[lawfin]

Stimulus misappropriation / misallocation

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/09/us/0709-nat-subPROJECTS.gif


I was worried stuff like this would occur.

Enough with funding rural roads

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/us/09projects.html?_r=1&hp


Two-thirds of the country lives in large metropolitan areas, home to the nation’s worst traffic jams and some of its oldest roads and bridges. But cities and their surrounding regions are getting far less than two-thirds of federal transportation stimulus money.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Transportation Projects Across the NationGraphic
Transportation Projects Across the Nation

According to an analysis by The New York Times of 5,274 transportation projects approved so far — the most complete look yet at how states plan to spend their stimulus money — the 100 largest metropolitan areas are getting less than half the money from the biggest pot of transportation stimulus money. In many cases, they have lost a tug of war with state lawmakers that urban advocates say could hurt the nation’s economic engines.

The stimulus law provided $26.6 billion for highways, bridges and other transportation projects, but left the decision on how to spend most of it to the states, which have a long history of giving short shrift to major metropolitan areas when it comes to dividing federal transportation money. Now that all 50 states have beat a June 30 deadline by winning approval for projects that will use more than half of that transportation money, worth $16.4 billion, it is clear that the stimulus program will continue that pattern of spending disproportionately on rural areas.

[Jasonhouse]

I can't believe Tampa is actually getting a decent chunk by the sound of it. That has got to be a first.

[glowrock]

I don't have a huge problem with many rural roads getting substantial amounts of stimulus funds, as these roads can be some of the worst in any given state. They're the last to get improved, the last to be repaved, the last to have bridges replaced. Out of sight, out of mind...

If rural roads get a lot of stimulus monies, it should make more state DOT funds available for the urban areas, though. Besides, infrastructure is infrastructure, jobs are jobs, rural and urban alike...

Aaron (Glowrock)

[ChicagoChicago]

I don't have a huge problem with many rural roads getting substantial amounts of stimulus funds, as these roads can be some of the worst in any given state. They're the last to get improved, the last to be repaved, the last to have bridges replaced. Out of sight, out of mind...

If rural roads get a lot of stimulus monies, it should make more state DOT funds available for the urban areas, though. Besides, infrastructure is infrastructure, jobs are jobs, rural and urban alike...

Aaron (Glowrock)I'm not sure I really agree with that, at least that's what I see in Chicago. The inner city roads are among the worst I've ever had the displeasure of riding on. Far worse than anywhere else in the state.

[Jasonhouse]

^Same here as best I can tell... Some roads in the inner city haven't been touched for decades (like 60-100yrs+), to the point where you can't drive faster than 15-20mph (if you're lucky)... I can promise you that there isn't a single paved road in other parts of the county that hasn't had work done on it for more than 30 years or so.

And let's not even start on the issue of poorly planned suburban roads which have to be torn up and widened long before their life cycle is ever over.

[VivaLFuego]

Besides, infrastructure is infrastructure, jobs are jobs, rural and urban alike...

Aaron (Glowrock)

Not really, and only from the most near-term perspective possible - infrastructure is only really infrastructure if its useful in supporting economic activity. Otherwise, why not build infinity bridges to nowhere? Useless infrastructure ties up capital into fixed improvements and structures that generate no economic benefit, are illiquid and immovable, and eventually need to be replaced (the "need" being political, not practical), meaning more wasted money down the road. Useless pork infrastructure is at best a jobs/welfare program for union construction workers, and at worst just flushing money down a figurative toilet.

Useful infrastructure, of course, fosters and supports economic activity and growth, and thus more than pays for itself in both the short run and long run.

[lawfin]

Not really, and only from the most near-term perspective possible - infrastructure is only really infrastructure if its useful in supporting economic activity. Otherwise, why not build infinity bridges to nowhere? Useless infrastructure ties up capital into fixed improvements and structures that generate no economic benefit, are illiquid and immovable, and eventually need to be replaced (the "need" being political, not practical), meaning more wasted money down the road. Useless pork infrastructure is at best a jobs/welfare program for union construction workers, and at worst just flushing money down a figurative toilet.

