Varsity-Packet-Final

Furthermore hess and lombardi note the prevalent

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: tified political problems is consistent with an overall political philosophy, even if it isn't consistent with principles of federal-state governance embedded in the U.S. Constitution. 34 | P a g e Mass Transit Negative BDL Federalism Link [____] States are much more important to mass transit funding now Gordon, 2011 – Economic Analyst at Charles River Associates (Michael, “Funding Urban Mass Transit in the United States”, Boston College Economics Honor’s Thesis, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2007981, p. 23-24, 3-23-11)//AWV Hess and Lombardi first provide a history of urban mass transit, noting important developments throughout the years and how they affected funding. They note that state approaches to funding urban mass transit often influence local government funding.77 Furthermore they find that “federal support has become proportionately less significant while local and state governments have grown increasingly responsible for transit’s operating and capital expenses.”78 They also discuss the importance of dedicated state and local taxes, in particular, local option transportation taxes (LOTTs). These LOTTs “include levies on sales, property, and income that often require voter approval but provide reliable and ongoing sources of revenue.”79 These dedicated funds provide a stable source of revenues for urban mass transit systems. Furthermore, Hess and Lombardi note the prevalent impact of politics on the funding and spending process. They write that politicians often prefer to contribute towards the more visible capital expenses instead of the more necessary operating expenses. Ideally, capital funding would improve efficiency so that oper ating funding becomes less necessary, but this is often not the case.80 Instead, funding capital expenses encourages overcapitalization and does not necessarily improve efficiency.81 Despite this overcapitalization, Hess and Lombardi then transition to note that some transit agencies have started using local funding to bypass the federal and state new starts criteria, which require years of planning.82 Overall, they find that local and state funding has and will become more relevant.83 35 | P a g e Mass Transit Negative BDL States CP Solvency [____] State funding is more efficient Gordon, 2011 – Economic Analyst at Charles River Associates (Michael, “Funding Urban Mass Transit in the United States”, Boston College Economics Honor’s Thesis, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2007981, p. 42-43, 3-23-11)//AWV In spite of the large amount of federal funding, this finding implies that state and local funds are more efficient than federal funds, which could happen for a number of reasons. First, the idea of fiscal federalism states that a centralist federal government should have less control and influence than more localized sources because it is further removed from the system needs.140 The federal government may not know as well as more localized governments how to best use the funds, but it may attach restrictions to them anyways. Additionally, urban mass transit agencies often apply for fede...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 02/06/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online