Display:
Rail Takes Back Seat as States Target Obama Stimulus for Roads  - Bloomberg.com: News

Dec. 24 (Bloomberg) -- 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."

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 24th, 2008 at 03:26:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sigh. Hopefully the Obama administration will put a stop to this road-centric plan. I think that focusing solely on highways and roads is going to continue to cause the United States' problems of greenhouse emissions, oil-dependency, and sprawl.

The article notes near the end:

In Europe and Southeast Asia, governments are investing tens of billions of dollars in high-speed rail projects that include systems designed for the rapid transport of merchandise. Proponents of a new approach to transportation in the U.S. are pushing for the stimulus package to fund similar projects.

Rail and mass-transit advocates propose to "direct funds to metropolitan planning authorities and to create a national oversight group to help coordinate the spending." They want long range planning for national infrastructure. Maybe the Obama administration will get on board. However, if the U.S. continues to ignore rail, then I think it will become a very backwards nation. How much longer can America try to keep the 20th century going?

by Magnifico on Wed Dec 24th, 2008 at 03:45:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Building roads is literal economic suicide. What's going to run on them? To where?
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Dec 24th, 2008 at 08:40:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Me, in my electric car, using electricity generated by wind turbines. What's the problem?
by asdf on Wed Dec 24th, 2008 at 10:43:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Part of the problem is the system of federal government.  Transportation funding and allocation is, in large part, done by the states.  Rural states get far more money per capita than urban states because they are dramatically over-represented in the federal government, and work together to maintain that over-representation.

Further, many states reproduce that same problem within their borders - the state government is largely controlled by rural interests, and thus urban areas are routinely shafted.  This is especially true in places like Michigan and Missouri, where you have a big urban area with a high percentage of African Americans, and the rest of the state being generally white.

by Zwackus on Thu Dec 25th, 2008 at 07:56:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series