Beginning the Dialogue - Report on SGR - Federal Transit ...

Conditions of Transit Infrastructure
r OBSERVATIONS FROM SGR
WORKSHOP
The SGR Workshop yielded a number of
observations and valuable perspectives with respect
to <strong>the</strong> current condition of <strong>the</strong> nation’s transit assets
and <strong>the</strong> level of investment required to address
unmet needs. Following are several key study
observations:
Current National Estimates: Some workshop
participants expressed <strong>the</strong> concern that <strong>the</strong> current
estimates produced by FTA’s TERM model may be
low, and discussed at length <strong>the</strong> importance of a
consistent definition of SGR needs. In particular,
participants were concerned that <strong>the</strong> tool may not
fully account for “betterments,” “improvements” or
mandated requirements (e.g., ADA) that occur
whenever assets are replaced, or additional costs to
replace assets supporting active operations (note:
many TERM replacements are made “in-kind”). FTA
has already initiated work programs to better capture
<strong>the</strong>se betterment and improvement cost increments
in future versions of <strong>the</strong> model.
Needs versus Funding: Representatives of two of
<strong>the</strong> older rail agencies participating in <strong>the</strong> workshop
cited internal estimates that <strong>the</strong>ir SGR needs outpace
expenditures by a ratio of 2:1. Participants also
noted that some operating expenses (e.g., lease
payments) are actually SGR related investments.
Hence, strict comparisons of available reinvestment
needs and funding available for reinvestment
activities may not account for <strong>the</strong>se types of
expenditures.
Deferred Investments: Most participants agreed that
maintenance facilities, bridges, signals, and station
amenities tended to be <strong>the</strong> asset types with <strong>the</strong>
largest deferred investment needs (<strong>the</strong>se are
generally considered lower priority assets, assuming
<strong>the</strong>re are no safety issues resulting from <strong>the</strong>ir
deferral).
Rehabilitation/Replacement Costs: Participants
noted that rehabilitation and replacement costs used
16
for needs estimation must fully capture all cost
factors including:
n Installation under no, partial or full service;
n Agency force account and/or contracted labor;
n Soft costs, including design and project
management;
n Inflation rates appropriate to <strong>the</strong> types of
materials and labor being utilized;
n Required materials or technology improvements.
Technological Obsolescence: Reinvestment
activities are sometimes driven by <strong>the</strong> need for
technological improvements as much as by
replacement of worn assets.
r ISSUES REMAINING
Following are additional questions for <strong>the</strong> industry to
address with respect to <strong>the</strong> current conditions of <strong>the</strong>
nation’s transit assets and overall state of good
repair:
n Is <strong>the</strong> assessment of needs and conditions
presented above reasonably accurate? For
example, are asset conditions poorest and
investment needs most significant for bus and
heavy rail? Within <strong>the</strong>se two modes, are <strong>the</strong>
highest reinvestment needs for stations and
vehicles (heavy rail) and vehicles and
maintenance facilities (bus)?
n What are <strong>the</strong> biggest investment needs in terms
of investment dollars (i.e., where are <strong>the</strong> largest
deferred needs) by mode and asset type?
n How are local agencies addressing <strong>the</strong>ir
reinvestment needs given <strong>the</strong> gap between
needs and available funding?
n Where are <strong>the</strong> most significant sources of
potential risk to local agencies if current
outstanding needs are not addressed (e.g., in
terms of safety, potential for extended service
disruptions, or o<strong>the</strong>r risks)? Is <strong>the</strong>re a specific
asset type most associated with risk?