Reason to worry about the stimulus bill:
Missouri’s plan to spend $750 million in federal money on highways and nothing on mass transit in St. Louis doesn’t square with President-elect Barack Obama’s vision for a revolutionary re-engineering of the nation’s infrastructure.
Utah would pour 87 percent of the funds it may receive in a new economic stimulus bill into new road capacity. Arizona would spend $869 million of its $1.2 billion wish list on highways.
While many states are keeping their project lists secret, plans that have surfaced show why environmentalists and some development experts say much of the stimulus spending may promote urban sprawl while scrimping on more green-friendly rail and mass transit.
“It’s a lot of more of the same,” said Robert Puentes, a metropolitan growth and development expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington who is tracking the legislation. “You build a lot of new highways, continue to decentralize” urban and suburban communities and “pull resources away from transit.”
If we screw this up it’s going to deserve a special place in the annals of missed opportunities.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!
A $4 billion push to make affordable housing green
Comments
View as Threaded
hapa Posted 9:00 am
29 Dec 2008
how much pressure (and reward) there is to stick to conventional wisdom?
there will be pain and punishment for seeking alternatives before they're easy as breathing. we're not brave people. the first risk that needs averting is loss of market share. then we can talk about "change."
Permalink
wesrolley Posted 12:45 pm
29 Dec 2008
I don't think that a Senate with Robert Byrd and James Inhofe will allow much to happen without a filibuster and Obama does not have the votes to break on unless we provide them. Pressure on elected as the new Congress takes its seats.
Wes
Wes Rolley
CoChair - EcoAction Committee
Green Party US
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:39 pm
29 Dec 2008
So out of 850 billion dollars (perhaps) over two years, only 85 billion for infrastructure, of which 30 for roads and only 12 for transit? Hope not.
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 3:24 pm
29 Dec 2008
1. purpose of stimulus is immediate shock to economy by producing jobs and purchase power (by immediately employed)
immediate -- means immediate
road and bridge fixing is already planned, easiest to do. Also easiest to PASS immediately because it has existing constituencies everywhere (including rural states which, by the way, have two senators each -- brush off your math)
2. how much money could be spent wisely and IMMEDIATELY on mass transit
what? where?
if you find the specifics, and it is more than 12 billion in two years (Schumer wants 20 billion) then great
-- say what the good stuff is, and argue for it
not the amount, but the good stuff. make that the focus
otherwise, no meaningful discussion
just a lot of mindless chest thumping
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:06 pm
29 Dec 2008
Until it gets into the thick heads of Congressmen that cars, coal, suburbs and stripmalls are dead ends economically we are going to be stuck in futile cycling. Fixing the highways doesn't do squat if the offramp dumps your freight onto a gravel road or worse. Your county's broke and doesn't have the scratch to patch or pave what your daddy drove as smooth asphalt.
Meanwhile investments that have proven returns, in efficiency and dollars are neglected because the don't have a few spare million to bribe congress with. Every town in the US has single-paned windows, ancient furnaces, calcified water heaters, decrepit refrigerators, halogen area lighting, schools with temporary buildings and thermal profiles like a thin tent.
Swap those out for most-efficient equipment and suddenly dollar bills appear in in consumers hands that were going to coal, petroleum and gas giants. (sorry, gotta be losers somewhere)
Pull vehicles off the roads and convert them to short-range, plug-in hybrids. Lots of vehicles currently sporting 200 hp. engines could do just fine with 50 horsepower, a wad of ultra-caps and some batteries. The gas money saved is available to the rest of the economy instead of leaving the country to cover oil imports.
Stimulus, as we know it, burns wealth. The value of the money is destroyed on futile projects at least half the time. Conservation creates lasting value that frees resources, financial and physical, for use elsewhere. As far as elsewhere the US has to lay some track if it's going to get it's goods where they need to go. The roads are looking more like thin patchwork every day and I don't see the funds for replacements showing up anytime soon.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 10:53 pm
29 Dec 2008
but the problem is not simply bribes to Congressmen
the public does not agree. it does not want to pay for "private" improvements for people. it does want roads and cars
so your vision is missing quite a few important steps along the way
prioritize: what is most important first?
how can we get it?
what can we trade?
how can we influence the slovenly cowardly press?