Useful infrastructure, of course, fosters and supports economic activity and growth, and thus more than pays for itself in both the short run and long run.
^^^Hear, Hear......well said

[glowrock]

Except that rural infrastructure STILL needs improvement, guys! We're not talking about infinity Bridges to Nowhere, we're talking about improving rural roads that are not only used by citizens of the local small cities and towns, but also travelers going from one place to another, anyone who's just driving around the area...

If rural infrastructure is taken care of with the ARRA funds, it should leave states much more able to handle urban infrastructure needs. I guess I'm just saying that BOTH urban and rural infrastructure needs are important, that's all.

I know we're urbanists here, where all that matters are cities and nothing else, but you know, there are still tens of millions of people who live in rural areas, and there are tens of millions of people who used those rural roads to get from one place to another on a regular basis.

Thankfully, rebuilding rural infrastructure is cheaper than urban infrastructure in general, so the monies go further. Less time and money needed to rebuild rural infrastructure again should mean more urban infrastructure monies in the near future.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Jasonhouse]

Thankfully, rebuilding rural infrastructure is cheaper than urban infrastructure in general, so the monies go further. Less time and money needed to rebuild rural infrastructure again should mean more urban infrastructure monies in the near future.


What standards are you basing this conclusion upon? Per capita cost? Cost to usage?? Is it based on a cost to economic benefit analysis, and if so, what parameters were used?

[VivaLFuego]

^ I brought up in another thread that indeed, some lightly-used roads in the nether regions of a road network still warrant investment for improvement, because there is value in having a complete network - this is akin to still subsidizing and operating bus routes on the reaches of a transit system because they can be an important component, when all taken together and combined with the main transit arteries to make the overall transit system attractive and useful.

But that can only go so far in justifying all the money blown on making rural roads pristine, and tearing up/widening recently-built roads in greenfield sprawl that grew beyond capacity (or at least, grew beyond capacity as defined by our national sprawl-inducing traffic engineering codes) due to poor land use planning. Investing in making the network complete would be more justifiable if our cities' heavily-used and vital intraurban arterial streets were all in great shape - but they aren't. So the funding imbalance seems driven purely by politics than anything resembling cost/benefit.

[jtk1519]

What do you expect when you ask the federal government to fix what they screwed up in the first place? Did we really think they would finally get something right?

[BTinSF]

The whole "they're spending it on the wrongs things" argument is bogus. The few of us participating right here couldn't agree on what the "right" things are. It's a foregone conclusion they won't spend it exactly as any of us or the New York Times might have wanted.

So what. They are fixing roads as well as building roads. Some of it will get to the urban transit systems we love. Some of it will keep our cops and firemen employed and our schools open.

Stop complaining. It all goes to its primary purpose--putting people to work (or keeping them at work) doing something productive.

[ChicagoChicago]

The whole "they're spending it on the wrongs things" argument is bogus. The few of us participating right here couldn't agree on what the "right" things are. It's a foregone conclusion they won't spend it exactly as any of us or the New York Times might have wanted.

So what. They are fixing roads as well as building roads. Some of it will get to the urban transit systems we love. Some of it will keep our cops and firemen employed and our schools open.

Stop complaining. It all goes to its primary purpose--putting people to work (or keeping them at work) doing something productive.I couldn't disagree more with this sentiment. Paving a road in central Illinois that creates 100 jobs for 6 months, but adds very little benefit to the overall economy is an absolute waste of money. A great example of proper use would be grade separating rail crossings in the Chicago region. It would reduce auto-traffic congestion, which leads to better productivity and improved quality of life. It would reduce transit time for freight, thus reducing costs.

Focusing on the creation of 6-12 month jobs is probably the most short sighted, irresponsible thing that could come out of this legislation.

