New Deal II

[MightyAlweg]

Originally Posted by pdxman

I have to agree with you MightyAlweg on everything you brought up, except the point about 4 lanes running by the rose garden. I would say there is only actually 2 lanes that run through that area--both of those lanes being dedicated i-5 lanes.

I was just going off of memory from when I was stuck in traffic there for 10 minutes a few times during my August visit. I just remember counting the lanes on one hand and thinking "This is Interstate 5? I've seen drive-thru banks with more lanes than this! How have they not widened and modernized this yet?!"

[NJD]

Public Works Projects Promoted at Hearing

NYTimes By ROBERT PEAR
Published: October 29, 2008

WASHINGTON — Business executives and Republicans joined Democrats and labor unions in clamoring Wednesday for a multibillion dollar initiative to stimulate the economy with more federal spending on roads and bridges, waterways, airports, railways, schools and energy-saving technology.

Now is not the time to worry about the federal budget deficit, the witnesses and members of Congress said at a hearing of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey, a Democrat, told the committee that Congress should take action “post-election, not post-inauguration” — in November or December, instead of waiting until after the new administration takes over in late January — to provide $250 billion to $300 billion for new projects.

Representative James L. Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota and chairman of the committee, said he was tired of hearing from economists who believed that spending on public works would not be of much help because the projects were built slowly, over months or years.

“The problem with those economists,” Mr. Oberstar said, “is that they never had their hands on a shovel and never had a callus on them.”

Lawmakers of both parties said that Congress, having passed a $700 billion bill to bail out banks and Wall Street investment houses, now needed to help consumers and smaller businesses.

Mr. Oberstar said that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, had made a “firm commitment” to pass an economic recovery bill, with money for transportation and public works, as soon as possible.

Ms. Pelosi said this week that she would try to work with President Bush to “find bipartisan agreement on an economic recovery package.” She emphasized the need for “fiscal discipline,” and House leadership aides said that any bill passed this year was unlikely to provide more than $100 billion.

Mr. Bush threatened to veto a $61 billion stimulus bill passed by the House on Sept. 26. “Infrastructure projects require lengthy time periods to plan and build and would not create a substantial number of jobs in the near future,” Mr. Bush said then.

Lawmakers took issue with the president on Wednesday.

Because of the recent slowdown, Mr. Oberstar said, “there is a huge backlog of infrastructure projects that are ready to go” in three or four months, if additional money is made available.

State transportation officials said they could start work on more than 3,000 highway projects totaling $18 billion within 30 to 90 days. Mass transit officials said they could have $8 billion of projects ready to go in 90 days.

The senior Republican on the committee, Representative John L. Mica of Florida, heartily endorsed the effort. “Every billion dollars of spending on highways and transportation projects results in 35,000 new jobs,” Mr. Mica said, using a figure in the midrange of estimates by economists.

Mr. Mica said that any bill should include tax relief to help businesses create jobs, perhaps by allowing them to write off equipment expenses faster.

The total package will probably cost $200 billion to $300 billion, Mr. Mica predicted.

Business executives and some economists said that such spending would increase economic activity, national income and productivity, thus generating revenue for the government.

Many points made Wednesday echoed arguments made long ago by Henry Clay, the Kentucky congressman who championed federal support for roads and canals in the 19th century, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who put hundreds of thousands of people to work on construction projects during the Depression.

John D. Porcari, the transportation secretary in Maryland, urged Congress on Wednesday to take a long view. “Transportation dollars are converted to physical assets that will last 50 to 100 years or more,” he said.

John Engler, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, and Terence M. O’Sullivan, president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, which represents construction workers, joined the chorus of support for the legislation.

“There is no better time than today” to begin a major program of public works projects, said Mr. Engler, a Republican who was governor of Michigan from 1991 through 2002.

The deteriorating condition of roads and bridges harms manufacturers, he said, because 80 percent of the nation’s freight is carried by truck. Moreover, he said, manufacturers depend on inland waterways to move coal, petroleum and agricultural products.

