On Tuesday, House Transportation Committee Chair John Mica told transit officials at the American Public Transportation Association’s (APTA) annual legislative conference that while he understood the needs of transit riders, he will not support increased transit funding in the next federal transportation bill.  As the Wall Street Journal reports, in an interview Mica said that “funding for transit is going to have to stay about the same” and that transit agencies across the country will “have to be much more creative and look at consolidation of some of their operations.”

One can’t help but wonder if Chairman Mica is aware of the fact that more than 84% of transit agencies across the country have already consolidated their operations over the past couple of years — that is, by cutting service, with devastating impacts to the transit riding public. In our region, at least, transit agencies have also made major efforts to cut back-office expenses and management structures.

It Depends On What the Meaning of the Word “Same” Is

[Update: Streetsblog Capitol Hill reports that Mica was referring to keeping transit’s share of funding about the same, which would mean a lower total amount for transit. “Keep in mind that we have no numbers or details for a bill yet,” staff told reporter Tanya Snyder.]

The current transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU, authorized about 18% (or $53 billion) of federal transportation funding for transit over 6 years. Chairman Mica has publicly expressed that the new transportation bill must not exceed federal gas tax revenues, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates at around $38 billion a year. That suggests a 6-year program funded at $230 billion, smaller than SAFETEA-LU. (The 6-year bill primarily funds capital purchases like new buses and train cars. Many lawmakers have suggested that the federal government should provide emergency operating funds during the economic downturn.)

So what does Chairman Mica mean when he says transit funding will “stay about the same”?  Does he mean that transit’s share of federal transportation funding will stay the same, or that the actual dollar amount dedicated to transit will stay the same?  These two scenarios have very different implications for transit, especially with a smaller transportation bill:

(The chart also includes the Obama administration’s expansive proposal which was released earlier this year, albeit with no identified funding sources.)

As Tanya Snyder at Streetsblog reports, Mica is no stranger to riding transit: “I became a fan [of public transportation] when I was young, and I didn’t always have the money for a car,” he said at the conference. “I took public transportation. I used to take the last bus out, when I worked all night at the Miami Herald in the mail room, and I took the first bus out in the morning, at 6:30. And over the weekend, I had two other jobs. So I personally know many people depend on the service you provide.”

Many more people may need reliable transit service in the coming years. Chairman Mica’s position against additional transit funding comes at a time when Americans, weary of raising gas prices, are turning to transit. APTA estimates that as gas prices approach $4 a gallon, an additional 670 million passenger trips could be expected per year. Yet, transit agencies lack funding support at the federal level to expand or even maintain service that has already been scaled back.

So is it transit agencies that need to show leadership and get “creative,” or is it Congress?

Chart – Tri-State Transportation Campaign.