Since the passage of the Urban Mass Transit Act of 1972, which first established Federal funding for public transit spurred the creation in most major US cities of Public Transit Authorities with dedicated tax bases, we have seen a steady increase in transit ridership increasing in absolute terms, but a steady decrease relative to population, at least until last year, when the spike in gas prices suddenly made transit systems "competitive".

Note that the formula used to apportion Federal transit monies provides negligible incentive to increase ridership. Rather the formula is "vendor friendly", providing incentives to provide service, either bus or fixed guideway, regardless of whether those services actually attract ridership. (For the formula, see http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/2009fullyear_-_Table_4_-_sec_5307__Apportioment_Formula.xls.)

There is no incentive whatsoever to provide van pools, in spite of the fact that van pools exhibit both the lowest cost per passenger mile and the lowest CO2 emissions per passenger mile of any mode. (Of course if the Federal govt promoted van pooling, Detroit would have to manufacture a whole lot of vans.)

If Congress should ever get serious about global warming, we should expect to see the funding formula adjusted to provide for a far larger "incentive tier" across all modes.

Boxer's "leadership" is indeed something to question at this point, but it's only fair to note that control over transportation (especially transit) funding and policy is much more diffused in the Senate than in the House.

Whereas in the House nearly everything runs through the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, in the Senate the Commerce, Banking and Environment & Public Works committees all have jurisdication over various aspects of transportation funding and policy.

Cheers,
C-in-S