Some transit agencies, including the MTA and BART, collect more than half their revenues from passengers. But most transit agencies do not even come close. CATS, the transit system in Baton Rouge, has a 31% recovery ratio; KAT, the transit system in Knoxville, takes the cake with just 7% of revenues coming from customers.

Is the last part of that even accurate? My impression was that the MTA and other agencies cover more than half their operating expenses with fares.

One might respond: "Most urban transit systems are so scantily subsidized that fares have to cover more than half of their expenses. Roads, in contrast, are so heavily subsidized that drivers pay nothing for using most of them."

Now 3 billion for copenhagen-style bicycle infrastructure, with emphasis on transit/rail connectivity, that would be something else.

Of course, here's what the geniuses over at The Wall Street Journal had to say:

Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?

As opposed to the big ROI on highway spending, right? Boy, do those 12-lane highway projects ever pay for themselves.

Granted, this is a badly flawed bill, but The Journal's complaining about transit spending while opining that $30 billion for roads and bridges is far too little does not show much of an understanding of the looming transportation and environmental challenges facing us.

Of course, here's what the geniuses over at The Wall Street Journal had to say:

Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?

As opposed to the big ROI on highway spending, right? Boy, do those 12-lane highway projects ever pay for themselves.

Granted, this is a badly flawed bill, but complaining about transit spending while opining that $30 billion for roads and bridges is far too little does not show much of an understanding of the looming transportation and environmental challenges facing us.

Probably not as hard as I would yelp for - say - a car-free Central Park, but close.