Tapatalk

House OK's PT $$$

House OK's PT $$$

923
Super MemberSuper Member
923

PostJun 27, 2008#1

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/congre ... index.html



$1.7 billion over 2 years. Wow, how pathetic. Why don't they just buy a BRIO set.



Realizing the cost of the new CC extension was $600m, that amount of money won't build a thing if broken up across the major PT networks. And the Democrats say they care about the environment and want improved PT. What a load.

752
Super MemberSuper Member
752

PostJun 27, 2008#2

The House voted 322-98 to authorize $1.7 billion over the next two years to lower fares and expand operations as more riders flock to public transit. The transit measure, which must be considered by the Senate, marks the first time federal money would be used to support local mass transit operating costs.


This measure isn't designed to build new lines of light rail as much as subsidize the costs associated with meeting increased demand (more busses and more frequent trains) while keeping fares low... also for democrats to say “look we are doing something about the $4 gas”… the republicans are saying “drill drill drill”

923
Super MemberSuper Member
923

PostJun 27, 2008#3

for democrats to say “look we are doing something about the $4 gas


That's my point. They're actually doing very very little. Don't something like 100,000 people take PT in St. louis per day? New York is probably a few million. What the hell is $1.7 billion going to do to keep costs down?

12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostJun 27, 2008#4

Damn! I thought this thread was about subsidizing nudie bars.

6,663
AdministratorAdministrator
6,663

PostJun 27, 2008#5

^Maybe it's because I have been drinking, but I thought the same thing.

378
Full MemberFull Member
378

PostJul 04, 2008#6

Damn .. I was sure this was a transportanion grant to get to and from PT's . next time be clear in the subject line. outta be a penalty for mis representation here..

1,054
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,054

PostJul 05, 2008#7

Will Metro in St. Louis receive any relief from these federal funds?

247
Junior MemberJunior Member
247

PostJul 06, 2008#8

What federal funds?



The Senate has not yet passed a bill. Then you must get the president to sign it.



It would be nice if it was passed and if Metro received funding, it hasn't happened yet.

2,821
Life MemberLife Member
2,821

PostJul 06, 2008#9

The majority of any public transportation bill will be earmarked for projects in major metro areas with a great deal of political influence - read Chicago (particularly if Obama gets elected), New York, San Francisco, Boston, etc. - which each need multiple billions just to keep their current systems running, and billions more to bring their systems into the 21st century. DC has already gotten billions earmarked for their system and they have one of the best systems in the country.



The rest will go to high-growth, low-density major metro areas like Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, LA, Phoenix, smaller high-growth areas in and around Salt Lake City, Denver, Seattle, Raleigh, Charlotte, Austin, Portland, and various smaller communities in California and Florida.



St. Louis is none of these. We'd be lucky to get even a symbolic gesture.

247
Junior MemberJunior Member
247

PostJul 07, 2008#10

This particular bill, if approved similarly in the Senate, is a formula grant program restoring some of what was provided in the late 1970's and was phased out under Reagan and eventually Clinton through the 1980's and 1990's.



Its an operating assistance grant. New York City was slated to received $250 million annually. I would need to read the actual bill, but it was reportedly not slated for capital or earmark purposes.

3,560
Life MemberLife Member
3,560

PostJul 07, 2008#11

Yeah we got screwed. We have one of the most successful new "light rail" systems and we got screwed! Our ridership is greater than Dallas and Houston and we get no love. Someone must have it out for St. Louis, will we even get any funding for the Northside-Southside metrolink line when a earmark bill comes around? Or will Atlanta or Charlotte get a line in a low density suburb, maybe New York or Chicago will get another line, because we know they need it :roll:.

247
Junior MemberJunior Member
247

PostJul 07, 2008#12

a) Authorizations of Appropriations-



(1) URBANIZED AREA FORMULA GRANTS- In addition to amounts allocated under section 5338(b)(2)(B) of title 49, United States Code, to carry out section 5307 of such title, there is authorized to be appropriated $750,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009 to carry out such section 5307. Such funds shall be apportioned, not later than 7 days after the date on which the funds are appropriated, in accordance with section 5336 (other than subsections (i)(1) and (j)) of such title but may not be combined or commingled with any other funds apportioned under such section 5336.



(2) FORMULA GRANTS FOR OTHER THAN URBANIZED AREAS- In addition to amounts allocated under section 5338(b)(2)(G) of title 49, United States Code, to carry out section 5311 of such title, there is authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009 to carry out such section 5311. Such funds shall be apportioned, not later than 7 days after the date on which the funds are appropriated, in accordance with such section 5311 but may not be combined or commingled with any other funds apportioned under such section 5311.



(b) Use of Funds- Notwithstanding sections 5307 and 5311 of title 49, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may make grants under such sections from amounts appropriated under subsection (a) only for one or more of the following:



(1) If the recipient of the grant is reducing, or certifies to the Secretary within the time the Secretary prescribes that, during the term of the grant, the recipient will reduce one or more fares the recipient charges for public transportation, or in the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus service, those operating costs of equipment and facilities being used to provide the public transportation, or in the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus service, that the recipient is no longer able to pay from the revenues derived from such fare or fares as a result of such reduction.



(2) If the recipient of the grant is expanding, or certifies to the Secretary within the time the Secretary prescribes that, during the term of the grant, the recipient will expand public transportation service, or in the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus service, those operating and capital costs of equipment and facilities being used to provide the public transportation service, or in the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus service, that the recipient incurs as a result of the expansion of such service.



