Mass Transit in the Stimulus: Why the Fight's Not Over
Since the House Democrats released a stimulus bill that devoted only about 5% of its $825 billion price tag to fixing the nation's crumbling transportation infrastructure, we've been looking at whether mass transit in particular could ultimately claim a bigger piece of the pie.
Leaving aside President Obama's initial prediction that his economic recovery plan would be the "largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s," expanding mass transit is a just-plain-good idea. It creates jobs, and it helps wean the nation off a decades-long obsession with emissions-generating car travel.
So now that the House has added $3 billion in mass transit money to its stimulus bill -- bringing the total investment up to the level envisioned by transportation committee chairman Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) -- we're back on the right path, right?
Well, not completely. I talked to the two Democrats who led the charge to restore the $3 billion, Reps. Jerrold Nadler (NY) and Pete DeFazio (OR), and they weren't celebrating yet.
"It's an improvement," DeFazio said of the extra transit cash, "but it comes nowhere near the demonstrated need and capability to invest in the system."
Indeed, the American Society of Civil Engineers released an infrastructure report card this week that gave U.S. roads a D-minus and transit systems a D grade, predicting that $2.2 trillion could be spent on mending the national infrastructure alone. (The House bill's overall cost is $819 billion for everything, including $42 billion for roads and rail.)
"We could productively use billions more in transit" cash, DeFazio added. "This one year [of stimulus spending] puts us about on target for a 20-year plan to rebuild the system, let alone looking towards a 21st century infrastructure."
Nadler painted a similar picture. Asked if the successful House vote is enough to convince the Obama administration that mass transit needs more attention in the final version of the stimulus, he said only, "I don't know ... The infrastructure piece of the bill should have been bigger," he noted.
Whether White House economic adviser Larry Summers has decisively convinced Obama that state transportation departments lack "shovel-ready" projects remains to be seen. But other hurdles to efficient transit expansion remain.
In some cases, the stimulus' reliance on existing transportation funding formulas -- a move made to fulfill Obama's promise of an earmark-free stimulus -- could inadvertently prove counter-productive. California, struggling with a huge state budget deficit, is preparing to use most of its share on shoring up existing train cars and tracks, rather than starting on any ambitious and needed new projects.
Senators in states struggling with high unemployment are already pushing for transportation dollars to be reallocated to the areas that would benefit most from job creation.
In a sense, this heated debate over mass transit's economic benefits is all a preview for the long-term, $300 billion-plus transportation reauthorization bill that is set for debate later this year -- and is bound to include earmarks to build new railways and roads.
Nadler told me that the apportioning of priorities in the stimulus should not be taken as a sign that mass transit would get slim pickings in the reauthorization. "Those are much more fundamental issues [in the upcoming transportation bill] than we're dealing with here," he said. One hopes that he's correct.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Need to read TP update
January 30, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your link to this article at
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
in the "TPM Economic wire" section points to the wrong article:
Cheers,
January 30, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate attention to this issue. I'm also curious about a point Matt Yglesias keeps making. Why does investment in transit have to mean bricks and mortar? If some cities are currently operating transit systems at reduced capacity, one could restore/expand *service* -- an investment that would appear to be 100% "shovel-ready." It just requires adding hours, or perhaps hiring a few more bus drivers.
But I never hear discussion of this point from anyone besides Matt.
January 31, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this might be a good idea, in terms of jobs saved either directly or indirectly. But one argument against that I can think of is that unlike building new capacity, it vanishes once the subsidy ends. Build a new light rail line and presumably you have that line for decades into the future. But adding hours and lines to existing systems will vanish in a year or two when the stimulus does.
January 31, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not necessarily. I've reduced how much I commute via bus because it adds 2 hours a day. If I had a less circuitous rout I would ride much more often. And as ridership increased along my ideal route it would likely be an incentive to keep things going. Plus, it would drive demand for more transportation bills, especially in a down economy when saving a few bucks by riding mass transit is worth the tradeoff in time.
January 31, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes but is the stimulus supposed to compensate for the poor marketing and stupidity of your local public transportation authority? There is a certain threshold below with public transportation just doesn't work very well because it is so inconvenient.
