L1:”;Lp,x<5¢2-, 73-31024 W N v ma. "' k :38‘. Fzfigvt : ~. wu 13§\£e:, -=3 U3 .31" 3*‘-: F? “3‘=.~.-5* tiff? H ‘ “ *«' T‘: »\;-Q 3 Issue Brief Novmgsa L§BF§A§‘g§E3 ST’ LQUI737. MO. NOLON % J PROP: 13$“ (nnhgnggm, Unwmny Hllmfljliflfiflfljflilflifi m@‘r[M1115flifli‘m» nu \ MASS TRANSIT: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB8l024 AUTHOR: Fischer, John W. Economics Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED O2/24/81 DATE UPDATED O3/O5/82 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0308 CRS- 1 IB8lO24 UPDATE-O3/05/82 ISSUE DEFINITION Despite over $15 billion in Federal assistance during the last 17 years, mass transit is a troubled industry. The aid has helped maintain transit services but has not had the once hoped for effect of bringing the industry back to financial health. Instead, many transit operators are now more dependent on public subsidy than at any time in the past. Transit operators have been caught in a continuous cycle of rising fuel, labor, and equipment costs. For political and marketing reasons, they generally cannot raise fares enough to meet these increased costs. Simultaneously, taxpayers have become increasingly hostile toward additional taxation to support transit services. Without additional assistance, many operators may be forced to eliminate service to balance their budgets. All this is occurring at a time when many operators are experiencing a decline in ridership after several years of increases, a situation that reduced service can only exacerbate. At issue is the level and type of Federal assistance to be made available in the years ahead. Operating assistance (as opposed to capital cost Nmaintenance), which operators claim is essential for the continued provision of many services, has come under continued criticism as providing a mechanism for operators to pass on their increased costs without adequate evaluation of the cost and effectiveness of current service. Federal assistance for the construction of new rail transit services also has been criticized due to the enormous expense involved. Supporters of continued and increased Federal assistance to transit cite arguments alluding to transits‘ energy efficiency and potential for improving the urban environment as counter-arguments that mitigate those of transit critics. BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS Since the first for-hire horsedrawn omnibus appeared on the streets of New York in the early 19th Century, public transportation has been part of the American scene. The omnibus service provided reliable transportation, albeit often without much comfort, and a profit to the owner. There was no subsidy. For the remainder of the century and well into the current one, the development of public transportation was a private entrepreneurial venture in most cities. The tremendous rise in automobile ownership and use had a negative effect on the transit industry. Unable to offer the freedom and convenience of the automobile, transit operators went into bankruptcy by the scores. Trolleys and tracks were sold and the service either not replaced or replaced by the motor bus. while World War II provided the industry with a brief respite, as soon as automobiles and fuel became available again, transit ridership declined rapidly, dropping from% 23.2 billion passenger trips in 1945 to 9.4 billion passenger trips in 1960, and reaching a low of 6.6 billion passenger trips in 1972. While some few transit operations managed to stay profitable through the 19505 and into the 1960s, it, was obvious that their situation was deteriorating. Unable to raise sufficient funds, their equipment and physical plants aged rapidly. In some cases, local governments were forced to take over operation of the transit system to maintain essestial services. Local governments, however, did not always have the resources necessary for such take-overs and they began to lookl to the State and Federal levels for financial assistance. CRS- 2 IB8lO24 UPDATE*O3/O5/82. BEGINNINGS OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE The Federal response to local governments unable to sustain their transit operations was a loan program begun in 1961, with $50 million available for capital needs and $25 million for demonstration projects. It became obvious very quickly that this small program was not providing any significant assistance to public transit. The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-365), designed in part to make up for the deficiencies in the loan program, became the real basis for Federal transit assistance. The 1964 Act significantly raised the amount available for transit assistance to $375 million annually, of which $50 million was available for research and demonstration projects. The remainder was for capital assistance made available on a 2/3 Federal, 1/3 local matching basis. The 1964 Act has been amended a number of times, most notably in 1970, 1973, 1974, and 1978. The Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-453) added several new provisions to the 1964 Act, and is especially important for having significantly raised the amount of capital assistance available to transit. Perhaps of equal or greater significance, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-87) made Federal highway funds available for transit-related projects, under certain conditions. Further, the 1973 Act amended the 1964 Act to raise the matching ratio for mass transit capital assistance to 80% Federal