AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: ITB on August 02, 2021, 05:01:59 PM

Title: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: ITB on August 02, 2021, 05:01:59 PM

With the writing of the legislation now complete and votes taken in the Senate to begin debate, the bipartisan Infrastructure Bill of 2021 is rapidly moving toward reality. The bill authorizes $550 billion in new expenditures, of which a massive $110 billion is dedicated for roads and bridges. Here's the breakdown, as of August 2, 2021, of the proposed expenditures involving roads and bridges:

ē $55.48 billion ó Increased Contract Authority

ē $55.52 billion ó Supplemental Appropriations

     ó $36.375 billion, Bridge Grant Program
     ó $7.5 billion, Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) grants; (formerly BUILD grants)
     ó $5 billion, National Infrastructure Project Assistance grant program
     ó $3.2 billion, Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) Grant Program
     ó $1.25 billion, Appalachian Development Highway System formula program
     ó $1 billion, Culvert Removal, Replacement, and Restoration
     ó $500 million, Surface Transportation Private Activity Bonds
     ó $95 million, University Transportation Centers

As the bill moves forward, there will likely be amendments and minor tweaks to the legislation. It's been reported that what is finalized and passed in the Senate will, in all likelihood, be approved by the House without modifications. Exactly how much additional money each state can expect to receive for roads and bridges, as well as other infrastructure, has yet to be released.

A summary of the entire infrastructure bill (as of August 2, 2021) can be accessed  here (https://static.politico.com/7e/74/659737a14980a049b2b233aa43c9/bif-summary.pdf).

     
 
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Roadgeekteen on August 02, 2021, 06:56:07 PM
Can someone explain what the bill will actually do in layman's terms?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hbelkins on August 02, 2021, 07:53:08 PM
The "culvert" entry is particularly intriguing.

Kentucky went on a spree last year inspecting and closing a number of larger culverts, both on state and locally-maintained roads. I heard that there was an influx of federal money to fund the inspections and that this was a special effort to evaluate smaller structures that would not necessarily be considered "structures" under the federal bridge inspection program.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on August 02, 2021, 09:17:59 PM
Can someone explain what the bill will actually do in layman's terms?

(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0234/2400/8239/products/ffmpedpinjfljasrpz5p1uyc_2000x.png?v=1589768079)
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on August 03, 2021, 07:00:02 AM
The "culvert" entry is particularly intriguing.

Kentucky went on a spree last year inspecting and closing a number of larger culverts, both on state and locally-maintained roads. I heard that there was an influx of federal money to fund the inspections and that this was a special effort to evaluate smaller structures that would not necessarily be considered "structures" under the federal bridge inspection program.

Hm.  If true, I wonder what FHWA program code it was.

ETA:  Just checked the FMIS W10A (comprehensive report on available federal funds):  There isn't a nationwide "federal bridge inspection program," from what I can tell.  Rather, states can fund their inspections with other apportioned federal funds.  Makes me wonder if they're Statewide Planning and Research eligible (SPR), though.  Never had to worry about how they were funded in NY, since it was handled at the state level and doesn't affect the capital program.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 03, 2021, 08:14:33 AM
Can someone explain what the bill will actually do in layman's terms?

I only spent a few minutes looking on the web, but in layman's terms, this is a *lot* of money for transportation...much more funding than has been previously provided. Even the amount of money projected in BUILD & TIGER grants doesn't some closer to the spending proposed here.

However, there is a downside to more money. There are only so many contractors that can bid for work on our roadways, and they subcontract the work out to many of the same companies and workers. So while there's more money available, there is a relatively fixed amount of people that can do the work. And anyone that has a simple understsnding of economics will know that when demand outweighs supply, peoject costs will generally rise.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kalvado on August 03, 2021, 08:31:47 AM
Can someone explain what the bill will actually do in layman's terms?