(3) To avoid increases in fares for public transportation, or in the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus service, or decreases in current public transportation service, or in the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus service, that would otherwise result from an increase in costs to the public transportation or intercity bus agency for transportation-related fuel or meeting additional transportation-related equipment or facility maintenance needs, if the recipient of the grant certifies to the Secretary within the time the Secretary prescribes that, during the term of the grant, the recipient will not increase the fares that the recipient charges for public transportation, or in the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus service, or, will not decrease the public transportation service, or in the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus service, that the recipient provides.



(4) If the recipient of the grant is acquiring, or certifies to the Secretary within the time the Secretary prescribes that, during the term of the grant, the recipient will acquire, clean fuel or alternative fuel vehicle-related equipment or facilities for the purpose of improving fuel efficiency, the costs of acquiring the equipment or facilities.



(5) If the recipient of the grant is establishing or expanding, or certifies to the Secretary within the time the Secretary prescribes that, during the term of the grant, the recipient will establish or expand commuter matching services to provide commuters with information and assistance about alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use, those administrative costs in establishing or expanding such services.



(c) Federal Share- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal share of the costs for which a grant is made under this section shall be 100 percent.



(d) Period of Availability- Funds appropriated under this section shall remain available for a period of 2 fiscal years.


The money will be distributed using the normal formula. 50% is distributed by population and population density and the other 50% is distributed by vehicle miles and passenger miles.



There are several other interesting things in the bill, but this is the key funding. Its in addition to the money in the 5307 formula program.

923
Super MemberSuper Member
923

PostJul 07, 2008#13

Still I ask - WHAT MONEY!? That amount is paltry and won't pay for much of anything over the period if broken up across the country. I mean, sure, every little bit helps, but that amount really won't be effective in subsidizing ridership costs for more than a few months, if that, when broken up, especially when weighted.



And yeah, it's $4 a gallon gas, but if it's $2 a ride on metro (going that way soon), and you're driving less than 20 miles a day - it costs more to ride PT than it does to drive! (parking fees not included)

1,878
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,878

PostJul 07, 2008#14

migueltejada wrote:And yeah, it's $4 a gallon gas, but if it's $2 a ride on metro (going that way soon), and you're driving less than 20 miles a day - it costs more to ride PT than it does to drive! (parking fees not included)


Ah, but gas is only one factor in commuting costs.



According to this poll from 2005, the average distance to work for commuters is 16 miles.



According to this commuter's calculator, if you only drove to work and back - sixteen miles a day, five days a week, you'd have driven 4160 miles in a year. This is how much it would cost you per mile to drive to work:


Code: Select all

Your Direct Driver's Expenses                               COSTS          

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

  Fixed costs (insurance and registration)                  11.5¢ per mile 

  Finance Charge                                             5.8¢ per mile 

  Depreciation                                              25.5¢ per mile 

  Fuel (based on $4.00/gal)                                 16.0¢ per mile 

  Maintenance and Tires                                      5.3¢ per mile 

  Residential Parking                                        0.0¢ per mile 

  Parking and Tolls: user paid (if applicable)               0.0¢ per mile 

  Travel Time (with average delays)                         11.9¢ per mile 

  Accidents (personal costs of injury and property damage)   0.0¢ per mile 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

  Total Direct Drivers Expense per mile                     $0.76          


(NOTE: I adjusted the above to $4/gal of gas - the website assumed $4.57/gal. I also zeroed out the parking and accidents charges. All other per-mile costs are assumed accurate)





At $0.76/mi, your 16-mile commute costs you $12.16 per day. Even if you zero out the somewhat ambiguous depreciation and Travel Time charges (making your commute $0.39/mi), it still costs $6.24 to drive the sixteen miles to work. $4/day isn't looking so bad now, is it? It looks even better if you get a monthly pass instead of paying per ride.



-RBB

76
New MemberNew Member
76

PostJul 08, 2008#15

Those numbers make sense but they are not completely accurate. For example, just because I choose to ride PT one day doesn't mean that my insurance and registration go away for my car that day. Unfortunately, we don't live in a place that makes it possible to go without a car, with the exception of a few choice areas of town.

923
Super MemberSuper Member
923

PostJul 09, 2008#16

also assumes that you're financing your car, when many people own it outright.



Gatechie hits it on the head. There is no reason why anyone would take public transport when they already own a car and have sunk the money into it. The insurance doesn't go away, you still need to have regular maintenance of the vehicle, etc. Unless you pay for parking or have an exceptionally long commute (1 hr +), there's virtually no reason to take public transport if you own a car.

2,940
Life MemberLife Member
2,940

PostJul 10, 2008#17

migueltejada wrote:Still I ask - WHAT MONEY!? That amount is paltry and won't pay for much of anything over the period if broken up across the country. I mean, sure, every little bit helps, but that amount really won't be effective in subsidizing ridership costs for more than a few months, if that, when broken up, especially when weighted.



And yeah, it's $4 a gallon gas, but if it's $2 a ride on metro (going that way soon), and you're driving less than 20 miles a day - it costs more to ride PT than it does to drive! (parking fees not included)
While I never expect the Federal Government to contribute much to local transportation infrastructure concerns, I must agree that this is little more than a window dressing, doling out amounts that look big until you do the math and consideration of total spendings. This is merely a way of politicians to self-promote come election season, to say "Look, we care!" while tossing out very little to combat the high costs of transportation.



Only when the national economy truly becomes crippled by the costs of transportation will the Fed Gov't really contribute. And no, I do not see that as an eventuality, although I sure would like to see committed investment towards total public transporation infrastructure.