and 20% local. .The 1973 Act also brought into being the interstate substitution program whereby urban areas, with the concurrence of State and iFederal officials, could, in effect, receive the funding reserved for a portion of the interstate highway system for use in mass transit projects. Federal operating assistance for transit, distributed to urbanized areas on the basis of a population and population density formula, was instituted as part of the National Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-503). This so-called Section 5 funding could also be used for capital projects in urbanized areas. The 1974 Act also raised the funding levels for all transit programs. The most recent amendments to the 1964 Act resulted from the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-599). The 1978 Act authorized almost $13.6 billion in funding for transit for the four fiscal years ending with FY 1982. The 1978 Act set up several new categories, also based on) formulas, provided additional assistance for urbanized areas of over 750,000 people, for urbanized areas with fixed commuter rail, rapid rail and light rail guideway systems, and for bus replacement. The 1978 Act also established new programs, such as a formula grant program for other than urbanized areas, terminal development, and a subsidy program for some intercity bus service. AINDUSTRY PROFILE According to the American Public Transit Association (APTA) over half the operating public transit systems in .1980 were publically owned. These ‘publically owned systems, however, carried 94% of all passenger trips. The industry had total revenues of $6.31 billion and total expenses of $6.5’ billion. However, $3.62 billion (57.3%) of revenues were derived from operating assistance from some level of government (Federal, 17.3%, State, 13.0%, and Local, 27.0%). Operating revenues, primarily in the form of fares, accounted for only 40.7% of total industry revenue. Transit ridership, which had fallen for a number of years, grew by 6.75% in 1979. In CRS- 3 IB8lO24 UPDATE-O3/O5/82 l980, ridership continued to grow nationally, but at a slower rate just over one percent. The greatest percentage increases in ridership took place in :ities of less than 100,000 population, while ridership in many of the largest cities moderated or decreased slightly. However, l98l has seen a decline of about 3.5% during its first 9 months. INDUSTRY OPERATING COSTS Labor costs constitute the largest single expense to the transit industry. In 1980, the total labor expense exceeded $4.4 billion or about 73 percent of total industry expenses. Fuel costs, which had constituted only 2.5% of costs in l970, had, according to APTA, risen to 6.6% of the total by 1980. The same rapid cost increase is true of capital costs. where a transit operator (with Federal assistance) might have paid $65,000 a unit for a standard city bus in 1975, the Central Ohio Transit Authority, for example, was ordering standard city buses in the fall of 1980 at $139,290 a unit. FINANCE Transit operations appear to be facing a growing fiscal crisis. While fuel, labor, and other costs have risen precipitously, revenues have been unable to keep pace. It is usually more difficult for a transit operator to pass along these additional costs than for other service industries by charging more for the service. Fare increases are unpopular and usually require the approval of some governmental body. Political bodies are often reluctant to act. Further, fare increases in certain circumstances can be counterproductive. Fare increases almost always drive away riders. If too many riders are driven away, revenues will fall. According to APTA, the national average transit fare rose only a little over ll cents between l970 and 1980, to the 1980 average of 39 cents, this being considerably below both the general rate of inflation and increases in operating costs. Operating Assistance To make up operating deficits, transit systems have become increasingly dependent on assistance from Federal, State, and local levels of government. Growth in these operating assistance programs has been dramatic. where operating assistance from all governmental sources accounted for $1.4 billion in l975, APTA indicated it would reach $3.6 billion in 1980. Local government is by far the largest contributor of assistance and perhaps the one most immediately vulnerable. Proposition 13 in Californaia did not, as some commented it would, do away with transit subsidies, but it did have an impact on the amounts in some places. Voters in many regions have been increasingly reluctant to raise taxes for transit projects for operations. Denver, for example, which had hoped to build a light rail (trolley) system with a dedicated sales tax, saw its initiative defeated in the November 1980 elections. Similar voter sentiment has been expressed elsewhere. State assistance programs in some States are often dependent on funds collected from gasoline taxes. with gasoline use down nationally, this once rich source of income is being severly strained. States, as a result, increasingly are having to fund mass transportation projects and assistance from general funds. A reluctance to spend these funds on transit exists in CRS- 4 IB8l024 UPDATE-O3/O5/82 many States, especially those With significant transit operations. Operating subsidies, in‘ recent years, have been the fastest growing segment of Federal assistance. while UMTA provided $151 million of Section 5 assistance in 1975 (some of which was used for capital projects), FY 1981 appropriations for all types of Section 5 assistance amounted to $1.4 billion ($850 million of which is for the basic program). This rapid growth in operating subsidies has caused many transit operators to become dependent on Federal assistance to meet increasing costs. It is this dependence on the Federal Government for operating subsidies that has led to the Administration's call for elimination of assistance by FY85. As justification they contend that increased Federal operating assistance has not necessarily resulted in improved service. Rather, they claim these funds have served as a painless mechanism for passing through operating cost increases that transit managers appear unable to control for one reason or another. Transit labor as a group is now about the highest paid of public employees in many cities, a reversal of their position of about lo years or so ago. This, critics contend, is at least partially due to the ready availability of Federal operating assistance. Transit operators seeking to avoid lengthy strikes and other job actions have, critics believe, used these funds to buy labor peace. ” Transit operators counter, however, that the settlements would have been required in any regard and that they have bargained hard. It is their contention that if Federal funds were not available, service probably would have been cut below locally acceptable levels and fares raised in an attempt to keep revenue levels high enough to maintain the limited remaining service. Continued and increased assistance, in the eyes of transit operators, is essential to the continued provision of adequate transit service. Capital Assistance Of equal importance to the transit industry is the future of UMTA's capital assistance program (also referred to as Section 3 funding). Since it was begun in 1964, the capital assistance program has contributed substantial sums toward the building and rebuilding of rail transit systems, bus and rail-car acquisition, bus maintenance facilities, and other transit related equipment and structures. For FY 1981, $2.l9 billion has been appropriated for activities under this program. The capital assistance program allows cities with existing rail transit systems to finance major extension and modernization projects. Section 3 has also provided funding for construction of new rail transit systems in cities such as Atlanta (a portion of which is now operating), Baltimore, Miami, and Buffalo (light rail). other cities such as Los Angeles, Detroit, Portland and Honolulu have expressed interest in obtaining such assistance for proposed rail transit systems. Section 3 funds have been responsible for most of the large bus fleet acquisitions over) the last decade. Denver, for example, substantially modernized and expanded its bus transit system with the help of Section 3 funding. Capital assistance is also available, with Department of Transportation approval, for non-traditional transit projects. The downtown people mover (DPM) type system, with the exception of Morgantown, W. Va., operates only at airports and amusement parks. The DPM has been advocated by many as a partial solution to transportation problems in central city areas. It has, however, been roundly criticized as being expensive and unnecessary. 30f the several cities that had indicated an interest in building a DPM, only Miami CRS- 5 ' IB8lO24 UPDATE-O3/O5/82 appears close to beginning construction. The Miami program has been subject to a number of reevaluations in its history, making it unwise to speculate as :0 whether or not it will really be built. Among Reagan Administration spokespersons, it has been suggested that DPM capital assistance be among the first items out from the transit budget. New starts on rail transit systems are also considered candidates for budget cuts. While rail transit systems have proven themselves useful in some locations, critics believe they are much too expensive to construct relative to the benefits in terms of energy savings, urban development and reduced traffic congestion that may result. Further, there is a feeling that communities will find it financially difficult to operate these new systems. ENERGY The energy efficiency of mass transit has been a subject of debate for several years. There appears to be little disagreement that a fully loaded transit bus is far more fuel efficient than an automobile. Transit buses, however, do not spend their entire day fully loaded and in fact make many of their movements, such as repositioning, without any passengers aboard. Similarly, rail transit, when fully loaded, can be. very fuel efficient, particularly on older systems where the heavy demands of station services (escalators, etc.), sophisticated train controls and air conditioning are not present. Much of the current controversy over energy efficiency stems from a l977 report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) entitled "Urban Transportation and Energy: The Potential Savings of Different Modes." This report identified the vanpool as the most energy efficient form of urban transportation. Further, the report seriously questioned the energy savings associated with new heavy rail transit (subway) systems because of the large quantities of energy required to construct and operate them. Transit supporters have countered that the CBO report failed to take into sufficient account that the energy consumed by rail transit need not be derived from