Point of order #1: The area that Phase II services has been built up since the 1970s, and is located entirely within the city limits of Sacramento. It also isn’t area that would be considered well-off economically. The actual sprawl belt would not be served until Phase III.

“more urban projects…where land use and local support are more favorable”

I’ll avoid commenting on local support, but you wouldn’t like any of the other proposals in terms of land use. The other major proposal, the Green/DNA Line, has about the same number of planned trips per day, into an area that was the product of very recent sprawl. The same point applies to the (already funded in part) West Sacramento streetcars. Even in the most optimistic plan, the only proposal that is deeply “urban” is for streetcars in East Sacramento.

I’m also happy to see an emphasis placed on whether there is sustainable long term financing for operations – Washington’s metro is an excellent example of a high quality capital asset with absolutely deplorable maintenance and operations.

The Indian government simply funds 50% of the cost of new urban rail projects (or has committed to do so). The logic seems clear – if the city state is willing to fund 50% of a large project, there must be sufficient merit to it. A simple standard like this would also save the nightmarish amount of time required to secure a FFGA.

I’m not sure I understand why I’m supposed to be sad about Sacramento. I have nothing against Sacramento in particular, but extending a rail line a bit deeper into its sprawl belt could legitimately not stack up against more urban projects, in Sacramento and elsewhere, where land use and local support are more favorable.

This will help cities and regions able to raise the millions needed to more than match federal funds, but some of the most needed transit projects may be left out due to lack of local funding ability. In the long run, certain cities and regions may be unfairly left out.

The best solution would be to greatly increase the annual budget for transit capital projects. Lets take away funding from military weapons programs and highway projects, and give it to transit. Imagine if every cost-effective transit project got 80% funding from the feds. I know Los Angeles has plenty of plans in the future which could be funded NOW if that sort of match was available.