One thing that was clear after the 2010
congressional elections, and which has become clearer with the budget
fights, is that guaranteed sources of federal funding for mass
transit projects are not sacrosanct. The recent transportation bill
proposed by the house eliminated dedicated funding for bicycle paths
and pedestrian improvements and put dedicated funding for rail
transit at risk, instead lumping it with highway funding and forcing
states to divide it between large numbers of projects.
In 1964, Congress passed the Urban Mass
Transportation Act, which established the Federal Transportation
Administration as a component of the US Department of Transportation.
When the act was passed, it was understood that in order for the
economy of the United States to function as efficiently as possible
the economies of its cities also needed to function as efficiently as
possible. In order to do this, it was deemed necessary to provide
alternatives to automobile transportation, and thus repair and
upgrade existing mass transit systems across the country and provide
for the construction of new ones. Atlanta's MARTA and the San
Francisco Bay Area's BART were some of the direct results of this
program, as were the expansion of the Chicago L, rehabilitation of
the New York City Subway, and expansion of the T in Boston.
Additional federal legislation was
passed creating the National Capital Transportation Agency which
oversaw the creation of WMATA and the construction of the Washington
DC Metrorail system. This was extended to a 106 mile system serving
the District of Columbia and its suburbs.
More recently, programs such as
SAFETEA-LU and small starts have provided funding to upstart
streetcar systems and pedestrian improvements, allowing the creation
of a unified streetscape that supports transportation alternatives
and is friendly to mixed use development and density.
Even during the presidency of Ronald
Regan, mass transit funding was seen as relatively sacrosanct among
those in congress, and set amounts of funding were awarded to both
highway and transit without much complaint.
Now, however, many Republicans in
Congress want to eliminate many of these programs, instead handing
states blocks of money that they must divide up between many projects
in many localities, rather than allowing cities themselves to apply
for funding for specific projects. This is due to the fact that many
Republicans see transit investment as a waste of money that should be
going towards highway spending. This is in fact the opposite case, as
highways are much less cost effective than rail transit.
The political environment caused by
this has caused many cities to be forced to fend for themselves in
terms of mass transit funding, as evidenced by Rahm Emannuel's planfor Chicago. This inevitably raises the question of “where
will this money come from?”. While cities such as New York and
Chicago may be able to support these investments due to their
extremely large populations, smaller cities which may be equally in
need of transportation funding cannot. State governments are another
option, but they may not warm to the idea of giving large portions of
their money to a relatively small geographic area, as evidenced by
the Cincinnati streetcar project and the future of high speed rail in
Ohio.
Private investment is one other option,
and one which is becoming more attractive for smaller projects such
as streetcar systems, which developers are happy to help fund as they
know they will recoup this money in the form of increased property
values and land desirability.
Nevertheless, the importance of the
Federal Government in infrastructure funding is one that cannot be
ignored, simply because on the lowest level it represents the
recognition of a problem, and one that not all cities can solve on
their own means. Ideological battles over public transportation for
the purposes of scoring political points are not sustainable, nor are
they good practice. Cities are the economic engines of nations, and
thus should be given proper resources.
No comments:
Post a Comment