You will remember that back in January, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced the changes to the  guidelines that govern federal investments in transit. While not as comprehensive as the anticipated changes to the 2005 SAFETEA-LU Bill, the new rules were a welcomed and long overdue change to transit funding rules.

“Our new policy for selecting major transit projects will work to promote livability rather than hinder it,” said Secretary LaHood.  “We want to base our decisions on how much transit helps the environment, how much it improves development opportunities and how it makes our communities better places to live.”

The change will apply to how the Federal Transit Administration evaluates major transit projects going forward.  In making funding decisions, the FTA will now evaluate the environmental, community and economic development benefits provided by transit projects, as well as the congestion relief benefits from such projects. (FTA)

Locally we hoped for the best, but on Monday the President released his list of projects that are moving forward with federal funding.  While other cities are big winners, our own beleaguered Orange Line Phase 2 remains a weak funding candidate. The projects are all rated based on a variety of criteria, and for a project to receive funding it needs to be at least Medium rated. Previously, the rating was based on cost effectiveness, but the new rules give other criteria greater weight. You can read the report here (look for information on Miami on page 14).

For us the changes would be great news, if not for the continued lack of political will to provide permanent sources of operation and maintenance funding.  The overall project is rated Medium-low in the Preliminary Engineering phase. We score medium-high and medium on the majority of categories, except for our Local Financing Commitment for Operations and Maintenance. In other words, the feds know we can build the system (partially using our PTP dollars) but we still do not have a permanent way of paying for the O & M that will result from the construction of the line.

Until the County Commission steps up and identifies how they intend to fund the future operations of Orange Line , we will not receive FTA New Starts funding.

Unfortunately, this is not a problem that is specific to the Orange Line or with the cost heavy rail technology. The cost of O & M is going to be a problem for whatever technology is used to expand the transit system, whether it be BRT, LRT or Metrorail. Running mass transit is expensive. Our current ‘go it alone’ attitude in pursuing BRT lite is only going to cost us more in the long term without actually increasing ridership.

We are currently in the phase “Preliminary Engineering”,

Tagged with:

5 Responses to Federal Transit Rules Change, but In Miami More of the Same

  1. Kathryn Moore says:

    The dreaded “Operations and Maintenance” costs are things the county will need to be prepared to support – and we, as taxpayers. What are other cities in our predicament doing to address O + M issues?


  2. Johnny Remigio says:

    In NYC, the MTA has increased the fare to $2.25. I believe next year we are expecting an additional increase as well. The MTA claims a deficit close to or over a billion dollars. It’s been said the fare increases will not cover the deficit. Naturally, the MTA has announced further reductions in service by eliminating transit lines, reducing bus service, eliminating student fares, and reducing senior citizen services. Transit is expensive, but how do we strike a balance?


  3. Prem says:

    thanks for pointing out the meaning of O&M, Katheryn.

    Tony, are there instances when after subsidizations, one of these systems becomes self-sustaining?
    Perhaps that’s a taboo subject to broach in terms of public transportation, but we’re talking hundreds of millions of tax-payer dollars. and while we may not qualify for the money, and other cities do, how much do YOU want to participate in a system that may contribute to the bankruptcy of our nation?
    funding a transportation system that requires tax-payer subsidy into perpetuity does not at all seem like a responsible and sustainable decision.


  4. Tony Garcia says:

    As opposed to what, subsidizing our roads? Has that ‘bankrupted our nation’ as you put it? Using that logic, we should stop paying for any public necessity that we simply deem too expensive to maintain.

    Ps. Prem I mentioned operations and maintenance in the article in case you missed it.


  5. Prem says:

    subsidizing and building roads has had manifold impacts on the country. What value can we put on communities forced to move by their government for a causeway?

    i’m not defending business as usual as an alternative, but this is a very expensive proposal with no expectation of positive and ever growing impact on the community.
    public transit in most cases in MDT has failed to positively impact the community.

    i don’t see this project being fruitful for the community. it’s probably just my bias against humongous projects with small expected benefits


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site is protected by Comment SPAM Wiper.