Comments on: Feds riding to the MTA’s rescue?

By: Boris

Boris — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 04:06:22 +0000

I don’t have any numbers, but I think it’s safe to assume that they have many more miles of roads (and in better condition) for fewer people than we do.

By: Judge

Judge — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:34:11 +0000

I don’t think we’re quite arguing the same aspect of high-speed rail. California would have an easier time building up its network versus BosWash for the reasons you mentioned. The value of putting in BosWash is that it can serve a much greater population than California; California has around 36 million to BosWash’s 55 million. BosWash also has several cities that have high rates of mass transit use along the route – Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington DC – so the stops along the way act more as intermodal-styled destinations than California can currently provide in its cities. I would think it clear that if the systems could be built the same level service as each other, the yields would be much better in the northeast than in the west.
The one counter I would concede to is that California may have a greater need for the first system because they’re just so lacking in alternatives to I-5 / I-80 (SF to LA and Sacramento to SF, respectively) and the airports of the major metropolitan areas. We may have the half-***** Acela, but at least we already do efficiently move millions a year between Boston to Washington on rail.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:57:32 +0000

Actually, high-speed rail is more useful in California than in the Northeast. The reason the Acela isn’t really high-speed is that the Northeast sprawls with suburban development, so that Amtrak couldn’t straighten the tracks to make them fit for high-speed operations. In California, most of the proposed alignment is in rural areas, where it’ll be easy to run the trains at Shinkansen speeds.

By: Second Ave. Sagas | A New York City Subway Blog » Blog Archive » House delivers $237 million for MTA operating budget

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:45:16 +0000

[...] up on yesterday’s item about Rep. Jerry Nadler’s (D-N.Y) promises to deliver federal funds for the MTA, the House voted to approve a bill authorizing $1.7 billion for public transit systems. Ostensibly, [...]

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:57:43 +0000

Todd – if you apply that logic to transit, then apply it to highways as well. The problem is when it becomes a lopsided conversation — the ideal is for “equitable” funding of transit, but we don’t apply the same criteria to highway spending. I have a feeling that if NY State sent less gax tax $ to the fed government, then we’d have more for transit.

By: Streetsblog » Today’s Headlines

Streetsblog » Today’s Headlines — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:01:32 +0000

[...] Would Deliver $237M to NYC (Gristmill, AP)No Single Solution to MTA Budget Crisis (Observer via 2nd Ave Sagas)NYT Has Faith in Richard Ravitch……But Who Will Fight for Transit Funding in Albany? [...]

By: Ed

Ed — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:18:45 +0000

Since the MTA operates in Connecticut, technically it operates across state lines and federal funding is appropriate. The same goes for anything that crosses the Hudson. More practically, the tendency has been for the state and city to fund pork in the rest of the country rather than the other way around, and while it would be good to somehow stop the pork in the rest of the country and forgo the federal funding, that deal is not on the table, so we better take what we can get. The MTA also moves a ridiculous amount of people compared with other mass transit systems that do get federal funding.

As long as the MTA is a state agency, it should be funded by the state. The state government, after all, can tax New York City taxes. I’m not sure that City levied taxes should even be involved if the City government has no control over the direction of the MTA. I could see turning over the subways to the City and having them funded by City levied taxes and operated by the City government, but again that is what is not on the table.

However, I would like to see the city and state governments get out of the habit of soliciting federal funds. The state government in particular has a large enough tax base, even taking into account the portion of the state GDP that is siphoned into federal spending outside the Northeast, to fund its own capital projects, provided the money was managed properly.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:38:15 +0000

What’s the per capita funding of highways in the Midwest?

By: Boris

Boris — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:02:37 +0000

I’m with Jason A on this one. If you want to call it pork barreling, fine- it’s our turn and we need to get what’s due to us. Otherwise, it’s just a debt the federal government will finally repay us.

As for whether the feds should be a regular supplier of funds, it’s very simple- transportation funds should be dispersed proportionally by population. Imagine if the subway had the same per capita funding as highways in the Midwest, for example. We’d have the best subway in the world.

By: Judge

Judge — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:26:06 +0000

The issue with the Federal Government stepping in is that the money still will not equal the magnitude of effort expended during the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. NYC will certainly be a recipient, but a proportionally poor one. Denver received billions a few years ago to develop several light rail and commuter train lines. Fine. But will those lines deliver the same results as new lines in NYC? Highly unlikely. The truth is that unless every city suddenly had NYC’s population density and history of transit use, rapid transit projects across the United States will simply not generate the same level of benefit as one in NYC… we make the most sense and have the most pressing need. Just like high-speed rail proposals in any area outside the BosWash area is of much lesser value than inside BosWash (although I feel for California).
Marc Shepherd: I agree the Feds can not and should not be the major supplier of funds. I still believe the country should rise above the politics and understand the necessity of helping out an already well developed and wealthy city (a society helping itself), but the city and the state should be providing most of the money. Keep things as “balanced” as possible.