Subscribe to this blog

  • RSS
  • RSS
    Google Reader or Homepage
    del.icio.us Items
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    myFeedster
    Add to My AOL

Tags

New Ways of Spending Money on Infrastructure
Monday, December 01, 2008 4:59 PM  

Cars in traffic on freewayThe way we fund this nation's transportation network is fundamentally broken, and we need new ways to decide how money gets spent.

That's the premise of a recent New York Times column by David Leonhardt -and also reflects the sentiments of Mary Peters, U.S. Secretary of Transportation.

On her blog, The Fast Lane, Peters asks readers if they agree that we need to find a new way forward to finance transit projects.

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a bill that allocates $18 billion for new construction projects, and President-elect Barack Obama has indicated he will sign a version of that bill, asking for billions of more dollars to create jobs and help fix this nation's infrastructure at the same time.

Leonhardt points out that infrastructure spending has increased 50 percent over the past decade, after adjusting for inflation. Right now, government agencies spend about $400 billion a year on infrastructure, reports Leonhardt. Still, even though it's at a 27-year-high, it's far below spending levels of the 1950s, 60s and 70s when the Interstate Highway System was being constructed.

So why is our infrastructure in such shabby condition? Transit experts blame a mindless approach to distributing money. Robert Puentes of the Brookings Institution  says we send a blank check and hope for the best. Close-up of car in traffic

"We need an extreme makeover," he told the NYT.

Peters pointed out another flaw. "The United States is one of the few countries in the world to make the majority of its transportation investments without first conducting any kind of economic analysis to determine whether those investments will have any practical benefits for commuters or shippers. The results are telling," she told the NYT.

Leonhardt says government agencies need to link a project's economic and environmental benefits to its request for funding. Click here to read more of his suggested solutions.

 

 

Comments

Royko said:

I agree. Less should be wasted on urban rail, and more invested in rubber-tired mobility.
# December 1, 2008 5:28 PM

DominicMazoch said:

Add to the above: The cost of the US Navy to ride "shotgun" in the priate areas along the east coast of Africa is coming out of the DOD buget, not anybody eleses.. I have no problem with the DOD and the Navy doing this. However, I wonder if such costs should be moved to the price of oil products, and away from income tax sources? Then again, if we had a real articulated energy and transort policy, I would not be making a coment here. (Except for bus types.) Also, I have ridden some sections of IH-5 in Oregon. OrDOT is still using the same pavement after all these years. At Broadway and Park Place on the Gulf Freeway, the widened freeway used some of the bridge support structure from the original! Point: If you are going to build some sort of infrastructure, build it to last. None of this 20-year lifetime manure. Build it for 100. Keeping this up over a period of time would be cheaper!
# December 1, 2008 11:07 PM

PWang said:

It's the same syndrome that has shot throughout our entire culture. Infrastructure is *** expensive, but everyone wants a freeway almost to their front door so they don't have to wait in traffic in their single-occupant vehicle (SOV), therefore they push on our elected officals and we've spent ourselves to death. People are greedy for "stuff", and they don't want to pay. Why does this sound so hauntingly familiar these days? Something for nothing. If we could SHARE rides... either in carpools, vanpools, or transit vehicles, or pack a traffic lane with a half-dozen bicycles in the same square foot area as one moving car occupies (for short trips), we would defer these construction expenses into the future so we could eat them one bite at a time, instead of choking on them. No, but SHARING & COOPERATION are things we Americans don't do anymore. SHARING & COOPERATION are Socialist! This is why Obama got elected, because people realize that worshiping at the altar of small-minded individualism is a dead-end way of thinking.
# December 2, 2008 7:00 AM

Cedric Collins said:

Royko said: "I agree. Less should be wasted on urban rail, and more invested in rubber-tired mobility." (slaps forehead) What?! You're kidding, right? How can ANY large transit agency survive with just buses? Please---dying minds would just love to know. Look---rail of any kind is here to stay and rail is just as important for a large TA such as METRO or maybe even NYCMTA as buses---no matter what type of buses will be purchased---especially for the folks of the Big Apple.
# December 2, 2008 11:23 AM

DominicMazoch said:

One has to be careful in using terms. For example: The Paris, and Mexico DF Metro heavy transit systems use rubber tires....... The Atlanta Hartsfield inter-terminal subway uses rubber tires.... The Seattle monorail uses rubber tires..... Bush IAH elevated interterminal elevated train looks as if it has rubber tires... (How about the original inter-terminal train at Bush in the basement?) And: One person bycycles, legally, are SOV's, even though most are powered solely by human beings.
# December 2, 2008 7:25 PM

Royko said:

Mr. CoLLins,

It is the enormous costs associated with the operation and maintenance of these fixed-guideway systems which is crushing the transit agencies nationwide.

Buses run rings around rail!

Is it not a fact that when the tram service is interrupted, METREAUX must dispatch the buses to rescue the tram passengers?

If the "transit backbone" is so easily disrupted, to the point it is unreliable, how can such a system be considered preferable to rubber-tired vehicles which have superior agility, versitility, and utility?

# December 2, 2008 9:20 PM

Cedric Collins said:

Royko,

     PLEASE---re-energize your brain!  This "Buses run rings around rail!" routine is irrelevent in certain cases.  What happens when it floods too much and buses cannot go where you think it should go to take over for train (where needed) or when the bus just simply breaks down and it cannot be fixed on site rather than having to tow it back to its respective garage?  Explain that.

# December 4, 2008 10:25 AM

PWang said:

Royko, I spent 60 minutes last night going from Richmond @ Tanglewildge in Westchase to the Wheeler terminus on the #25 Richmond bus. It was frustrating beyond toleration. That's 10 miles, so 10 MPH. I should've ripped the bike off of the front rack of the bus and just started pedaling, but it was cold and dark.

Just what in blazes qualifies you to keep saying, "Buses run rings around rail!" ?

Why don't YOU do some bus riding yourself, huh?

# December 5, 2008 7:17 AM

Cedric Collins said:

PWang said:  "Just what in blazes qualifies you to keep saying, "Buses run rings around rail!" ?"

Buddy---if you ever get a decent answer from Royko about that nonsense statement he keeps repeating like the Energizer Bunny, I'll jump for joy!

"Why don't YOU do some bus riding yourself, huh?"

I can assure you he's not so don't count on it.  It'll be a shocking surprise if he does.

All in all, that "Buses run rings around rail!" is getting WAY too old.  Just a thought.

# December 9, 2008 12:55 PM
New Comments to this post are disabled