Comments on: Dems Release Stimulus Draft: $30B for Highways, $10B for Transit

By: Steve K.

Steve K. — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:57:00 +0000

$30B for Highways, $10B for Transit – should be flipped for the new green economy of the 21st century

By: Gary Reilly

Gary Reilly — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:24:45 +0000

This is all for “shovel-ready” fast moving projects.

The real money (and the real battle for transit advocates) will be in the next SAFETEA-LU bill later this year.

While $10 billion is a disappointing number, this is merely an hors d’oeuvre.

We should all be beating down the doors of the administration and our congressional delegation with our transit priorities as the SAFETEA-LU bill will set the agenda for transit spending over the next 4-5 years.

THAT is where the action is.

By: C Neal

C Neal — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:29:17 +0000

Also, the $30 billion for “highways” probably won’t allow states to build lavish new freeways. Here in Maine, for instance, our DOT has a $160 million maintenance backlog just to pave existing roads. But if the $30 billion is split evenly according to states’ populations, Maine only stands to receive about $150 million for road projects – even with a stimulus, we’ll have to triage maintenance work, so new roads are basically out of the question.

I know that other states are in similar straits with declining gas tax revenues. I’d be pretty surprised if anyone chooses to spend these limited stimulus funds on major new highways, at the expense of continued neglect for existing infrastructure.

By: C Neal

C Neal — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:24:20 +0000

The “$30 billion for highways” figure may be a bit misleading. It seems probable that the $30 billion will be allocated through Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) programs, and the $10 billion through Fed. Transit Administration (FTA) programs.

But FHWA’s jurisdiction includes things like the “Transportation Enhancements” and the nonmotorized transportation programs, which can pay for bike paths, traffic calming, and other livable streets projects.

We’ll still need more details to know for sure, but it seems probable that the $30 billion won’t be entirely dedicated to “roads and bridges” in the conventional sense.

By: Rhywun

Rhywun — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 03:42:24 +0000

@Jeffrey

Sure, I favor transit over roads too, but my point is that the typical American habit of throwing out (or neglecting) the old in favor of the new needs to stop. I’ve been to numerous other countries where both the transit AND the roads are in much better shape than in America, supposedly the richest nation on earth. Our throwaway culture is why we are seeing so much money going to new projects while existing bridges collapse and subway signaling systems catch fire.

By: AlexB

AlexB — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:26:59 +0000

Adding up new construction ($2.4B), upgrades and repair ($50B), and transit capital assistance ($15.5B), the total for transit should be $67.9B. If you add $10B for the first phase of the california high speed rail line and $10B to upgrade the northeast corridor (assuming that wasn’t covered under another heading) the total comes to $87.9B. Considering that the $10B they are proposing to spend would pay for just over half of what the second avenue subway was supposed to cost ($16B), $10B seems like a very low total. We have already “loaned” the banking industry $350B, we are planning to spend another $350 on who-knows-what, and are planning to spend over $800B on a stimulus package. At .67% of the total stimuli, and as something known by all to do so much good (good for environment, property values, local economies, combating sprawl, etc., etc.), this is absolutely pathetic.

By: neb

neb — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:58:54 +0000

This is not the greatest news, but I’m not ready throw mud at the proposal. The real hope is in how the transportation bill is authorized.

In some ways, it is good news that the highways portion is only $30 billion. The governors and highway lobby were pushing for much more, as much as $350 billion. And recently a lesser figure was pegged at $75. This is a good article on the issue: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17230.html

By: Jeffrey W. Baker

Jeffrey W. Baker — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:27:51 +0000

I couldn’t agree more, Rhywun. No freeways should be expanded until all of our passenger rail lines are upgraded to continuously welded, concrete tied, electrified, fully grade-separated rights of way.

By: Rhywun

Rhywun — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:08:29 +0000

We can quibble at the split, but really, this money should *not* be used for new projects until the sorry state of our current infrastructure is repaired.