Ogden Presentation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – Ogden Presentation PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: af39b-MDRiZ


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

Ogden Presentation


Professional Staff on Senate Appropriations Committee. Represented transit authorities before FTA and on Capitol Hill since 1987 ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:72
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 40
Provided by: Law138


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Ogden Presentation

Ogden Presentation
  • Jeffrey F. Boothe
  • 209 Pennsylvania Avenue
  • Suite 100
  • Washington, DC 20006
  • (202) 955-3000

  • Partner in Washington, DC office of Holland
  • Lead the Transportation Team
  • Spent 24 years working on transit projects and
    related issues
  • Professional Staff on Senate Appropriations
  • Represented transit authorities before FTA and on
    Capitol Hill since 1987
  • Worked on project teams for the past ten years
    shepherding projects through AA to final design
    and construction
  • Negotiated two full funding grant agreements
  • Industry Spokesperson
  • Chair New Starts Working Group
  • Executive Director of Community Streetcar

Bus Rapid Transit
  • Interest originated during Clinton Administration
    after visit by FTA to Curitiba, Brazil
  • Curitiba has dedicated right-of-way, stations and
    land use oriented around BRT
  • Los Angeles Wilshire boulevard line offers
    signage, ITS, distinctive buses and signal
  • Cleveland Euclid Corridor has dedicated
    right-of-way in portions of corridor, signal
    priority, ITS, signage and distinctive buses

Bus Rapid Transit in the United States
Bus Rapid TransitSystems in Operation
Bus Rapid Transit Systemsin Design or
Light Rail Transit
  • Introduction in US began with San Diego and
    Portland opening systems in early 1980s
  • Operate 18-20 hours per day
  • 5-15 minute headways during peak
  • 15-30 minute headways during off-peak
  • Dedicated right-of-way even when operating on
    city streets
  • Cost per mile ranges from 35-60 million per mile
    based on ROW acquisition, structures, and utility

American Rail Renaissance Light Rail Systems in
the United States
Light Rail Systemsin Operation
Light Rail Systemsin Design or Construction
  • Vintage
  • Operate in Kenhosha, Issaquah, San Pedro, Lowell
  • Restore previously operating vehicles
  • Seasonal or tourist operation usually in
    historic areas
  • Cost 5-10 million per mile
  • Heritage
  • Operate in Memphis, Tampa, Little Rock
  • Connect historic and tourist areas with downtown
  • Operate at 15-20 minute headways
  • Vehicles manufactured by Gomaco in Iowa
  • Cost 15-25 million per mile

  • Modern
  • Operate in Portland and Tacoma
  • Operate at 5 minute headways during peak and 15
    minute headways off-peak
  • Cars made by Inekon and Skoda dont meet Buy
  • Congress included funding in SAFTEA-LU to develop
    domestic capability
  • Cost 20-25 million per mile depending upon
    utility relocation and ROW acquisition

American Rail Renaissance Streetcar Systems in
the United States
Streetcar Systemsin Operation
Streetcar Systemsin Planning, Design or
The Portland Streetcar
What streetcars did before
They can do again
Redeveloping run-down areasBefore
And After
Development impact in five years 1,440,000,000
The Tampa Streetcar
Little Rock Heritage Streetcar
Little Rock Heritage Streetcar
Little Rock Heritage Streetcar
Federal Funding
  • Small Starts
  • Projects seeking less than 75 million section
    5309 and total project cost below 250 million
  • Intended to have a simplified project review
  • 200 million available in FY 07, FY 08 and FY 09
  • New Starts
  • Projects seeking more than 75 million section
    5309 funds
  • FTA has issued draft guidelines for project
    sponsors seeking funding in FY 08
  • Final rule to implement changes in program wont
    be published until end of 2007

Key Issues for Project Planning
  • Purpose and Need
  • What transportation-related problem is the
    project intended to address?
  • Are there congested corridors?
  • Does the project address need for circulation in
    the CBD and/or surrounding neighborhoods?
  • Are there limitations on available parking in the
    CBD that require alternative solutions?
  • Are there geographic constraints that limit
    non-transit alternatives?

Key Issues for Project Planning
  • Purpose and Need (cont.)
  • FTA is frustrated by communities that reach a
    conclusion regarding a specific technology and
    then work backwards to justify the project
  • Systems planning must identify the corridor,
    define the alternatives and guide the analysis
  • Public participation throughout this phase of the
    process is crucial to both NEPA and the FTA New
    Starts process
  • The conclusions reached must be justified by the
    local project sponsor

Key Issues for Project Planning
  • What are the other objectives of the community?
  • What is the regional vision for the project?
  • How does a project fit into land use and
    development goals for the community?
  • Is the region prepared to amend land use plans
    and regional policies to emphasize job and
    population growth in the project corridor?
  • What is the fiscal and political climate in the
    community towards considering a transit

Key Issues for Project Planning
  • Do you have a champion(s) willing to support the
    project through an arduous and time-consuming
  • Coming to consensus is critical to advancing a
  • FTA reads local newspapers and is aware if local
    consensus doesnt exist
  • Despite seniority and support for public transit,
    Senators Robert Bennett and Orrin Hatch will not
    be able to circumvent the FTA process
  • House and Senate Appropriations Committees rely
    on FTA to cull through projects and identify the
    most meritorious projects

Key Issues for Project Planning
  • What source(s) of funds will be used to pay for
    the AA?
  • AA is no longer an eligible activity under
    Section 5309
  • Have to use either planning funds from MPO or
    funding from the new 25 M/year AA program
  • How will it connect to the UTA commuter rail
  • FTA will expect the two projects to be integrated
  • Will the project be compatible, share a platform
    or be in close proximity?