Mr. O’Sullivan said the construction industry was in the midst of the worst downturn in 40 years, with nearly one million construction workers, or one-tenth of the total, out of work.

“Construction jobs are too good to keep losing,” Mr. O’Sullivan said, noting that they paid an average of more than $40,000 a year.

The starting point for Congress is the bill passed last month by the House, which would provide money for public works projects, extended unemployment benefits, larger food stamp allotments and help for states struggling with Medicaid costs.

The National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties and the National League of Cities sent a joint letter to Congress this week appealing for help. They endorsed proposals for transportation spending and a temporary increase in the federal share of Medicaid.

Inevitably, Mr. Mica said, Congress will earmark some money for specific projects. But, he added, Congress will avoid “bad earmarks” and the legislation will not be stuffed with pork barrel projects.

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by MightyAlweg

I was just going off of memory from when I was stuck in traffic there for 10 minutes a few times during my August visit. I just remember counting the lanes on one hand and thinking "This is Interstate 5? I've seen drive-thru banks with more lanes than this! How have they not widened and modernized this yet?!"

And I5 in the East LA interchange drops down to only three lanes. Let's see - 2 lanes for 2 million people (PDX) versus 3 three lanes for over 10 million people (LAX). Seems like the point could be made that LA's I5 is more deficient than Portland's I5.

Side note - I lived in Portland for 26 years and I've now lived in LA for 15 years, so I have relevant experience to make this observation.

[MightyAlweg]

Originally Posted by rsbear

And I5 in the East LA interchange drops down to only three lanes. Let's see - 2 lanes for 2 million people (PDX) versus 3 three lanes for over 10 million people (LAX). Seems like the point could be made that LA's I5 is more deficient than Portland's I5.

Side note - I lived in Portland for 26 years and I've now lived in LA for 15 years, so I have relevant experience to make this observation.

You and I have lived similar lives. I was in the Northwest for 25 years, and have been in SoCal for 15 years.

Now I live happily in Orange County and try never to drive north of the 91 Freeway. If I do go to LA, usually once per year to the Auto Show, I take the Surfliner from the Anaheim station or Metrolink from the Orange station and then take the Red line to the Blue line to get to the convention center.

I just refuse to drive on LA County's decrepit freeways. You can tell you have crossed over the Orange County line on I-5 when it goes from three lanes to eight lanes. When it comes to driving I stay happily in Orange County, with occasional jaunts to San Diego or Palm Springs. LA just isn't my scene.

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by MightyAlweg

You and I have lived similar lives. I was in the Northwest for 25 years, and have been in SoCal for 15 years.

Now I live happily in Orange County and try never to drive north of the 91 Freeway. If I do go to LA, usually once per year to the Auto Show, I take the Surfliner from the Anaheim station or Metrolink from the Orange station and then take the Red line to the Blue line to get to the convention center.

I just refuse to drive on LA County's decrepit freeways. You can tell you have crossed over the Orange County line on I-5 when it goes from three lanes to eight lanes. When it comes to driving I stay happily in Orange County, with occasional jaunts to San Diego or Palm Springs. LA just isn't my scene.

Similar but opposite - I try never to go south of the 10 let alone the OC line.

[NJD]

Next ‘New Deal’
Portland Business Journal - by Erik Siemers Business Journal staff writer

Government officials want to kick-start the dormant regional economy with billions of dollars in public works projects, leaving local manufacturers and contractors eager to nab a share.

Plans such as Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s proposal to spend $500 million on transportation projects annually over several years has Portland Bolt & Manufacturing Co. hopeful to fill its growing northwest Portland plant.

“Our forecasting on what the future holds isn’t sure. We’re tied to infrastructure jobs like light rail and highway work,” said Adam Oakley, Portland Bolt’s marketing manager. “Our hope is with Kulongoski’s new bill to spend more on roads and bridges. That ties directly into what we do.”

