I agree with this. The main argument in the article is that the federal government's stimulus package should have included operating funds (fuel, salaries and maintenence) for local transit companies, but did not. Instead, the stimulus founds for mass transit went only to capital expenses, such as new buses, rails and stations.

In fact, as a proportion of total transportation funding, public transit funding in the stimulus package is quite low. A lot more of the funds go to highways, bridges and other motor transport needs.

Purely from an economic viewpoint, I think the stimulus package should have included more operating expenses for both automobile and mass transit, and a little less on new construction. For example, my city has a perennial pothole problem. This year they lack the funds to fix these potholes. If they had the funds, they could literally start fixing them tomorrow. This will employ people right from the start, rather than waiting months to years to get new construction projects ready for actual implementation. And no matter how you travel--car, bike or bus--you need smooth pavement in order to travel efficiently.

On the other hand, in the long run the best way to increase ridership in mass transit is to expand services. We need better feeder routes, longer hours of operations , and more frequent service.