Key Issues for Project Planning
  • What kind of bus service operates in the proposed
  • FTA will expect some level of enhanced bus
    service as the Baseline alternative
  • Baseline is the best you can do with modest
    investments in increased bus service and other
  • Where the public utilities located and is
    responsible to pay the cost of relocation?

Key Issues for Project Planning
  • Land Use/Economic Development
  • What type of development is currently located in
    the corridor?
  • Residential, commercial and retail each raise a
    different set of issues
  • Developers/neighborhoods open to redevelopment?
  • Are parcels available for redevelopment?

Key Issues for Project Planning
  • Population and employment density in project
  • Is the proposed corridor already used as a travel
  • Is population growth and job growth expected to
    occur in the proposed corridor?
  • What steps is the region prepared to take to
    encourage residential, commercial and/or retail
    to occur in the corridor?
  • What low-income or minority populations/neighborho
    ods are being served by the project?

Key Issues for Project Planning
  • Environmental Issues
  • Project operating in a public right-of-way, will
    require environmental analysis of the impacts,
    such as noise, visual, physical impacts
  • Engaging in Public Outreach
  • Early and often
  • Assemble advisory committee of citizens, elected
    officials and business leaders to be project
  • Federal law requires opportunity for public input
    using all available tools, such as visual
    simulations, websites, etc.

Key Issues for Project Planning
  • Ensure adequate funds for both capital for the
    fixed guideway project and operational support
    for the expanded system
  • What types of financing vehicles are currently
  • Availability of TIF, BADs or local tax
  • Bonding capacity for capital costs of the project
  • Will either a local vote or an action by the
    State Legislature be required to secure capital
    support the project and/or to operate system?

Why Does All This Matter?
  • FTA is raising the bar for advancement from
    alternatives analysis to preliminary engineering
  • FTA expecting locality to select their Locally
    Preferred Alternative (LPA) and then subject the
    LPA to higher level of analysis
  • FTA feeling Congressional pressure to make it
    more difficult for projects to advance
  • Key criteria for FTA are project
    cost-effectiveness, land use, financial plan and
    economic development
  • FTA must evaluate each of these criteria on a
    five-level scale and develop an overall project
  • FTA will not approve NEPA documents if it
    believes that the project wont meets its

Transit Oriented Development
  • Joint Development use federal transit funds for
    development at or near transit station/facility
  • Funds can be used for all project work, except
    built out of commercial revenue producing space
  • Cant acquire property until NEPA process
  • FTA reluctant to pay for parking that isnt
    intended for transit use
  • Transit Adjacent Development
  • Occurs near transit station but doesnt provide
    pedestrian connections/amenities
  • Develop seeks not particular connection to transit

Transit Oriented Development
  • Good working relationship between developer and
    transit project sponsor
  • Mix of uses consistent with and promote transit
  • Pedestrian connections exist to create seamless
    connections between development and station

Major Challenges to Creating High Performing TOD
  • Finding a common definition of goals outcomes
  • February 9-10 - Transit and Urban Form Conference
    in Dallas
  • Goal is to emerge with consensus regarding goals,
    definitions and policy objectives
  • Balancing the tension between making successful
    places and making successful transit systems
  • Reducing complexity, time, uncertainty costs
  • Creating a supportive regulatory environment
  • Recognizing that transit alone wont drive
  • Convincing investors that TOD makes money

Converging Trends Drive Demand for TOD
  • Transit is in a building boom
  • Urban and suburban reinvestment are on the rise
  • Demographic changes mean that who we are is
    much more diverse than before
  • Developers, investors and cities are recognizing
    that place-making creates value

National TOD Database
  • 3,341 existing fixed transit stations in 27
  • 630 additional stations in 15 New Starts regions
  • 1/2 mile radii metropolitan comparison
  • Fixed Transit includes
  • Subway and Heavy Rail
  • Light Rail Transit
  • Commuter Rail
  • Trolley and Streetcars
  • Bus Rapid Transit

Metro Regions Including New Starts
Demand for TOD by 2025 will more than double
  • By 2025 demand TOD residential could grow from 6
    million to 14.6 million households.
  • Regions with extensive and growing transit
    systems offer the greatest potential for TOD.
  • Growth is likely to be modest through 2010 and
    accelerate in later years as more transit systems
    come on line.

The Effect of Aging Baby Boomers on the U.S.
Demand Likely to Outstrip Todays Supply
  • New housing units needed to fulfill demand for
    TOD 8.5million
  • Current New Starts Transit Zones 3,971
  • Accommodating all demand would require building
    approximately 2,100 new units at every existing
    and future station.

Key Findings
  • There is and will be a significant demand for TOD
    housing through 2025.
  • Demand is likely to be modest in the next 5 years
    and accelerate as more transit systems come on
  • Those regions with large and expanding transit
    systems have the greatest potential to capture
  • Few regions are now positioned to accept this
    market and much more work is needed to bring the
    public and private sectors to the table.
  • The next 5 years is a opportunity to develop
    models that could be replicated and allow regions
    to capture a significant portion of future
    housing demand near transit.
About PowerShow.com