Services > Industries > Public Transit

Public transit agencies across the country must balance budget cutbacks, reduced operating funds and federal funding requirements with the need to maintain safe, secure and efficient systems to serve their customers and communities. In addition, transit agencies face myriad issues as they undertake the planning, design and construction of major capital projects. These hurdles, along with the complex requirements that are attached to the receipt of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) dollars, complicate the day-to-day management of public transit agencies. Our seasoned transit attorneys help agencies minimize the negative effects of these complications, allowing them to focus on delivering critical capital projects while maintaining their quality of service.

Our attorneys’ experience runs deep in this industry. We represent public transit clients in nine of the nation’s 10 largest metropolitan areas and 15 of the top 20. Our experience ranges from procurement to labor issues, appropriations, contracting for services, major capital projects and compliance with obligations imposed by FTA. Our clients include public transit agencies; city, county and state governments; transit suppliers and transit consulting firms. We represent clients before the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the Department of Labor (DOL), the Congress, various state departments and agencies, and state and federal courts.

Thompson Coburn public transit attorneys wrote an award-winning Transportation Research Board (TRB) study, entitled “Guide to Section 13(c) Transit Labor Protections,” as well as TRB’s recently issued “Legal Handbook for the New Starts Process.” They have held positions within the DOT, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and on staffs in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. Their collective knowledge of the government’s perspective enables them to provide meaningful counsel on a wide range of federal transportation issues.

Partners

Anderson, Anthony A.

Gill Jr., Edward J.

Starke, Jane Sutter

Woodman, G. Kent

Of Counsel

Duff, Daniel R.

Associates

Hasan, Sarah M.

• Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Austin)
• Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority
• City of Colorado Springs
• City of Loveland/City of Fort Collins
• City of Phoenix
• Dallas Area Rapid Transit
• Foothill Transit
• Greensboro Transit Authority
• Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
• Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
• Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
• Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas
• Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority
• New Jersey Transit
• New York City Department of Transportation
• New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority
• Northstar Corridor Development Authority (Minnesota)
• Orange County Transportation Authority
• Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority (Minneapolis-St. Paul)
• Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada
• South Florida Regional Transportation Authority
• Transbay Joint Powers Authority
• Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon
• Utah Transit Authority
• Valley Metro Rail (Phoenix)
• Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)

Thompson Coburn filed a brief on behalf of DART in the U.S. Supreme Court, opposing a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari filed by Amalgamated Transit Union Local No. 1338. In the brief, DART opposed Amalgamated Transit Union Local No. 1338's request for a writ of certiorari to consider whether the Texas Supreme Court correctly held that Congress did not preempt, by implication, a Texas state governmental entity's immunity from suit when Congress enacted the urban Mass Transit Act of 1964, and in particular Section 13(c) of that Act, which conditions a state transit entity's receipt of federal funds on the state workers' collective-bargaining rights. Dart argued that the case did not warrant the Court's certiorari review because the Texas Supreme Court's decision aligns with the Court's constitutional precedent and the reach of, and limits on, Congress' constitutional authority.

Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC)

We obtained a favorable ruling from the FTA granting the RTC a waiver of the Buy America requirements for the RTC's purchase of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) vehicles. After suffering a major downturn in sales tax revenues that fund the RTC's transit system, the RTC sought to "federalize" a $55 million contract for the purchase of BRT vehicles with the Wright Group from the United Kingdom. This required a post-award waiver from Buy America requirements, which has no precedent in the FTA's administration of the program. The waiver was opposed by a Buy America-compliant bus manufacturer at the urging of a trade association. Our attorneys authored the request to FTA, responded to the opposition, and assisted in garnering political and domestic manufacturing support. FTA granted the waiver – a decision that will enable the RTC to save $48 million in local funding and free up needed funds for the significant operating and capital needs of the Las Vegas system.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)

WMATA and other municipal transit systems nationwide faced billions of dollars of termination liabilities arising out of the recent credit freeze. WMATA and the other systems financed their acquisition of subway cars and buses with tax-advantaged deals known as SILOs (sale-in, lease-out) and LILOs (lease-in, lease-out) backed by AIG, Ambac and other sureties. The drop in the credit ratings of these securities triggered technical defaults and extraordinary accelerated termination payment liabilities, in this case $43 million, that jeopardized the systems' continuing operations.

Taking the lead nationwide, WMATA filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. and prevailed in a temporary restraining order (TRO) proceeding to prevent the first of many of these transactions from unraveling. Following issuance of the TRO, and evidentiary hearing on a preliminary injunction was held. The court expressed serious concerns about the windfall recovery sought by the investor bank and urged the parties to resolve the dispute. Thompson Coburn negotiated resolution of the dispute, avoiding termination liability for WMATA.