<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: For Creating Jobs, Transit Operating Aid is Best Bet</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.tstc.org/2009/11/18/for-creating-jobs-transit-operating-aid-is-best-bet/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.tstc.org/2009/11/18/for-creating-jobs-transit-operating-aid-is-best-bet/</link>
	<description>News and opinion from the Tri-State Transportation Campaign</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:36:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Transit Agencies, Unions Make Joint Push for Federal Operating Support &#124; Mobilizing the Region</title>
		<link>http://blog.tstc.org/2009/11/18/for-creating-jobs-transit-operating-aid-is-best-bet/comment-page-1/#comment-3392</link>
		<dc:creator>Transit Agencies, Unions Make Joint Push for Federal Operating Support &#124; Mobilizing the Region</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:08:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tstc.org/?p=7437#comment-3392</guid>
		<description>[...] Currently, only transit agencies in urban areas with less than 200,000 in population may use any federal funds for operating purposes.  All other metropolitan areas may use their federal transit funds only for capital projects (a policy which dates back only to the 1990s, as MTR has previously described). [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Currently, only transit agencies in urban areas with less than 200,000 in population may use any federal funds for operating purposes.  All other metropolitan areas may use their federal transit funds only for capital projects (a policy which dates back only to the 1990s, as MTR has previously described). [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Long Island Officials Urged to Support MTA Capital Plan &#124; Mobilizing the Region</title>
		<link>http://blog.tstc.org/2009/11/18/for-creating-jobs-transit-operating-aid-is-best-bet/comment-page-1/#comment-2425</link>
		<dc:creator>Long Island Officials Urged to Support MTA Capital Plan &#124; Mobilizing the Region</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:37:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tstc.org/?p=7437#comment-2425</guid>
		<description>[...] said the capital plan meant tens of thousands of jobs for Island construction workers, citing a recent report which showed that $1 billion in transit construction creates or supports almost 24,000 jobs. Rob [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] said the capital plan meant tens of thousands of jobs for Island construction workers, citing a recent report which showed that $1 billion in transit construction creates or supports almost 24,000 jobs. Rob [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clark Morris</title>
		<link>http://blog.tstc.org/2009/11/18/for-creating-jobs-transit-operating-aid-is-best-bet/comment-page-1/#comment-2247</link>
		<dc:creator>Clark Morris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:03:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tstc.org/?p=7437#comment-2247</guid>
		<description>The problem with all operating assistance is that it subsidizes travel and causes the person to value travel over other goods.  Also while in the urban environment the automobile gets a free ride on the capital cost of streets and their maintenance as well as at least a reduced charge on parking (as does the bus), the automobile does pay all operating costs (fuel, vehicle maintenance, insurance, and vehicle acquisition plus implied driver wages) out of the user&#039;s pocket.  We have so designed our urban areas to make retail and office space transit hostile (see Davidson Avenue, Somerset, NJ or most suburban malls and big box stores) that transit can not charge fares that cover costs or provide service that is even remotely time competitive.  Until we look at how we can make transit self sufficient and cover vehicle operating costs out of the fare box, we will have the problem that successful transit is a larger burden on the taxpayer than unsuccessful transit.  Federal operating assistance just papers over the problem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem with all operating assistance is that it subsidizes travel and causes the person to value travel over other goods.  Also while in the urban environment the automobile gets a free ride on the capital cost of streets and their maintenance as well as at least a reduced charge on parking (as does the bus), the automobile does pay all operating costs (fuel, vehicle maintenance, insurance, and vehicle acquisition plus implied driver wages) out of the user&#8217;s pocket.  We have so designed our urban areas to make retail and office space transit hostile (see Davidson Avenue, Somerset, NJ or most suburban malls and big box stores) that transit can not charge fares that cover costs or provide service that is even remotely time competitive.  Until we look at how we can make transit self sufficient and cover vehicle operating costs out of the fare box, we will have the problem that successful transit is a larger burden on the taxpayer than unsuccessful transit.  Federal operating assistance just papers over the problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron Kilcoyne</title>
		<link>http://blog.tstc.org/2009/11/18/for-creating-jobs-transit-operating-aid-is-best-bet/comment-page-1/#comment-2221</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron Kilcoyne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:33:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tstc.org/?p=7437#comment-2221</guid>
		<description>Transit operating assistance is an issue that needs to be addressed. We have seen significant service reductions nationally in the past year and the worse is yet to come. Even before the current economic crisis various transit agencies throughout the country were faced with “doomsday scenarios” due to lack of funding and even those agencies that were not facing the prospect of cuts did not have the resources to support growth in ridership. And the federal government needs to play a significant role. However the solution is more extensive that the proposal laid out in the blog.

