Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Investing In The Future

http://archhplanbaltimore.blogspot.com/2014/12/why-infrastructure-should-also-be.html?m=0#2EVSjx_cukmM%2Elinkedin




Hudson-Bergen Light Rail
Jersey City, New Jersey
en.wikipedia.org
Hello Everyone:

Today we are going to move from the ethics of designing death chambers and solitary confinement cells to investing in infrastructure, specifically, investing in public transportation.  Infrastructure investment is something that has potential to yield good long term results.  Unfortunately, the congressional powers that be cannot seem to take the long view when it comes to investing in road repair and new rail lines.  In fact as Klaus Philipsen points out in his blog post, "Transit: Losing by Not Investing," "Infrastructure is an investment without a direct or short-term return, and so is often the first victim when politicians run on austerity and fiscal prudence but really cater to immediate gratification and private consumption at the expense of long term thinking and communal benefits."  Instant gratification, we all like that but when it comes to mass transportation, instant gratification and private consumption at the expense of the greater good is not the way to go.

Portland MAX
Flickr user Trimet via Creative Commons
Portland, Oregon
citylab.com
With this in mind, the good citizens of Mr. Philipsen's home state of Maryland, and elsewhere, recently elected a new governor running on the usual promises of lower taxes and smaller government, as well as denigrating two long-term public infrastructure transit projects.  The sum total of the projects account for $5.3 billion in transportation investment; of this sum, $450 million has already gone into planning an design.  These proposals have been germinating  over the past twelve years and are "...recommended projects in the transportation apportionment approved in the federal budget adopted by House and Senate in the final house before the holidays."

However, it would not surprise Mr. Philipsen (or blogger for that matter) if a newly elected or incumbent governor were to scrap a fully-funded or in progress transportation project.  Why the matter-of-fact attitude?  Mr. Philipsen writes, "The Governors in three states rejected federal High Speed rail (HSR) money that had been set aside for their state."  Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey not only refused a much needed rail tunnel under the Hudson River, but even returned some of the money.

Route 40 in Maryland
en.wikipedia.org
As the saying goes, "it's the same old song and dance." Long-term infrastructure projects are big expense items in state and federal budgets.  These "boondoggles" are budget breakers.  The people in control of this narrative are the very same ones who benefit from policies that encourage short-term consumption-i.e. tax cuts.  This is the very argument that flies in the face of the Republican Party platform's dedication to infrastructure investment (http://www.gop.com/platform/).  This pretzel logic would have been in operation when Pierre Charles L'Enfant was laying out Washington D.C. when America was building its railroad.  East Coast cities and other cities built sewer and water system early in the twentieth century.  It should be noted that these system have lasted to this day before giving out with no replacement in the foreseeable future.  Consider this, the arguments late-President Dwight D. Eisenhower would have faced when dreaming of a interstate highway system or President Lyndon B. Johnson when envisioning a D.C. Metro, Dulles Airport, or BART in San Francisco.  Of course today no one in there right mind would pass on these projects with their enormous benefits.  However, as Mr. Philipsen points out, "...make no mistake, all these projects required sacrifices, they cost lots of money and they had their enemies at the time."

Baltimore Red Line Station
baltimoreheritage.org
What will the state of Maryland do about the Baltimore Red Line and the Washington-area Purple Line?  Klaus Philipsen entertains the notion that the Governor of Maryland Larry Hogan could be right in saying "...that it irresponsible to spend such large percentages of the discretionary transportation fund on transit when only a small percentage of Marylanders ever use transit?"  Governor Hogan's constituents are the rural areas, small towns, and village that barely have any transit. Even if there was a large investment in transit infrastructure, are the Red and Purple Lines the highest and best use of funds or is there a more efficient and better option that could achieve the same result?  Do all the years of planning and progress matter or should Governor Hogan take some time to study it before proceeding or at least have the option to delay or halt these projects all together?

Washington D.C. area Purple Line
streetsblog.com
These are the very same questions being asked by many, especially those who have been skeptical about large transit investments.  With a Republican in the Statehouse questioning transit and declaring that Maryland's first priority should be fixing what it already has-i.e. road and bridges-an array of unlikely allies has come together with the goal of seeing the demise of these two projects.  Let us now take a look at the questions posed above and try to answer them.

Most Marylanders never use transit

This statement is true, even in Baltimore.  Mr. Philipsen posits, "But if we want this to improve, the transit system must be expanded." This point is underscored in DC where
MDOT Capital Program Summary
archplanbaltimore.blogspot.com
ridership is just under 40 percent.  Current ridership is dismal but the only available metric to determine the appropriate amount of transit investment in context to roads.  One example, we must consider the origin of the majority of the state's gross economic  product-meaning the metropolitan areas around Baltimore and Washington D.C.  Neither area can flourish without reliable and efficient modes of mobility.  Public transit is a continuously highly ranked mobility choice.  Lack of reliable and efficient transit holds the economy back.  To wit, the Downtown Partnership of Baltimore found that business reported the lack good transit as the chief complaint of area employers.  Further, the Greater Baltimore Committee ad the Washington Board of Trade both fully support the Red and Purple lines. Other than that, projected transit investment include significant allotments for road and bridge repair.

Red Line train
archplanbaltimore.blogspot.com
Are the Red and Purple Lines good projects, or are there more efficient options that could achieve the same outcome?

Excellent question.  Both lines have been studied for over twelve years, a third of that time under a previous Republican administration.  Each project has consumed millions of planning dollars and thousands of community participation hours.  Options such as surface rail, underground rail, rapid bus, and assorted route alternatives were analyzed, compared, and evaluated.  Full Environmental Impact Statements were readied, reviewed, and approved.  A Locally Preferred Alternative was chosen based on the best cost benefit ratio determined by strict FTA standard conceived under President George W. Bush, who put forth a comprehensive transportation bill called ISTEA.  Under a newly modified formula benefits, such as ridership, were quantified based on vigorously tested and calibrated metropolitan models including demographic projections, time savings, and environmental benefits.  The high tunnel cost of the LPA are countered by travel speed increases and ridership from rerouting lines with the highest densities of riders.  Alternatives to the LPA were looked at but never gained traction because they were found not to be as cost beneficial or technically feasible.  Other alternatives, proposed by project opponents, were simply the same plans, with a new look and did just as badly or worse.  Mr. Philipsen adds, "...anybody who thinks that design modifications can still be made at the time when the projects are ready to be bid completely misjudges the time it takes to get altered design documents bid ready."  In the case of the Purple Line, a request for P3 documents were due in January, now due in March to give the Hogan administration time to settle in.  Each submitter is granted a stipend for the effort it took to submit a proposal, making the bid useless would cost $8 million.  In the case of the Red Line, 50 percent of the work is also P3; requested proposals concurrent with bids for an additional 50 percent in 2015.

Light Rail Train station
Institute for Transportation and Development
planetizen.com
Should a new Governor delay these projects?

Governor Hogan could decide to delay these projects but, "Any delay would most likely be tantamount to death for the projects through loss of $1.8 billion of federal funding that would most certainly come with delay."  New transit projects starts are extremely competitive.  Dozens of cities vie for about $14 billion set aside by the FTA for New Starts proposals annually.  Maryland's twin New Starts both received recommendations and are funded in fiscal year 2015 with $100 million a piece.  Thus, any delay would not only increase construction costs but move the projects to the rear of the line.  The Governor should remember that under the previous Republican administration, which he was part of, there were extensive efforts to push the Red Line in the direction of BRT.  The conclusion, bus tunnels proved more costly than LRT tunnels and surface BRT were shown not as beneficial over existing bus service or required lanes that intruded on downtown traffic.

Baltimore Light Rail at BWI Airport
en.wikipedia.org

Can we afford them when the budget appears to significant shortfalls as its?

Whenever a new gubernatorial administration takes office, the usual angst over the previous administration's inability to balance the state budget ensues.  Be that as it may, as Mr. Philipsen reports, "...every year when a new budget has to be proposed by Maryland's Governor, projections downsize the expected revenue and increase expected expenditures." This ritual is played in statehouses across the United States, including Maryland which actually in a better fiscal position than most states.  Further, the Governor has put forth a proposal, approved by the General Assembly, significant revenue increases for the Transportation Trust Fund from higher gasoline tax, linking tax to inflation as well as other adjustments.  This resulted in a $400-600 million in additional annual revenues which could pay for more than the twin New Starts lines draw from the trust fund.  This is the point, to make the Trust Fund flush enough to afford new investments.  To balance this out, the 2015 budget includes significant amounts have been earmarked for roads and bridges.  In 2014, the Maryland State Legislature approved a "lock box" proviso that would make it harder to divert transportation revenues to balance the general budget.

Maryland MTA Light Rail sign
bmore.jschool.umd.edu
Is the Baltimore Red Line too expensive?

New transit projects are not cheap and the Baltimore Red Line comes with a nearly 3 billion price tag.  No body is going to argue the fact that the Red Line is expensive.  How did this happen, especially when initial cost estimates were much lower?  According to Mr. Philipsen, "The main reason has to do with the decision to tunnel the project through all of downtown and through the entire historic Fells Point area as well as for a short segment on the west side of town near the county line."  Despite trains shorter than subways, the below ground portions of the LRT approach the cost of said subway systems because of the costs associated with bored tunnels, similar cut and cover stations, escalators, elevators, smoke evacuation systems, and so on all identical to subway systems.  Further, the underground segments require further investigation because who knows what lurks beneath.  Thus, we can conclude that it was the tunnels that droves the cost estimates up-a per mile cost stands at almost $203 million-"still significantly below that of a full fledged metro system which requires full track separation on bridges or tunnels throughout."

Baltimore Light Trolley
heritagetrolley.org
The irony in all this discussion over transit cost cutting is no one has ever posed the "Can it be done cheaper" question when it comes to long-term infrastructure projects such as Baltimore's water system, built in the twenties.  Instead, Klaus Philipsen frames the question as "What is excellence, what is state of the art, and what will serve future generations optimally?" These are questions that should asked of the Baltimore Red Line and the Washington D.C, area Purple Line.

To those who suggest "alternatives" should, in the words of Mr. Philipsen, "...admit that they are not really transit advocates, have no real alternative project, and are working to undermine the largest investment this state has ever made."  The Red and Purple Lines are the only FTA recommended New Start projects with approved EIS, priced and ready to go.
Howard Street Light Transit
kittelson.com
 Anything else is wishful thinking.  To pursue alternatives would result in either setting the metropolitan region back at least five to seven years and for Baltimore, it means no major transit investment.  Baltimore has not seen any new rail line in two decades, and to delay or cancel the Red Line would be acting an irresponsible manner, especially after over $230 million has already gone into planning, design, and testing.  Both the private and business sectors will not benefit from canceling the $2.9 billion transit project investment that has pulled $900 million in federal funds, and will make use of private sector money.  Denying transit infrastructure investment to a region already squeezed tightly from cut backs in federal funding is the very opposite of job creation and economic development.  It denies the future of this vibrant metropolitan region that is attracting an increasing number of creatives that crave better transit nor does it consider the transit needs of those who live on the periphery.  The Red Line could facilitate economic development and community transformation such as the metamorphosis witness in Denver and other cities.  Therefore, it behooves a governor, whose agenda is a better business climate, to recognize that it is fiscally prudent to invest in the future.

No comments:

Post a Comment