Skip to Content
Streetsblog New York City home
Streetsblog New York City home
Log In
Federal Funding

A Smart Way for the Feds to Fund Transit Service

After yesterday's post on the campaign to increase federal funding for transit service, some readers expressed concern that the proposal on the table would let metro areas avoid paying for their own transit operations. The way things stand, big transit agencies can't spend federal cash to run their trains and buses. If they could, the thinking goes, what's to keep local governments from reducing the share they chip in?

Well, I neglected to mention that the bill in question, H.R. 2746, includes a good mechanism to prevent that from happening. In fact, it provides an excellent incentive for metro areas to bump up their dedicated transit funding.

Basically, Rep. Russ Carnahan's bill would allow a transit agency to spend more of its federal money on operations only if that agency receives more local revenue too (not counting farebox revenue). Making federal support for transit service contingent on a local match is a great incentive to push local transit policies in a better direction. And lots of American cities really need that push.

Consider: In New York, we have the biggest constituency for transit of any metro area in the nation, and this April we could barely muster enough votes in our state legislature to avoid crippling service cuts. Transit riders in other parts of the country aren't so lucky. In St. Louis, which Carnahan represents, voters turned down a referendum in November that would have increased transit funding with a half cent sales tax. Now, St. Louis transit riders are suffering through some of the worst service cuts in the nation.

It's true that the Carnahan bill is not a cure-all. It doesn't enlarge the feds' total pot of money for transit, so the more federal cash transit agencies spend on service, the less they will have available to spend on expanding and maintaining their systems. But without the greater flexibility provided by the Carnahan bill, and without the local incentives it includes, it seems like many transit agencies will be left to ponder the question: Why buy more trains and buses if we can't afford to run them?

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog New York City

DOT Testimony: Removing Bedford Ave. Bike Lane Will ‘Reduce Safety’

"Removing the protected bike lane won’t remove cyclists — it will only make the street less safe," the DOT said. "The city risks legal liability for knowingly reducing safety on a Vision Zero priority corridor."

June 30, 2025

Hochul Signs Speed Camera Reauthorization, Enforcement Continues Through 2030

Stating a clear fact that scores of state legislators reject, Hochul said, "Speed cameras save lives and keep New Yorkers safe."

June 30, 2025

Cyclists Tell Judge Carolyn Walker-Diallo: The Bedford Ave. Bike Lane is a Lifesaver

A judge will decide the fate of the Bedford Avenue bike lane on Tuesday. Streetsblog offers some user affidavits.

June 30, 2025

DoorDash Lobbying Sunk Bill to Require Apps to Insure Delivery Workers

A secret memo from the rich app company described a simple insurance bill as "costly." And legislators fell into line.

June 30, 2025

Monday’s Headlines: City Hall Handshake Edition

The Department of Sustainable Delivery finally has funding ... but for what? Plus more news.

June 30, 2025

EXCLUSIVE: Council Will Force Apps To Fund Safe E-Bikes for Workers

The City Council is set to pass a bill on Monday that will make app companies responsible for their workers using safe e-bikes.

June 27, 2025
See all posts