Bo-4
Senator
As TriMet slashes, Congress bashes transit funds
Portland Business Journal by Andy Giegerich and Kent Hoover
Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2012, 2:55pm PST
Portland's mass transit is lauded in a new report on the best car-free cities.
As TriMet officials grapple with a $17 million-plus budget hole, their money troubles could get worse in coming months.
The Portland region’s public transportation agency is awaiting results of Congressional talks that could prevent at least part of $40 million in federal transit grants from landing in Oregon. In a Wednesday presentation on possible budget deficit remedies, TriMet officials said they’re planning for a possible loss of $4 million.
TriMet and other Portland area agencies fear that the American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act will effectively squelch public transportation programs. Two Congressional House committees have approved the measure, which will now go to a joint House-Senate conference committee.
Reaching an agreement in the conference committee could prove difficult because the Senate’s own transportation bill is different from the House’s.
Essentially, the House wants to move money that’s traditionally earmarked for transit projects into a general fund that can be appropriated at the whims of Congress, some 600 organizations charged in a letter to House leaders. Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber and Portland Mayor Sam Adams were among those signing the letter.
“This is the worst transportation package in history,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat who represents Portland. “It has very serious consequences in terms of stability for transit in the future. I don’t think it’s going to pass, but it’s a signal of where people are going. It’s important that we reject it out of hand lest this approach gain momentum and put us in a bigger hole.”
The House measure would provide $260 billion in federal funding over five years for highway, transit and safety programs. It would consolidate or eliminate 70 federal surface transportation programs.
Both political sides have issues with the bill.
Conservatives think the bill is too expensive, particularly since Congress is taking money from the government’s general fund to help pay for transportation projects, instead of limiting them to what can be paid for through gasoline taxes. Environmentalists don’t like the fact that some of this extra money would be generated by expanded oil and natural gas drilling on public lands and offshore.
Yet business groups, who think a multi-year funding bill for transportation improvements is long overdue, are troubled by specific provisions. They’ve joined state and local officials in fighting a change in transit funding made by the House Ways and Means Committee. Transit programs would no longer get 2.8 cents of the federal government’s 18.4-cent gasoline tax.
“It’s a problem,” said Janet Kavinoky, executive director of transportation and infrastructure for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and vice president for Americans for Transportation Mobility.
Kavinoky and Olivia Clark, TriMet’s government affairs director, do anticipate that the bill will be either dramatically rewritten or even scrapped before coming up for full House and Senate votes.
“This would hurt us, but we’re building some potential cuts into the budget concept we’ve rolled out today,” Clark said. “We just don’t know. It’s an uncertain environment with a lot of moving pieces.”
Clark said many answers — including whether TriMet would absorb bigger budget hits — would be clearer by April.
The Associated General Contractors of America also is concerned about transit funding, but the group believes any issues with the bill can be worked out. Both the House and the Senate are committed to passing a long-term transportation bill, and President Barack Obama “routinely cites the need” for it, said Brian Turmail, AGC’s executive director of public affairs.
“We are very encouraged by the fact that this legislation will significantly accelerate transportation improvements across the country by cutting the needless red tape and regulatory redundancies that have forced projects to languish for years awaiting federal approval to move forward,” Turmail said.
The measure isn’t expected to eliminate funds for the $1.4 billion Portland-to-Milwaukie light rail project. It could in some ways affect funding for a new Columbia River Crossing across Interstate 5 if it forces officials to shift other highway and bridge funds around.
The state officials who oversee the CRC project hope to procure $850 million in Federal Transit Administration money from the New Starts program, which funds public transit efforts, and between $400 and $500 million in highway funds.
“CRC advocates have long claimed that money for the project will come from a ‘special pot’ of dollars that could not otherwise come to the region,” said Joe Cortright, an economist and principal with Impresa Consulting. Cortright opposes the current Columbia crossing proposal.
“It’s increasingly clear that the proposed federal transportation reauthorization will be unlikely to retain the current level of funding, and that any federal money that would be used for the CRC would come from sources that the state and region have counted on for other purposes. . .There is no CRC free lunch.”
The federal debate is picking up at the same time TriMet is proposing drastic service changes to address its shortfall. The suggestions include:
Shifting to a flat-fare system that would eliminate round trips on a single fare. The proposal has raised objections from riders who say it will boost their bus fares by at least 40 percent. TriMet said most transit systems in other cities already use flat fares.
Pricing those tickets at $2.50 while offering $5 all-day passes.
Eliminating downtown Portland’s free rail zone.
Cutting segments on 14 bus routes that overlap with other lines.
Eliminating non-rush hour bus trips on 26 lines.
Reducing MAX Red Line service between Beaverton and the Portland International Airport so that the train only runs during weekday rush hours.
