22 replies to this topic

[tracer1138]

thewhister, on Jun 11 2006, 02:34 PM, said:

You would think that the Administration, and particularly Congress would see this trend that mass transit is becoming an important component for the viability of a region.  Of course they have realized that transit is a component with previous transportation authorization (was it the 2000 legislation that began to diversify funding grants?  or was it before? 1994?)

If there are more and more projects that are viying for scarce federal funding...then that should signal the Feds to allocate more funding for transit projects.  Of course some can argue that transit funding should come locally since it does directly affect the regional economy, instead of nationally?

And as much cost as transit/highway projects are I would hope that maintenance of infrastructure would be encouraged more.  Some highways, like I-95/I-295 reconstruction in Jacksonville, Florida and the I-85 corridor reconstruction in Durham, NC  would be discouraged in future funding options, why rebuild when it is effective to maintain?

There's probably also a political element to that.  Remember that most transit systems are built focused on inner cities which are largely democratic strongholds.  As they don't serve the suburbs or rural areas (Republican strongholds) nearly as well, the current administration sees no political benefit to contributing.  They wouldn't exactly be leaping over themselves to draw more people and concentrate them in the Democratic areas.

[Inkdaub]

The head of the transportation department on the national level(can you tell I don't remember the person's title?) has approved  750 million dollars to help pay for light rail expansion in Seattle.  The specific line is from downtown to the University of Washington via Capitol hill.

[cpuchowicz]

I think this is too much money for study