New Administration Must Thoroughly Evaluate Transit Projects

February 13, 2025 TruthUSA

It is not surprising that the most expensive and least justifiable projects are found in California.

Commentary

The Biden Administration exits Washington with a backlog of $64 billion in transit capital projects at different stages of the federal grant procedure. The incoming Trump Administration ought to exclude the majority (if not all) of these projects from grant eligibility.

Aside from questioning whether federal support for local transportation initiatives is a proper government function, the latest batch of transit capital grant projects tend to far exceed their perceived benefits.

It is not surprising that the most expensive and least justifiable projects are found in California, which represents half of the project backlog by total cost. One of the most questionable initiatives is a 1.3-mile rail extension in San Francisco, priced at $8.25 billion. This new rail line would extend Caltrain service from the outskirts of downtown to the largely vacant Salesforce Transit Center.

Commuters exiting at the existing San Francisco terminal can already access downtown through light rail or buses, or by walking or biking. Therefore, even if this extension is constructed, only a small portion of the 6,000 daily Caltrain commuters heading to San Francisco are likely to utilize it.

The extension could only be rationalized if Caltrain becomes integrated with California’s high-speed rail initiative. However, that project is currently stagnant and unlikely to gain further support during the Trump administration, leaving any Bay Area connections distant at best.

Another pricey Bay Area transit proposal is the $12.75 billion BART extension through downtown San Jose. It is expected to service 32,000 passengers daily, as per the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) project profile. However, the local transit authority has been known to inflate ridership estimates, suggesting the actual numbers may be considerably lower.

Other states, regardless of their political leanings, also feature transit projects vying for federal financial support. In Austin, Texas, Cap Metro is attempting to secure funding of $8.23 billion for a ten-mile light rail extension projected to accommodate 28,500 daily riders.

In Minnesota, the Met Council plans to extend its Blue Line light rail into the northwest suburbs of Minneapolis, despite some local resident opposition. Although the project appears at a bargain price of $1.5 billion on the FTA dashboard, this figure is likely outdated and should be revised significantly as the project progresses through the grant procedure.

Finally, the East-West Council of Governments is proposing a 5.8-mile light rail project for St. Louis, priced at $1.1 billion. While this project is relatively economical compared to others mentioned, projections expect it to service only 5,200 daily riders. This number seems overly optimistic given the agency’s previously inflated ridership estimates and St. Louis’ declining population: the city had a population of only 282,000 in 2023, down from 319,000 in the 2010 Census.

None of these projects should qualify for federal funding, as their expected ridership does not justify the additional costs associated with rail systems. Although some routes may warrant the development of less expensive bus rapid transit, such a solution would not be practical for downtown San Francisco, which is already overloaded with transit options.

As the current administration plans to depend on the “Department of Government Efficiency” for identifying budget cuts, these and other projects in the Federal Transit Administration’s backlog should face significant scrutiny. While incoming Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has pledged to utilize funds authorized by the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure bill, Congress might restrict transit funding by not approving further expenditures.

The new U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership should also take into consideration some of our recommendations for refining the grant funding process detailed in this recent Cato Institute study. Specifically, we propose that each project undergoes a thorough cost-benefit analysis based on ridership projections from impartial third parties.

Projects that do not demonstrate positive net benefits should not receive approval, even if funding is available. In cases where there is surplus funding that exceeds the sum of projects providing positive net benefits, the DOT should retain those funds or return them to the Treasury.

Opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Source link

You May Also Like

Texas Governor Abbott Issues Warning to Texas A&M Regarding DEI Conference

Appeals Court Confirms Ban on Gun Purchases for Individuals Under Indictment

US Imposes Sanctions on Two Chinese Nationals for Funding North Korean Weapons Program

Leave a Reply Cancel reply