BCT Editorial – 6/18/10

The editorial leads off with “Mass transit has always been the ugly step-sister when it comes to funding.  While lawmakers love to lavish money on roads and bridges because they can take credit for the visible results, they seem to begrudge every cent they allot for public transportation.”  The editorial is comparing apples to oranges.  Let’s look at what the editorial fails to remind us.

First, if you recall the Times editorial body of work on this topic, the claim that “lawmakers love to lavish money on roads and bridges” is almost enough to make your head explode.  That’s because Times editorials consistently assert we aren’t spending enough on our bridges and roads.  For example, a recent editorial (“Tough calls,” 6/1/10) told us “ASCE’s ‘2010 Report Card for Pennsylvania Infrastructure’ gave the state’s roads a D-minus … and its bridges a C.”  How did the Times get from claiming insufficient spending on roads and bridges to “lavish” spending in less than three weeks?  The answer is simple; inconsistency results when your positions are based on political calculations and/or unsound underlying economic, political, and social principles.  Finally, if “lavish[ing] money on roads and bridges” gets “the state’s roads a D-minus … and its bridges a C,” the Times apparently has a different definition of lavish than I.

Second, the PA budget appears to indicate funding for roads and bridges comes solely from the Motor License Fund (fees and fuel taxes paid by the users of those roads and bridges).  The MLF also funds about 56% of the State Police budget.  With the possible exception of funding the State Police, it appears “lawmakers” are simply spending MLF fees and taxes for the intended purpose of those fees and taxes.  In any case, users of PA roads and bridges pay their own way via the MLF.

Finally, “mass transit” is a different story.  Users of “mass transit” do not pay their own way and it’s not even close.  Let’s look at the Port Authority of Allegheny County as one example.  Based on the 2010 budget, users would pay $96.4 million in fares while taxpayers would provide $266.5 million in subsidies.  That is, users of PAAC “mass transit” pay only 26.6% while taxpayers foot the remaining 73.4% of the bill.  For SEPTA (Philadelphia area), the 2010 budget included $467 million in passenger revenue and $665 million in taxpayer subsidies.  I did not find the Beaver County Transit Authority’s budget, but public statements by its officials indicate BCTA also relies on taxpayer subsidies.