Home Public Transit Policy Editorial: Stop the House Transportation Bill

Editorial: Stop the House Transportation Bill

by Benjamin Kabak

On Monday, when it wasn’t clear if the House Ways and Means Committee mark-up of the Transportation Bill would see the light of day, I discussed New York’s staunch opposition to the bill. MTA officials as well as the region’s federal representatives gathered a few days ago to speak out against a bill that would turn guaranteed transit dollars into, well, nonguaranteed dollars. Our region stood to lose more than any other.

Now, as the bill is moving toward a floor vote with signs that it could pass the House, The Times has lent its editorial voice to the fight, and they aren’t holding back. Calling it a “terrible bill,” the Grey Lady urges the House to reject it, and if it passes, the Senate to turn it back. Here’s their take:

Here is a brief and by no means exhaustive list of the bill’s many defects:

¶It would make financing for mass transit much less certain, and more vulnerable, by ending a 30-year agreement that guaranteed mass transit a one-fifth share of the fuel taxes and other user fees in the highway trust fund. Instead it would compete annually with other programs.

¶It would open nearly all of America’s coastal waters to oil and gas drilling, including environmentally fragile areas that have long been off limits. The ostensible purpose is to raise revenue to help make up what has become an annual shortfall for transportation financing. But it is really just one more attempt to promote the Republicans’ drill-now-drill-everywhere agenda and the interests of their industry patrons.

¶It would demolish significant environmental protections by imposing arbitrary deadlines on legally mandated environmental reviews of proposed road and highway projects, and by ceding to state highway agencies the authority to decide whether such reviews should occur….

In any case, none of this is good news for urban transit systems, including New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which, in 2010 alone, received about $1 billion from the trust fund.

If we want to enjoy future subway expansion projects, if we want to see the Second Ave. Subway’s Phase 1 wrapped up on time, this bill cannot become law. Transportation for America has more on speaking out against this bill with the details on contacting your federal representatives. New York City denizens need not worry about our representatives voting in favor of HR 7, but this is a national issue. Say no to HR 7.

You may also like

22 comments

Steven Higashide February 9, 2012 - 1:59 pm

Well said, Ben. It’s especially important for New York City residents to call if they are constituents of Congressmen Michael Grimm or Bob Turner.

I agree it will be very hard for any NYC representative to vote yes on this bill, but it is still a major priority for House leadership — arguably the top legislative priority. Any member of the majority party thinking of voting no will likely have massive pressure put on them to change their mind. Being able to say they received overwhelming constituent feedback would be invaluable to them.

Reply
Eric F. February 9, 2012 - 2:08 pm

I don’t see what any of the listed reasons have to do with the local subway system. Energy exploration has zilch to do with the subways, and what do expedited highway projects have to do with anything? If anything, tax revenue from energy production would be a plus for government coffers. Cheaper highway projects would free up money for other uses. The invocation of the second avenue subway seems misplaced, since so far as I know the only section that will ever be built in reality is already funded. In any event, in NY transit projects suck up way more subsidy money and dedictaed tax money than roads. There is no local road analogue to the gazillion dollar completely subsidized capacity enhancement projects of the T line and East Side Access.

I clicked on the link from “Transportation for America” (as opposed to transportation “against” America, I suppose, which states: “Ends the tiny amount of funding that helps make dangerous streets and roads safer for children”. Ah, I get it now: vote against the bill or the children die. That is poor propaganda even by the usual standards seen in these anti-auto fever swamps.

Reply
Bolwerk February 9, 2012 - 2:56 pm

Just ignoring the the potential for a BP disaster off the coast of NYC, expanded drilling is plain stupid now. They need to do the responsible thing and start seriously looking for energy alternatives to terrorist-funding oil.

In any event, in NY transit projects suck up way more subsidy money and dedictaed tax money than roads.

Cite? Except for some river crossings, it would be a wonder if any roads even came close to being as self-supporting as NYCTA.

There is no local road analogue to the gazillion dollar completely subsidized capacity enhancement projects of the T line and East Side Access.

