RECEIVED \ \,. ,,,. LACTC ------------- ,/ • I THE UMT A RAIL • l ,.,J~ MODERNIZATION· PROGRAM ' ..., EVALUATION OF THE IMPACTS OF SECTION 3 CAPITAL GRANTS .1 1 FOR RAIL REHABILITATION AND- MODERNIZATION, 1965-1977'! · • I prepared for the U. S. Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration Poilicy, Budget and Program Development j, Office of Program Evaluation Washington, D.C. 20590 .. .,,. ,. ~ .. • ':i,)• ,, .. ~ "'~1~,~µ!> :' ' • • i=, i . ,,~.~ ·1·. • .' ~ 1 ' ' if, . ·'1 .. , ._ ,. .,,.,, .. , ~ • ! ,. ;~00 03 03 01 01 0338 BflOlfTT /P EAT. ~ARlilICK. MITCHEL L & CO. us or /UIITA UMTA A~ l l M DE,,l!ATION PRBMIEVALUAllON Of !H f IKPACT~ Cf ECTIOM 3/CAPl1Al GRANT S FOR RAIL ..:"• RE~AE I ~co R~!ZATIOM /196S-!977 0$/01 /)\ •I I t, . - .. > ,- ~ I ·;·'oh.:. i ,, ' t ":.l l';r NOTICE .. '. ~-. ·/ l ;, ,, .. ~, l" I '.J.< it . - .. This ~document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the,_ .. }· ' Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no I ' i liability for its contents or use thereof. : ' ;. " . 1 ~ - ' I '1. NOTICE j-· ~ I" - ' ' . ' . ·,.:;.,, . ~- The United States Government does not endorse products or ' :' • ' ,:1.. i·t• ~-t" ~· .: :~ f• .J ' manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of ,.. J f : ', f this report. I'• I k,¾t-, •• ,F( :/i .... ,,·•· • 1 L. ~: .• •l,l· ,•!. r 0900 03 03 01 01 03 38 DATE DUE rc'• ,. BENNET T/PEAT, HARWICK, MITCHELL &CO . l ~ . US OOT /UMTA l . UHTA RAIL MOOERHIZATIOH PRGH/EVALUATIOH OF THE IMPAC TS OF SECTIOH J/CAPITAL GRAHTS FOR RAIL REH AB & HOOERHIZAT!OH / 1965-1977 05/01/79 ,l ! • GAVLORD PRINTED IN U.S.A. .....-.. ...._ ___ __ -•, Technical ~eport Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Cota log No. UMTA-UPP-79-8 4. Title and Sub ti tie 5. Report Dote The UMTA Rail Modernization Program May, 1979 Evaluation of the Impacts of Section 3 6. Performing Orgoni zolion Cod• Capital Grants for Rail Rehabilitation and Modernization 8. Performing Orgoni zotion Report No. 7. Autho,1 s) John Bennett UMTA-UPP-79-8 9. Performing Organization Name ond Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company 1990 K Street, N.W. ll. Contract or Gran! No. Washington, D.C. 20006 UMTA-IT-06-0118 13. Type of Report ond Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report Urban Mass Transportation Administration 400 Seventh Street, s. w. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, D. c. 20590 15. Supplementary Notes Project.Monitor: Jack Bennett Contributing Team Members: Bryan Green, Diane Schwager, Steve Etkin 16. Abstract This report is an evaluation of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration grants for the modernization of existing rail systems. From the beginning of the Section 3 Capital Grant Program through May 31, 1977, Section 3 grant approvals amounted to approximately $6.2 billion. Of this total, $1. 7 billion, or 28 percent was approved for the rehabilitation, replacement and upgrading of existing rail systems. The report contains an inventory of rail modernization projects by type, mode (rapid rail, light rail, and commuter rail), and city. Impacts of these funds are analyzed by examining several specific projects in detail. In addition to the examination of project impacts, the process uded by two transit operators (NYCTA and PATH) to secure rail modernization funds and to select and implement projects is discussed. LACTC/RCC LIBRARY 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Urban Transportation Rail Available to the Public through the Transit Rail Modernization Evaluation National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. 19. Security Clouif. Col this report) 20. Security Clonif. (of this poge) 21• No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified Form DOT F 1700.7 CB-72) Reproduction of completed po9e o,,.,i,,,,;:.,:,d TF 857 .B47 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 A. Purpose of This Study I.l B. Study Approach I.1 C. Findings and Conclusions I.3 D. Recommendations I. 5 II INTRODUCTION II.1 A. Purpose of the Study II.1 B. Study Approach II. 1 C. Organization of the Report II.2 III UMTA PROGRAM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES III .1 A. Federal Role in Transit III .1 B. Rail Modernization Program Goals and Objectives III .4 IV Il\tIPACTS OF THE RAIL MODERNIZATION PROGRAM IV .1 A. Local Impacts IV. 1 B. National Impacts Iv.11 V EVALUATION OF THE RAIL MODERNIZATION PROGRAM V. 1 A. Rail Modernization Program Impacts V. 1 B. Rail Modernization Program Management V. 10 Appendix A Impacts Resulting from the Modernization of Existing Equipment and the Purchase of New Equipment for the Burlington Northern A. 1 B Impacts Resulting from the Modernization of Power Con­ version Equipment by the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (PATH) B. 1 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Appendix C Impacts of UMTA-Funded Improvements on the River­ side Branch of the Green Line c. 1 D Impacts Resulting from the Purchase of New Commuter Rail Cars