Similar hope echoes from other Portland manufacturers and contractors as government leaders — from Kulongoski to Mayor-elect Sam Adams to President-elect Barack Obama — advocate for public works projects to create jobs and stimulate the economy.

Besides Kulongoksi’s plan, which promises 6,700 jobs per year across the first five years, city commissioners are seeking federal funds for $1.3 billion in public works projects creating 8,800 jobs. Obama has pitched a $175 billion economic recovery plan that includes public works spending, according to reports.

Economists and policy experts see public investment in infrastructure as an effective move in a downturn, adding jobs and putting cash in the pockets of consumers while embarking upon critical repair and construction projects.

“I don’t think it’s a reason in a downturn just for a state to build pyramids,” said Joe A. Stone, an economics professor at the University of Oregon. “But if we need a road improvement project, it probably is a time to do it when costs will be lower because construction firms don’t have so many other projects.”

While excited about the prospect of filling their shops with work, Portland-area companies are also cautious. They note that big projects can take up to a year, if not longer, to trickle down to subcontractors.

“At this point we’re feeling a bit more buoyant. But on the other hand, what we’re not seeing is an immediate translation of that into orders,” said Albert England, chief operating officer at the Irwin-Hodson Co., a commercial printer whose work includes traffic signs. “You have to be positive about the future. But you have to be prepared in the event your optimism is unfounded.”

Gene Nelson owns Sundown Electric Co., a Forest Grove-based company that specializes in electrical work for highway infrastructure projects.

A boost in government public works jobs would be welcome, especially since work from the Oregon Department of Transportation has dwindled in recent months.

While the new spending plans are encouraging, Nelson is also quick to temper expectations of immediate job growth.

“This new influx, we may not see for six, eight months, maybe a year,” he said. “Nobody’s going to run out and hire a bunch of people for something that’s not going to happen this year.”

Governments using public works projects as an agent of economic stimulus harkens to the days of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, when the government made massive investments in public projects to spur job growth at a time of economic turmoil.

Speaking to House and Senate Interim Transportation Committees last week, Kulongoski drew on that history to make a case for his so-called “Jobs and Transportation Act of 2009.”

“I will remind you that national leaders — including presidents Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan — all used investments in transportation to help pull America’s economy out of a downward spiral,” he said. “In doing so, they earned for our nation both economic and national security dividends.”

Kulongoski’s plan calls for spending $499 million per year on a range of programs, from basic road maintenance, to keeping the Columbia River Crossing project running to investments in renewable energy technologies for transportation. The work is projected to support 6,700 jobs a year across the first five years.

The projects would be paid for by increases in vehicle registration and title fees, a 2-cent fuel tax increase, and a new first-time title fee.

Officials in the governor’s office said his upcoming biennial budget, to be unveiled Dec. 1, is also expected to address capital construction at universities.

Similarly, Portland city commissioners have submitted funding requests to the federal government for 64 public works projects valued at $1.3 billion. The projects would create 8,800 jobs through June 2010 and mostly include infrastructure upgrades. They also include a $428 million plan for various water supply improvements.

[zilfondel]

Well, at least prices are going down, so it should be cheaper to build now because of deflation and $49/barrel oil prices.

[electricron]

Transportation projects do take a lot of time to get environmental clearances, up to 10 years from scratch.

On the other hand, there are a lot of transportation projects that already have environmental clearances that are gathering dust because funding isn't available. Once funds become available, it shouldn't take long to complete the bidding process and for construction to start.

Has the I 5 bridge project completed it's EIS yet?
If yes, do the State Transportation Departments have funding available for the local match?

[MightyAlweg]

Mr. Obama has announced his big proposal to spend big to put 2.5 Million people to work "building roads and bridges".

I will find it absolutely fascinating to watch how President Obama performs this tricky high-wire act getting funding for tens of Billions of dollars in road, bridge and highway funding passed, while simultaneously keeping his credibility with the anti-car left that supported his bid for the White House.