petroleum and henceforth is not necessarily in short supply. Also questioned are assumptions on the amount of energy consumed in transit construction and that of comparable highway construction (which transit supporters believe is too low as stated in the report). One area transit appears to have a significant energy-related role is providing transportation services during energy shortages. In those urban areas most affected by spring and (summer gasoline shortages during 1979, transit use rose dramatically, practically overloading several systems. Former Secretary of Transportation Neil Goldschmidt proposed that DOT establish a reserve bus fleet for use in such contingencies. This suggestion, however, has not been acted upon. UNTA did change its regulations, following the 1979 shortages, to allow transit operators to keep buses replaced through Federal assistance for use in such situations. (They (were previously required to be sold.) In the event of a severe gasoline shortage it is unlikely that transit could provide all the service that might be asked of it, as its resources in most places are much too small. Contingency planning has been encouraged by DOT but at present is considered primarily a local matter. Equipment and Physical Plant CRS- 6 IB8l024 UPDATE-O3/O5/82 In the late 1960s and well into the l970s, transit, with UMT encouragement, made a heavy investment in advanced technology. New rail cars incorporated aerospace design features, new rail systems, such as BART and Washington, D.C.'s METRO, adopted the latest in automation, while bus manufacturers, in accordance with transit operators, sought new designs for passenger comfort and safety, such as sealed windows and extensive climate control systems. The results of this rush into the future, however, have not always been encouraging. New transit car breakdowns in several cities have resulted in high unavailability rates and have accounted for numerous delays. METRO's early experience with doors that would not close, and New York's R~46 cars with defective trucks (wheel assemblies) are prime examples. BART, having admitted that its- computer control system is already partially obsolete, plans to spend considerable funds so that its rail cars can be operated manually at full speed. New transit buses in several cities have, because of their sealed windows, been unusable when air conditioning failures occurred. All of this has brought into question just how UMTA allows its money to be spent. By allowing cities (within UMTA established guidelines) to come up with the specifications for their buses and rail cars, it is contended that UMTA has unduly contributed to the non—standardization prevalent throughout the transit industry. A further requirement that the low bidder be selected for transit procurement contracts is thought to be a contributing factor to the high failure rate of new transit equipment. There has been some talk of changing bidding procedures to allow for life cycle costs, but to date little action has been taken. Transit operators, particularly of the older rail systems, face a serious problem in dealing with a (deteriorating physical plant. When Federal assistance to older rail systems first became available, it was directed mainly toward modernization and expansion, normal maintenance being considered as a proper local expense. with local government strapped for funding and looking for areas in which to make cuts, maintenance was often deferred. The results of this policy are just beginning to be felt. In New York City, for example, the Transit Authority must choose between completing the new 63rd Street tunnel at a cost of $142 million ($439 million has already been spent) or putting the money into repairing seriously leaking existing tunnels and other parts of the physical plant. (The situation is not unlike the maintenance of highways.) who will pay to keep them repaired, and how, presents a critical unanswered question with a great deal of bearing on the future of these systems. ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE HANDICAPPED Among the most difficult and controversial concerns of transit operators is how to comply with Federally mandated) handicapped. accessibility requirements. After a long drawn-out process, DOT in May 1979, finally promulgated regulations to implement Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Under these regulations, transit operators are required to provide access to regular transit services by providing wheelchair lifts on about 50’ of all buses (on a phased—in basis), and to make key stations in rail transi systems accessible through the installation of elevators and other special features. The cost of complying with these regulations is high: $15,000 for each bus wheelchair lift and one to several billion dollars for subway retrofit. Under certain circumstances rail systems can obtain waivers to CRS- 7 A IB8lO24 UPDATE—O3/O5/82 provide service to the handicapped without retrofitting key transit stations. The substitute service would have to be as good or better than DOT's required regulations, and operators would have to dedicate at least 5% of their annual Section 5 funding to it. Transit operators have not been offered any additional Federal financial assistance to accomplish these changes. Throughout the controversy, transit operators have maintained that they are in favor of providing service to the handicapped, but are opposed to DOT's regulations. The operators seek more flexibility