by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transpor­ tation Authority (SEPTA) D. 1 E Station Modernization Projects Funded by the UMT A Section 3 Rail Modernization Program E. 1 F Urban Rail Rehabilitation and Modernization Funding Process Case Studies F. 1 ii LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Page III-1 U .s. Transit Sector Aggregate Post-War Statistics III. 2 IV-1 Initial Survey of Rail Modernization Grant Impacts IV .2 IV-2 Grant Impact Case Studies IV .4 JV-3 UMTA Section 3 Rail Modernization Grant Approvals by Mode and by Year, 1965-1977 IV. 14 IV-4 Trends in Rapid and Light Rail Modernization Patron- age and Vehicle-Miles Operated, 1953-1977 IV .16 IV-5 Changes in Annual Patronage in Selected Rapid Rail Systems IV .18 IV-6 Commuter Rail Operating Trends IV .20 V-1 Rail Modernization Project Impacts on Program Goals V .6 iii I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 was enacted by Congress to provide federal financial assistance for the development of comprehensive and coordinated urban mass transit systems. As one of various UMTA programs providing financial assistance to urban areas, the Capital Grants and Loan Program was established under Section 3 of the UMT Act. From the beginning of this program through May 31, 1977, Section 3 grant approvals amounted to approximately $6. 2 billion. Of this total, nearly $1. 7 billion, or 28 percent, was approved for the modernization of existing rail systems, including the replacement and upgrading of facilities and equipment •1 A. PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY Projects funded through the rail modernization program are often justified on the basis of their anticipated impacts on the safety, reliability. cost, and/ or patronage of existing rail systems. These projects, however. are rarely examined to determine their effect on rail systems following their implementa­ tion. In this study. an initial examination of these impacts was conducted. As part of this examination, this study also involved the preparation of an inven­ tory of rail modernization projects by type, by mode, and by city, as well as an evaluation of the process undertaken by local transit operators to secure rail modernization funds and to select and implement rail modernization projects. The inventory of rail modernization projects was prepared during Phase I of this study and is described in an earlier complementary report. 2 The re­ maining analyses were conducted during Phase II and serve as the primary focus of this report. B. STUDY APPROACH The evaluation of Rail Modernization Program impacts was conducted by examining a variety o·f specific projects funded through this program. This 1Major extensions to existing facilities and new ra:i:l transit systems are also funded by Section 3 grants. They are not considered part of the rail modern­ ization program, however. 211 The UMTA Rail Modernization Program, The Distribution of Capital Grant Funds for Rail Rehabilitation and Modernization," prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co •• July 1978. I.l evaluation approach permitted a more detailed review of the range and extent of impacts resulting from rail modernization efforts. The projects selected for examination represent a mix of modernization activities which reflect the pattern of investment undertaken for the program as a whole. This pattern suggested that projects examined in detail should reflect the fact that ( 1) nearly 70 percent of all funds have been approved for use in New York and Chicago, (2) funds approved for rolling stock rehabilitation and replacement have ac­ counted for over 50 percent of the total, and (3) a significant level of funds has been approved for each of the three rail modes--light, rapid, and com­ muter. These factors served as the primary basis for selection of projects for in-depth examination. Other factors which influenced the final selection, however, included the extent of project completion and the availability of data to measure resulting project impacts. 1 The following projects were selected for detailed examination: • IL-15 (Chicago, Illinois) - Replace/ modernize Burlington Northern commuter rail rolling stock; • IT-01 (New York, New York) - Power system improvements for the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation; • MA-10, MA-13, MA-15, MA-22 (Boston, Massachusetts) - Roll­ ing stock, way and structure, and station improvements on the Riverside Branch of the Green Line light rail system; • PA-10 (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) - Replacement of SEPTA ex­ Penn-Central Division commuter rail rolling stock; and • NY-07, PA-23, PA-33 (New York, New York; Philadelphia, Penn­ sylvania) - Station modernization improvements. Reports on the evaluation of each of these projects are presented as separate appendices to this report. In addition to the examination of project impacts, an evaluation was con­ ducted of the process undertaken by local transit operators to secure rail modernization funds and to select and implement projects.