Comments on: Clues on the Next Transportation Bill – from the Twin Cities

By: Allen

Allen — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:18:44 +0000

“There are a couple problems with this system: one, it doesn’t take into much account other issues such as economic development, preference for rail over existing bus services, and environmental improvements; and two, highways do not have to go through this tough standards process at all.”

You’re missing the point. The point of the formula has nothing to do with highways. It’s about allocating transit resources. Highways vs transit is a higher level issue. This is about how to allocate the Federal funds in the budget that are for transit projects.

Also, preference for rail over bus is taken into account in the form of ridership.

As for economic development, how would that be measured?

Like I said, overall it’s about prioritizing funds allocated for transit to the projects that will result in the most use. In any given year a limited number of dollars is available. It makes sense to use them on projects that will result in the most trips. Otherwise it’ll become nothing more than a game of ear marks based on political connections giving Fairbanks Alaska a better chance of getting a light rail line funded than Austin or Phoenix.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:48:55 +0000

Michael, transit passes are already tax-free up to $120 per month. This hasn’t helped the New York City Subway, whose monthly transit pass costs $81/month, surpass a farebox recovery ratio of 0.67.

By: BruceMcF

BruceMcF — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 01:09:37 +0000

A multi-dimensional approach would be to fund 40% of a transit project on a competitive basis based on energy savings per dollar invested, 40% on a competitive basis based on transit congestion improvement per dollar invested, and 40% based on state nomination as a priority improvement, and allow any one project to dip into two of the three pots of money.

So, IOW, maintain New Starts funding, at a 40% match level, establish a parallel Energy Independent Transport fund with a 40% match, and a parallel State Strategic Transport priorities fund, with a 40% match. Projects that jump over one bar get 40% funding, projects that jump over two bars get 80% funding.

By: Damien Goodmon

Damien Goodmon — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:28:30 +0000

First off, being an Angelino, allz I just want is municipalities to be allowed the choice to spend highway funds on transit projects.

Regarding your post, good job pointing out the controversy at Tysons Corner. It has become the poster-child for the flawed C/E New Starts evaluation. But the New Starts standard pales in comparison to the political hurdles that exist in Northern Virginia.

Simply, any calculation that solely considers capital cost in evaluating the worthiness of 75-100 year transit projects is by definition flawed. A first year Wharton student wouldn’t be able to offer such an analysis as an appropriate way to evaluate a potential investment, yet it is “the Gold Standard” for the federal government. Go figure.

The problem with completely eliminating it all together is that there are plenty of transit agencies and politicians whose pockets are greased with dollars from contractors/developers making most of these decisions. So some standard needs to exist to prevent billion dollar boondoggles.

@Chris
In the New Starts process there is an evaluation for development potential/projected growth that is factored into the overall evaluation and ultimate FTA ranking. It’s simply not as strongly weighted as C/E.

By: Michael Lewyn

Michael Lewyn — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:01:50 +0000

The problem with throwing money at capital grants is that transit systems have no protection against recessions. Why not (either in addition to or as a substitute for subsidies) grant a tax credit for transit passes, so that transit agencies can finance everything through fares without having to worry about federal approval?

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:55:18 +0000

**C/E, not C/C

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:54:12 +0000

I don’t support eliminating C/C altogether, but two general suggestions could tilt the balance of power to transit vs. freeways:

1.) Force freeway projects to pass a similarly rigorous C/E test (if not eliminate new freeway construction altogether, which is what I’d like to see)

2.) Allow infill/TOD potential to be factored into the existing C/E calculus.

By: PPP

PPP — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:08:01 +0000

It seems to me the fact that highway funds are distributed using a population-based formula to states is quite simplistic. Other factors taking into account existing conditions should be taken into consideration.

I am looking forward to reading your discussion of the SAFETEA-LU.

Cheers

By: Norman Brown

Norman Brown — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 04:26:00 +0000

The flip side of the New Starts problem is the failure of the Federal Government to provide operating funds for existing systems. If existing systems that earn an above average return of operating expenses from the fairbox cannot get operating funds from the Federal Government, as they could before the Gingrich “revolution” why is it that new starts in the sun belt and the sprawl belt can get federal money to initiate new services that won’t recover remotely the same ratio of fare box to operating cost for a few decade?