Streetsblog San Francisco

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), the trade group representing state DOTs in
Washington, yesterday unveiled a website
and report billed as a one-year "progress report" on the White House’s
$34.3 billion in formula-based transportation stimulus spending.

AASHTO’s
report, citing data furnished to Congress, noted that 77 percent of the
stimulus’ formula money has been spent on contracts "out to bid" and
estimated that 280,000 "highway and transit jobs" were directly created
by the transportation spending.

Interestingly, the group’s chart [PDF]
showing state-by-state progress on transportation stimulus omits the
estimates of jobs created by each category of spending — perhaps
because a December analysis of those totals showed that transit was a more cost-effective employment generator than road projects.

Overall,
the report attempts to make a case for more investment in
infrastructure as part of a second round of job-creation legislation,
using anecdotes from state DOT officials and local construction workers
who claimed a steady paycheck thanks to the stimulus law. 

"Although transportation received only 6 percent of
total [stimulus] funding, it represents more than 24 percent of the
jobs created by the Act so far," AASHTO executive director John Horsley
wrote in his introduction to the report.

But the group made no direct call for an end to the stalemate
over long-term transportation policymaking, supporting only an end to
the short-term extensions of the 2005 infrastructure law that have
occupied Congress since the fall.
With the political climate crying out for a deal on transport financing
that can drive broad reform of the existing, bloated system, AASHTO’s
priorities appear squarely in favor of … maintaining that system.

From its report (emphasis mine):

Read more…

The Transportation Enhancements program, which requires states to set
aside 10 percent of their federal transport money for new bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, among other projects, turns 19 years old this
year. But you’d almost never know it after reading Saturday’s Fort Worth
Star-Telegram, in which the paper
tallies — with no shortage of alarm — the federal money not being
spent on new roads.

The Star-Telegram story, which soon got snapped up
by the Associated Press, begins by challenging Dallas’ Woodall Rogers
Deck Park, a groundbreaking
effort to cap the city’s Woodall Rogers Freeway and create a
5.2-acre green space for the public. The park, aimed at creating a
walkable link between Dallas’ local districts, received
$16.7 million in stimulus funding from the Obama administration.

From the Star-Telegram:

The Woodall Rodgers project is a glaring example of how,
at a
time when many Texans distrust their transportation leaders, huge
chunks of federal and state money are being spent on projects that have
little or nothing to do with directly improving traffic.

"Texans
should be outraged by it, especially when they’re being asked to
support tax increases for transportation," said Justin Keener, vice
president for policy and communications at the Texas Public Policy
Foundation, a nonpartisan research institute in Austin.

The Star-Telegram reviewed 515 state projects awarded
funds
under the federal transportation enhancement program during the past 18
years and found projects large and small that had little to do with
mobility.

As it happens, the "nonpartisan" Texas Public Policy Foundation
makes no bones about its political alignment on its website, which outlines a
mission of "limited government" and offers a litany of pro-industry
critiques of the Democratic health care bills.

The group’s leadership is stocked with veteran advisers to
Republican Gov. Rick Perry (TX), and chairman of the board Wendy
Lee Gramm is a former Enron lobbyist who
aided her husband Phil Gramm, a former Texas GOP senator, in his
late-1990s push to de-regulate Wall Street.

Yet aside from Gramm’s group, the Star-Telegram story includes no
sources criticizing Texas transportation enhancements, which have
received $997 million since the program began in 1991.

Read more…

During the first stimulus debate, House Democrats and the White House famously sparred over how quickly infrastructure money could be spent — with the data later proving that transit was just as "shovel-ready" as roads, if not more so.

Now
that transportation policymakers have turned to stemming the rising
unemployment rate, three transit advocacy groups examined the age-old question of how many jobs are created per $1 billion of spending on transit versus roads.

But this study, conducted by the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT),
Smart Growth America (SGA), and the U.S. Public Interest Research
Groups, used numbers taken directly from the stimulus job-creation
reports that every state sends to the House transportation committee.

According to the most recent report to Congress [PDF],
16,419 direct job-months were created by every $1 billion in transit
aid. Roads lagged behind with 8,781 job-months created per $1 billion
in stimulus aid.

SGA state policy director Will Schroeer said the study — using jobs math endorsed by lawmakers as recently as last week — sends a message to Congress that transit spending in the House jobs bill should be increased.

"If your goal, as it seems to be, is first to create jobs,
then your own data is saying we should be spending more on transit," Schroeer said in an interview.

It’s important to note two factors that make today’s study different from previous looks at infrastructure job creation.