in establishing handicapped transportation services. For example, rather than putting lifts on every other bus, they would prefer providing specialized, demand responsive service, door-to-door, such as that offered by the Portland, Oregon LIFT system. Transit operators tried unsuccessfully to have DOT's regulations overturned by the Courts. When this failed, APTA and others turned their efforts toward Congress. Proposals to give transit operators flexibility in their dealings with the handicapped problem were a major feature of transit legislation proposed in the 96th Congress, 2nd session. While the House and Senate bills were not reconciled before the end of the session, each contained some language dealing with transit facilities for the handicapped. The U.S. Court of Appeals, acting in May 1981, overturned the lower courts‘ earlier ruling in favor of DOT's handicapped regulations. The Court of Appeals declared that DOT had been misguided in basing its regulations on Section 504 as the law did not require DOT action. The Court remanded the regulations to DOT for review, thereby effectively making their continued enforcement moot. Final disposition of DOT's regulations, however, is not yet completely clear, although the interim regulations adopted by DOT most closely resemble the "special efforts" provisions of pre—l979 regulations. NEW FEDERALISM President Reagan's call for a reordering of the responsibilities of Federal, State and local government, the so-called "New Federalism" has considerable portent for transit. Together with the Administration's previous call for an end to operating subsidy, "New Federalsim" would remove transit as a Federal program. All transit support would, as a result of this initiative, be the responsibility of State and local government. The Administration contends that transit is a. local matter, oft limited national consequence. Decisions affecting transit should be made in the community it serves. The community should also decide the level of support it is willing to provide. Some State and local government officials, as well as transit operators have voiced a great deal of skepticism over this approach. These jurisdictions often lack the ability to impose new taxes and in the current environment would be hard pressed to impose them if they could do so. As. a result they see "New Federalsm" as resulting in the death of transit in many communities and its substantial curtailment in many others. They suggest that only the Federal Government can sustain and improve transit tO levels commensurate with the needs of the U.S. urban population. OUTLOOK CRS- 3 IB8lO24 UPDATE-O3/O5/82 The financial prospectus for the transit industry could be described as being poor at best. Transit will be hard pressed to stay even under current conditions without significant additional outside sources of financial assistance. It is not, however, a dying industry. In many ways its public perception has benefitted considerably from our recent energy dislocations. Transit must solve, or make a start at solving, a number of problems if it is to continue even at its current levels. Of immediate concern is the establishment of a firm financial base for itself while it gets it own costs under control. Given political sentiment and a highly inflationary economy, these will not be easy tasks. ‘ At the Federal level, transit and its supporters have sought a greater commitment of funds over a longer time period than what has been found in recent legislation. Both major bills considered in the 96th Congress addressed this. Also, these bills would have provided funding from the windfall profit tax on oil as well as from general funds. Now that the Reagan Administration has identified transit funding, especially those for operating subsidies and capital (for new rail systems) as a source of potential budget cuts, it is unclear as to the direction new legislative efforts might take. ' LEGISLATION S. 1160 Amends the Urban Mass Transportation Act of _l964. Authorizes appropriations for transit assistance programs through FY86. Provides for the phase-out of Federal operating assistance by FY85. Eliminates programs for terminal development and intercity buses. Ends certain requirements regarding fares and service for the elderly and handicapped. Introduced May ll, l98l; referred to Committee on Banking, Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs. Hearings held May 15 and 20, 1981. HEARINGS U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. Department of Transportation and related agencies, appropriations for fiscal year 1980, 96th Congress, lst session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 998 p. ----- Committee on the District of Columbia. National Capitol Transportation Act Amendments of l979. Hearings on S. 828 and H.R. 3951, 96th Congress, lst session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 154 p. .Hearings held May 1-7, 1979. ----- Committee on Public Works and Transportation. Oversight of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978. Hearings. 96th Congress, lst session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 281 p. Hearings held Mar. 14-19, 1979. ' ----- Surface Transportation Act of 1980. Hearings. H.R. 6890, H.R. 6964, H.R. 6417. 96th Congress, 2d session. CRS- 9 IB8l024 UPDATE-03/05/82 Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 464 p. Hearings held Mar. 26-Apr. 21, 1980. Committee on Science and Technology. Urban Mass Transit R&D hearings. 