New FTA Head

President Obama continues his policy of bringing “change” to Washington by appointing Washington insiders to key posts in his administration. One such insider is Peter Rogoff, who will be the new head of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

As a staff member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Rogoff had a hand in writing ISTEA, TEA-21, and SAFETEA-LU, the 1991, 1998, and 2005 reauthorizations of federal transportation funding. He has also promoted high-speed rail, light rail, and bus-rapid transit systems. Naturally, the American Public Transportation Association — the nation’s transit lobby — is elated to have in Rogoff in charge of federal transit programs, as he knows all the strings to pull to get big bucks for their tiny constituency (meaning, for the most part, transit contractors, not transit riders).

A little personal information about Mr. Rogoff: Last year, he earned nearly $165,000 of your money telling senators how to spend billions of your transportation dollars. That allowed him to donate $2,500 to the Obama campaign, which may have helped get him his new job.

Three things to watch for in the coming months. First, Rogoff may want to reverse the Bush administration’s policy of demanding that cities that want to build streetcars prove that streetcars are more cost-effective than buses. This policy persuaded almost all of the cities (Portland excepted) that were considering streetcar plans to not submit grant proposals to the FTA — and the FTA turned down Portland’s proposal because it wasn’t cost-effective.

Another Bush administration policy that Rogoff may want to reverse is the cost-effectiveness test for bigger rail transit projects. This rather weak test only requires that rail projects cost less than about $25 for every “hour of transportation user benefit.” (It was originally $24, but it is adjusted for inflation so it is probably around $25 now.)

The way this test works is that agencies are supposed to divide the annualized (amortized capital plus operating) cost of a project by the number of hours of people’s time the project will save. If the cost per hour is more than $25, FTA won’t fund it. If it is less, FTA will consider it. The reason this is a weak test is because the FTA still doesn’t discriminate between projects that cost $1 per hour and ones that cost $24.50 per hour — all else being equal, both will be funded. So transit agencies jigger their numbers to get the cost per hour just under the threshold.

Sufficient attention must be provided when Sufferers of ED have this capsule as excess dose or wrong dose invite its own group of signals that in future lead to a erotic difficulty. cialis prescription valsonindia.com Quite a few of them have made their foray into the markets post the introduction of the very first one. free sample viagra This is the case for both statins commander viagra and fibrates (another type of cholesterol lowering drug). It is essential to ask your doctor about appropriate dosage. best price for levitra Changing the streetcar and cost-effectiveness tests will only influence how much of your gas taxes get wasted on rail transit as opposed to more cost-effective bus transit. The transit industry’s real goal is to increase the pot of money going to transit. At the moment, about 15.5 percent of your gas taxes are dedicated to transit, and another 25 percent is “flexible,” meaning it can be spent on either transit or roads. In practice, about a fifth of flexible funds go for transit.

Congress can jigger this formula, increasing transit’s funding, in one of four ways. First, it can increase gas taxes and give transit more than 20 percent of the increase. (The share now dedicated to transit works out to 15.5 percent because Congress has given transit 20 percent of all gas tax increases since 1982, but none of the taxes that existed before 1982.) That’s probably House Transportation Committee Chair Jim Oberstar’s plan.

Second, Congress could increase the share of funds dedicated to transit. The transit lobby is powerful and the highway lobby is weak, but the latter probably still has enough power to stop that idea.

Third, Congress could increase the share of funds that are flexible. The highway lobby would gnash its teeth, but it would have a harder time fighting this idea as it seems to promote “local control.” The downside for the transit industry is there is no guarantee that cities that are now spending only about 20 percent of flexible funds on transit would increase that spending if more flexible funds were available.

Fourth, Congress could find some other source of funds for transit. The stimulus bill passed a couple of months ago provided $8.4 billion for transit, $27.5 billion for highways, and $1.5 billion in flexible funds, which means (if transit gets 20 percent of the flexible funds) transit got a little more than 23 percent of the total, up from the historic 20 to 21 percent. Congress may see the continuing recession as an “opportunity” to pass more “stimulus” bills that include more funds for transit.

The transit industry’s big problem is that it now has a new competitor for funds: high-speed rail. In addition to the $8 billion for high-speed rail in the stimulus package, Obama wants to spend $1 billion a year for the next five years — but he hasn’t said whether that will come out of gas taxes or general funds. If the former, much of it is likely to come out of transit’s share. Of course, some of the contractors that profit from rail transit boondoggles could profit just as much from high-speed rail boondoggles.

Aside from the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for all this, it is likely that one group that will be screwed by “change” will be bus riders. If Rogoff changes either or both of the cost-effectiveness criteria, it means more money for a few rail lines and less money for all bus lines. A few bus riders will get shiny new trains or streetcars to ride on, while the rest of them will get less service or pay higher fares. Even if Rogoff manages to get transit a larger share of the pie, most of that pie is likely to go for rail transit and high-speed rail, not buses. As I said before, the transit constituency that counts is contractors, not transit riders.