Why should there be? There is little new road construction going on. NYC and NYS lose plenty more highway money to other places than they get back in spending locally. SAS and ESA cost way more than they should, but at least it’s our money, not Nebraska’s or Buffalo’s money. (And ESA is a gift for Long Island, not NYC, so it’s arguably a subsidy for drivers anyway.)

This is purely the GOP trying to steal from us. Even as they try to steal from us, they accuse us of being welfare knaves. They should burn brightly in hell.

Reply
Eric F. February 9, 2012 - 3:06 pm

The kindergarten class at the NY Times also trots out the standard bromide about the bill being udertaken in support of the “patrons” of the bill’s supporters. Right, because there are two classes of people in the world: those who agree with you idiosyncratic position on any given day and then those bought off by industry patrons. This is what passes for analysis. This reads like something out of a community college newspaper.

“They should burn brightly in hell.”

I’m glad you derive strength from your religous beliefs, but I’m always a bit skittish about zealots in these matters.

Reply
VLM February 9, 2012 - 3:10 pm

You also don’t believe that increased congestion along the cross-Bronx has lead to a spike in asthma rates in the neighborhoods there. I’m not sure how seriously we should take your extreme views on this issue either.

Reply
Eric F. February 9, 2012 - 3:14 pm

What does any of this have to with a highway bill??!!??

Presumably, the same increase would be seen all along I-95, not just in certain zip codes. From what I’ve seen, asthma’s prevalence as a diagnosed illness has increased even as air quality has improved. The tailpipe emissions from a 2012 car are infintesimal compared to 1972 car, and yet asthma incidence increases anyway. Mileage and emissions standards will further reduce emissions going forward. There is likely a non-auto expalnation for asthma incidence, but whether there is or is not, it has nothing to do with the merits of the highway bill.

Bolwerk February 9, 2012 - 3:24 pm

My understanding is the asthma is related to diesel fumes. Did those increase since 1972 in that area? Likely, since industry surely has shifted from other parts of the city, and that area of The Bronx is a major distribution center.

Eric F. February 9, 2012 - 3:30 pm

Truck emissions have dimished as well, and in fact there is currently huge turnover in the truck fleet to lower emission engines. I don’t get the reflexive searching for a bad guy. I think having miles of idling trucks from Fort Lee to the Bronx is awful, but when you have a 3 lane CBX as a northeast U.S. chokepoint, and you are completely hostile to releasing that choke point with a few new lanes dedicated to freight traffic, you are stuck with what you’ve got.

Either way, emissions are down markedly and I don’t see a corresponding decline in asthma. I don’t know what the cause of asthma is, but I doubt it has much if anything to do with cars and trucks.

Bolwerk February 10, 2012 - 12:57 am

Truck emissions have diminished overall, or diminished in that specific area? I assume they diminished overall, but in that specific area there is reason to think they could have increased? unless you have statistics to the contrary, I don’t see why not. (I just don’t know. Haven’t seen any either way.)

And who is “you” here? I hope you’re not talking about me, because if you are, you’re either completely unfamiliar with my comments on the subject or you’re pulling things out of your ass without thinking again.

Bolwerk February 9, 2012 - 3:21 pm

Does it matter what politicians’ motivation is? Either way, they’re stealing from us. They’re presumably even stealing from you, which for partisan reasons you don’t even seem to mind very much. As for the NY Times, why would I give the slightest damn what they think? Regardless of the quality of their opinion, which is usually crude at best, the GOP is still trying to steal from us.

Reply
Eric F. February 9, 2012 - 3:24 pm

Steal what? The gas taxes you don’t pay on the gas not used by the car you don’t drive? What are you refering to? This bill involves an allocation of federal gas tax money. What is being stolen from you?

Bolwerk February 10, 2012 - 12:41 am

They’re taking resources that were raised here and making it more difficult to use them here. It’s stealing, AND more or less guaranteeing more crowded roads here, which means higher prices on just about every good and service.

So, yeah, let me correct myself: they’re stealing from me, the city, the state, and perhaps you. And they’re making life in general more difficult and wasteful for us.

Chris February 9, 2012 - 3:55 pm

What I find odd is that the same people who argue the GOP is stealing from us typically also want to maximize our exposure to them by keeping spending and revenue at the federal level.