96th Congress, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980.. 200 p. Hearings held Apr. 1-2, 1980. 2d session. Senate. Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Amending the Urban Mass Transportation Act. Hearings on S. 2004, S. 2015, S. 2105, S. 2296, S. 2497. 96th Congress, 2d session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 504 p. Hearings held Mar. Congress. Affairs. 6-19, 1980. Transit Assistance May 15 and 20, 1981. 357 p. Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs. Act of 1981. 97th Congress, 1st session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS REPORTS UCSO House. Committee on Public Works and Surface Transportation Act of 1980; to accompany H.R. 6417. 96th Congress, 2d session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. (96th Congress, 2d session. House. Report No. COIIQFGSS . Transportation. Report 96-963) Senate. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Federal Public Transportation Act of 1980; Report to accompany S. 2720. 96th Congress, 2d session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 28 p. (96th Congress, 2d session. Senate. Report No. Congress. Urban Affairs. 96-737) Emergency Public Transportation Energy Conservation Act of 1980; Report to accompany S. 2004. 96th Congress, 2d session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 7 p. (96th Congress, 2d session. Senate. Report No. 96-756) CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS 02/24 10/21 07/08 05/01 12/15 /82 -- Hearings held on mass transit program needs and revenue strategies by House Public Works and Transportation. Surface Trans. Subcommittee. /81 -- Hearings were held by the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight on Transit Productivity and Financial Health. /81 -- Hearings were held by the House Public Works and Transportation Committee on highway safety and public transportation capital and noncapital needs. /81 -- Hearings were held by the House Appropriations Committee, Transportation Subcommittee on UMTA FY82 budget. /80 -- Objections raised in Senate to completion of action on S. 2720. cns-10 4 IB8l024 UPDATE-03/O5/82 12/04/80 -- H.R. 6417 laid on table in the House. S. 2720 passed in lieu. -— H.R. 6417 passed in House. 06/25/80 -- S. 2720 passed by Senate. 05/15/80 -- S. 2720, Federal Public Transportation Act of 1980 reported to Senate from committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. 05/14/80 -— H.R. 5417, Surface Transportation Act of 1980 reported to the House from the Committee on Public Works and Transportation . ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES Bonnell, James R. Transitsf growing financial crisis. Traffici Quarterly, V. 35, October 1981. p. 541-556. Cameron, Elizabeth. Getting around: mass transit in the 1980's. Planning, v. 46, Apr. 1980: 10-14. Gray, George E. and Lester A. Hoel, eds. Public transportation: planning operations and management. Bnglewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 1979. 749 p. Institute of Public Administration. Financing transit: alternatives for local government. Washington, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, 1979. 331 p. Lessons from new urban rail systems.» Transportation, v. 9, Mar. 1980: 1-92- Love, Charles A. Dealing with the transit deficit. Journal of contemporary studies, v. 4, Spring 1981: 53. Rothenburg, Moris J. JHK and Associates. Public transportation: an element of the urban transportation system. Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. l V. A Smerk George M. The transit act that never was: public transportation legislation 1979-1980. Transportation journal, v. 20, summer 1981 p. 29-53. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. New urban rail transit: how can its development and growth-shaping potential be realized. Collected essays. 96th Congress, 2d session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. 10ff., 1980. 233 p. Committee print No. 96-7. U.S. Congressional Budget office. Urban transportation for handicapped persons: alternative Federal approaches. Washington, 1979. 113 p. cRs-11 I IB81024 UPDATE-O3/05/82 U.S. General Accounting Office. Increasing commuting by transit and ride-sharing: many factors should be considered. Washington, Nov. 14, 1980. 82 p. ----- Stronger Federal direction needed to promote better use of, present urban transportation systems. Washington, Oct. 4, 1979. 60 p. ----- Analysis of the Allocation Formula for Federal Mass Transit Subsidies. Washington, Oct. 9, 1979. 71 p. U.S. General Accounting Office. Soaring transit subsidies must be controlled. Washington, Feb. 26, 1981. 90 p. U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Financing mass transit and highways under the Interstate Withdrawal and Substitution Program by William A. Lipford. Sept. 20, 1979. Washington, 1979. 14 p. Report No. 79-198E. ----- Mass transportation and the handicapped: the cost of accessibility by John W. Fischer. Nov. 2, 1978. Washington, 1978. 20 p. . Report No. 79-215E. ----- Implications of foreign competition for the domestic transit bus manufacturing industry by John W. Fischer. Jan. 27, 1981. Washington, 1981.‘ 16 p. Report No. 81-26E. Van Slambranch, Paul. Mass transit. Christian Science monitor, Dec. 9, 1980: 12-13; Dec. 10: 12-13; Dec. 11: 12-13; Dec. 12: 12-13. Wiese, Arthur E. Reaganomics spelling trouble for transit. Mass transit. October 1981: 6. LEBRARY OF . e-‘%!A:§3E-fi!§'\§¢E3‘T€:3F~J UE\3i\,i ST. LOUIS - M9. 3-—..‘