TriMet plans to hold a series of open houses on the proposals.
Portland Business Journal by Andy Giegerich and Kent Hoover
Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2012, 2:55pm PST
Portland's mass transit is lauded in a new report on the best car-free cities.
As TriMet officials grapple with a $17 million-plus budget hole, their money troubles could get worse in coming months.
The Portland region’s public transportation agency is awaiting results of Congressional talks that could prevent at least part of $40 million in federal transit grants from landing in Oregon. In a Wednesday presentation on possible budget deficit remedies, TriMet officials said they’re planning for a possible loss of $4 million.
TriMet and other Portland area agencies fear that the American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act will effectively squelch public transportation programs. Two Congressional House committees have approved the measure, which will now go to a joint House-Senate conference committee.
Reaching an agreement in the conference committee could prove difficult because the Senate’s own transportation bill is different from the House’s.
Essentially, the House wants to move money that’s traditionally earmarked for transit projects into a general fund that can be appropriated at the whims of Congress, some 600 organizations charged in a letter to House leaders. Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber and Portland Mayor Sam Adams were among those signing the letter.
“This is the worst transportation package in history,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat who represents Portland. “It has very serious consequences in terms of stability for transit in the future. I don’t think it’s going to pass, but it’s a signal of where people are going. It’s important that we reject it out of hand lest this approach gain momentum and put us in a bigger hole.”
The House measure would provide $260 billion in federal funding over five years for highway, transit and safety programs. It would consolidate or eliminate 70 federal surface transportation programs.
Both political sides have issues with the bill.
Conservatives think the bill is too expensive, particularly since Congress is taking money from the government’s general fund to help pay for transportation projects, instead of limiting them to what can be paid for through gasoline taxes. Environmentalists don’t like the fact that some of this extra money would be generated by expanded oil and natural gas drilling on public lands and offshore.
Yet business groups, who think a multi-year funding bill for transportation improvements is long overdue, are troubled by specific provisions. They’ve joined state and local officials in fighting a change in transit funding made by the House Ways and Means Committee. Transit programs would no longer get 2.8 cents of the federal government’s 18.4-cent gasoline tax.
“It’s a problem,” said Janet Kavinoky, executive director of transportation and infrastructure for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and vice president for Americans for Transportation Mobility.
Kavinoky and Olivia Clark, TriMet’s government affairs director, do anticipate that the bill will be either dramatically rewritten or even scrapped before coming up for full House and Senate votes.
“This would hurt us, but we’re building some potential cuts into the budget concept we’ve rolled out today,” Clark said. “We just don’t know. It’s an uncertain environment with a lot of moving pieces.”
Clark said many answers — including whether TriMet would absorb bigger budget hits — would be clearer by April.
The Associated General Contractors of America also is concerned about transit funding, but the group believes any issues with the bill can be worked out. Both the House and the Senate are committed to passing a long-term transportation bill, and President Barack Obama “routinely cites the need” for it, said Brian Turmail, AGC’s executive director of public affairs.
“We are very encouraged by the fact that this legislation will significantly accelerate transportation improvements across the country by cutting the needless red tape and regulatory redundancies that have forced projects to languish for years awaiting federal approval to move forward,” Turmail said.
The measure isn’t expected to eliminate funds for the $1.4 billion Portland-to-Milwaukie light rail project. It could in some ways affect funding for a new Columbia River Crossing across Interstate 5 if it forces officials to shift other highway and bridge funds around.
The state officials who oversee the CRC project hope to procure $850 million in Federal Transit Administration money from the New Starts program, which funds public transit efforts, and between $400 and $500 million in highway funds.
“CRC advocates have long claimed that money for the project will come from a ‘special pot’ of dollars that could not otherwise come to the region,” said Joe Cortright, an economist and principal with Impresa Consulting. Cortright opposes the current Columbia crossing proposal.
“It’s increasingly clear that the proposed federal transportation reauthorization will be unlikely to retain the current level of funding, and that any federal money that would be used for the CRC would come from sources that the state and region have counted on for other purposes. . .There is no CRC free lunch.”
The federal debate is picking up at the same time TriMet is proposing drastic service changes to address its shortfall. The suggestions include:
Shifting to a flat-fare system that would eliminate round trips on a single fare. The proposal has raised objections from riders who say it will boost their bus fares by at least 40 percent. TriMet said most transit systems in other cities already use flat fares.
Pricing those tickets at $2.50 while offering $5 all-day passes.
Eliminating downtown Portland’s free rail zone.
Cutting segments on 14 bus routes that overlap with other lines.
Eliminating non-rush hour bus trips on 26 lines.
Reducing MAX Red Line service between Beaverton and the Portland International Airport so that the train only runs during weekday rush hours.
TriMet plans to hold a series of open houses on the proposals.