[bnk]

I couldn't disagree more with this sentiment. Paving a road in central Illinois that creates 100 jobs for 6 months, but adds very little benefit to the overall economy is an absolute waste of money. A great example of proper use would be grade separating rail crossings in the Chicago region. It would reduce auto-traffic congestion, which leads to better productivity and improved quality of life. It would reduce transit time for freight, thus reducing costs.

Focusing on the creation of 6-12 month jobs is probably the most short sighted, irresponsible thing that could come out of this legislation.

Bingo. That money should be going into CREATE vs a repave of a rural road that will do nothing for the global economy other than six months of paying local labor to buy cheap Chinese crap from Walmart from those previously unemployed workers.

[bnk]

... It's a foregone conclusion they won't spend it exactly as any of us or the New York Times might have wanted.

So what. They are fixing roads as well as building roads. Some of it will get to the urban transit systems we love. Some of it will keep our cops and firemen employed and our schools open.

Stop complaining. It all goes to its primary purpose--putting people to work (or keeping them at work) doing something productive.

BT this reminded me of the 50 Herbert Hovers that this country is dealing with in this GOP depression. Almost every state is laying off workers, furloughing them... Basically fighting the stimulus tooth and nail all the way for most all states have to by their own constitution balance their budget. Illinois is in a tough spot no doubt because of the decrease in all tax revenues and rasing taxes in this environment only makes things worse. California being the largest state in population has the largest budget deficit of all. That will take a lot of slashing and burning to even come close to closing their deficit.

What Nobel Laureate Krugman is saying is that the states are doing the exact opposite of what the FED needs to get us out of this Bush disaster.

This is just not a state issue, cities are also doing the slash and burn at the worst time.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/opinion/29krugman.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print


December 29, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

Fifty Herbert Hoovers

By PAUL KRUGMAN

No modern American president would repeat the fiscal mistake of 1932, in which the federal government tried to balance its budget in the face of a severe recession. The Obama administration will put deficit concerns on hold while it fights the economic crisis.

But even as Washington tries to rescue the economy, the nation will be reeling from the actions of 50 Herbert Hoovers — state governors who are slashing spending in a time of recession, often at the expense both of their most vulnerable constituents and of the nation’s economic future.

These state-level cutbacks range from small acts of cruelty to giant acts of panic — from cuts in South Carolina’s juvenile justice program, which will force young offenders out of group homes and into prison, to the decision by a committee that manages California state spending to halt all construction outlays for six months.

Now, state governors aren’t stupid (not all of them, anyway). They’re cutting back because they have to — because they’re caught in a fiscal trap.

But let’s step back for a moment and contemplate just how crazy it is, from a national point of view, to be cutting public services and public investment right now.

...

So why are we doing this to ourselves?

The answer, of course, is that state and local government revenues are plunging along with the economy — and unlike the federal government, lower-level governments can’t borrow their way through the crisis. Partly that’s because these governments, unlike the feds, are subject to balanced-budget rules. But even if they weren’t, running temporary deficits would be difficult. Investors, driven by fear, are refusing to buy anything except federal debt, and those states that can borrow at all are being forced to pay punitive interest rates.


...

And why should investments in infrastructure, which will serve the nation for decades, be at the mercy of short-run fluctuations in local budgets?

That’s for later.

The priority right now is to fight off the attack of the 50 Herbert Hoovers, and make sure that the fiscal problems of the states don’t make the economic crisis even worse.

[pip]

typical. A great analogy would be Michigan and Detroit. the country will become like Michigan; sucked everything dry from the city to the point where there is nothing left to suck out and the city then becomes a burden but still the other money grabbing areas will not be able to swing it themselves. There is nothing left.

[lawfin]

What do you expect when you ask the federal government to fix what they screwed up in the first place? Did we really think they would finally get something right?
The toxic notion that government can never ever do anything right is one of the most pervasive and pernicious shibboleths of groverites everwhere....


In America's history there are many, many instances of government intervention that have yielded very postive results.


The funny thing is that after 30 years of groverite ascendency....and the hallowing out tendencies of supply-side market fundamentalism...they (the groverites) have the temerity to say "see government screws everything up......."