I only spent a few minutes looking on the web, but in layman's terms, this is a *lot* of money for transportation...much more funding than has been previously provided. Even the amount of money projected in BUILD & TIGER grants doesn't some closer to the spending proposed here.

However, there is a downside to more money. There are only so many contractors that can bid for work on our roadways, and they subcontract the work out to many of the same companies and workers. So while there's more money available, there is a relatively fixed amount of people that can do the work. And anyone that has a simple understsnding of economics will know that when demand outweighs supply, peoject costs will generally rise.
For Syracuse I-81, the project which may get a slice of these funds, narration was that there will be no (or limited) outside contractors, and jobs will go to locals.
Which presents a few challenges, including finding applicants, training arrangements and resulting quality of construction.
The question still stands for equipment and materials - such as cement and steel. As there would likely be a "buy american" provision of some sort attached to these funds, and that other industries would face the same issue, I wonder if $100B would do much in terms of usable pavement.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hbelkins on August 03, 2021, 10:12:26 AM
The "culvert" entry is particularly intriguing.

Kentucky went on a spree last year inspecting and closing a number of larger culverts, both on state and locally-maintained roads. I heard that there was an influx of federal money to fund the inspections and that this was a special effort to evaluate smaller structures that would not necessarily be considered "structures" under the federal bridge inspection program.

Hm.  If true, I wonder what FHWA program code it was.

ETA:  Just checked the FMIS W10A (comprehensive report on available federal funds):  There isn't a nationwide "federal bridge inspection program," from what I can tell.  Rather, states can fund their inspections with other apportioned federal funds.  Makes me wonder if they're Statewide Planning and Research eligible (SPR), though.  Never had to worry about how they were funded in NY, since it was handled at the state level and doesn't affect the capital program.

The correct phrasing I should have used is "inspect bridges in accordance with federal standards." The normal bridge inspection program may not be federally funded, but federal standards call for an inspection generally every two years, with fracture-critical or other bridges being inspected annually.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 03, 2021, 03:41:29 PM
Can someone explain what the bill will actually do in layman's terms?
Sends federal dollars to the states for various road projects (whatever each state wishes) which in turn will lead to better discussions on this site.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: HighwayStar on August 03, 2021, 04:24:45 PM
Can someone explain what the bill will actually do in layman's terms?

(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0234/2400/8239/products/ffmpedpinjfljasrpz5p1uyc_2000x.png?v=1589768079)

Both factually accurate and culturally informed! Hats off to you!  :clap:
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hbelkins on August 03, 2021, 07:41:05 PM
Can someone explain what the bill will actually do in layman's terms?
Sends federal dollars to the states for various road projects (whatever each state wishes) which in turn will lead to better discussions on this site.

I'm curious how much sign-off either Congress or FHWA will have on the expenditure of those dollars. Will they specify certain projects (you get $15 to build a parallel bridge to the Brent Spence, you get $9 to complete NY 17 as a freeway, etc.) or will the money just be block-granted to the states to spend as they wish?

A lot of this c0v1d relief money is going to local governments with very few strings attached.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 03, 2021, 09:53:08 PM
Can someone explain what the bill will actually do in layman's terms?
Sends federal dollars to the states for various road projects (whatever each state wishes) which in turn will lead to better discussions on this site.

I'm curious how much sign-off either Congress or FHWA will have on the expenditure of those dollars. Will they specify certain projects (you get $15 to build a parallel bridge to the Brent Spence, you get $9 to complete NY 17 as a freeway, etc.) or will the money just be block-granted to the states to spend as they wish?

A lot of this c0v1d relief money is going to local governments with very few strings attached.

Technically speaking, it doesn't matter. Let's say a state has $100 dollars to spend but their needs total $150 worth of projects they want to build.  If the feds give them $20 for Project G, that means they still have $100 to spend, but now only on $130 worth of projects to fund. The state can exclude the funding needs for Project G now.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: ITB on August 03, 2021, 11:06:24 PM
Can someone explain what the bill will actually do in layman's terms?