One day transit enthusiasts are arguing that the federal government should be responsible for operating as well as capital costs for transit. The next, they are shocked to discover that that the federal government is making transportation finance more vulnerable. Maybe New Yorkers shouldn’t have put their local transportation funding in the hands of senators from Oklahoma and Nebraska!

The problem is not so much that the GOP is stealing from us. It would be easy enough to stop that by cutting federal taxes and raising state ones to pay for the services locally, and you could probably get the GOP on board with this. The problem is that both parties are stealing from the future and while they fight over the spoils, nobody actually wants the stealing to stop. For all the disagreement about this bill, one thing everyone can concur on is that all the marginal spending over the bill’s life, will be absolutely 100% deficit financed.

Eric F. February 9, 2012 - 4:07 pm

The idea that NYers pay gas tax money to the feds, who then from on high dole some back to NY after a review process, accompanied by a congratulatory press release on the part of the local congressperson who “got us” part of our own money back is completely absurd.

Bolwerk February 10, 2012 - 12:52 am

To be clear, gas taxes themselves are fairly equitably doled back. Road/highway financing is gas taxes plus other funds. Taking away gas taxes from transit just means that transit users are getting soaked by highway users through the general appropriations process while no longer getting some of their own back by way of highway funds. Fix that and this wouldn’t really be a problem; the current legislation does nothing to fix that, however, which is why people are (rightfully) complaining.

Of course, it ultimately screws road uses in urban areas too by reducing alternatives to road use.

Bolwerk February 10, 2012 - 12:46 am

The GOP is represents people who wallow in entitlements and wealth transfers. It’s hard to escape the fact that they only talk about those things so much to project the fact that they’re the most guilty of those things onto others.

As for stealing from the future, yes they are. And no, it’s not both parties; not equally anyway. It’s mainly the GOP. Though the solution to that is one of two alternatives: either pay for the services people demand or don’t provide the services people demand. One option involves cutting and the other doesn’t.

Al D February 9, 2012 - 3:12 pm

Newtown Creek is ‘off the coast’ of Greenpoint, and there’s oil there. Drill baby drill.

The Tea Party Repubs know that everyone who takes mass transit is not white and liberal. So if it’s not their constituency, why fund it?

The real matter though is that as self-proclaimed small govermenters, isn’t this their opportunity to lessen the tax collection by the same 20% instead of reallocating it to roads and such?

Reply
Eric F. February 9, 2012 - 3:17 pm

The bill only requires transit projects to compete for funds. It sounds like the blogger and posters here have constructed a scenario where grass will be growing between the 7 train tracks if this is passed. Transit in NY already competes successfully against roads for local DOT funding, this bill is irrelevant for funding of NYC area transit.

Reply
Chris February 9, 2012 - 2:49 pm

Of course, if the expedited review processes proposed by the bill had always existed, the key expense period for Second Ave construction might have occurred during the mid-2000s expansion rather than our current recession, better protecting them from the knife of austerity. The assessment process represented perhaps a half-decade of service transit users won’t be getting. The ARC tunnel, given quicker review processes, might have been well enough underway to avoid shuttering when Christie took office. The NYT only mentions roads and highways but the proposed rules would apply to urban transit systems as well, from what I can tell.

Reply
Eric F. February 9, 2012 - 3:01 pm

Good point, but the federal government and NY’s state and city goverment budgets are all larger than ever before. There is no austerity.

Reply
Eric F. February 9, 2012 - 3:22 pm

You might also want to mention WHY there is a new transport reauthorization bill winding its way through the process. It’s because Nancy and Harry neglected to pass a reauthorization law during the salad days in which they ruled both houses of Congress with super majorities. Why they failed to do so, I have no idea. But here we are. I would note that this is the product of the same senate leadership that has not passed, or offered up, a budget bill for 3 years running.

Reply
The not-so-hidden inefficiences of H.R. 7 come to light :: Second Ave. Sagas February 23, 2012 - 12:17 am

[…] things in Washington, D.C., stand now, H.R. 7, the transportation bill that has had many wringing their hands over the past few weeks, is unlikely to become law without some serious work. Still, New York […]

Reply

Leave a Comment