When "Striking a Balance" Means "Fund Less"

Peter Rogoff, the possible new FTA administrator, was on Capitol Hill getting grilled by Senators. However I have a slight problem with what he had to say on the topic of funding. It seems as if he's operating still under the 20th century mindset of autos over transit in saying that we need to balance building new projects with repairing our existing assets. This assumes that capital transit funding will continue along its same path and is not acceptable.

"Some of these deferred maintenance issues quickly become safety issues," Rogoff warned. He urged the senators to strike a balance between funding new public transit projects -- for which "it's a lot easier to garner enthusiasm" -- and repairing the already broken systems in major cities.

I agree that we need to fix what we have, but we should be expanding rapid transit at a greater clip. "Striking a balance" to me means fund less. It's already hard enough to fund new transit and there's a huge backlog to the tune of $250 billion, possibly more. What we should be doing is be striking a better ballance between highway and alternative transportation funding, such as Congressman Oberstar is advocating with modal parity.