My letter to the editor on expanding rail services to help global warming was the first in this week's edition of Newsweek - yay! But they edited it slightly - after calling me first to check some numbers in my original letter. If only they checked the numbers of their columnists. Actually, this week also included a correction on Zakaria's numbers, while neglecting to mention that the change essentially nullified the entire argument in his column (that efficiency improvements aren't significant).
Anyway... my original letter said:
the Bush administration has cut federal matching levels from 80% to just 30% for most urban rail projects
which was changed to:
the Bush administration has cut federal matching levels significantly for most urban-rail projects
Below the fold are my list of reasons for believing the 30% number is about right. Can DailyKos readers come up with any more evidence on what the actual number is now, and why?
There's no question that the Federal Transit Administration was funding urban rail projects at an 80% matching level during the Clinton administration. It's written into law, a law that I believe has not changed.
In 2004 the Bush administration was clearly floating plans to reduce the match to 50%. That seems to have gone into effect for "new starts" in the last few years:
"The final state funding, combined with funding already provided by local governments in the Northstar Corridor, opens the door to receiving 50 percent federal matching funds."
"Most of these projects - primarily heavy and light rail, busway, and related infrastructure construction - receive federal matching grants usually totaling about 50% of the overall cost"
"Local matching funds must be provided in order for a grant to be awarded by the FTA. Current FTA policy would provide for no more than a 50% share by the FTA. The competitive nature of this grant program is such, that projects with greater than a 50% local match will have a greater chance of success."
The evidence that in fact the number is around 30% now, perhaps 33%, is funding levels expected for several large projects:
"The financing for the $3.8 billion project appears more certain than in the past, including an anticipated federal commitment to cover about a third of the cost."
"His plan assumes the federal government will chip in about a third of the money"
"[First section funding] The federal government has contributed $500 million of the cost, which is projected to top $2.6 billion.
[Extension funding] To pay for the extension of the light rail system, the federal government's $750 million would combine with about $1 billion from existing local sales and vehicle license taxes"
(that's $500/$2600 or 19% for the first, and 750/1750 or 43% for the second; about 29% in all)
"Total project price for Phase 1 is $2.4 to $2.7 billion, which is expected to keep the project eligible for $900 million in Federal funds by meeting FTA's requirement for cost-effectiveness"
(900/2400 = 37.5%, 900/2700 = 33%).
So - does anybody out there have access to complete numbers that could tell us what funding levels the FTA is promising now, and how this has changed in recent years?
Encouraging competition may lead to better proposals, but if the federal matching levels have really dropped from 80% to 33% in the last couple of years, it strongly suggests total funding for urban rail needs to be at least doubled to properly support all the worthwhile projects out there. Besides adding money, what do folks here think would be appropriate legislative measures to ensure success and the fastest possible expansion of local rail systems?
I.e. would forcing the FTA to fund things at 80% prevent some good proposals from getting anything at all, if funding wasn't increased?
[Thanks to AlanfromBigEasy for helping track all this down.]