Skip to content

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?

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?

Photo of Ben Fried
Ben Fried started as a Streetsblog reporter in 2008 and led the site as editor-in-chief from 2010 to 2018. He lives in Ditmas Park, Brooklyn, with his wife.

Comments Are Temporarily Disabled

Streetsblog is in the process of migrating our commenting system. During this transition, commenting is temporarily unavailable.

Once the migration is complete, you will be able to log back in and will have full access to your comment history. We appreciate your patience and look forward to having you back in the conversation soon.

More from Streetsblog New York City

Opinion: Sean Duffy’s ‘Golden Age’ of Dangerous Streets

Ethan Andersen
December 15, 2025

‘I’m Always on the Bus’: How Transit Advocacy Helped Katie Wilson Become Seattle’s Next Mayor

December 12, 2025

Watchdog Wants Hochul To Nix Bus Lane Enforcement Freebies for MTA Drivers

December 11, 2025

More Truck Routes Are Coming To A Street Near You

December 11, 2025

Upstate County’s New Bus Service Will Turn A Transit Desert Into A Rural Network

December 11, 2025
See all posts