February 9, 2009

Famine or feast?

ARTICLE TOOLS

RSS Email Print

Send an e-mail to a colleague Please fill out the form below to send a link to this story to your colleague.
Your Name:	Your E-mail:
Colleague's Name:	Colleague's E-mail:
Message: (Max. 500 chars.)
Enter the verification code as it is shown below without spaces. (Case-insensitive) Enter Code: What's this? Image Code Verification Automated programs can't "read" the code you see in the box: only humans can. When you enter this code, it ensures that your order is going to a real person. If you don't see an image, make sure your browser is set to display images and try again. If you're not sure what the code is, make your best guess. If you're incorrect, you'll get another chance to enter a different code on the next screen. Close

By  Metro Magazine

• Laura Henry[ February 9th, 2009 @ 1:45pm ]

  If you work in a rural transit agency, it does not make you wonder. For years, the rural transit agencies have strived for more funding, when city local match was available. Now that all cities across the country are hurting, the city local match is not available.

• Gary Parsons[ February 9th, 2009 @ 2:06pm ]

  While capital project funds seem to be the focus of the Stimulus Package, the real test will be if operating funds will be included in the mix. As urban and rural transit systems across the counrty are scaling back services and raising fares to offset revenue shortfalls, many will find it hard to go ahead with capital projects when they can't afford the operating cost when the project is completed. Kind of like building the ball park without a team to play in it...

• Madeline Clemann[ February 9th, 2009 @ 3:09pm ]

  Totally agree with Gary. In addition, seems like not much will get actually built since every obsticle has been thrown at transit agencies: can't switch and substitute funds with stimulus money, and it has to be consted in a year, and no relief on NEPA. What project could you build that 1) you have not programed with FTA funds yet; 2) can be disigned, go through NEPA, and get constructed in a year? And Gary's absolutely right... who can afford to operate the facilities that are built if we are all cutting back on operating budgets to meet dwindling operating revenues?

• Rudolf Kolaja[ February 10th, 2009 @ 4:54am ]

  Problem with transit in this country is that it is more subject of political issues than a real solution to transportation services. It is a huge waste of funding, if the transit services are not designed properly. This is what is needed:
  - Transit services must provide relive to highway traffic
  - Transit services must provide savings in travel time to be attractive
  - Selection of transit modes needs to correspond to real travel demand and appropriate operating conditions
  - Transit operations design must be performed by properly trained professionals, not by politicians.
  - All that requires a lots of training and experience in transit operations planning and design. It is a whole profession with no real recognition.
  These are the issues, which are rarely satisfied.

• ED KRAVITZ[ February 10th, 2009 @ 7:59am ]

  DAN: IT WASN'T AVAILABLE BEFORE BECAUSE JUST AS TODAY THE MONEY IS NOT THERE! THIS IS ALL BEING DONE WITH MONEY YOUR GREAT GRANDCHILDREN ARE GOING TO PAY BACK.

• Jonathan Zeier[ February 10th, 2009 @ 8:28am ]

  Must agree with the above comments. Any money received from this infrastructure bill should go to improving and repairing the current infrastructure. Double tracking, interlocking, repair or replacement of existing old or obsolete structures and systems are all large dollar "maintenance" items that this money could go too. These capital expenditures would relieve rather than add to future maintenance budgets in an unsure economy. SAFETY-LU or its replacement was supposed to be negotiated later this year. Save the new build money for then.

• Jan van Eck[ February 10th, 2009 @ 9:17am ]

  The above posters have squarely identified the crux of the problem: lack of operating funds. As transit services collapse, the impact will, sadly, have a cascade effect. Since Congress does not seem to put operating funds into the Bills, the other solution would be for the DOT administrators to simply take over, by eminent domain if necessary, entire systems. Then the operating, as well as the capital, costs become part of the Federal area of jurisdiction. I forsee this to be the only logical solution to the crevasse of operating debts now facing St. Louis. Would local politicians object? I rather doubt it. After such systems are recapitalized with new equipment and infrastructure then they could be turned back to local control. Hopefully by that time direct operating subsidies would be an accepted norm.

Receive the latest Metro E-Newsletters in your inbox!

Join the Metro E-Newsletters and receive the latest news in your e-mail inbox once a week. SIGN UP NOW!

View the latest eNews
Express Tuesday | Express Thursday | University Transit