Skip to content
Sponsored

Senate’s New DOT Spending Bill Eases One Transit Funding Barrier

During the lengthy process of pursuing a "New Starts" funding agreement with the U.S. DOT, local transit officials are often at the mercy of cost-benefit calculations that have failed to keep pace with evolutions in transport planning. But one aspect of that slog could soon change, thanks to Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA).
Sponsored
large_I5_2Bridge_Render_11248119.JPGAn artist’s rendering of the proposed multi-modal Columbia River Crossing, with light rail and a bike path beneath the bridge. (Photo: Oregonian)

During the lengthy process of pursuing a “New Starts” funding agreement with the U.S. DOT, local transit officials are often at the mercy of cost-benefit calculations that have failed to keep pace with evolutions in transport planning. But one aspect of that slog could soon change, thanks to Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA).

When evaluating a bid for federal aid by the Columbia River Crossing (CRC), a proposed multi-modal road and light rail link between Portland and Vancouver, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) decided to treat the broad project as separate highway and transit efforts — effectively prohibiting state gas taxes and proposed bridge tolls from counting towards the local share of the CRC’s transit costs, as the Oregonian reported.

Murray fired back by using her power as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s transportation panel to insert a relevant provision in the DOT’s 2010 budget. Her language requires the FTA to calculate the local share of multi-modal transit proposals based on “all local funds incorporated in the unified finance plan” for the project.

Murray’s move, if it survives a conference with the House, should ensure that the CRC’s FTA pitch is evaluated using more appropriate math. Yet Murray’s language would apply across the board, meaning that other regional transport plans blending roads and transit could have an easier time winning federal money for the latter portion of the project — as opposed to just the former.

(h/t Twitter user @cwsjd99)

Sponsored

Support Streetsblog

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 USA

Friday Video: The H.A.R.D. Fight Against Hit-and-Runs

December 12, 2025

Wednesday’ Headlines Are on Autopilot

December 10, 2025

City Shuts Down Volunteer Crosswalk Painting Event in Los Angeles

December 9, 2025

Tuesday’s Headlines Set the Record Straight

December 9, 2025
See all posts