This is the "only poor people use public transportation" model that is common in the US. Once it gets good enough though lots more people would use it and often the backbone of any really good transportation system is light rail. The capacity of light rail in crowded cities is often an order of magnitude better than buses.
February 1, 2009 5:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't blame transit managers. They are struggling with two generations of urban planning that will take equally long to undo.
The backbone of public transit is good local bus service. (Rail is fundamentally a super bus for heavy ridership lines.) And good local bus service means a bus line within a couple of blocks with a bus every few minutes. But that is very hard to achieve at suburban densities, i.e., the 'traditional' American detached house with yard.
The reality of American cities is changing, but we still have vast low-density regions that you would have to flood with mostly empty buses in order to provide good service. Since that is very costly you end up with bad service, and in those areas only poor people ride - the ones who will walk half a mile and wait half an hour for the bus because they have no choice.
In the long term, rail does an important thing that buses can't - it changes neighborhoods, encouraging dense development that not only adds rail riders but strengthens feeder bus lines. But that is a long term project. In the short term there are probably some 'shovel ready' rail projects, but for the most part the fastest bang for the buck is pulling buses out of the storage yards, hiring drivers, and putting them on the streets.
In answer to Josh, I would say that we can worry about keeping them on the streets later; in the short term it creates jobs and provides a public service.
February 1, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Josh is thinking about this too narrowly. This is an economic recovery bill, not just a stimulus bill. Investments in the bricks and mortar of transit will both create jobs in the short term and prove to be smart investments in future productivity in the long term. But providing emergency transit operating assistance shouldn't just be seen as transportation or infrastructure spending; it is also badly needed fiscal relief for local governments that are getting hammered by declining revenues and increasing demands for services. It makes absolutely no sense for the federal government to stand by while local governments are forced to cut transit services, which will only make it harder for folks to get to work and encourage more people to get back in their cars. Emergency federal assistance to transit operators is a smart use of taxpayer funds -- far smarter than building new road capacity.
February 1, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
As for the fight not being over, I take for granted that it hasn't even begun. Obama's total focus is rightly on getting the money voted as quickly as possible, before Beltway paralysis can set in and put 60 Senate votes at risk. Right now that is all that matters.
After the vote, Obama will have the megaphone and the money, and the WH will be able to pretty much set the ground rules of how the money actually gets spent. And THAT is when the fun will begin.
February 1, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree... by all means get the existing buses out of storage and hire drivers, expand service routes and hours of operation.
But for a longer-term, larger-impact effort, this country needs more rail infrastructure and the existing trains need serious upgrades. Amtrak is pretty hit-or-miss. I've had some amazing experiences that have ended my enthusiasm for rail travel... and I LOVE trains.
This seems really obvious to me, but couldn't the stimulus package/bailout for the auto manufacturers be reconstituted as an actual Federal purchase order for new rail and light-rail rolling stock and engines?
If that money were used to stimulate new production of railway equipment it would simultaneously generate manufacturing jobs and prop-up the auto companies (and DetroitDiesel, Caterpillar, GE, AMF) that could reopen shuttered plants and convert them to train manufacturing.
The new equipment would go to needy areas around the country as determined by some formula determined by joint federal and state/local governments. And it wouldn't be a bailout... American taxpayers would be buying stuff, and we DO love to shop! There's more political cover in ordering up a bunch of shiny new commuter and long-distance state-of-the-art rail equipment than there is in shoveling Care-packages of green at losing concerns.
In addition, replacing old track and upgrading rail beds with new, high-speed-rail-capable tracks would be a huge job-creator all over the country, not least in steel-producing areas, assuming US companies were cost-effective suppliers.
I've heard NO ideas along these lines, so there may be some huge problem with the concept... but what is it?
February 2, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote both my senators and asked them both why on earth they are acting like Republicans won this last election! I asked them to put more money into transit, something our city needs. (Seattle)
I don't remember the Republicans winning this last election, I don't think they should get a say in anything.
February 2, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink