So that settles everything right? We can just sit back and wait for the federal funds to flow! Not by a long shot!

The federal stimulus package, despite being a healthy shot in the arm, does nothing to resolve the greater problems of dwindling state support for operational funding for public transportation. So what to do? Where do we go next?

Advocates and policy-makers should now take up the recommendations contained in the Transportation Funding Task Force report of last fall. (Read it here: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_TF2_Entire_Report_255609_7.pdf

The TF2 made several important suggestions for the future needs of public transportation statewide. It is time to take the recommendations seriously and act upon them.

Public transportation investment is an economic development tool with a far-reaching impact that state policy-makers have failed to acknowledge for far too long. The time to move forward legislatively is now.

–Clark Harder
Executive Director
Michigan Public Transit Association

Rep. John Mica
United States House of Representatives
2313 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Mica:

The Community Transportation Association of America, and its more than 4,000 members across the country, very much appreciates the opportunity to provide a letter of support for including transportation funding in the economic stimulus bill to be considered by Congress after the election. More specifically, we write to support the inclusion of investment in HR 7110 for rural public transit operators (Section 5311).

Rural transit is an economic stimulus engine. Every dollar invested in rural transit creates at least $4 in local economic development. More than anything else, rural public transportation operators are in dire need of rolling stock investment – and investment in new vehicles will have a significant impact on economic development around the nation. Rural transit fleets are typically based on smaller vehicles, that utilize chassis from American manufactures like General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. The body of the vehicle is typically built by smaller bus manufacturers, who also install accessibility equipment like lifts or ramps, and add communications equipment and a number of other domestically built products like heating and air conditioning systems. Investment in rural vehicles will therefore generate business for our major automobile manufacturers and hundreds suppliers as well as the smaller firms who build the rest of the vehicles and will help thousands of people remain at work in both rural and urban areas.

Another key factor in purchasing vehicles is fuel efficiency. A large investment in the rural transit fleet will allow rural transit agencies an opportunity to acquire the most fuel-efficient vehicles now available. As we have communicated to the T&I Committee on several previous occasions, the age of the rural fleet forces rural operators to pay more for fuel than those with newer equipment.

Finally, infrastructure investment in rural transit would certainly result in the building of operations and maintenance facilities in rural communities – extending the reach of this investment into the local construction industry where it is badly needed.

Once again, thank you for this important opportunity to express our views and to go on the record in support of your efforts on behalf of all public transportation and more specifically on behalf of the nation’s 1,500 rural public transit operators. If I can answer any further questions, do not hesitate to contact me directly at 202.247.1921.

Sincerely,

Dale J. Marsico, CCTM
Executive Director