I'll attempt a stab at it. But as I'm no expert by any measure, if anybody notices anything incorrect, please chime in.

First and foremost, the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act commits the federal government to spending/disbursing an additional $550 billion on infrastructure over the next five years. The key word here is, of course, "additional." Of this $550 billion, $110 billion is to be dedicated for roads and bridges, whether repair and reconstruction or new. This is new spending authority on top on what the federal government usually spends on roads and bridges.

As commonly known, every year the feds, mainly through the Department of Transportation, disburse billions of dollars to states for transportation projects. This money is collected via the 18Ę a gallon federal gas tax and other fees. There is a formula used to ensure that each state gets its fair share. Some states, however, feel it's not so equal, but that's another matter altogether. Anyway, this typical yearly federal spending will continue as usual, and the federal gas tax will not be raised. The infrastructure bill of 2021 authorizes increased spending, in addition to these regular transportion-related disbursements to states, to the tune of $55.48 billion over five years. That's the "Increased Contract Authority" line item in the legislation. In all likelihood, this additional $55.48 billion will be disbursed to states using the same formula currently in use. States with large populations such as Texas and North Carolina will receive more funding than smaller states like Delaware and Wyoming, and so on.

In addition to Increased Contract Authority funding, the legislation also significantly boosts supplemental appropriations. This, too, is new spending, and over five years $55.52 billion is to be dispersed. The majority of this funding, $36.735 billion, is for bridges, mainly to repair and replace deficient and outdated structures. It appears this money will be disbursed competitively to states through grants. Other grant programs, such as Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE; formerly BUILD) and the Infrastructure to Rebuild America (INFRA), among others, also will receive significant additional funding.

In short, the infrastructure bill of 2021, if passed and signed into law, directs the federal government to spend an additional $550 billion on infrastructure over the next five years. This is a really big thing, not only for the country's road and bridge network, but for rail and transit systems and broadband connectivity, as well.


Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hbelkins on August 04, 2021, 12:00:55 PM
Can someone explain what the bill will actually do in layman's terms?
Sends federal dollars to the states for various road projects (whatever each state wishes) which in turn will lead to better discussions on this site.

I'm curious how much sign-off either Congress or FHWA will have on the expenditure of those dollars. Will they specify certain projects (you get $15 to build a parallel bridge to the Brent Spence, you get $9 to complete NY 17 as a freeway, etc.) or will the money just be block-granted to the states to spend as they wish?

A lot of this c0v1d relief money is going to local governments with very few strings attached.

Technically speaking, it doesn't matter. Let's say a state has $100 dollars to spend but their needs total $150 worth of projects they want to build.  If the feds give them $20 for Project G, that means they still have $100 to spend, but now only on $130 worth of projects to fund. The state can exclude the funding needs for Project G now.

I wonder if this can be compared to the ARRA (Obama's stimulus program) and the TIGER grants. We had a project that was going to be state-funded and everything was done except for actual construction. The plans were developed, right of way was bought, utilities were moved. The state just didn't have the money for construction. (Actually, the state did have the money, but it had been allocated elsewhere). When the feds came around with that money, the project got funded and one of those fancy road signs went up.

I wonder if there will be similar signs denoting projects funded by this bill?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: SkyPesos on August 04, 2021, 12:03:51 PM
Hopefully some of the bridge grant money gets allocated for the Brent Spence twin span. Pipe dream of mine.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kernals12 on August 04, 2021, 01:04:07 PM
I hope the Sagamore and Bourne Bridges can get replaced. And it would only be fair if the Feds paid the full cost because it was their widening of the canal that created the traffic bottleneck in the first place.

And then we could stop those jokes about the tunnel
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on August 04, 2021, 01:16:53 PM


Can someone explain what the bill will actually do in layman's terms?
Sends federal dollars to the states for various road projects (whatever each state wishes) which in turn will lead to better discussions on this site.

