Varsity-Packet-Final

3 through these subsidies and related regulations

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ght? W rong, according to a new study. A new report from the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University says that the result may be the complete opposite — that is, attract a population of wealthier residents who prefer private cars to public buses and trains. The report, which can be found here (.pdf), found that new public transit investments can, in some cases, lead to gentrification. That means renters and low-income residents — you know, the folks you think would ride public transportation — get priced out of the neighborhood and, once again, away from easy access to the very system that’s thought to serve them the most. 31 | P a g e Mass Transit Negative BDL Spending Link [____] Urban transit funds are wasteful and cost billions- the economic payoff is marginal because the benefits are so localized Randal O’Toole, Cato Analyst, 2012 (CATO INSTITUTE, “Urban Transit”, June 2010, http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/urban -transit) The Department of Transportation's Federal Transit Administration has an annual budget of more than $10 billion, nearly all of which is spent on subsidies to state and local governments.2 In addition, the economic stimulus bill of 2009 added a further $8 billion in subsidies over a period of years.3 Through these subsidies and related regulations, federal policymakers play a major role in shaping urban transportation choices. Transit funding is costly to taxpayers, and it is not a proper function of the federal government. It encourages state and local governments to pursue high-cost and less-efficient transportation solutions—in particular, rail transit. Outside of a few hyper-dense cities in the world, rail transit is a luxury for the few paid for by everyone. Commuter trains and subways may be necessary to keep Manhattan going, but that doesn't mean that everyone else in the nation should subsidize them. Outside of New York City, rail transit makes little economic sense. [____] Plan would cost a LOT of money Fitzgerald et.al. 2010- professor and director of the graduate program in Law, Policy and Society and a Senior Research Fellow at the Kitty and Michael Kukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University (Joan, Granquist, Khatiwada, McLaughlin, Renner, “Reviving the U.S. Rail and Transit Industry: Investments and Job Creation”, WorldWatch Institute)//AWV The Federal Transportation Administration’s 2010 National State of Good Repair Assessment estimates that $13.5 billion is needed to replace U.S. buses and $16.2 billion to replace U.S. railcars that have exceeded their useful life or whose conditions fall below the acceptable minimum threshold.23 To remedy the bus backlog and maintain the existing fleet, annual investments of $6.8 billion over six years would be needed, or a total of almost $41 billion. For rail, remedying the backlog and maintaining the existing fleet would require $5.8 billion annually over six years, or almost...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online