Keep the Cars Running
I was among those who hoped to see a strong transit component to the stimulus plan. I also recognized that transit spending would be limited by shovel-readiness — given the current federal emphasis on highway spending, there are limited transit projects available to expedite for stimulus’ sake — and that other bills would be more important for the long-run structure of transportation funding. This year, Congress will enact a replacement for the current law that governs spending on surface transportation projects, and which expires in September. We may also see a major energy bill passed, which could contain important provisions pertaining to transportation spending.
Still, most progressives wanted to see Congress do what it could for transit in the stimulus, and while the spending totals in the House version of the bill are smaller than had been recommended by James Oberstar, transit and rail projects are looking to get upwards of $10 billion over the next two years. The problem? It’s mainly capital spending. In a letter to the Washington Post, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority chairman Chris Zimmerman states the obvious:
Thanks to the economic crisis, Metro’s board of directors has been presented with a budget proposal for the next fiscal year that would cut almost 900 positions to close a budget gap of more than $170 million. On the menu are reductions in bus routes and in rail service hours, and the closing of some station entrances.
Unfortunately, the stimulus bill moving through Congress is aimed at capital projects, which are very important to the future of the region, but which do not address operating expenses.
It will be difficult to explain the logic of working on expansion while slashing service. If service levels are to be maintained, additional revenue will have to be found, either from increased state and local government subsidies, from federal aid or from Metro’s riders.
This was always the curious thing about the debate over transit in the stimulus. As tax revenues have fallen, transit budgets have been gutted, even as ridership has remained strong. Financial support for operations has essentially no effective delay — it’s immediately counter-cyclical, saving riders money and preventing job and spending cuts. And it’s also progressive and green and all the other stuff Obama said he wanted in a stimulus.
Senate Democrats will likely busy themselves trying, futilely, to get Republican support by adding tax cuts and reducing spending in the stimulus bill. It would be nice if instead they tried to actually improve the bill, by directing more money to transit operating expenses.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:32 am
I, personally, hadn’t even thought about the possibility of operations funding until last week, and now I’m hearing it from lots of knowledgeable sources. Let’s hope there are others like me just waking up to this solution - one that seems almost too obvious to be true.
It’s also worth noting that Obama has, all along, insisted that this stimulus is not only a quick shot in the arm. The second purpose has always been to “lay a foundation for economic growth.” I think that’s worth bearing in mind as these decisions are made. Long-term sustainability should not be mere window-dressing to the real task at hand. It is a complementary goal.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:54 am
I think there’s an opportunity to direct transit operating assistance through the stimulus portions directed at the state budget deficits. The problem, of course, is that to get the money, you have to go through several layers of stuff.
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Ryan, it’s worth noting perhaps that we’ve been cataloging proposed (and recent) transit service cuts, fare increases, and job cuts into one map that folks can grab and embed if they like.
Nearly 21 million trips on 53 systems thus far that could be affected by the shortfall in operating budgets. Shouldn’t operating assistance be a no-brainer for the stimulus?
http://t4america.org/transitcuts
February 2nd, 2009 at 2:37 pm
It’s a good point. Particularly because the trend in ridership was up so using stimulus funds this way really will preserve jobs that would only be lost due to the recession and because every rider who substitutes a car trip because of less convenient schedules constitutes a national stupidity.