New Analysis Shows How 19 States Want to Spend Their Transportation Stimulus Cash
Friends of the Earth has put together a new analysis of 19 states' requests for transportation projects to be funded as part of the coming stimulus bill. (Hat tip to the excellent Streetsblog network.)
As the FoE analysis shows, states are wildly divergent on the key political question of whether to spend transportation stimulus money on building new roads or repairing existing ones. The House has nothing in its version that would require states to use stimulus cash only on repairs, despite strong sentiments in that direction from Democratic leaders and the American public.
Of the 19 state transportation proposals examined by FoE, Utah is the worst offender, with 97% in proposed spending on new capacity and 3% on repairs. Massachusetts, by contrast, scores a perfect 100% in seeking only stimulus money for road maintenance.
Does anyone think this will make Congress think twice about requiring states to first spend the money on improving existing infrastructure before building shiny new highways?
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Hate to say this, but Utah isn't that bad. It's only 97% of 72% of the total allotment. 38% goes to mass transit, which actually is surprising for Utah. Also, Utah is kind of spread out, so I can see how they might need new capacity.
I'm more annoyed with california. 31% of 60% for new capacity????? That's the last thing that california needs is more asphalt paving over the state. It should be solely repairs and mass transit.
February 2, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am far more worried about Kent Conrad who on MSNBC just now just as much as said that he wanted to reinflate the housing bubble to revive the economy.
Though he's blatantly seeking a TARP II deal with his posturing, ideas like a $10,000 tax credit for first time homebuyers and an FDIC run mortgage renegotitian scheme won't do squat for short term recovery or mass transit for that matter
February 2, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
And neither of these impacts homes that are already bank-owned foreclosures. Therefore, the toxic assets remain toxic and continue to drag down the finance sector.
Bottom line: there isn't enough wealth in the world to revive the finance sector without retroactively eliminating credit default swaps on an international scale.
Or... let the finance sector fall apart and nationalize banking with an eye to job creation.
Either solution is way too commie for the talking heads... but they are too invested in the health of the patient to admit that the cancer is terminal.
February 2, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
How does a $10,000 tax credit for first time homebuyers not impact homes that are already bank-owned foreclosures?
Right now about 10% of mortgagees are either behind in payments or in foreclosure. Those toxic assets are toxic because there's no market for them regardless of their underlying value. Even if nothing was done, unemployment rose to 25%, millions more defaulted on their mortgages and the mortgage default rate ballooned to say 50% the property and buildings underlying the mortgages that underlie the assets still exist and still have value.
February 2, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh puh-leeze. As if a) its appropriate for Washington to be dicating a repair to new asphalt ratio and, b) the distinction is meaningful in the first place.
Run a little thought expiriment with me.
In State A, a candidate for governor became sick of the deterioriating condition of her state's roads due to the legislature's preference for laying new pavement and ran on a promise to change that policy. Her promise gained national attention after a bridge collapse killed several people and, after she won, she succeeded in passing a law requiring the state to prioritize repair and maintenence over new construction. Because of her state's newly achieved high rate of repair, she was unable to accept or use any of the stimulus money from Washington because it came with provisions, urged by a coalition of environmentalists and liberal bloggers, prohibiting expenditures for new construction.
Meanwhile over in State X, the existing highways had fallen into a state of near ruin that was the shame of the state and a national laughing stock because the legislature was absolutely addicted to new construction. Aware that the pending stimulus bill would limit funding to maintenence and repair of existing infrastructure, the wily legislative leadership zeros out every last dollar of money appropriated for repairs and maintenance from its pending budget bill and reallocates 100% of that money to new construction projects that they had previously never dreamed they could get funded.
The result? No new construction in State A, no matter how badly needed the project and the jobs and even more new construction in State X than there otherwise would have been had Congress been able to resist the impulse to micromanage.
February 2, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
All excellent points, as always.
February 2, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good points. There is something seriously wrong about the level of micro management suggested in the article.
February 2, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about prorating stimulus payments to states based on how their Congressional delegation voted on the package? Seems only fair that states whose Congressmen and Senators are not in favor of stimulus ought to be willing to forgo it in accord with their political and moral values. And besides, it makes all the more for those of us living in states that a) annually send lots more money to Washington than we ever get back and b) have elected progressive Congressional delegations.
February 2, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are Utah's roads in disrepair or do they need new construction? Do you know? Does anyone here know?
Is Elena a reporter or a stenographer?
February 2, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have them throw in population density and then I'll take the whole thing seriously.
Thanks.
February 2, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taking your point one step further,let's look at pop. density CHANGE over the last few years. Some states that have huge pop. gains need more new roads to get from point A to some newly created point B than they need to repair existing ones.
February 2, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink