Rail

L.A.'s proposal: a model for U.S. projects?

Posted on April 13, 2010 by Cliff Henke

[IMAGE]Rails-1.jpg[/IMAGE]A delegation from Los Angeles has recently taken several trips to Washington, D.C., meeting with administration and ­congressional officials to float an idea they have to speed up projects that use local funds. If adopted, their proposal could have ­implications for all major transit infrastructure projects throughout the country.

Leveraging local tax dollars

Simply put, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa wants the federal government to loan directly, or guarantee private sector loans, to the county's Metropolitan Transportation Authority to the tune of $8.8 billion. That amount represents the gap between completing the massive expansion plan passed by voters through Measure R in November 2008 in a decade rather than 30 years. That's why he and county officials call it the "30-10 plan." Measure R funds a 78-mile expansion of the county's rail and bus rapid transit network with a dedicated sales tax increase.

The proposal is not asking for a handout. Rather, it is asking for the full faith and credit of the federal government on loans that would be repaid with sales tax revenues that are already designated to the project.

Both chairs of the Transit and Highways subcommittee and full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in the House as well as their counterparts in the Senate are investigating whether and how either the Build America Bonds program, the proposed National Infrastructure Bank or some other policy can accommodate this concept. 

As are Seattle's officials, because the voters of their region have also enacted a local tax increase to support transit expansion. In fact, more than $70 billion in local, state and county taxes over the past decade have been approved for transit projects. More than 70 percent of all referenda for transit have been approved in local elections since 2000, according to the Center for Transportation Excellence in Washington, D.C., which tracks such initiatives throughout the country. 

What's not to like?

Of course, not everyone is enamored by the idea. Some libertarian groups oppose virtually any federal funding of rail transit on ideological grounds, and other conservative groups are against any federal leveraging of infrastructure investment. Never mind that the federal government has never defaulted on such a loan and, in virtually all cases, receives a return on any investment, just as it has done in the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, this likely will be only a federal guarantee that doesn't even hit the Treasury's books.

Some more legitimate hurdles need to be overcome as well, such as the fact that there is nothing in current law enabling such an idea. However, at a time when both sides of the political spectrum are looking for ways to stimulate the economy, create construction and other jobs, and help state and regional economies in low-cost, low risk ways, this seems like a no-brainer.

Cliff Henke, a contributing editor to METRO, is senior analyst at PB. His views herein are solely his own.

 

 

View comments or post a comment on this story. (0 Comments)

More News

Feds wants more proof of local money for Durham-Orange light rail line

Go Triangle expects its Board of Trustees to vote April 26 on a $70 million engineering contract, which would be executed only after the FTA allows the project to advance.

SEPTA trains collide, injuring 4

Crews are still working to remove the 18 cars involved, with each car weighing about 37 tons. The NTSB is on the scene and fully in charge of the investigation.

Minn. legislators attempting to move $900M from rail to roads, bridges

GOP legislators have long sought to block planning and funding for light-rail projects, saying they put metro-area priorities above rural Minnesota.

Alstom secures $105M Australian trainset contract

The contract will expand PTV’s fleet to 101 trains (606 cars) delivered from Alstom’s manufacturing facility in Ballarat since 2002.

DC Streetcar fares to remain free

The decision to hold off on charging fares was based on two reasons — District Department of Transportation feared charging even $1 per ride would scare away passengers and charging a fare would actually cost the District money.

See More News

Post a Comment

Post Comment

Comments (0)

More From The World's Largest Fleet Publisher

Automotive Fleet

The Car and truck fleet and leasing management magazine

Business Fleet

managing 10-50 company vehicles

Fleet Financials

Executive vehicle management

Government Fleet

managing public sector vehicles & equipment

TruckingInfo.com

THE COMMERCIAL TRUCK INDUSTRY’S MOST IN-DEPTH INFORMATION SOURCE

Work Truck Magazine

The number 1 resource for vocational truck fleets

Schoolbus Fleet

Serving school transportation professionals in the U.S. and Canada

LCT Magazine

Global Resource For Limousine and Bus Transportation

Please sign in or register to .    Close