Read more…

President Obama today threw his weight behind significant new
transportation spending as part of a broad jobs bill taking shape in
Congress, with $50 billion slated for transit, roads, bridges, and
ports and the administration endorsing "merit-based infrastructure
investment that leverages federal dollars."

During his speech in Washington, Obama revisited his past acknowledgment of the trade-off
between the goals of creating transportation jobs quickly and focusing
on projects that substantially improve America’s built environment. 

"I recognize that by their nature these projects often take time, and
will therefore create jobs over time," Obama said. "But the need for jobs will also
last beyond next year, and the benefits of these investments will last
years beyond that."

Obama
offered no details on the costs of his new economic recovery effort,
which also includes rebates for energy-efficient home retrofits (the
so-called "cash for caulkers"
concept) and tax incentives for small businesses. But a senior
administration official told reporters after the speech that the
infrastructure portion of Obama’s jobs proposal is expected to cost $50
billion.

The administration also suggested that it would seek
to offset the new legislation with repaid financial bailout money,
running counter to a report
this morning that the White House would be limited in its ability to
use funds from Wall Street’s Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).

But
as Congress sifts through lengthy — and so far non-specific — lists
of "ready-to-go" projects from highway and transit planners, the day’s
biggest transportation reform news came buried in a White House release
outlining details of its plan. Under the infrastructure section of the
jobs bill, the White House stated:

Read more…

In an economic recovery report released
today by New York Gov. David Paterson (D), the state broke down its
plans for the estimated $31 billion it received as part of the Obama
administration’s first stimulus law.

A chart of
New York’s stimulus spending shows that, out of a total of $2.4 billion
in expected transportation aid, the state plans to direct $1.12 billion
to highways and bridges and $1.22 to transit.

With the federal government still dividing
its transport funding along an 80-20 split that favors roads, New
York’s decision to spend $100 million more stimulus aid on transit
represents a welcome break from tradition. In California,
where San Francisco and Los Angeles maintain large transit networks,
roads received slightly more than double the amount of stimulus aid
going to rail and buses.

Directly comparing New York and
California’s transportation funding choices would be the epitome of the
old idiom about apples and oranges. But as the congressional jobs
debate sharpens its focus on infrastructure projects, it’s worth noting that the roads-transit split is only one chapter in a bigger story.

A federal "fix-it-first" mandate, which environmental groups and transportation reformers are urging
Congress to include in the new jobs bill, would help break down the
cultural divide between different transport modes by ensuring that
repairs of existing infrastructure come first. After all, crumbling and
pothole-ridden roads affect pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike.

California, incidentally, lacks a "fix-it-first" requirement despite ranking 49th out of 50 states in recent rankings of nationwide road quality.

Last week, I left my Washington home, walked to the nearby Metro
station, rode a train downtown, walked to the National Press Club, and
settled in to hear Steven Rattner, former head of the Obama
administration’s auto task force, declare that "no one has yet invented
a substitute for the automobile."

This
was like declaring in an airport terminal one’s hope that man may
someday enjoy heavier-than-air powered flight, but most of the heads in
the audience nodded in agreement.

Rattner was there to speak on the topic of the administration’s
automobile bailout and rehabilitation strategy. He was hopeful but
realistic; he recognized that General Motors and Chrysler face an
uphill battle, but he believes that the government was able to do
enough to give the firms a shot at returning to profitability.

Why
that should be a concern of the government is another question
altogether, and it’s not one with which Rattner really engaged.
Understandably, I think, the administration agreed that GM and Chrysler
really shouldn’t be allowed to fail in the depths of recession.

And
then I believe they determined that if they were going to keep propping
up the companies, they ought to at least shepherd them through a
balance sheet-clearing bankruptcy and reorganization, in the hopes that
the companies might eventually make money.

But what Rattner
was careful not to address was this: Saving the car companies will not
protect American automakers’ market share, will not save the city of
Detroit, and will not really save that many jobs.

The line I
quote in the first paragraph was made in the context of an argument
about annual auto sales, and why sales totals are likely to return to
levels typically observed before the recession. Sales of light vehicles
grew to a peak of 17 million in 2005 before declining and then
plummeting to their current level, in the neighborhood of 9 million
(save for the month of August, thanks to "cash for "clunkers).

According
to Rattner, GM will break even at a level around 16.5 million car
sales. Maybe we’ll get there. Population continues to grow.

On
the other hand, households may find themselves holding on to
automobiles longer (particularly since household debts may remain a
problem for the next decade). They may also find themselves buying
fewer cars. America is aging, and households with retirees may not want
a car for each commuter. More families might opt for one vehicle, and
use car-sharing services when another vehicle is necessary.