outside of appointing Pangolin emperor tomorrow, there is no direct path to your goals
I am all for your elevation, of course. But I suggest the need for a Plan B
Permalink
cneal Posted 11:13 pm
29 Dec 2008
Their website is also equipped with action alerts. It's important for legislators to hear from their constituents about these issues - a few letters, phone calls, or e-mails can make a big difference.
http://t4america.org/
vigorousnorth.blogspot.com
A field guide to the wilderness areas of American inner cities.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:50 pm
29 Dec 2008
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:29 am
30 Dec 2008
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:45 am
30 Dec 2008
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 9:56 am
30 Dec 2008
Mass transit has been ignored for years and would do more for energy conservation and energy independance than any of the clean coal projects they are talking about. I see an environmental benifit for every citizen you take out of an automobile and out on a passenger train or natural gas bus.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
tlaskawy Posted 10:07 am
30 Dec 2008
I would also point out that Obama is on the record in support of a National Infrastructure Bank that would take the project-related decisions out of politicians hands (though this is more of a long-term solution). I believe Chris Dodd just introduced a new version of an NIB bill that could be tied into the stimulus.
Beyond Green
http://weaversway.coop/blog/
Permalink
RobKimball Posted 1:33 am
31 Dec 2008
American Rivers, together with a diverse bunch of partners including contractors, non profits, and state and community governments, has been pushing to include green water infrastructure in the stimulus. Green water projects create good, non-offshore-able jobs building effective infrastructure that lasts.
Check out http://www.americanrivers.org/greeninfrastructure for more info!
Rob Kimball, American Rivers - http://www.americanrivers.org
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:56 am
31 Dec 2008
<http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-transpo31-2008dec31,0,3768851.story>http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-transpo31-2008dec ...
Advocacy group criticizes California transportation wish list
The state plans to spend 31% of federal road money on creating new capacity instead of addressing long-deferred maintenance and repair projects, the group says.
By Patrick McGreevy
7:39 PM PST, December 30, 2008
California officials are counting on Washington to inject billions of dollars in transportation money to help revive the state economy. But a public advocacy group said the state's wish list of projects would undermine efforts to repair and modernize the state's crumbling infrastructure and reduce U.S. dependence on oil.
The California Public Interest Research Group reports that the state plans to spend 31% of road money on creating new capacity instead of addressing long-deferred maintenance and repair projects. By contrast, the group said, Massachusetts would commit 100% of its road funds to repairs.
"We can't afford to waste precious resources on new highways at the expense of ready-to-go projects to repair and maintain existing roads and bridges and expand public transportation," said Erin Steva, a spokeswoman for the group.
The group also faulted the California Department of Transportation's list, saying that only 37% of the funds would flow to public transportation. The group called for a higher percentage, citing the record ridership on California's mass transit systems, which have been hit by severe cutbacks in recent years. The proposed percentage is less than what is being planned in Tennessee, Wisconsin and Massachusetts, CALPIRG said.
Caltrans spokesman Benjamin DeLanty defended the list, saying that it was an initial response to a request from members of Congress for possible projects and may change as federal legislation and state needs evolve.
"We note that the list provided included a fairly even distribution among capital, maintenance and mass transportation projects," DeLanty said. "However, that list continues to be a work in progress and is not definitive."
<mailto:patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com>patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:19 am
31 Dec 2008
This way, big heavy polluting beasts will pay the same for using the roads as tiny, high-mileage cars.
Oh, and instead of just having an efficient, low-admin cost tax applied with every gallon of hydrocarbon fuel sold, we'll need a huge new infrastructure of GPS units so that we can reduce the tax on hydrocarbon use!
That's some brilliant thinking there, Vern.
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:19 am
31 Dec 2008
http://is.gd/eiJz
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:48 am
31 Dec 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:39 am
31 Dec 2008
WW II war production spending went to manufacturers. Evidently more of that money gets out into the economy. Is this still the case in todays economy?
Government projects like dams and highways and bridges helped relieve some of the pain of the great depression, but only actual manufacturing ended it.
New safer electric trains and buses, those are non-auto addiction manufacturing projects. NEVs for cities are car replacements too.
Fix the RR tracks and build much safer commuter trains to run on them. The track repair and expansion is infrastructure, and the rail car production is manufacturing.
How about putting collapsable rail cars on the front and back of commuter trains that carry inexpensive commodities and use air bag-like design to cushion passengers in a crash? Crunch three cars and a lot of the crash impact would be kept away from fragile humans.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 6:41 am
01 Jan 2009
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink