Transit Investment
Posted by Fred Jandt
Editor, Mass Transit magazine
The election is over. The inauguration is past. And a new president sits in the White House. He’s already making policy changes and planning a major investment in the U.S. economy. His plan — The American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009 — is already working its way through Congress. Let’s just hope it passes without getting its meaning twisted in the process.
Transit is well covered in the reinvestment bill with more than $10 billion targeted directly at it. More than half of that is capital funds, which should help alleviate overcrowding in some sectors. But what I like the most about this is the $3 billion designated for new construction, upgrades and repairs to agencies.
Transit needs to grow. It needs to grow dramatically in the United States. I know a lot of transit opponents point at it being great for urban sectors and that’s about it, but after seeing the WisDOT plan for transit growth throughout Wisconsin over the next 20 years, I can tell you transit can work in rural areas, because it’s not that those areas can’t support transit, it’s that they don’t have it.
And those urban areas will benefit from rural transit investment by having increased access to their business centers by rural dollars. This interconnectedness is what sparked the country from the first railroads, to the first airlines and the first interstate highway. We’re on the cusp of a sea change in the way the country moves — and the future looks good for transit.
This bill should get us all whetting our appetites at what is on the horizon for transit under the new administration. It’s a time for change in Washington, and one can only hope that means for transit as well.
One other bit of business this week, I received an email from a concerned reader who wondered if any other readers might want to chime in on his question:
“Is there a way for those of us buying buses from certain companies to have a forum for discussion on the problems – I get the feeling that there are many who are experiencing problems with the new EPA-compliant engines and the computer interfaces with the operating systems, lack of factory support for the smaller operators – We need to know who’s giving better product/service so that we can shop more effectively.†— Chip
This venue is as good as any to answer his question. So have at it.
Thanks for reading the MT Position updated every Friday,
Fred
fred.jandt@cygnusb2b.com
Check out our LinkedIn page!
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
There’s nothing that Obama or any other government official can do in the way of “investment” in transit or any other infrastructure that will help restore the economy.
The government does not have any money to invest except what it gets from the taxpayers and borrowing and it has no better wisdom about spending money than the people who really earned it in the first place.
Government spendig is the problem -not the solution. Accordingly, the Obama Adminstration should just give the money it intends to spend on “investment” back to the taxpayers and let them invest it the way they see fit.
There’s an old saying “Don’t just do something, stand there!”
Galen L. Dutch
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I agree with Galen. New this day is what an Obama top econ. advisor said in his econ hearing last week or so…they’re looking at putting various mandates/formulas et. al. on the States regarding hiring of workers for projects–”…not just the highly skilled professional and white construction worker” Exact words…WTF. Just build safe and cost effective structures, bridges, roads, rails by the most skilled (certified)person, who cares what the heck color they come in!?! I don’t get this…at all. Thus to add to Galen’s comment, not only is the $ not there from the Gov., they will (continue) to make it paper weighted for the States to implement.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
$10 billion is chump change. How can you be happy with that? And $2 billion for transit capital is less than 1% of the planned projects out there, which has been estimated at $248 billion not counting the needed repairs to legacy systems like the CTA. Seems to me we shouldn’t be happy with this kind of funding. It should be greater.
January 24th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I agree with the Overhead Wire, CTA, NYCTA, LAMTD, MUNI, NJTransit, SEPTA, et al. (“legacy systems”) will need much more capital infusion than what’s proposed.
I am optimistic though. Obama has spent a lot of time in an urban setting unlike many of our previous leaders. Obama was a regular CTA and Metra Electric rider back in the day, and is familiar with 21st century transit and the value it provides.
Fred has a point though, while we are exploring capital “bailout” (Gawd, I hate that word now) for existing urban systems, new solutions should be looked into (ala WisDOT) for a new network of interurban connections. A few years ago, Greyhound made the decision to abandon many “backroads” routes and concentrate on the heavier urban to urban market, thus eliminating many of the “Hootervilles, Pixleys, Podunks, and Petticoat Junctions”. People still live on the fringes. Me, I live deep in “Indian Country” here in the Southwest, and a transit alternative would be most welcome, but it’s money that Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado can’t come up with on their own, and it certainly won’t come from casino profits.
We’ll see what happens!
January 26th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Transportation is a long term financial business; one-time spending should be used for long term results. Investments of this type are generally large, not small things.
I think there’s a danger for losing the good momentum to politics. Money makes enemies. Everyone agrees that we need help, now the real test will be for individuals, cities, and companies to work together instead of each clamoring for a larger share of the bailout. We need to focus on national figures, national unemployment and national economy issues.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Here’s a news flash for Dutch & Drake and Limbaugh and Hannity. You lost the election. Reaganesque giveaways to greedy people who DID NOT know how to use the money properly were what created the economic mess we’re now in. Government investment, (i.e., investment by all of us for the good of all) in transit offers hope not only for restoration of the economy but for relief from climate change and dependency on foreign oil. Reagan/Bush policy on these issues? Do nothing and let our kids and grandkids deal with them after its too late. When (not if) this investment succeeds, it will represent another nail in the moral coffin of the conservative philosophy of government and its appeal to the greedy and ignorant.
It’s about time.
January 26th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Wow, it is obvious that Galen and J Drake have not taken a basic economics class, or they would understand Keynesian economic theory, which dictates that when the economy faces a recession (like right now) and business investment is slumping (which it is), the government should run a deficit in order to stimulate the economy through the multiplier effect. Although this was used in the New Deal during the Great Depression, the amount spent by FDR was too small to make a huge difference, however when he balanced the bugdet in 1937 the economy went right back into the Depression after a significant recovery from 1933-36.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Giving a small amount of money back to taxpayers is not going to spur on investment or create U. S. jobs. Research suggests that the typical taxpayer receiving say $1,000 to even $3,000 will not do anything with it that will create jobs in the U.S. They will buy a new computer, TV, Wii or other item built outside the country. U.S. stimulus dollars will then flow out of the U.S. and create jobs in other nations. The history of our savings rates, which are dismal, suggests that the money will not go anywhere where it can be aggregated for large, jobs producing projects. Infrastructure projects create jobs. The latest data says for each $1 billion spent on transportation, 37,400 jobs are created. Jobs whose owners spend money and pay taxes, not to mention take people from being transfer payment recipients (unemployment, welfare) to taxpayers.