The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91-453) added to the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 by authorizing an additional $12 billion of the same type of matching funds.
The laws, while the first major federal investments in urban transit, have been criticized both for going too far (is transit a federal or local responsibility?) and not going far enough (the 50:50 match was much less than the 80:20 match provided for new highway construction). It is also thought that these capital funds distorted the priorities of transit agencies to building new capital projects (rails) rather than more cost effective projects that required less capital (but perhaps more operating) outlay (buses). Thus since the 1970s the United States has seen a large number of new rail starts while bus service continues to deteriorate.
Earlier legislative attempts at establishing a federal transit funding program were opposed by labor unions because they did not protect unionized workers, and thus failed to gain sufficient support in Congress. The unions feared that public entities would take over failing privately held transportation companies and cease to recognize the union (the National Labor Relations Act does not apply to public employers). The version that finally did pass included provisions that require public entities receiving federal transit money to enter into protective agreements (often referred to as "Section 13(c) agreements") that would be approved by the Department of Labor. The Secretary of Labor must certify that the transit authority has made a "fair and equitable" labor protective arrangement before the authority can receive assistance.
Although the Federal Government is prohibited from dictating labor standards of public employees directly (see, e.g., National League of Cities v. Usery), it can use the "power of the purse" and refuse to grant funds to states who don't enter into these protective arrangements.
Famous quotes containing the words urban, mass and/or act:
“The gay world that flourished in the half-century between 1890 and the beginning of the Second World War, a highly visible, remarkably complex, and continually changing gay male world, took shape in New York City.... It is not supposed to have existed.”
—George Chauncey, U.S. educator, author. Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940, p. 1, Basic Books (1994)
“I stand for the heart. To the dogs with the head! I had rather be a fool with a heart, than Jupiter Olympus with his head. The reason the mass of men fear God, and at bottom dislike Him, is because they rather distrust His heart, and fancy Him all brain like a watch.”
—Herman Melville (1819–1891)
“By act of Congress, male officers are gentlemen, but by act of God, we are ladies. We don’t have to be little mini-men and try to be masculine and use obscene language to come across. I can take you and flip you on the floor and put your arms behind your back and you’ll never move again, without your ever knowing that I can do it.”
—Sherian Grace Cadoria (b. 1940)