First we need to be cautious of unintended consequences or fatal flaws. Transit capital needs are not being met either so compromising capital dollars for operating dollars is not an option. Second we need to make sure that federal operating dollars don’t result in state and local governments reducing their contribution to transit operations. Finally we need to make sure there is a direct link between additional operating dollars and additional service.

Here are four steps.

As the article states the next stimulus bill should have general fund support for transit operations. This isn’t restoring operating funds as the article states but a one time emergency fix. (The long term fixes are below.)  These funds for a two to three year period are to specifically restore service hour’s cuts since January 1, 2008, prevent service hour cuts announced prior to the introduction of the legislation or to increase service hours to meet unmet demand. This would be new funds thus not compromising capital funds and each recipient would have to demonstrate that number of service hours being “purchased” with these dollars equals the marginal cost of providing service and not in lieu of state and local funding that hasn’t already been reduced; addressing the other two concerns.

The Carnahan bill should be modified to allow transit agencies below a certain size (e.g. 100 peak pull-out fixed route buses) use 50 to 100% of the formula funds for operating provided they determine that the amount of revenue used for operations from all non federal sources is not declining. The reason the size of a system is more important than the population of the service area is that a small transit operator in a large urban area is really no different than a transit operation a small city. Smaller systems tend to have smaller capital needs hence could make better use of federal dollars with this flexibility.

The next two ideas should be contained in the next authorization to make sure that state and local government step up to the plate and adequately fund transit operations. 

An incentive program of at least $1 billion per year should go to states and/or regions whose aggregate service transit service hours per capital are either equal the highest year between 2000 and 2009 or exceed the median for comparable states and regions. (Note because it is based on per capita service hours will have to increase to keep pace with population changes.) Part of this incentive could also go to states that allow their transportation user fees (gas taxes etc.) used on transit capital and operations. 

The House authorization bill calls for $75 billion in two new flexible transportation program over the next six years. Before a state or region can tap into any of this money the aggregate service transit service hours per capital either are either equal the highest year between 2000 and 2009 or exceed the median for comparable states and regions. 