I'm curious how much sign-off either Congress or FHWA will have on the expenditure of those dollars. Will they specify certain projects (you get $15 to build a parallel bridge to the Brent Spence, you get $9 to complete NY 17 as a freeway, etc.) or will the money just be block-granted to the states to spend as they wish?

A lot of this c0v1d relief money is going to local governments with very few strings attached.

Technically speaking, it doesn't matter. Let's say a state has $100 dollars to spend but their needs total $150 worth of projects they want to build.  If the feds give them $20 for Project G, that means they still have $100 to spend, but now only on $130 worth of projects to fund. The state can exclude the funding needs for Project G now.

I wonder if this can be compared to the ARRA (Obama's stimulus program) and the TIGER grants. We had a project that was going to be state-funded and everything was done except for actual construction. The plans were developed, right of way was bought, utilities were moved. The state just didn't have the money for construction. (Actually, the state did have the money, but it had been allocated elsewhere). When the feds came around with that money, the project got funded and one of those fancy road signs went up.

I wonder if there will be similar signs denoting projects funded by this bill?

ARRA and TIGER were, in the case of the former, a special stimulus bill and, in the case of the latter, a special grant program.  This infrastructure bill is more of a traditional funding and apportionment transportation bill and therefore affects the entirety of states' federally-funded programs of projects.

So, I doubt there will be signs as there were with the specialized funding in the cases mentioned.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 04, 2021, 04:33:09 PM
For historical context, this bill is a really big deal. Nothing close to this scale has happened in my lifetime, in terms of infrastructure investment by the United States.  I'm pretty sure this rivals the 1968 supplemental to the Interstate Highway Act (inflation adjusted) in terms of federal money for roads.

Not going to count those chickens before they hatch, but they've gotten farther than my pessimism expected so far.  Still the possibility to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, though, if the kooks from the fringes screw this up.  We've kicked this can too far down the road as a country.  Most politicians from across the spectrum have been talking the talk on this subject forever but haven't delivered much.  This is big enough to where people are going to start new construction companies to get in on these projects.

I am looking forward to seeing a list of specific major projects that will get funded if this goes thru.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kernals12 on August 04, 2021, 08:06:44 PM
So it looks like Interstate 14 (https://www.natchezdemocrat.com/2021/08/04/full-five-state-interstate-14-project-added-to-bipartisan-infrastructure-package/) is going to happen, Ted Cruz and Ralph Warnock got an amendment added (the fact that those two could agree is pretty incredible).
(https://i.imgur.com/LF4KhmQ.jpg)

One justification its supporters give is that it would link together military bases. That's obviously bullshit. But it would link together numerous midsized cities in the South and more interestingly, it would bring an interstate highway straight through the Deep South's "Black Belt". This would be a good opportunity to change the narrative on the racial impact of the interstate highway system, because it would bring black communities together rather than splitting them apart.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Georgia on August 04, 2021, 08:45:40 PM
Not sure one interstate is going to do that but it is a start.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: ilpt4u on August 04, 2021, 08:48:36 PM
WaitÖwe canít/donít have more MS River Bridges over the Lower Mississippi for a 3rd Memphis Bridge nor for I-69, but lets add another one to the project list for I-14? Suuuuurrrrreeeeeee
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Georgia on August 04, 2021, 08:57:26 PM
I am laughing at them calling Gulfport a strategic military port also,  Mobile and Pascagoula would be far more important in that regard in that vicinity. 
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: froggie on August 04, 2021, 09:07:14 PM
^ The main Navy Seabee base is less than a mile from the Port of Gulfport, so I can see that call happening.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Roadgeekteen on August 04, 2021, 10:09:58 PM
Is the Louisana section really necessary?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Bruce on August 04, 2021, 11:55:29 PM
The program should have been 100% repair and replace. Throwing money into I-14 is going to be about as useful as building a FritzOwl corridor.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on August 04, 2021, 11:57:14 PM
The program should have been 100% repair and replace. Throwing money into I-14 is going to be about as useful as building a FritzOwl corridor.