NO....bad government screws things up...

[glowrock]

What standards are you basing this conclusion upon? Per capita cost? Cost to usage?? Is it based on a cost to economic benefit analysis, and if so, what parameters were used?

It's cheaper in terms of ROW acquisition if needed, it's cheaper because there are less restrictions as to hours available to do the construction (ie: no peak traffic times to worry about), and it's cheaper because the overall scope of improvements is just not as great as for urban areas.

Cost-benefit analysis? Jasonhouse, you know damn well that ALL non-urban projects would fail that, save for some huge trucking corridors! :) What I'm saying, in simple terms, is that improving 10 miles of rural road is generally going to cost less than 10 miles of urban road. Less total asphalt, less pavement of any sort, less red tape due to overlapping governmental jurisdictions (in many cases, obviously not true in all cases)...

Jeez, you'd act like I was spouting some absolute vile words out of my keyboard here! All I'm saying is that rural areas shouldn't be overlooked, pure and simple.

From my 12 or so years in Colorado, the rural roads WERE completely neglected for many years, until the last couple of years, at least.

Unfortunately, there will never, ever be enough monies to fund all worthwhile road AND transit projects, both urban AND rural. While it's tempting to put all the funding for improvements where the most people live, that's not fair to those who don't live in the major urban corridors.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[glowrock]

I couldn't disagree more with this sentiment. Paving a road in central Illinois that creates 100 jobs for 6 months, but adds very little benefit to the overall economy is an absolute waste of money. A great example of proper use would be grade separating rail crossings in the Chicago region. It would reduce auto-traffic congestion, which leads to better productivity and improved quality of life. It would reduce transit time for freight, thus reducing costs.

Focusing on the creation of 6-12 month jobs is probably the most short sighted, irresponsible thing that could come out of this legislation.

So, what if that road being repaved in Central Illinois is a major trucking route? :)

Of course there's politics involved in funding decisions, but it's not always as cut and dry as you seem to think, ChicagoChicago.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[pip]

It's cheaper in terms of ROW acquisition if needed, it's cheaper because there are less restrictions as to hours available to do the construction (ie: no peak traffic times to worry about), and it's cheaper because the overall scope of improvements is just not as great as for urban areas.

Cost-benefit analysis? Jasonhouse, you know damn well that ALL non-urban projects would fail that, save for some huge trucking corridors! :) What I'm saying, in simple terms, is that improving 10 miles of rural road is generally going to cost less than 10 miles of urban road. Less total asphalt, less pavement of any sort, less red tape due to overlapping governmental jurisdictions (in many cases, obviously not true in all cases)...

Jeez, you'd act like I was spouting some absolute vile words out of my keyboard here! All I'm saying is that rural areas shouldn't be overlooked, pure and simple.

From my 12 or so years in Colorado, the rural roads WERE completely neglected for many years, until the last couple of years, at least.

Unfortunately, there will never, ever be enough monies to fund all worthwhile road AND transit projects, both urban AND rural. While it's tempting to put all the funding for improvements where the most people live, that's not fair to those who don't live in the major urban corridors.

Aaron (Glowrock)

look at this his way. I'm going to use chicago/illinois as i know the place.

Illinois loses out to many other states to the tune of 12 billion a year in federal taxes on average. Illinois only gets back 72 cents on the dollar. The major funding for the State of Illinois comes from metro Chicago. Metro Chicago loses out on funding the rest of the state. Now with the economic stimulus stuff metro chicago yet again loses out.

So Metro Chicago loses out on federal funds on average, loses out to fund the rest of the state, loses out on stimulus money, loses out on Medicare funding, most states get back 80% we get back like 50% and loses out on infrastructure bills passed by the federal governent.

Are we allowed to keep any of our money we make? What are we left with? Like half or third from the money we generate?

[glowrock]

look at this his way. I'm going to use chicago/illinois as i know the place.

Illinois loses out to many other states to the tune of 12 billion a year in federal taxes on average. Illinois only gets back 72 cents on the dollar. The major funding for the State of Illinois comes from metro Chicago. Metro Chicago loses out on funding the rest of the state. Now with the economic stimulus stuff metro chicago yet again loses out.

So Metro Chicago loses out on federal funds on average, loses out to fund the rest of the state, loses out on stimulus money, loses out on Medicare funding, most states get back 80% we get back like 50% and loses out on infrastructure bills passed by the federal governent.

Are we allowed to keep any of our money we make? What are we left with? Like half or third from the money we generate?

And we can replace Chicago with Los Angeles or New York City if you'd like to in this case, pip. You know what? On an overall basis, I agree with your sentiment here! I most definitely DO think that, on average, large urban areas get the shaft in terms of Federal and State dollars vis a vie rural areas. Or more specifically, there's a huge disparity in federal revenues per state vs. federal dollars per state between blue and red states.

And yes, while all that is most definitely true, I still think that rural roads do need to be maintained and upgraded. A road/highway network isn't a network if only the urban areas are well maintained and upgraded. Not to mention, there are many of these rural roads which are heavily used by travelers, truckers, and the like. Especially those rural roads that just happen to connect two mid-sized cities, which is a pretty common occurance.

Anyhow, enough of this. Let's agree to disagree concerning the rural vs. urban road improvements paid for by the stimulus package. We can probably continue a good discussion on the disparities between blue/red states when it comes to dollars in vs. dollars out, though! :)

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Attrill]

I'm not that surprised that this is happening - it's important to remember that the new administration has been in office for less than six months. The DOT isn't even fully staffed yet, and this money was approved months ago. The only route to take with this spending was to pass it to the states and let them decide how to spend it. This just means that we get the same imbalance that has existed for years.

Hopefully we will see this balance change over the next couple years, but it will take a fair amount of planning by the DOT combined with some major political changes. There are plenty of signs that this change is in the works, and we have already seen some results in the annual budget.

Unfortunately the stimulus is what it is - just throwing money out there to try to create jobs, not a strategic change in how we spend transportation dollars.


What do you expect when you ask the federal government to fix what they screwed up in the first place? Did we really think they would finally get something right?

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here - the Federal Govt. just gave the money to states to let them spend it as they see fit. The problems that people are talking about are with how states have allocated the money. Are you saying the Federal Govt. should have dictated exactly how the money is spent?

[pip]

And we can replace Chicago with Los Angeles or New York City if you'd like to in this case, pip. You know what? On an overall basis, I agree with your sentiment here! I most definitely DO think that, on average, large urban areas get the shaft in terms of Federal and State dollars vis a vie rural areas. Or more specifically, there's a huge disparity in federal revenues per state vs. federal dollars per state between blue and red states.

And yes, while all that is most definitely true, I still think that rural roads do need to be maintained and upgraded. A road/highway network isn't a network if only the urban areas are well maintained and upgraded. Not to mention, there are many of these rural roads which are heavily used by travelers, truckers, and the like. Especially those rural roads that just happen to connect two mid-sized cities, which is a pretty common occurance.

Anyhow, enough of this. Let's agree to disagree concerning the rural vs. urban road improvements paid for by the stimulus package. We can probably continue a good discussion on the disparities between blue/red states when it comes to dollars in vs. dollars out, though! :)

Aaron (Glowrock)

yup I used Chicago as an example. It can also be said for Boston, Philly, San Fran, Seattle, etc.

But there will come a certain point when there is no more money to tap.

Look at Michigan and Detroit. Everything has been sucked out of Detriot to the suburbs then to the rest of the state then to the rest of the country, in other words out of the urban area of SE Michigan. You want the whole country to be like Michigan? One giant spread out unaffordable mess where there is no more money to fund anything? Since it is obvious that funding things outside urban areas is unaffordable what happens when the urban areas have been hit just too hard one too many times. Who is going to pay the bills then?

[sammyg]

yup I used Chicago as an example. It can also be said for Boston, Philly, San Fran, Seattle, etc.

But there will come a certain point when there is no more money to tap.

