<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: But What About the Highways-Transit Split?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dc.streetsblog.org/2009/06/18/but-what-about-the-highways-transit-split/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dc.streetsblog.org/2009/06/18/but-what-about-the-highways-transit-split/</link>
	<description>Your daily source for national transportation policy news and analysis.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:32:17 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kenney</title>
		<link>http://dc.streetsblog.org/2009/06/18/but-what-about-the-highways-transit-split/comment-page-1/#comment-75991</link>
		<dc:creator>Kenney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:39:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dc.streetsblog.org/?p=7103#comment-75991</guid>
		<description>What really needs to happen is not a particular percentage split between highways and transit, but a United Transportation Trust Fund (UTTF).  Transportation 4 America proposed this.  Basically, all transportation fees (gas taxes, etc.) go into this one pot of money, thereby making expenditures more mode-neutral.  In their words:

&quot;[The UTTF will] consolidate federal revenues received on all surface transportation modes.  Expenditures from the UTTF should be prioritized to keep the present surface transportation system and public transportation service in a state of good repair and improve their interconnectivity&quot;

This last sentence is crucial, since if you read between the lines, it basically implies less money for highways.  The highway system is already built out...it has been for quite some time, and that&#039;s no secret.  What highways need now is maintenance, not expansions and extensions (which is where we&#039;re burning way too much highway money).  

If you come up with a particular percentage split for highways/transit, it&#039;s just too arbitrary.  Even at 50/50, what&#039;s to say that highways even need 50 percent of the money?  If the money is pooled together instead of siloed, it encourages more thoughtful use of the money, which by implication (at least one would hope) means less money for highways, perhaps even less than 50%.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What really needs to happen is not a particular percentage split between highways and transit, but a United Transportation Trust Fund (UTTF).  Transportation 4 America proposed this.  Basically, all transportation fees (gas taxes, etc.) go into this one pot of money, thereby making expenditures more mode-neutral.  In their words:</p>
<p>"[The UTTF will] consolidate federal revenues received on all surface transportation modes.  Expenditures from the UTTF should be prioritized to keep the present surface transportation system and public transportation service in a state of good repair and improve their interconnectivity"</p>
<p>This last sentence is crucial, since if you read between the lines, it basically implies less money for highways.  The highway system is already built out...it has been for quite some time, and that's no secret.  What highways need now is maintenance, not expansions and extensions (which is where we're burning way too much highway money).  </p>
<p>If you come up with a particular percentage split for highways/transit, it's just too arbitrary.  Even at 50/50, what's to say that highways even need 50 percent of the money?  If the money is pooled together instead of siloed, it encourages more thoughtful use of the money, which by implication (at least one would hope) means less money for highways, perhaps even less than 50%.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alek F</title>
		<link>http://dc.streetsblog.org/2009/06/18/but-what-about-the-highways-transit-split/comment-page-1/#comment-75971</link>
		<dc:creator>Alek F</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:17:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dc.streetsblog.org/?p=7103#comment-75971</guid>
		<description>Transportation / Highway needs at least 50/50 funding - to make transit investment worthwhile.
Ideally, I wish the feds would devote more funding to mass transit than to Hwy!
Imagine, how things would be if we would get 80% for Public Transportation, and no more than 20% for Highways.
This is where American cities could develop a world-class Public Transportation! It would be something we could all be able to rely on, and be proud of! (for the first time!)
It&#039;s time to catch-up to the rest of the world!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Transportation / Highway needs at least 50/50 funding - to make transit investment worthwhile.<br />
Ideally, I wish the feds would devote more funding to mass transit than to Hwy!<br />
Imagine, how things would be if we would get 80% for Public Transportation, and no more than 20% for Highways.<br />
This is where American cities could develop a world-class Public Transportation! It would be something we could all be able to rely on, and be proud of! (for the first time!)<br />
It's time to catch-up to the rest of the world!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