Speak for yourselfóOklahoma has plenty of new-terrain and upgrade mileage that's actually needed but which ODOT doesn't have the cash for.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: sprjus4 on August 05, 2021, 12:08:11 AM
If Texas is going to be getting funding for any of the new interstate corridors, I-69 should be the top priority followed by I-27. I-14 comes last, IMO.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Roadgeekteen on August 05, 2021, 12:10:39 AM
The program should have been 100% repair and replace. Throwing money into I-14 is going to be about as useful as building a FritzOwl corridor.
Texas A and M students will appreciate it.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: 1 on August 05, 2021, 07:32:03 AM
The program should have been 100% repair and replace. Throwing money into I-14 is going to be about as useful as building a FritzOwl corridor.

As I said in the I-14 thread, the segment east of Meridian is actually useful.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kernals12 on August 05, 2021, 07:41:55 AM
The program should have been 100% repair and replace. Throwing money into I-14 is going to be about as useful as building a FritzOwl corridor.

Contrary to popular belief, we are repairing our roads and bridges at a steady clip (https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=17926).

This highway will offer an alternative to I-10 and I-20 and it will bring all the benefits of Interstate Highway Access to one of the poorest parts of the United States.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: froggie on August 05, 2021, 09:00:47 AM
^ Given that Randall O'Toole has been known to greatly skew data himself, I would take that claim with a large grain of salt.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hbelkins on August 05, 2021, 10:16:35 AM
Just because something gets added to the bill doesn't mean it will actually get built.

Discounting the fact that a lot of money goes for planning, scoping studies, etc., on projects that never go beyond paper, look at how many things have been legislated but never built. The I-73/I-74 "high priority corridor" for one.

Believe I-14 when it's finished and signed, or at least all construction is underway.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Bruce on August 05, 2021, 04:34:51 PM
The program should have been 100% repair and replace. Throwing money into I-14 is going to be about as useful as building a FritzOwl corridor.

Contrary to popular belief, we are repairing our roads and bridges at a steady clip (https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=17926).

This highway will offer an alternative to I-10 and I-20 and it will bring all the benefits of Interstate Highway Access to one of the poorest parts of the United States.

O'Toole is not a reliable source.

One of the items he cites in that very article (the I-5 Skagit River collapse) could have been easily prevented by replacing the bridge and its outdated overhead design, which requires federal funding.

Western Washington has hundreds of bridges that are in need of seismic retrofits, if not full replacements, because the full extent of earthquake risks were not known until the past 30 years. I-5 through Seattle is in need of a full rebuild, especially the Ship Canal Bridge, for example. We're definitely not doing "just fine".
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hbelkins on August 05, 2021, 04:43:23 PM
One of the items he cites in that very article (the I-5 Skagit River collapse) could have been easily prevented by replacing the bridge and its outdated overhead design, which requires federal funding.

That bridge collapse destruction of that bridge would have been prevented if the driver of the truck that tore it down had observed the signage and the height limitations.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kalvado on August 05, 2021, 04:55:52 PM
One of the items he cites in that very article (the I-5 Skagit River collapse) could have been easily prevented by replacing the bridge and its outdated overhead design, which requires federal funding.

That bridge collapse destruction of that bridge would have been prevented if the driver of the truck that tore it down had observed the signage and the height limitations.
Height limitations are a part of outdated design complex
And a lot of such limits end up being tested, sooner or later - and getting a softer box truck or some hard construction equipment is a matter of luck.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: HighwayStar on August 06, 2021, 02:12:30 AM
One of the items he cites in that very article (the I-5 Skagit River collapse) could have been easily prevented by replacing the bridge and its outdated overhead design, which requires federal funding.

