Who is in office does matter

But it's not just an executive branch thing. The Federal Transit Administration claims (I haven't delved too deeply into it) that Congress ordered it to ensure that publicly funded transit systems don't "inordinately" compete with the private sector.

Now the reason we have public transit is that for the most part, it wasn't profitable for the private sector to do. (Most public transit systems are the result of local governments purchasing bankrupt private transit services. Now we can argue that regulation to keep fares down made profitability impossible, but still.)

There are many issues involved in delivering transit and municipal services.

For a number of years I've argued that having non-walkable school systems where students are transported by bus creates financial albatrosses for school districts. Having to buy, run, and fuel buses every year is expensive. First, you have to replace buses every so often. Second, it's harder and harder to find drivers. And now, third, it's a lot more expensive to provide the service because of major increases in the price of gasoline and diesel fuel.

So instead of having a dedicated school bus transportation infrastructure, when possible, it makes sense to use the public transit system instead. (If you want more education about this, I suggest reading up on microeconomics, opportunity costs, and marginal costs.)

But instead, the Federal Transit Administration is forcing the creation of separate bus infrastructures where they did not previously exist. BeyondDC writes about this today, in "With Friends Like This, Who Needs Enemies," using DC as an example, stating:

Does it make sense for the FTA to outlaw a practice that costs the District $5 million a year, forcing the city to accomplish the same exact objective for $20-25 million per year?

Common sense says no, it does not make sense to do those things [according to this article, "FTA proposal would bar Metrobus rides to school," from the Examiner].

Now, it is true that during the school year, there are dedicated Metrobus routes serving schoolchildren. But the public can still ride those buses. And rather than having dedicated buses sitting around, the buses can be used on other routes at different times.

(Are there laws about unfunded mandates?)

This comes out of the same initiative that I wrote about a few weeks ago, where public transit systems are now banned from offering shuttle services that aren't regularly scheduled services, such as shuttles to Redskins football games or Wolf Trap concerts, etc.

But isn't it important for transit systems to build their brands, and introduce people who might not otherwise public transit to use their services, and where possible, as well as to provide seemless and efficient transportation services?

No wonder public transit systems have it hard.

I think it's important to fire the public officials, starting with the elected officials, that produce these kinds of policies.

I find it so funny that people complain about transit subsidies without acknowledging (1) road subsidies and (2) all the various machinations by the private sector which make public transit a very difficult service to provide.