alternatehistory.com

The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 in OTL encouraged local government takeover of failing (and possibly not-so-failing, but I can't think of an example) private transit companies in the USA by providing capital assistance, but only to transit systems which were owned by government agencies.

One small problem was that wasn't quite the original intent of the UMTA. It was originally written for a few East Coast commuter railroads which were in the process of being taken over by local/regional agencies at the time. There was no intent to provide capital equipment for transit lines in "small town USA", so to speak. However, the wording of the Act opened up the doors.

In US history, there were three waves of local government takeover of private transit companies: First was in the 1910s/20s (examples: San Francisco and Detroit) out of progressive idealism. Second was in the 1950s, when many transit lines could no longer make money and the cities bought them out to keep the service going. The third wave, in the late 1960s/70s was similar, except that UMTA funding was also a factor, in that it discouraged arrangements such as continuing private ownership by means of a subsidy, since private companies were ineligible for Federal capital funds.

Modern economics pretty much makes private, for-profit transit funded solely by fares a no go in America today. But under a different (or no) UMTA, would private, loss-based, subsidised transit companies be more common?

Scenario 1. No UTMA

Scenario 2. UTMA more rigidly written to only include the intended commuter railroads, either by name or by carefully crafted criteria.

Scenario 3. UMTA more broadly written to include privately-owned transit companies.

Also, are there Constitutional problems with Scenarios 2 and 3? I can guess the far Right would think so, but I'm seeking mainstream thought consistent with OTL SCOTUS thinking....
Top