The Columbia River Crossing is a perfect example; a glaring need to replace a 90 year old bridge that forms the backbone of the sole Interstate Highway on the West Coast. And with only three lanes of travel in each direction it's a rather tiny project compared to the 10+ lane bridges that routinely get built in major metro areas around the country.

To anyone from Washington (or Chicago), the CRC would seem like a no-brainer to not only replace the country's crumbling infrastructure, but to also provide good jobs to people who need them in the next few years. And yet many people are vehemently opposed to replacing any part of that bridge that dares carry a private automobile propelled by an internal combustion engine.

I can't wait to see how people in Portland react to a federal proposal blessed by President Obama to help fund the CRC project and get that freeway going.

[65MAX]

You're absolutely right, this is a no-brainer. Anywhere else in the country would have already built this by now (or their local equivalent). And they would have done it without rail transit. Or bike and pedestrian access. The CRC has all of that and people STILL get bent out of shape. For them, only the status quo will do, anything new or improved is evil. Just build the damn thing.

Another thing these anti-car people fail to realize is that automobiles will not always be internal combustion. They will be alternatively-powered; electric, liquid hydrogen, fuel cell, nuclear fusion, whatever. There will STILL be millions of cars on the roads and highways even after gas and oil are no longer used to power them.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

You're absolutely right, this is a no-brainer. Anywhere else in the country would have already built this by now (or their local equivalent). And they would have done it without rail transit. Or bike and pedestrian access. The CRC has all of that and people STILL get bent out of shape. For them, only the status quo will do, anything new or improved is evil. Just build the damn thing.

Another thing these anti-car people fail to realize is that automobiles will not always be internal combustion. They will be alternatively-powered; electric, liquid hydrogen, fuel cell, nuclear fusion, whatever. There will STILL be millions of cars on the roads and highways even after gas and oil are no longer used to power them.

Really? Have you checked the number of lanes of IH 5 through Portland?

Widen this bridge, you will also have to widen 20 miles of IH 5, in urban areas of Oregon alone. It's not just a bridge project across the Columbia River. I also doubt the bridge is the sole cause of traffic gridlock either.

[philopdx]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

You're absolutely right, this is a no-brainer. Anywhere else in the country would have already built this by now (or their local equivalent). And they would have done it without rail transit. Or bike and pedestrian access. The CRC has all of that and people STILL get bent out of shape. For them, only the status quo will do, anything new or improved is evil. Just build the damn thing.

Another thing these anti-car people fail to realize is that automobiles will not always be internal combustion. They will be alternatively-powered; electric, liquid hydrogen, fuel cell, nuclear fusion, whatever. There will STILL be millions of cars on the roads and highways even after gas and oil are no longer used to power them.

I agree, to a limited extent. And as someone currently who doesn't own a car and someone who supported the President Elect, I guess I am a card-carrying member of the "anti-car left" brigade. Although I strongly support alternatives to automobile use, I do think some sort of personal transport will always be around.

That being said, I've seen the drawbacks of a car-based lifestyle, even excluding carbon from the equation.

I lived most of my life in the leafy suburbs of the deep south surrounded by fresh, ever-expanding black-top. We had no other options but automobile travel, so when gridlock arrived, it generally took about 15 years to widen 10-15 miles of interstate, just in time to - you guessed it - begin widening it again!!

And for some stubborn reason, sprawl kept following the path blazed by that fresh black top. For the new transplants to outlying counties, what was once a 10 minute commute became 30, 40, 50 minutes.

At some point, by spending an increasing fraction of our lives in cars commuting longer distances to work, don't we deprive the economy the productivity it needs to keep growing?

Also, as pasture lands are gobbled up by the exurbs, you get an exacerbated runoff problem, a greater urban heat island effect and worse air quality.

And of course, the deep south has quite a prodigious appetite for the federal subsidies that make all those highways possible. In contrast, some places like Portland have used the federal money available to build transportation that doesn't take 15 years to scale up if necessary.

