(Source:  The Brookings Institute)

Transit agencies across the US are facing service cutbacks and fare increases in order to close their budget gaps. The largest, New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), is no exception. In its 2009 budget, the agency proposes painful service cutbacks and fare increases to help cover a projected deficit of around $1.5 billion. Meanwhile, the state senate failed to unite around a rescue plan last week. And while Washington did provide $8.4 billion in stimulus funds for transit this year (with over $1 billion allocated to the MTA), this money can be spent only on capital improvement projects and not to finance gaps in day-to-day operations.

An op-ed by the Brookings Institution’s Robert Puentes and Emilia Istrate offers recommendations for closing the MTA’s budget gap. They recommend raising state support to national levels and urge the federal government to step aside and empower metropolitan agencies to spend their federal money in ways that best meet their own needs, such as operating expenses. Over the long term, some form of federal competitive funding for operating assistance also might provide the right incentive – or reward – to states and localities to commit to funding transit.

Extract from the op-ed:

Why the disconnect?

The response in Washington is predictably stubborn: Recovery money cannot be used for operating expenses because operating is not a federal role.

You would think that the pressure of this policy would lead to transit agencies that are self-sufficient – where passenger fares pay the full costs of operating the system. 

But large metropolitan transit agencies generally “recover” only about one-third of their costs from subway riders and about one-quarter from bus passengers. The MTA has the highest cost-recovery ratio among all subway operators – its fares pay for two-thirds of operating costs. 

For large bus systems, the MTA’s New York City Transit ranks second only to New Jersey‘s in terms of the share of operating costs paid for by riders. The Long Island Rail Road is the seventh among the 21 commuter rail systems in the country, recovering from fares close to half of its operating costs.

So what should be done to close the MTA’s budget gap?

For one thing, lawmakers in Albany need to recognize that the state contributes a lower proportion of the MTA’s budget from its general revenue than other states provide to their transit agencies from general revenue. In New York, about 4 percent of all the MTA operating costs are covered by the state budget; in other states, transit agencies are getting closer to 6 percent.

Raising state general fund support to national levels would be a good place to start helping the MTA. 

Another idea is to get Washington to help. Not in doling out more money, but in stepping aside and empowering metropolitan agencies to spend their federal money in ways that best meet their own needs.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: The Brookings Institute)

As Vice President Biden’s Earth Day speech at a Washington area subway station makes clear, the connections between transportation and climate change are undeniable. Therefore, exactly how our metropolitan areas grow—and what type of transportation people use to get from place to place—will have a great impact not only on the economy, but also on global environmental sustainability.

Brookings fellow, Robert Puentes, argues in a new report that we need to change, in a systemic way, how we think about, design and implement transportation policies. Beyond more fuel efficient and alternatively powered vehicles, we need to act to reduce demand for driving by linking housing, land use, and economic development.

Report Excerpts:

Transportation is the single largest contributor to the nation’s carbon footprint, causing more damage than industry, homes or commercial buildings. More than four-fifths of transportation emissions come from the tailpipes of our cars, trucks and buses.  

Three factors affect the amount of carbon released into the air from transportation: the type of fuel we use, the fuel efficiency of the automobiles we drive and the amount of driving we do. Some improvements are being made on the first two legs of this stool with the push for hybrid/electric vehicles and tighter fuel economy standards.

Progress is much slower on the third leg: curbing the demand to drive. Though driving is down now because of our economic malaise, studies show that even small increases will spew out so much carbon that they will wipe out the benefits of fuel-efficient cars and the expansion of clean-fuel alternatives.  Take the Washington metropolitan area. This region is projected to grow from 7.6 million people in 2000 to 10.6 million in 2030. Employment could grow from 4.4 million to 6.4 million workers, and non-residential development from 3.6 billion square feet to 5.2 billion. That means about 60 percent of the buildings that will be here in 2030 will have been built after 2000.

How we accommodate this growing population and economy – whether we break the pattern of “sprawl as usual” – will significantly influence whether we secure our energy independence and forge solutions to global warming and climate change.

Click here to read the entire report.

(Source: Brookings Institute)

Brookings Senior Fellow Robert Puentes tells a House Appropriations panel this week that “how and where we build in the future carries far-reaching implications for the health of our environment, our energy security, and our economic recovery and will continue to impact our metropolitan areas’ success and our ability to compete globally.”

Unfortunately, the U.S. track record here is not good.  Puentes’ research shows that between 1980 and 2000, the growth of the largest 99 metro areas in the continental U.S. consumed 16 million acres of rural land, or about one acre for every new household.5Indicative of this outward sprawl is the fact that more than 70 percent of the 100 largest metros’ recent population growth over the same period of time occurred outside of principal cities—the largest and most established cities within each metro in terms of population and employment.

Click here to read or download Mr. Puentes’ testimony to the House Appropriations panel.  Shown below is the read-only version of the PDF document.