Why Buy More Trains If You Can’t Afford to Run Them?

Down in balmy South Florida, D-Day is approaching for riders of the the popular Tri-Rail transit system. A looming $18 million shortfall has forced the Tri-Rail board to approve a budget that slices daily service and stops all trains by 2011 — although ridership has doubled since 2005.

tri_rail.jpgTri-Rail trains like these could stop running by 2011. (Photo: National Corridors Initiative)

Tri-Rail’s troubles are largely attributable to the bad economy, which has clipped the amount that the network’s three participating counties can contribute to the transit system by an estimated $9 million. Making matters worse, the county aid must be matched dollar for dollar by the state DOT, doubling the size of that gap and forcing Tri-Rail to the brink.

As the Palm Beach Post noted yesterday, Tri-Rail’s request that state legislators okay a $2 rental car tax to save transit service is hardly a politically extraordinary one. But the Post’s editorial also reveals Washington’s role in perversely perpetuating the funding crisis.

Here’s the rub: Tri-Rail got $16 million for new trains in the recent stimulus bill, but none of that can cover the shortfall because federal money generally cannot be used to cover operating costs.

Making matters worse, the Federal Transit Administration has informed Tri-Rail that it risks losing a crucial $256 million grant if daily service dips below 48 trains. Meanwhile, members of Congress are requesting up to $400 million in earmarks to extend Tri-Rail service to the northern end of Palm Beach County. What’s the use of money to lay new tracks if Tri-Rail can’t afford to run any trains?

The simple fix for this conundrum would be allowing local transit agencies to spend money from Washington on operating costs, an idea welcomed by both Transportation Secretary LaHood and lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Yet the devil will be in the details, because expanding the potential uses for federal transit aid doesn’t mean an automatic increase in the size of that pot of federal aid — which is already illogically small. Saving transit systems such as Tri-Rail could mean a painful trade-off between building worthy new projects and making sure existing trains can run on time.

  • Larry Littlefield

    “The simple fix” is always to sacrifice the future for the present. While there are “worthy new projects” in some cases, most capital funds are used for ongoing normal replacement of existing vehicles and facilities.

    Imagine, for example, a policy to allow FTA funds to use for bus maintenance rather than buses. Local pols looking for the “simple fix” would stop buying new buses. No one would notice a problem for a few years. “Everyone wins,” right?

    A good way to gradually eliminate transit altogether.

  • J-Uptown

    The Atlanta transit agency (MARTA) worked out a deal with the local MPO, the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), to swap stimulus capital funds for operating funds. I don’t see why this can’t be done elsewhere.

    http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2009/05/27/marta_stimulus_money.html

  • anonymous

    At some point states are just going to have to save themselves, as the US congress is slow to act and usually muddles good bills into mediocre ones. How do states save themselves? Raise the top income tax rate, for starters.

  • St. Louis also received stimulus funding for transit operations via the “state budget stabilization” line item. KC received nothing, unfortunately, but it shows you where there’s a will, there’s a way.

  • What’s really sickening is the state contributing nearly $100 million in stimulus money to fund the gross expansion of an already horrific interchange…to the tune of $600 million, in addition to the $120 million they spent on tax roll destroying right-of-way purchases for said interchange. Lack of Tri-Rail funding and carbon belching interchange projects makes one realize that we livable streets advocates have a long, long way to go. Keep fighting.

  • > Why Buy More Trains If You Can’t Afford to Run Them?

    Float bonds, buy trains, default on bonds, keep trains? Sounds like a win for governments: they get to keep the trains, /and/ your money.

  • Why can’t municipalities walk away from debt-issuance-based public works financing?

    This excessive reliance on debt in terms of public sector infra creates so much more trouble in the long haul.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Miami’s Golden Opportunity to Bring Commuter Rail Downtown

By Angie Schmitt |
Opportunities like this don’t come around very often. Traffic-clogged Miami is tantalizingly close to a commuter rail extension that would link its northern suburbs to the heart of downtown. But the city needs to secure $30 million in the next few months to make it happen. The region has a commuter rail line called Tri-Rail that runs 72 miles north to […]

Anti-Rail Candidates Take Aim at High Speed Dreams in the Midwest

By Tanya Snyder |
Here’s another installment of our series on key governor’s races. Here’s the news from Wisconsin and Ohio. Check out our previous coverage of California, Texas, Maryland, Colorado, and Tennessee. Let them serve as a reminder to vote on Tuesday. “I’m Scott Walker. And if I’m elected as your next governor, we’ll stop this train.” That’s […]

Conservative Tea Party Movement Targets Florida Rail Plan

By Elana Schor |
The conservative "tea party" movement, last seen complaining about the government-funded local transit system that they took during an anti-government march in Washington D.C, is veering back to form in Florida with an organized protest against the state’s proposal for broad new investments in rail transit. The "Tea Party" is now a registered political party […]