Not that Portland is perfect in its land use and transportation allocation decisions, but I do admire the fact that they tried something different and it seems to have paid off handsomely.

So in sum, I think the bridges need replacing, but it won't solve the problem of gridlock elsewhere on I-5. I also think a robust transit network should be developed alongside any road replacements or upgrades so that we have established right of way for greater scalability in the future!

Hopefully, along the way, we can avoid the fates of Atlanta or DFW. (Although, even they have now come to their senses and are busy developing alternatives to expanding highways exclusively)

[MightyAlweg]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Another thing these anti-car people fail to realize is that automobiles will not always be internal combustion. They will be alternatively-powered; electric, liquid hydrogen, fuel cell, nuclear fusion, whatever. There will STILL be millions of cars on the roads and highways even after gas and oil are no longer used to power them.

Great point! Even with gasoline powered internal combustion engines, they've become dramatically more efficient and cleaner in just the past 10 years, after already increasing their efficiency in the 1970's and 80's and 90's. The average 2009 Honda Accord now emits no more pollutants in hundreds of thousands of driven miles than the average car of 1955 did in just one thousand driven miles.

I'm off to the Los Angeles Auto Show on Monday afternoon, and while I will head straight to check out the new 2010 Mustang with the newly revised 4.6L 315 horsepower V8 (that gets 25 miles per gallon freeway), I will also be interested to see the growing list of hybrid cars for sale, as well as amazing new cars like the new 2009 Honda FCX Clarity hydrogen fuel cell car now for sale to regular consumers and currently driving the roads of Southern California emiting nothing but water vapor.

In 20 years when the new Columbia River bridge is long since completed, I can't even imagine the amazing fleet of gas-hybrid, hydrogen-hybrid, pure-electric, and clean gasoline cars and trucks that will be using it! Things always get better, with technology and human ingenuity leading the way, and it boggles my mind that people think the cars of 2020 will be belching fumes and guzzling gas like the cars of 1955.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by electricron

Really? Have you checked the number of lanes of IH 5 through Portland?

Widen this bridge, you will also have to widen 20 miles of IH 5, in urban areas of Oregon alone. It's not just a bridge project across the Columbia River. I also doubt the bridge is the sole cause of traffic gridlock either.

No, it's not just I-5 that feeds the Interstate Bridge. From the north, you also have Hwys 14 and 500, plus any traffic from DT Vancouver or the Port that needs to go south. Likewise from the south, you have Jantzen Beach (WA shoppers heading home), MLK, Interstate Ave and Marine Drive all feeding the bridge.

I-5 itself doesn't need to be widened beyond its current 3 lanes each way (or soon-to-be 3 lanes SB at Delta Park). Like I-84, there'll always be heavy traffic on I-5, you can't build enough lanes to eliminate it. But a new bridge will help alleviate the bottleneck. Why would anybody be against that?

[65MAX]

Incidently, it took less than one year to plan, fund and build a brand new major freeway bridge (I-35W, I believe) over the Mississippi in Minneapolis. Granted, they had a more urgent need because of the collapse. Just saying, we shouldn't wait so long to make needed upgrades to our infrastructure. This goes for the Sellwood, too.

[zilfondel]

Why? Because tolling the existing bridge now would significantly reduce congestion today - and help pay for maintenance of the freeway system (which is running out of money).

Encouraging Clark County Sprawl is not a good thing. McMansions in exurbs is not a very effective housing strategy, as the current housing bubble crisis has showed us. Also, Metro believes that it costs more money to develop greenfield sites rather than infill sites. Why would anybody be against that?

Oh wait... maybe there is an urban sprawl agenda in the suburban developers and auto companies that is supporting and pushing for the bridge? Just maybe???

I believe that investing hundreds of millions of Oregon transportation taxpayer dollars to rebuild Washington's freeways is a very sad investment, particularly when it will simply accelerate suburban sprawl in Clark County and, without proper management of the freeway lanes that are there, will simply get filled up again.

I have heard far better, and less costly strategies involving realigning the RR and freeway bridges for ship traffic (which would minimize the # of bridge raises), raising the freeway bridges slightly, fixing the onramp and offramps to the island, and building a MAX/ped/arterial bridge to Vancouver. I read it on the portland transport blog about a year ago or more, but was predicted to save billions of $$.

By keeping the CRC idea around for all these years means what exactly? They're just waiting until everyone accepts it even if its a terrible idea? Sounds like defeat to me!

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Incidently, it took less than one year to plan, fund and build a brand new major freeway bridge (I-35W, I believe) over the Mississippi in Minneapolis. Granted, they had a more urgent need because of the collapse. Just saying, we shouldn't wait so long to make needed upgrades to our infrastructure. This goes for the Sellwood, too.

THere was a clear-cut need to rebuild that bridge in Minn: their old one collapsed.

There is NOT a clear-cut need to rebuild a bridge that is doing its job. Instead, there is still debate as to:

-do we really need a new bridge?
-do we need to expand capacity?
-do we need tolls?
-do we need MAX?

these are still being debated. The CRC commission has just been a tool of freight/sprawl lobbyists and their own self-interest in promoting a new bridge and spending lots of $$$ for "jobs." However, the bridge will do practically nothing but allow more Clark County commuters access to north portland. How does more traffic in nopo benifit portlanders?

This is a city that has killed 2 freeways already. I'd rather see more alternative transportation than handouts to Clark Co., who can't even reign in the sprawl that they've been generating.

[urbanlife]

I do support Obama's idea of rebuilding bridges and roads and I support being anti car.

When the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, governments were hit with a realization that many of the bridges in this country needed to be rebuilt or extra work needed to be provided to them. Our current president did little to add this, which he could of easily did what Obama is proposing and would of softened the job loss that is going on now. While improving our aging infrastructure. What is nice with Obama is that he understands the need for a "green economy" and I have a feeling with alot of these new projects, there will be a jump in rail projects as well, which we all know is good for Portland.

[MightyAlweg]

Big announcement today from Mr. Obama! And it's just as many of us suspected. For many on the far left it's going to be a bitter pill to swallow from the man they helped elect. From Politico...

"President-elect Barack Obama added sweep and meat to his economic agenda on Saturday, pledging the largest new investment in roads and bridges since President Dwight D. Eisenhower built the Interstate system in the late 1950s" http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16258.html

Reading the rest of the article, it looked like the Obama presidency isn't planned so much to be a Roosevelt II, but rather an Eisenhower II.

His summation of the first plank in his jobs platform, right from Mr. Obama's mouth...

—ROADS AND BRIDGES: “[W]e will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s. We’ll invest your precious tax dollars in new and smarter ways, and we’ll set a simple rule – use it or lose it. If a state doesn’t act quickly to invest in roads and bridges in their communities, they’ll lose the money.”

Personally, this makes me very happy. But I know there is a small yet passionate slice of my fellow Obama voters who will reel back in horror. The only good part is that this is all coming from Mr. Obama right off the bat while the Dems still have a majority on Capitol Hill. If Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain had made the exact same statement above the shrieks of horror and disgust from the left would have been immediate regarding the car friendly plan above.

[Sekkle]

^ I think you may be overestimating the size and militancy of the "anti-car left" voting bloc. The opinions of many in this particular forum notwithstanding, I don't think most people who voted for Obama are vehemently anti-car or based their vote on their perception of him being anti-car.

But I do wish there was more emphasis on rail and transit in general in these stimulus plans. I suspect that it all falls under the umbrella of "infrastructure," but it would be nice if instead of just saying we'll invest in "roads and bridges" they were saying "roads, bridges and transit." There is no doubt we have a need for highway and bridge repair/maintenance/upgrades, but we're also way behind most developed countries when it comes to rail. I think it's just as important to develop viable alternatives to the car as it is to fix our road network, and it could help create jobs in just the same way.