*Historic* vs *Transit* Line

[Dietrich, Robert J.]

Did the Lakawana County pull one off with "Laurel Line Intermodal Corridor"?
They are building a "historic" trolley line on that right-of-way.

Bob
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	John Swindler [mailto:j_swindler at hotmail.com] 
Sent:	Tuesday, March 14, 2000 10:57 AM
To:	pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject:	Re: *Historic* vs *Transit* Line

>
>Greetings!
>
>	A question mostly for John Swindler but with application to the
Burgh.
>	Since you work with State financing and grants to transit agencies,
I will 
>assume that you are aware of many of the Federal monies and regulations, 
>stipulations, limitations for the same.  Is there specific Fed funding 
>which stipulates that a new transit rail line must be called an *Historic* 
>Line and cannot be considered a bonafide *Transit* line, even though the 
>line functions as a transit line?
>	To make an example.  Let's say that the 40-Mt.Washington line is
rebuilt 
>in its entirety (including a loop in downtown) and that second hand PCC 
>streetcars are purchased from San Francisco (the Baby Tens, 1016--1040) and

>are contracted out for a total rebuild - electrical, mechanical, and body 
>work.  The *intent* of the line is to cater to tourists so they might have 
>handy access from downtown to the views and restaurants and recreation on 
>Mt.Washington.  Schedules for the new line are nearly identical to the ones

>before abandonment - service starts in the early morning, about 5-AM, runs 
>on a regular schedule all day with more service during the AM and PM rush 
>hours, and runs late into the evening, about 1-AM.
>	Must this line be called an *Historic* line because of Fed funding
for 
>such a line?
>


As far as the state is concerned, you can call it anything you want.  There 
are no special state transit funding or set-asides for "historic" 
operations.

As for federal, same MAY apply, but would have to look at legislation in 
detail.  (That's why organizations hire grants management people to sift 
through enabling legislation to find applicable programs.) Just not aware of

any specific federal set-asides for "historic" transit capital projects in 
the TEA-21 legislation.  However, if you really want to check it out, Jim, 
the TEA-21 legislation is available on the internet at the Federal Transit 
Administration's (FTA) website.

Of more interest might be the "Annual Report on New Starts" which FTA 
submits to Congress as required by 49 US Code, section 5309(o)(1).  It's 
also on the FTA website.  The "New Starts" is where the big bucks are, and 
this annual report tells you what is likely to be built during next six 
years - and what isn't.

Concerning rail new starts listed in the 1999 report that just happen to be 
historic street railway schemes, both Memphis and Little Rock have projects 
listed.  Also listed as an authorized TEA-21 project (there is a vast 
difference between authorized and funded - many are authorized, few are 
funded) is the "Laurel Line Intermodal Corridor".  Care to venture a guess 
as to what that is????

What follows are some (boring) extracts from a summary of the TEA-21 
legislation as applies to transit.  It's from the FTA website.


>Transit Programs
>
>TEA-21 provides $41 billion over the 6 years for transit programs, with $36

>billion of this amount guaranteed. Of the total $41 billion, $29.34 billion

>is to come from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund while 
>$11.65 billion is authorized from the General Fund. Of the amount from the 
>General Fund, $5 billion is not included in the guaranteed funding level.
>
>Formula Grants
>
>The various Formula Grants programs are authorized at $19.97 billion for 
>FYs 1998-2003. After setasides for the Rural Transportation Accessibility 
>Incentive Program, the Clean Fuels program, and the Alaska Railroad (see 
>"Rail" programs), the remaining funding is apportioned using three 
>statutory formulas for urbanized areas, nonurbanized areas, and special 
>needs of the elderly and persons with disabilities.
>
>For urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more, the definition of 
>"capital" has been revised to include preventive maintenance. Operating 
>assistance for these larger areas is no longer an eligible expense. Also, 
>for these larger areas, at least 1 percent of the funding apportioned to 
>each area must be used for transit enhancement activities such as historic 
>preservation, landscaping, public art, pedestrian access, bicycle access, 
>and enhanced access for persons with disabilities.
>
>Capital Investment Grants
>
>TEA-21 continues the current program structure of three major programs:
>
>New starts. Total funding of $8.18 billion is authorized for FYs 1998-2003.

>Not less than 92 percent is to be applied to projects for final design and 
>construction. The Secretary is to evaluate and rate New Starts projects as 
>"highly recommended," "recommended," and "not recommended." In addition to 
>the current report each February by the Secretary on funding 
>recommendations, a supplemental report is now required to be submitted to 
>Congress each August. This report is to describe the Secretary's evaluation

>and rating of each project that has completed alternatives analyses or 
>preliminary engineering since the last report. In evaluating projects, the 
>Secretary is to consider the following new factors: population density and 
>current transit ridership in the corridor; the technical capability of the 
>grant recipient to construct the project; and factors that reflect 
>differences in local land, construction, and operating costs. A number of 
>projects are identified for funding during the reauthorization period.
>
>Fixed guideway modernization. Authorizations total $6.59 billion for this 
>program over the 6-year period. The allocation of funding under the first 
>four tiers has been modified slightly, but will continue to be apportioned 
>using system-wide mileage based on data used to apportion the funding in FY

>1997. Also, the number of tiers has been increased from four to seven. The 
>funding in these three additional tiers will be apportioned based on actual

>route-miles and revenue vehicle-miles on segments at least 7 years old.
>
>Bus. A total of $3.55 billion is authorized for bus and bus-related 
>facilities over the 6-year period. A takedown of $3 million per year is 
>authorized for the Federal Transit Administration's Bus Testing Facility in

>Pennsylvania for each of the 6 years of the reauthorization period. A 
>number of bus projects are identified for funding in FYs 1999 and 2000.
>
>


Finally, as for that "Laurel Line Intermodal Corridor" question:

"Lackawanna County (Scranton) is proposing the restoration of historic 
trolley passenger service on an old interurban trolley line between Scranton

and Wilkes-Barre with major distination points at Montage, 
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport and Wilkes-Barre, a total 
distance of approximately 16 miles. . . ."
"Currently there is light, but active freight service along most of the 
route.  Lackawanna County is in the process of opening bids on the first 
phase of re-electrification on the first portion of the line.  This work is 
being funded by the Federal Railroad Administration, which also provided 
support for the assessment of service restoration feasibility and 
requirements, including necessary engineering."

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com