Posted on 12/19/2008 9:03:39 AM PST by NormsRevenge
Democrats have two goals when it comes to writing a stimulus package: Kick-start the economy, and make it a greener one.
But a list of “shovel-ready” road and bridge construction projects pushed by state highway officials to boost the economy and create jobs is a depressingly familiar shade of gray to a group of transit, environmental and “smart growth” advocates.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) said there are 5,000 ready-to-go projects, worth $64 billion. Fully funded, the projects would support 1.8 million jobs, the group said.
New roads and bridges translate into more cars on the road, however. That means more dependence on foreign oil and increased levels of greenhouse gases, according to critics.
“The stuff we’re seeing is more of the same,” said Robert Puentes, who runs the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution.
Puentes and other members of a new coalition, Transportation for America, have put together a counteroffer they say will meet both goals of creating jobs and protecting the environment. Unlike the lists put forward by state transportation officials, Transportation for America’s is heavy on transit programs and more bike and walk paths. It also pays for maintenance and repair of roads and bridges already built.
The group had been preparing to take on an entrenched highway lobby in a new transportation bill, which Congress takes up every five years or so and was set again to start debating in 2009. With members discussing infrastructure spending on the order of what President Eisenhower dedicated to create the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s in the first place, green transportation advocates are ramping up their lobbying efforts to convince Congress to rethink over a half-century of transportation policy in the next month.
It’s a quick turnaround, but advocates say the timing is perfect given the outcome of the recent election.
“If we move toward the change people voted for, we move toward a green recovery that could create thousands and thousands of jobs,” said Geoff Anderson, president and CEO of Smart Growth America.
Transportation for America has identified more than $33 billion worth of projects that meet the shovel-ready standard. In total, the group said Congress should spend $100 million on light rail lines and other transit programs, maintaining the existing highway system and building new bike and walk paths.
Deron Lovaas, transportation policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said there should be no “tension” between the goals of creating jobs and developing a more climate-friendly transportation system.
“There are a ton of shovel-ready projects,” Lovaas said.
“The No. 1 imperative is to create jobs. Yes, let’s do that. But you can do it in a way that invests in the future,” Anderson said.
“It is not clear-cut at all that building a new road would create more jobs,” Anderson said.
But road advocates say new construction is needed to meet growing demand.
AASHTO Executive Director John Horsley said in a statement that “automobile travel is now and will remain the predominant form of transportation for people and freight across America, and highway investment is desperately needed.”
Janet Kavinoky, the main transportation lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the notion that no money should be spent on new road construction represents a “very narrow worldview” that doesn’t account for how congestion on America’s highway system restricts economic flow.
There are 173 major truck bottlenecks now in the current transportation system, Kavinoky said. The 10 most congested interchanges each caused truckers 1.5 million hours of delays, Kavinoky said.
“You can’t tell me we shouldn’t be putting more money in road construction,” she said. “Freight does not travel on transit.”
Democrats have indicated that the stimulus would likely pay for projects that have already been approved and gone through the usual permitting process. President-elect Obama has said the priority should be on efforts that can start quickly and be finished in two years.
AASHTO’s list is not all new roads and bridges, but Anderson, Lovaas and Puentes say that too much of it is. Because the list is a compilation of state lists put together by transportation officials and not all states have released their lists to the public, the critics can’t be sure how many are new projects.
The lists that are public show a prejudice toward highways and bridges. Puentes said as much as 95 percent of the programs go to traditional transportation programs.
Another goal is to require states to be more forthcoming about how federal dollars would be spent.
Lovaas compared the process unfavorably to the open debate on the auto bailout.
“We put the CEOs through the paces. We put the companies through the paces. We need to do it with state Departments of Transportation,” Lovaas said.
The three said they have briefed both congressional staff and members of the Obama administration on their proposals and have received a favorable response.
“The message is ‘Help us screen these projects, and do it quickly,’ ” Lovaas said.
We all pay more
‘Smart’ has a whole new meaning these days.
“Smart” = “NO”
They're starting to build new roadways now.
Agreed.
Almost every new subdivision in smart growth planning has 8 houses to an acre. Kids have nowhere to play around the house, not even enough room to toss a ball around. The only room to run is in the streets or at a "park" in the middle of the sub. I love my 1/2 acre.
“The lists that are public show a prejudice toward highways and bridges.”
That’s what people actually USE. Bike paths...yeah right. How will that help the economy? Forget the keynesian nonsense. Infrastructure only helps the economy when it helps speed things up.
Even for freight transport, the majority is via trucks. So while I’m in favor of a high speed rail system for freight, I have to concede that the best bang for the buck is probably special truck-only lanes.
don’t these enviros want healthy living?
If you think that's bad, they have been trying to build a 15 miles Circumferential Hwy (Sort of a bypass of congested areas near Burlington VT) since 1975.
SO FAR THEY HAVE COMPLETED ONE 4 MILE STRETCH.
The rest has been tied up in lawsuits (MOSTLY FROM FAR LEFT ENVIRONUT GROUPS FROM OUT OF STATE, NO LESS) for years with little chance that the remainder will be built in my lifetime.
SHEESH!!!
A very long time ago they built a bypass around Seattle — I-5 went straight through, so they built I-405. For a long time now I-405 has been part of the urban area and another bypass further out was discussed, I-605. That never got off the ground.
Let’s start by repairing and maintaining the bridges and roads we already have. Funding has been stolen by the legislature and costs have risen so high that our existing infrastructure is degrading. Fix that first, then new roads can be considered.
***“Smart” = “NO”***
Totally agree. So-called “smart” housing is nothing more than cramming too many people into too small an area. In addition, it crams existing roads with people getting to and from the “smart” communities. Towns like it because they get more taxpayers. Everyone in the town suffers because of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.