Greater Greater Washington

Report a Comment

MLD,

"Huge Sums... spent on mass transit" - it's 20% of the highway trust fund. And the FTA obligated around $10 billion (Table 1) in FY 2009 for transit but the congestion benefit of transit was over $18 billion (page 33) so I'd say it's a pretty good deal.

I have no idea what you think your first link has to do with the issue. It's a table of FTA appropriations. The relevant number is the amount of money collected from drivers in gas taxes and other highway-usage fees that was diverted to mass transit instead of being spent on roads. That number is reported in the FHWA Highway Statistics, Table HF-10. The figure for 2009 does not seem to be available, but for 2008 it was $15 billion. I'd certainly call that a huge sum.

Your attempt to justify this diversion of highway-user revenues to mass transit on the grounds of congestion relief is specious, relying on a meaningless apples-to-oranges comparison. Per your second link, the TTI estimates that mass transit provided $18 billion in congestion relief in 2009. That is the total congestion relief benefit from all transit spending. In 2009, total transit spending was about $54 billion. Therefore, the congestion relief benefit attributable to the $15 billion diverted from highway users is not $18 billion, but only (15/54) *18 = $5 billion. So drivers paid $15 billion for only $5 billion in congestion relief benefit. That is a very bad deal for drivers, and a very inefficient use of public funds.

by Bertie on Sep 7, 2011 2:30 pm • linkreport

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator pagespam
Support Us