http://o.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2009/10/16/a-year-later-and-a-dollar-shorter/ Mass Transit's editor, Leah Harnack, speaks weekly on critical issues facing the public transportation industry. Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:57:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 http://o.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2009/10/16/a-year-later-and-a-dollar-shorter/#comment-15562 Jim McLaughlin Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:48:16 +0000 http://www.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2009/10/16/a-year-later-and-a-dollar-shorter/#comment-15562 Fred, I'm a bus guy but I am with you on multi-modal and I am with you on raising a ruckus on Clayton County. While I am sure, you, like me support the "Livabilty and Sustainability" initiative from the federal departments, it seems to me they are leaving out perhaps the most important "-bility", that is "Mobility". For example, not likely that Transit Oriented Development will be a big push in Clayton County if there is no transit. I can hear my federal friends saying, wait a minute, the Clayton County decision was a local, not federal one. But if the feds would listen to the "Hundred Bus Coalition" folks and make 5307 eligible for operating, maybe that would give some of the struggling agencies a bridge to keep going. Having done a fair amount of work in states like Georgia that do not provide any transit operating funds and in some instances do not even allow for the passage of local based taxes to support operating, the local policy makers are then forced to compare ongoing transit subsidies, including local match, against police, fire, schools, etc. and thus transit often comes in last. Thus systems either get eliminated or services are cut back to the point they only carry the most dependent of riders. Maybe what we need from USDOT is a posture to states that if they want to receive highway funds (and what state does not) they must provide a state based transit operating source or some ingeniously developed concept that gets state operating funds to transit. While I also support the ideal of connecting portions of the country with high-speed rail, I do not believe we want to build that infrastructure without first thinking about those transportation disadvantaged persons that have, through good and bad times, been the foundation of ridership for public transportation throughout the country. There is a federal role to "sustain" their transit and make their existance "livable". Perhaps it is time for Mass Transit to take a look at places like Clayton County and others in Georgia, Alabama, etc. and help get some attention on the breadth and depth of the issues facing these operations and make it a bigger part of the national dialogue on authorization and initiatives. Thanks. Fred, I’m a bus guy but I am with you on multi-modal and I am with you on raising a ruckus on Clayton County. While I am sure, you, like me support the “Livabilty and Sustainability” initiative from the federal departments, it seems to me they are leaving out perhaps the most important “-bility”, that is “Mobility”. For example, not likely that Transit Oriented Development will be a big push in Clayton County if there is no transit.
I can hear my federal friends saying, wait a minute, the Clayton County decision was a local, not federal one. But if the feds would listen to the “Hundred Bus Coalition” folks and make 5307 eligible for operating, maybe that would give some of the struggling agencies a bridge to keep going.
Having done a fair amount of work in states like Georgia that do not provide any transit operating funds and in some instances do not even allow for the passage of local based taxes to support operating, the local policy makers are then forced to compare ongoing transit subsidies, including local match, against police, fire, schools, etc. and thus transit often comes in last. Thus systems either get eliminated or services are cut back to the point they only carry the most dependent of riders.
Maybe what we need from USDOT is a posture to states that if they want to receive highway funds (and what state does not) they must provide a state based transit operating source or some ingeniously developed concept that gets state operating funds to transit.
While I also support the ideal of connecting portions of the country with high-speed rail, I do not believe we want to build that infrastructure without first thinking about those transportation disadvantaged persons that have, through good and bad times, been the foundation of ridership for public transportation throughout the country. There is a federal role to “sustain” their transit and make their existance “livable”. Perhaps it is time for Mass Transit to take a look at places like Clayton County and others in Georgia, Alabama, etc. and help get some attention on the breadth and depth of the issues facing these operations and make it a bigger part of the national dialogue on authorization and initiatives. Thanks.

]]> http://o.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2009/10/16/a-year-later-and-a-dollar-shorter/#comment-15554 Guy Span Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:23:51 +0000 http://www.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2009/10/16/a-year-later-and-a-dollar-shorter/#comment-15554 It would be more interesting to find transit agencies that haven't cut service and raised fares. In California, only the tiniest agencies have limped along without service reductions or rate increases. It would be more interesting to find transit agencies that haven’t cut service and raised fares. In California, only the tiniest agencies have limped along without service reductions or rate increases.

]]> http://o.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2009/10/16/a-year-later-and-a-dollar-shorter/#comment-15548 Georgian Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:33:44 +0000 http://www.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2009/10/16/a-year-later-and-a-dollar-shorter/#comment-15548 Fred, C-Tran in Clayton is shutting down because they've run out of CMAQ funds and didn't think about how to replace them until it was too late. I'm sure they are hoping that the Legislature will come charging to their rescue, but if prior experience is any guide, they can forget it. Georgia is still too busy dreaming of new ways to lay asphault to actually fund transit. That would be Socialism! Fred, C-Tran in Clayton is shutting down because they’ve run out of CMAQ funds and didn’t think about how to replace them until it was too late. I’m sure they are hoping that the Legislature will come charging to their rescue, but if prior experience is any guide, they can forget it. Georgia is still too busy dreaming of new ways to lay asphault to actually fund transit. That would be Socialism!

]]>