Think all news is bad news during this epic recession of ours? Think again—over the past three months, real wages have increased 23 percent, an enormous gain. At a crucial period for many working families, paychecks are going a lot farther than they did back in the summer.
The explanation is simple: wages are flat, prices are down. The labor market operates on a bit of a lag, so while the recession affected oil demand and prices very quickly, layoffs and falling wages are emerging more slowly. Eventually, the weak economy will catch up to workers (those who still have jobs), and spending power will decline.
But this is important to remember given the trends of the past decade. When economies are growing, oil prices rise. This means that even while wages are growing, it’s difficult for consumer spending power to keep up, unless we reduce the intensity of oil in our economy. How can we do this? Easy—cut commuting times, reduce driving, reduce congestion, green intercity travel and green freight shipping (so that rising oil prices don’t feed through to prices for other goods, including food).
This, of course, is the logic behind a push for greener infrastructure. Better transit and rail systems boost productivity—by improving movement of goods and people—which increases wages. They also reduce the petroleum intensity of the economy. In a boom period, you then have rising wages that aren’t much eroded by rising energy costs. And that means a richer and greener society.
Barack Obama understands this; at least, that’s what we’ve been led to believe by his speeches. Many Congressional leaders understand it too. And it is therefore very disappointing to see the contents of the new American Recovery and Reinvestment Act—also known as the stimulus bill. As has been widely reported, roughly $30 billion of the proposed infrastructure spending will go to highways, while only $10 billion is allocated toward transit and rail.
Optimists might see this as a reflection of the shovel-readiness of various initiatives, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. The bill itself reflects that more could have been done. A line item allocating $6 billion to transit capital programs concludes:
The Department of Transportation’s 2006 Conditions and Performance Report indicated there is an annual investment gap of $3.2 billion to maintain our transit systems and an annual gap of $9.2 billion to begin to improve our transit systems. In addition, a January 2009 survey of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) identified 787 ready-to-go transit projects totaling $15.9 billion.
Elsewhere it identifies unmet transit and rail needs totaling $78 billion.
What’s more, the horizon of the bill is longer than many anticipated. The Congressional Budget Office reports that of the $355 billion in federal stimulus spending, only $26 billion will be used in 2009. Over $200 billion will be spent between 2011 and 2019. Within a ten-year window, the scope for useful spending on transit and rail is nearly unlimited. The lack of transit spending is unquestionably political, and not logistical, in nature.
The possibility remains that the Congressional leadership and the Obama administration are waiting for the 2009 transportation bill overhaul to adjust spending priorities, and indeed, that vote will be hugely important for the future of the nation’s infrastructure. There may also be scope for funding in Obama’s energy bill. But there is reason for concern here.
The security of our economy and our environment depend upon a sea change in transportation planning. That transit and rail were so easily sacrificed in stimulus negotiations should send us a message—now is no time for transit supporters to ease up on their legislators. We’ll need to fight until the money is in the pipeline.
More NYC farmers markets accept food stamps and sales soar
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!
Comments
View as Flat
Gar Lipow Posted 7:42 am
21 Jan 2009
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 7:44 am
21 Jan 2009
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 8:09 am
21 Jan 2009
More new roads to run oil consuming, smoke snorting behemoths on. Mass transit, we can't save GM with mass transit:
LOBBY REFORM, LOBBY REFORM, LOBBY REFORM, LOBBY REFORM, LOBBY REFORM, LOBBY REFORM, LOBBY REFORM,
LOBBY REFORM, LOBBY REFORM.
Pay Attention boys and girls..Lobby Reform First or nothing green gets done.
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
racc Posted 10:27 am
21 Jan 2009
This is not the change we need, this is just more of the same. The basic problem is many people are under the misconception that the electric vehicle will save us. This myth is being used as the reason to continue to waste money on highways in spite of the fact that mass use electric vehicles may never be practical or affordable replacement for gas powered vehicles.
The continued construction of highways that is fuelled by promise, fulfilled or other wise will actually increase the usage of gas powered vehicles before, if ever, electric vehicles come into wide spread use. This would be caused by both induced traffic and sprawl caused by road construction and the lack of investment in transit and rail caused by the continued funding of these highways.
More in my blog:
http://everyoneforever.org/blogger/
It is not about us, it is about everyone.
http://www.everyoneforever.org/
Permalink
Tom Laskawy Posted 1:15 pm
21 Jan 2009
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 2:03 pm
21 Jan 2009
Climate change is real, very dangerous and accelerating. Congressional proposals at best will merely slow the rate of acceleration and do absolutely nothing to mitigate. There are no viable bills proposed to get GHG emissions to zero and then sequester atmospheric CO2 on a massive scale. None.
Oil imports have grown as a percentage of use every year but possibly 2008 in the US and technologically viable standards that would make every single car, van, SUV and light truck produced plug-in hybrid vehicles aren't anywhere to be seen. We're still trying to manage with the completely discredited ethanol industry.
The fastest way to reduce petroleum costs would be to convert homes and businesses and the entire state of Hawaii from heating oil and propane use to ground-loop heating and solar power. Congress is totally crickets on the issue even though it's a proven money producing investment.
State, local and federal government agencies can't afford asphalt and can't find it if prices stray into the affordable range. Interurban and rural rail connections, a standard feature of life in 1910 rural america, are completely off the boards as a viable solution.
A Congress that gives our clown college bankers free cash in fire-hose quantities and nickels and dimes food stamp recipients isn't going to suddenly bring a third neuron to the party. We're pretty much stuck with sitting back and watching the beatings continuing till morale improves.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
monkeyrotica Posted 9:56 pm
21 Jan 2009
I think you're idea of "easy" and mine differ slightly.
The development mix should certainly skew more mass transit, but however that hashes out, I sincerely hope there's some decent contract oversight. Big Dig-level cost overruns are something nobody needs right now. My biggest problem with spending on roads is that much of it doesn't make any sense. I drove through this huge honking multilane freeway they're building through the middle of Knoxville. WTF is up with that thing? The level of traffic just didn't seem to merit all that asphault. I can easily imagine that sort of multilane hellscape getting planted in every major metropolis with more than 300k residents.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 12:06 am
22 Jan 2009
Yes unfortunately they have been replaced with electric heat derived from coal in some places but that situation can now be addressed.
The north east needs to be weaned off heating oil, they drive our consumption of oil in the winter to unacceptable rates. Our dependence on oil has to be cut by identifying every small portion of the oil usage. This just happens to be a large one and would save us millions of barrels of oil in the winter time.
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
Jay Alt Posted 5:22 am
22 Jan 2009
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-na-oba ...
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 9:36 am
22 Jan 2009
Permalink