Explorer55

I can assure you, if you haven't noticed, that I-96, and any Interstate freeway of that or even later eras, has been through resurfacing, repaving, rehabilitation, and reconstruction (the "4Rs"), sometimes several times over. There's not much left of the original roadway. And btw, we are in a deep hole as a nation in maintaining and preserving our highway/bridge infrastructure (not to mention other types of infrastructure). If you really want to get into it, you can read a report that goes to Congress every two years titled, "Status of Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit": http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2004cpr/.

Here's a series of presentations on transportation, sponsored by those folks in Portland, that you may find helpful. http://www.cts.pdx.edu/seminars.htm In particular, I recommend viewing Donald Shoup's video. It's on a topic that just doesn't get the attention I think it deserves.

I mentioned Ottawa County not in the context of providing commuter rail service to Holland or other Lakeshore communities, but to provide more "mundane" transit services to the Ottawa Co. suburbs of Grand Rapids. To my knowledge, Jenison, Hudsonville, Georgetown Twp, etc., are part of the GR MPO (GVMC) and it is not a good idea to have more than one transit operator in a metro area if that can be avoided (i.e.there shouldn't be a separate public transportation provider just for the Ottawa Co. portion of the GR region), . Before you can run, you need to learn to walk, and expanding local and express bus services to outlying suburbs may be a good way to learn how to walk. Here's an article that might be of interest (if you haven't read it already): http://www.mlui.org/transportation/fullart...sp?fileid=16880

I don't know enough about the particular numbers you refer to in order for me to comment on your estimates, but I will say that when setting up a funding mechanism for transportation revenues, establishing the appropriate boundaries is crucial. Will all of Kent County want to "buy" in? Should at least part of Ottawa County be included? What is the ITP service area now? Is that a place to start or should it be expanded or modified? What type of services are being proposed and what areas/populations will those serve and to what extent? What is the logical or practical service area to set up initially? Who's in and who"s out? How does the proposed system coincide with the metro area transportation planning boundaries? Will an increase in the sales tax cause at least some people to shop outside the transit tax area to save a few bucks? These are just some of the questions that could affect identification and establishment of the revenue base, the financing capabilities, and the projects/services the transit system would be able and should provide.

I thought I had replied previously, but maybe I didn't communicate well. Certainly a local area, region or state can go forward with transportation projects of any size without federal funding. Actually, federal funds in total don't contribute that much to the overall expenditures on the nation's transportation system, if you count all levels of highway and transit facilities and service. However, the "really big stuff" does tend to have federal involvement for financial reasons (although major toll road projects are changing that to some degree). I think I mentioned Denver and Houston (and probably others) constructed their first LRT lines without federal funds, at least not New Starts funds. If a local area can pay for the system they want with non-federal money, I don't think FTA or anyone in the federal gov't will try to stop them. Regardless, since a major new or expanded transit system could have impacts on the federal-aid transportation system, any proposals would most likely still need to go through the metropolitan planning process, particularly if the area is nonattainment/maintenance for air quality standards and if the area wants to make sure its proposed transit system/service complements and enhances what's already out there. Don't forget, not only are there the initial capitial investments and other start-up costs, but also on-going operations and maintenance costs of the current and expanded system. And those expenses, for larger urban areas, cannot be covered by federal funds. As a result, so often, that is where the local/state funds are committed as a necessity. FYI - Also, once the Denver area passed the FasTracks initiative, about $240 million for the west LRT line (the first one to be built under FasTracks) was authorized (actually "earmarked") under SAFETEA-LU within a year. In this case, the corridor had already completed the NEPA process and was starting final design, and the commitment of the Denver region and local $$ to FasTracks probably helped to get the federal dollars so quickly.

There's never enough money for all of the transportation demand at any level of government, but federal funds, both FHWA and FTA are available now through the SAFETEA-LU authorizations and the agency that it must go through in the GR metro area is the Grand Valley Metro Council, including any transit discretionary grants the ITP might consider. The planning rules I refer to above are affecting transportation decision-making as we speak. If you want to understand how federal money becomes available to transportation agencies and how it is distributed within GR, as well as the rest of Michigan, you should read those regs or at least become more familiar with the workings of the Metro Council. Did you know that there is a great deal of flexibility in the federal transportation funding programs, at least for capital projects (hint: so-called highway funds can be used for transit and vice versa)?

If you want to get the latest scoop on the federal transportation planning requirements and processes (which must be followed to receive federal transportation program/project funding), you can read the newly issued planning regulations here (in the Federal Register of Feb. 14): http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/07-493.htm or http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/07-493.pdf These regulations are based on "SAFETEA-LU", the current transportation program authorization bill passed in 2005. Have fun!

I won't say much (although I could), but I will say this: Parking. The fact that for most of us it's "free" means the use of the SOV is highly subsidized. If you can, find the book "The High Cost of Free Parking" by Donald Shoup. Take a look at it. Btw, I've been in the highway "business" for over 26 years, and one of my specialities has been understanding how we pay (or don't) for roads....

I'm almost certain SLC is still going to seek FTA funds and probably use other federal funds for transit/commuter rail. There are also issues of maintaining/expanding bus service and long term operating/maintenance costs for the entire transit system, besides initial capital costs. Each area/project is different and comparing costs, even among areas of similar size and other characteristics can be tricky. And I'm not sure SLC and GR are that similar. Also, to clarify my previous statement, Denver and Houston did NOT use federal funds on their initial LRT lines and Denver will seek New Start funds on only 3 of the FasTracks corridors (out of 7 or so). However, other federal funds are available for transit beyond New Starts grants.

Last question. Does the FTA (federal funding) have to be involved in a transit system?

Ideally, the MPO and the transit agency should work closely in developing a multimodal, regional transportation plan. The ITP may have the lead for transit planning, but the MPO, both staff and policy makers, should be communicating and working with their counterparts at the ITP regularly. If you want to find out how that may/should work and examples of cooperation across the country, read the FTA report (found on its website), "Transit at the Table". Definitely, local commitment to transit system expansion and enhancement through local sales taxes or other funding resources helps grease the skids in applying for and receiving FTA funds. More than anything, the proposal needs to be based on realistic assumptions, including ridership, costs, funding, growth projections, etc. For a region the size (and density) of Grand Rapids, BRT may be more practical than LRT, but there could be other or a mix of approaches and strategies, and a need to look at the bigger, regional transportation system and land use patterns and development. Then there's Albuquerque, which with the Governor's backing, went the whole way and instituted commuter rail (to my knowledge with little or no federal funding). My concern is how people get to and from the stations without a car. Most of Albuquerque and other communities along the route are not pedestrian friendly (yet) and public transit service is limited. The commuter rail service is heavily subsidized and I'm not sure how long it may last without Governor Richardson's support. Extending the service to Santa Fe makes more sense than anything, but that is still a ways off into the future.

If federal money is going to be sought for any expansion or enhancement of transit in the GR area (or any federal-aid highway/road projects), the proposal must go through the metropolitan planning process. The agency responsible for that in the GR area is the Grand Valley Metro Council. Get to understand their process and responsibilities as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the GR region and become involved. The whole planning process is required to be open and accessible to the public, but only to the extent the "public" cares to take advantage of that opportunity. Btw, MDOT has to be a "cooperating" party to the metro planning process, as well as The Rapid.

Here's a link that should prove useful. http://www.cfte.org/