Look at Michigan and Detroit. Everything has been sucked out of Detriot to the suburbs then to the rest of the state then to the rest of the country, in other words out of the urban area of SE Michigan. You want the whole country to be like Michigan? One giant spread out unaffordable mess where there is no more money to fund anything? Since it is obvious that funding things outside urban areas is unaffordable what happens when the urban areas have been hit just too hard one too many times. Who is going to pay the bills then?

The Chinese, duh! Isn't that what the "post-industrial" economy's all about?

[ChicagoChicago]

So, what if that road being repaved in Central Illinois is a major trucking route? :)

Of course there's politics involved in funding decisions, but it's not always as cut and dry as you seem to think, ChicagoChicago.

Aaron (Glowrock)

Seriously? There are plenty of useful projects in Central Illinois. That isn't the point here. The point, as evidenced by the recent stimulus money AND the very recent IDOT funding bill, that Chicago and non-Chicago areas split the money about 50-50. We aren't talking about completely neglecting rural areas, particularly when they receive just as much money now as the urban areas do.

We are talking about focusing on getting maximum impact for dollars spent (Stimulus). If that means funding a reconstruction of a major trucking route in Cental IL, then great. Unfortunately, for example, we are spending money replacing the curb and gutter of Diehl Rd in Naperville (a Chicago Suburb). There are plenty of projects in rural and urban areas that are not going to have an impact on the economy the day after they are finished...and that is an absolute waste of money.

[whyhuhwhy]

yup I used Chicago as an example. It can also be said for Boston, Philly, San Fran, Seattle, etc.

But there will come a certain point when there is no more money to tap.

Look at Michigan and Detroit. Everything has been sucked out of Detriot to the suburbs then to the rest of the state then to the rest of the country, in other words out of the urban area of SE Michigan. You want the whole country to be like Michigan? One giant spread out unaffordable mess where there is no more money to fund anything? Since it is obvious that funding things outside urban areas is unaffordable what happens when the urban areas have been hit just too hard one too many times. Who is going to pay the bills then?

I agree with you but it kind of gets lost in the bigger picture that we are already screwed. I'm seeing economic estimates saying our deficit will now be over $2 trillion dollars this year, especially now with Congress ramming through a massive increase in health care spending. And we aren't even fighting a major war! We are already broke and spending money we don't have. It's like the government's become Paris Hilton and gotten itself a brand new Platinum card, only the Hilton family is totally broke and the credit card bills haven't come in yet, but no matter that she's on Michigan Avenue right now in the middle of an all out spree at Neiman Marcus. And now I'm reading in today's news that inflation is starting to rear its ugly head because in order to pay all the bills she's printing a ton of new "Hilton bucks" to "pay" for it all. Just amazing amazing times we live in.

[VivaLFuego]

So, what if that road being repaved in Central Illinois is a major trucking route? :)

Of course there's politics involved in funding decisions, but it's not always as cut and dry as you seem to think, ChicagoChicago.

Aaron (Glowrock)

Us Chicagoans are probably just particular sensitive to such politics being involved in funding decisions - Despite nearly 80% of Illinois population living in Chicagoland versus 20% "downstate" ("downstate" refers to anything not in or near Chciago), the road money is split 50/50.

[VivaLFuego]

I agree with you but it kind of gets lost in the bigger picture that we are already screwed. I'm seeing economic estimates saying our deficit will now be over $2 trillion dollars this year, especially now with Congress ramming through a massive increase in health care spending. And we aren't even fighting a major war! That's a deficit increase of over 500% in just one year. We are already broke and spending money we don't have. It's like the government's become Paris Hilton and gotten itself a brand new Platinum card, only the Hilton family is totally broke and the credit card bills haven't come in yet, but no matter that she's on Michigan Avenue right now in the middle of an all out spree at Neiman Marcus. And now I'm reading in today's news that inflation is starting to rear its ugly head because in order to pay all the bills she's printing a ton of new "Hilton bucks" to "pay" for it all. Just amazing amazing times we live in.

