right now, federal transit funding requires that local governments at least match the federal funds 50-50 (whereas highway projects get matched 80-20). however, most states are not exactly flush with cash at this time, so one common-sense proposal from a new infrastructure program might be to increase that match -- up to 100% if necessary to get a high-priority project off the ground.

an Obama administration will help cities fund transportation. New York's MTA is looking at serious shortfalls in their budget.

I have no doubt this administration will get behind transit funding. With the number of Obaministration people coming from Chicago, many will be familiar with the funding needs of different types of transit (Chicago has bikeways, buses, regional rail and light rail) and will be easily convinced. Ad that Pelosi will have her californians barking to keep that project moving, and the head of the House Transit Committee is a Dem and just got Midwest "High-Speed" rail through, we will be golden.

This is a great article, one of the few that I've seen tie together energy, the economy, infrastructure and what not, though I think it could have said more about the social equity impacts of mass transit.

This would be a much better idea than trying to bailout the auto industry. They fought fuel efficiency standards for years and are now paying the price. It is also their fault that we are bleeding hundreds of billions of dollars a year countries that hate us which has helped lead to the economic collapse.

Investing in transit and rail is a much better way of creating jobs than wasting billions to bail out incompetent automakers.

racc, I do think transit investment makes a lot of sense for cities and large towns. But when oil prices start their rise again (in as little as two years) people in rural and suburban areas will be hurting. (And remember , they provide much of our food!).

If we let the automakers fail, the US economy will take a huge hit, and we would lose our manufacturing base. So we really ought to buy the Big Three (at bargain prices) and put them to work making electric cars for those who will need them. Really, we should have a national target to end oil addiction over the next 20 years. If we can reduce the number of cars needed to say around 100 million (through urban design and mass transit expansion), then we still need to be making something like 5 million EV's per year.

Until the market kicks in and people start demanding EV's, we could simply have the government buy say the first 2 years of production and offer those cars to local governments at reduced prices. After the auto companies can make it on their own, we can turn them back to the private sector. Until then, I think we ought to nationalize them and begin peak-oil mitigation -- along with mass transit.

Hopefully they'll build stations near the unemployment line...

Since the government seems intent on bailing out the ridiculously prehistoric and historically anti-environmentalist automotive industry (see Thomas Friedman's recent editorial) the only hope is as Colin suggests, to convert it all to electric.  The public transportation systems in this country are woefully underfunded, and should be subsidized.  They are as much a part of the infrastructure as the highways they're always wanting to widen and increase the number of.  If the government is going to put any money into the auto industry, it has to be moving it into the future, not subsidizing the past.  The days of cheap oil and ignorant pollution are behind us.