But
now we find ourselves in a world in which GM shareholders — among
which number you and me and every other taxpayer — need sales to move
above 16.5 million to get the company back to profitability. That’s a
strange place for us to want to be.

Read more…

Since Washington’s economic recovery debate first began last fall,
advocates for greater infrastructure investment have invoked one phrase
more often than almost any other: "Every $1 billion spent on
transportation creates 47,500 jobs."

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) used that figure in December,
attributing it to the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) was a little
less specific in March 2008, shortening the claim to "over 40,000 jobs created."

But by the time Democrats were using AASHTO’s estimate, the group had already lowered
its number to 35,000 jobs created, attributing the claim to "analysts."
And it turns out that members of Congress have been using the "over
40,000" range since at least 1997, before years of inflation limited the value of that hypothetical billion dollars.

Former
Transportation Secretary Mary Peters told Streetsblog Capitol Hill
yesterday that she was amazed the outdated "47,500 jobs" number  had
remained an article of faith at the U.S. DOT. In fact, Peters’ chief
economist tried to use the number last year to bolster a bizarre argument against spending stimulus money on infrastructure — before getting taken down by my colleague Ryan Avent.

As
Ryan observed at the time, casting transportation spending as a matter
of economic productivity rather than job creation was a stunningly
out-of-touch move by the Bush administration, and one that ignored the
likelihood of imminent double-digit unemployment.

But
focusing on that aging AASHTO estimate of job creation (also credited
to the Federal Highway Administration) overlooks the fact that a more
updated study of that billion-dollar hypothetical was recently
completed … for transit.

Read more…

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced bids for the fourth bore of the Caldecott Tunnel earlier this week, claiming that the new $420 million tunnel on State Route 24 through the Oakland hills will reduce congestion for the 160,000 motorists who use it daily and that it will create 6,000 new jobs.

"This project will reduce local traffic congestion while creating nearly 6,000 jobs for California – and is a solid investment in the future of the Bay Area’s transportation infrastructure," Schwarzenegger said in a statement.

Of the estimated $420 million needed to complete the job, $11 million would come from the Proposition 1B transportation bond passed in 2006, as well as $197.7 million the state secured through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The balance for the project would be made up of local and regional funding.

The governor adopted the fourth bore project as part of his push to pass Prop 1B and at the time threatened to exempt the project from environmental review after a coalition of bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit advocates sued Caltrans for preparing an inadequate EIS. The exemption would have effectively nullified the lawsuit, so advocates settled with Caltrans last January, in the process securing nearly $6 million for bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the East Bay.

The settlement also added protections for construction impacts by requiring low
-sulfur fuels to reduce emissions from construction vehicles, reduced light 
pollution from construction activities, and reduced noise impacts on nearby
 residents, according to East Bay Bicycle Coalition Executive Director Robert Raburn, one of the coalition of litigants that sued Caltrans.

Raburn claimed the project benefits motorists over transit riders and argued that the money spent on this project should have gone to increasing transit capacity or adding another tube for BART under the bay.

"The only benefit of this project is for the reverse commute," said Raburn. "The Contra Costa resident that wants to get to the San Francisco Opera in a hurry will be able to blast right through."

Read more...

"Subsidy" is a word used quite often in transportation policy-making circles, whether by road acolytes who claim (falsely) that highways are not federally subsidized because of the gas tax or by transit boosters who lament Washington's unceasing focus on paying for more local asphalt.

But the subsidy debate often overlooks the government tax exemption for workers' parking expenses. And federal parking subsidies are skyrocketing, as Subsidyscope revealed yesterday in its data-packed report on U.S. transport spending: the value of tax-free parking will reach $3 billion this year, compared with $500 million in subsidies for transit use.

The imbalance might be corrected if the government treated parking and transit equally when it came to tax benefits. Workers can write off a maximum of slightly more than $200 in monthly parking benefits, while the maximum tax-free value of transit passes is about $100 less per month.

Subsidyscope, a joint project of the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Sunlight Foundation, pored over federal records to produce a searchable database of transportation spending dating back to the year 2000. Their researchers' conclusions found that highways received $30 billion in federal support last year -- more than three times as much as transit, which got $9 billion.

How much of that $30 billion was a subsidy? It's tough to say, according to Subsidyscope, since state DOTs are not required to report the details of how federal road aid is distributed. Still, the overwhelming majority of federal transport programs contain subsidies (see the chart after the jump for more details).

A more classic example of federal subsidy is programs that transfer the risk of new projects onto the federal government. The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), which offers loans to states and localities at a low interest rate, is the transport sector's major source of credit subsidies from Washington -- and the majority of TIFIA loans go to highway projects.

Read more...