But if the dollar starts to lose any value, we can just print more of them to make sure all projects and programs are funded and paid for, then declare inflation illegal :tup:

[glowrock]

Us Chicagoans are probably just particular sensitive to such politics being involved in funding decisions - Despite nearly 80% of Illinois population living in Chicagoland versus 20% "downstate" ("downstate" refers to anything not in or near Chciago), the road money is split 50/50.

Fair enough, bud... Since I'm not sure of the overall funding structures in place for road improvements in Chicago in specific or Illinois in general (other than the standard Federal and State DOT programs), I can't comment specifically on the Chicago/rest of Illinois funds split.

All I can think of is that there is still a substantial road network outside of Chicago that needs to be updated and upgraded, that's all.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[SnyderBock]

I must say though, most of our larger cities have stable and extensive transportation infrastructure in place. So it would make sense for a slightly larger ratio to go to medium, rapidly growing metro areas, to help them construct that infrastructure which the larger cities already have. The larger cities are more capable of generating their own funding sources to maintaining and expanding their infrastructure. It is the medium cities with a smaller tax pool with rapidly growing needs which need infrastructure ahead of populations, so as they do not sprawl out too far and grow unwisely -- as many of our larger cities have already done.

[ChicagoChicago]

I must say though, most of our larger cities have stable and extensive transportation infrastructure in place. So it would make sense for a slightly larger ratio to go to medium, rapidly growing metro areas, to help them construct that infrastructure which the larger cities already have. The larger cities are more capable of generating their own funding sources to maintaining and expanding their infrastructure. It is the medium cities with a smaller tax pool with rapidly growing needs which need infrastructure ahead of populations, so as they do not sprawl out too far and grow unwisely -- as many of our larger cities have already done.Huh? That may be fine and dandy in the South and West where populations are growing in medium sized cities...but those medium sized cities are seeing population declines in the North and Midwest.

Sure, the larger areas have tax bases in place, but they don't go to funding state roadwork. That's the state's job, which as we have proven, the metropolitan areas are getting the shaft on.

[whyhuhwhy]

But if the dollar starts to lose any value, we can just print more of them to make sure all projects and programs are funded and paid for, then declare inflation illegal :tup:

LOL. It wouldn't surprise me lately honestly.

[donclark]

Viewliner car sets for long distance travel is for both rural and urban populations. Much like the interstate highway system, improved routes of better speed will be built from the cities outward to rural America to other urban cities.... Rural America will get more than their share.....

[Cirrus]

The problem is the stimulus money flowed through the state DOTs, of which almost all favor rural areas above cities, and have done so for decades.

If you want to change this, you have to take power away from the state DOTs and put it in the hands of metropolitan MPOs instead.

[wong21fr]

I agree with you but it kind of gets lost in the bigger picture that we are already screwed. I'm seeing economic estimates saying our deficit will now be over $2 trillion dollars this year, especially now with Congress ramming through a massive increase in health care spending. And we aren't even fighting a major war! We are already broke and spending money we don't have. It's like the government's become Paris Hilton and gotten itself a brand new Platinum card, only the Hilton family is totally broke and the credit card bills haven't come in yet, but no matter that she's on Michigan Avenue right now in the middle of an all out spree at Neiman Marcus. And now I'm reading in today's news that inflation is starting to rear its ugly head because in order to pay all the bills she's printing a ton of new "Hilton bucks" to "pay" for it all. Just amazing amazing times we live in.

If you watch the news, we are fighting a major war. Two in fact.

[sukwoo]

The problem is the stimulus money flowed through the state DOTs, of which almost all favor rural areas above cities, and have done so for decades.

I'm curious why this is the case. Is political power within states disproportionately wielded by rural areas? On a national level, the Senate is the best example of disproportionate rural power (ie, Wyoming and California both get two seats), but I can't see why all/most individual states would have a similar bias.

[wong21fr]

The problem is the stimulus money flowed through the state DOTs, of which almost all favor rural areas above cities, and have done so for decades.

If you want to change this, you have to take power away from the state DOTs and put it in the hands of metropolitan MPOs instead.

That the stimulus funding also stipulated that projects be "shovel ready" was a negative for cities as well. It's a hell of a lot easier to plan and receive approval for shoulder work on a rural road than to grade seperate a railroad line in a city.

[ardecila]

I'm curious why this is the case. Is political power within states disproportionately wielded by rural areas? On a national level, the Senate is the best example of disproportionate rural power (ie, Wyoming and California both get two seats), but I can't see why all/most individual states would have a similar bias.

Most states are set up with a bicameral legislature modeled off of Congress, i.e. a House and Senate. So, in state Senates, power goes disproportionately to rural areas.

There's also the fact that cities do, in fact, receive more money overall from state governments than rural areas, for social services, transit operation, power subsidy, and a whole host of other things.

Rural areas and small cities have typically gotten a much simpler set of funding, much of which is transportation money.

In other words, rural areas get disproportionate amounts of transportation money because they don't get much of anything else.

[Cirrus]

^
I don't know about where you come from, but that is SO not true in Virginia.

Virginia has all manner of rules on the books sending all sorts of money to rural areas. Two years ago the state allowed a couple of the urban counties in Northern Virginia to tax themselves specifically for transportation, and EVEN THEN through a series of nonsensical legislation, most of the money somehow eventually ended up in the Rural Virginia Education Fund.

Overall, cities virtually never get back more from the state than they give in taxes.

[donclark]

And I won't feel sorry about Amtrak's stimulus funds either. Out of a $800 billion total stimulus package nationwide, Amtrak's puny little $1.3 billion stimulus package is alike less than two cents of a total ten dollar package. How much did airports and highways get? At least Amtrak got some chunk change this time. Gripe about the other nine dollars and ninety-eight cents....

Or complain about the bailouts supporting banks and industry, trillions of dollars have gone down that rat hole....

[mSeattle]

There are decent sized and fast-growing metro areas in the dark shaded parts of the map: Spokane, Yakima, Tri-Cities. This is the sunny side of the state. Wine country business and tourism are growing in the central and south east and these roads are often 1 or 2 lanes in each direction with lots of big trucks.

Would new "freightways" be cost-effective?

I would like for local and state transportation spending to go more into rail. If we can use the stimulus money to move the roads issue off the table then I'm ok with that.

[donclark]

I agree with you but it kind of gets lost in the bigger picture that we are already screwed. I'm seeing economic estimates saying our deficit will now be over $2 trillion dollars this year, especially now with Congress ramming through a massive increase in health care spending. And we aren't even fighting a major war! We are already broke and spending money we don't have. It's like the government's become Paris Hilton and gotten itself a brand new Platinum card, only the Hilton family is totally broke and the credit card bills haven't come in yet, but no matter that she's on Michigan Avenue right now in the middle of an all out spree at Neiman Marcus. And now I'm reading in today's news that inflation is starting to rear its ugly head because in order to pay all the bills she's printing a ton of new "Hilton bucks" to "pay" for it all. Just amazing amazing times we live in.

In Texas they are building I-69 as a toll road/free road. When you drive through town the highway between towns will be free, for local traffic, whereas if you drive around town on the interstate bypass, you will be paying a toll, or in other words for long distance drivers the interstate won't be free....

Instead of toll booths, the state is setting up scanners to read the stickers on the windshields of our cars, and will send us a bill monthly in the mail. The state could do this to every free interstate highway as well.

Simply put, nationwide and with many states, the gas tax hasn't been increased for several years. While gas prices went up to over five dollars per gallon last year, at least doubling the price, our governments refuse to increase the gas tax a penny per gallon....

And one wonders why tax rates are not keeping pace with inflation? One wonders why the highway trust fund doesn't have any money in the fund...
Nevermind the population will double in size in the next twenty to thirty years....with most likely twice as much gridlock.....

Definition of gridlock in my book is sitting for a red light more than twice before I can proceed through the intersection....