These for ideas provide a comprehensive approach to the lack of transit operating funds without jeopardizing transit capital or other unintended consequences.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Transit operating assistance is an issue that needs to be addressed. We have seen significant service reductions nationally in the past year and the worse is yet to come. Even before the current economic crisis various transit agencies throughout the country were faced with “doomsday scenarios” due to lack of funding and even those agencies that were not facing the prospect of cuts did not have the resources to support growth in ridership. And the federal government needs to play a significant role. However the solution is more extensive that the proposal laid out in the blog.</p>
<p>First we need to be cautious of unintended consequences or fatal flaws. Transit capital needs are not being met either so compromising capital dollars for operating dollars is not an option. Second we need to make sure that federal operating dollars don’t result in state and local governments reducing their contribution to transit operations. Finally we need to make sure there is a direct link between additional operating dollars and additional service.</p>
<p>Here are four steps.</p>
<p>As the article states the next stimulus bill should have general fund support for transit operations. This isn’t restoring operating funds as the article states but a one time emergency fix. (The long term fixes are below.)  These funds for a two to three year period are to specifically restore service hour’s cuts since January 1, 2008, prevent service hour cuts announced prior to the introduction of the legislation or to increase service hours to meet unmet demand. This would be new funds thus not compromising capital funds and each recipient would have to demonstrate that number of service hours being “purchased” with these dollars equals the marginal cost of providing service and not in lieu of state and local funding that hasn’t already been reduced; addressing the other two concerns.</p>
<p>The Carnahan bill should be modified to allow transit agencies below a certain size (e.g. 100 peak pull-out fixed route buses) use 50 to 100% of the formula funds for operating provided they determine that the amount of revenue used for operations from all non federal sources is not declining. The reason the size of a system is more important than the population of the service area is that a small transit operator in a large urban area is really no different than a transit operation a small city. Smaller systems tend to have smaller capital needs hence could make better use of federal dollars with this flexibility.</p>
<p>The next two ideas should be contained in the next authorization to make sure that state and local government step up to the plate and adequately fund transit operations. </p>
<p>An incentive program of at least $1 billion per year should go to states and/or regions whose aggregate service transit service hours per capital are either equal the highest year between 2000 and 2009 or exceed the median for comparable states and regions. (Note because it is based on per capita service hours will have to increase to keep pace with population changes.) Part of this incentive could also go to states that allow their transportation user fees (gas taxes etc.) used on transit capital and operations. </p>
<p>The House authorization bill calls for $75 billion in two new flexible transportation program over the next six years. Before a state or region can tap into any of this money the aggregate service transit service hours per capital either are either equal the highest year between 2000 and 2009 or exceed the median for comparable states and regions. </p>
<p>These for ideas provide a comprehensive approach to the lack of transit operating funds without jeopardizing transit capital or other unintended consequences.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steven Higashide</title>
		<link>http://blog.tstc.org/2009/11/18/for-creating-jobs-transit-operating-aid-is-best-bet/comment-page-1/#comment-2193</link>
		<dc:creator>Steven Higashide</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:25:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tstc.org/?p=7437#comment-2193</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s definitely true that both President Clinton and the Congress played a role. In 1995, for example, the Clinton administration proposed cuts to transit operating aid &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/07/us/budget-plan-holds-big-cut-in-money-for-transit.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;that had NYC worried&lt;/a&gt;. A few months later, Congressional Republicans &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/18/nyregion/transportation-chief-warns-against-transit-subsidy-cuts.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;proposed even deeper cuts&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s definitely true that both President Clinton and the Congress played a role. In 1995, for example, the Clinton administration proposed cuts to transit operating aid <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/07/us/budget-plan-holds-big-cut-in-money-for-transit.html" rel="nofollow">that had NYC worried</a>. A few months later, Congressional Republicans <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/18/nyregion/transportation-chief-warns-against-transit-subsidy-cuts.html" rel="nofollow">proposed even deeper cuts</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moser</title>
		<link>http://blog.tstc.org/2009/11/18/for-creating-jobs-transit-operating-aid-is-best-bet/comment-page-1/#comment-2191</link>
		<dc:creator>Moser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:44:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tstc.org/?p=7437#comment-2191</guid>
		<description>Although you identify the &quot;Clinton administration&quot; here in the history lesson the Gingrich-led Congress had a lot to do with it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Although you identify the &#8220;Clinton administration&#8221; here in the history lesson the Gingrich-led Congress had a lot to do with it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Streetsblog New York City &#187; Blaming the Pedestrian, Again</title>
		<link>http://blog.tstc.org/2009/11/18/for-creating-jobs-transit-operating-aid-is-best-bet/comment-page-1/#comment-2176</link>
		<dc:creator>Streetsblog New York City &#187; Blaming the Pedestrian, Again</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:32:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tstc.org/?p=7437#comment-2176</guid>
		<description>[...] Biker Chicks of West Chester decries the push to register bikes in Philadelphia. And Mobilizing the Region talks about how transit operating aid is the best route to job [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Biker Chicks of West Chester decries the push to register bikes in Philadelphia. And Mobilizing the Region talks about how transit operating aid is the best route to job [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Streetsblog Capitol Hill &#187; Blaming the Pedestrian, Again</title>
		<link>http://blog.tstc.org/2009/11/18/for-creating-jobs-transit-operating-aid-is-best-bet/comment-page-1/#comment-2175</link>
		<dc:creator>Streetsblog Capitol Hill &#187; Blaming the Pedestrian, Again</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:53:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tstc.org/?p=7437#comment-2175</guid>
		<description>[...] Biker Chicks of West Chester rails against the push to register bikes in Philadelphia. And Mobilizing the Region talks about how transit operating aid is the best route to job [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Biker Chicks of West Chester rails against the push to register bikes in Philadelphia. And Mobilizing the Region talks about how transit operating aid is the best route to job [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Streetsblog New York City &#187; Today&#8217;s Headlines</title>
		<link>http://blog.tstc.org/2009/11/18/for-creating-jobs-transit-operating-aid-is-best-bet/comment-page-1/#comment-2173</link>
		<dc:creator>Streetsblog New York City &#187; Today&#8217;s Headlines</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:37:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tstc.org/?p=7437#comment-2173</guid>
		<description>[...] To Create More Jobs, Pass a Jobs Bill That Funds Transit Service (MTR) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] To Create More Jobs, Pass a Jobs Bill That Funds Transit Service (MTR) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

