)

Yes.

Appreciate the info Dave.

Major shift from the administration's first two budget documents, which sought to eliminate the program entirely:



No specific projects were listed in the budget.

Are there plans to add switchbacks in Midtown? It would allow circulation of streetcars if a portion of mainstreet were to get blocked.

I saw someone with some knowledge say yes.
Complete the one at Union station and at least one more

"Medium-High" is the rating! Off we go...

Is that what we were thinking? I'm sure high would have been preferred but is that realistic?

Is that a good sign Dave? How does that compare to competing projects?

"Medium-High" is what consultants predicted. The Downtown-Plaza corridor always rates strong -- remember we've been at this stage before with light rail twice -- so this is not really "new" news (but a necessary step in this project's process). The official federal match is 47.9%. Less than half is good.

Other Medium-High projects entering Project Development in this report:

IN Lake County, West Lake Corridor (BRT)
WA Seattle, Federal Way Link Extension - Sound Transit (LRT)

Medium:

AZ Phoenix, Northwest Extension Phase II Light Rail
AZ Phoenix, South Central Light Rail Extension (Downtown Hub)

Medium-Low:

NJ-NY Secaucus, Hudson Tunnel (Heavy rail)

Some others are listed but entered the process before the laws change so they don't have ratings yet (Portland LRT, NYC 2nd Avenue Subway, etc).

That’s great news! Are there any competing projects with a high rating?

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:43 pm That’s great news! Are there any competing projects with a high rating?

None at the same stage (Project Development) and category. Here's one other streetcar project that received a "High" rating in the Small Starts Project Development phase:

WA Seattle, Center City Connector

Our project is now large enough to be in the New Starts category (which uses the same pot of federal funds).

Wasn't the whole point of moving away from earmarks to keep from funding really shitty transportation projects just to make everyone happy?

Seems like that would be a bad approach to return to.

Selections from “FTA Capital Investment Program: KC Streetcar Expansion Project Profile”

https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.d ... rofile.pdf

The City expects to complete the environmental review process in early 2019, enter Engineering in late 2019, receive a full funding grant agreement in May 2020, and start revenue service in June 2023.

The Project includes right-of-way acquisition, vehicle maintenance facility expansion, the purchase of six vehicles, road work, transit signal priority and queue-jumps, intersection and sidewalk improvements, communications system, and a fare collection system. The service is planned to operate every 10 minutes weekday peak and off- peak periods, and every 12 minutes during weekday evenings and weekends.

So free to ride is going away? And six vehicles doesn’t like enough?

Fare collection system?