That bridge collapse destruction of that bridge would have been prevented if the driver of the truck that tore it down had observed the signage and the height limitations.
Height limitations are a part of outdated design complex
And a lot of such limits end up being tested, sooner or later - and getting a softer box truck or some hard construction equipment is a matter of luck.

There is nothing "outdated" about height restrictions, you are going to have them, unless you eliminate all tunnels and overpasses entirely which is unrealistic.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kalvado on August 06, 2021, 07:32:13 AM
One of the items he cites in that very article (the I-5 Skagit River collapse) could have been easily prevented by replacing the bridge and its outdated overhead design, which requires federal funding.

That bridge collapse destruction of that bridge would have been prevented if the driver of the truck that tore it down had observed the signage and the height limitations.
Height limitations are a part of outdated design complex
And a lot of such limits end up being tested, sooner or later - and getting a softer box truck or some hard construction equipment is a matter of luck.

There is nothing "outdated" about height restrictions, you are going to have them, unless you eliminate all tunnels and overpasses entirely which is unrealistic.
There are interstate standards - 16' current requirement, NY self-imposed 17'. Old standard is 14'.
It is fair to call any highway structure below 16' "outdated" and anything below 14' "obsolete"

In case of I-5 bridge, though, it is not a clear cut as there was one fatal mistake - truck was using right lane while oversized vehicles are supposed to use left lane (hello, KREP gang!). However, had Washington state DOT recognized "anything below 16' is outdated" and signed it as such, crash could easily be avoided.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: HighwayStar on August 06, 2021, 10:37:37 AM
One of the items he cites in that very article (the I-5 Skagit River collapse) could have been easily prevented by replacing the bridge and its outdated overhead design, which requires federal funding.

That bridge collapse destruction of that bridge would have been prevented if the driver of the truck that tore it down had observed the signage and the height limitations.
Height limitations are a part of outdated design complex
And a lot of such limits end up being tested, sooner or later - and getting a softer box truck or some hard construction equipment is a matter of luck.

There is nothing "outdated" about height restrictions, you are going to have them, unless you eliminate all tunnels and overpasses entirely which is unrealistic.
There are interstate standards - 16' current requirement, NY self-imposed 17'. Old standard is 14'.
It is fair to call any highway structure below 16' "outdated" and anything below 14' "obsolete"

In case of I-5 bridge, though, it is not a clear cut as there was one fatal mistake - truck was using right lane while oversized vehicles are supposed to use left lane (hello, KREP gang!). However, had Washington state DOT recognized "anything below 16' is outdated" and signed it as such, crash could easily be avoided.

Perhaps on the interstate less than 14' might be considered outdated, but that standard by no means has to apply to every highway. And in the case of I-5 failure to follow regulations, rather than road design failure, was at fault. Is every head on crash on a 2 lane a failure of the road design because it does not force drivers apart? Or is that just driver misuse by driving in the wrong lane.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kphoger on August 06, 2021, 11:57:06 AM
force drivers

Oh, dear... (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15546.0)
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kphoger on August 06, 2021, 12:02:17 PM
Is every head on crash on a 2 lane a failure of the road design because it does not force drivers apart?

What about rear-end or T-bone collisions at busy intersections?  Many of those get reworked to include turning lanes, even short stretches of median.  So the agencies responsible have apparently determined that the road design is at least partially to blame for the collisions that happen.

In a similar way, if an Interstate highway has clearances lower than what are commonly found on Interstates elsewhere, then it's reasonable to say that the design could be partially to blame for a truck running into a bridge.  Of course it's the responsibility of every driver to obey signs and laws and all that jazz, but it also shouldn't happen that simply being in the wrong lane might cause catastrophic damage.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kalvado on August 06, 2021, 03:56:16 PM
Is every head on crash on a 2 lane a failure of the road design because it does not force drivers apart?

What about rear-end or T-bone collisions at busy intersections?  Many of those get reworked to include turning lanes, even short stretches of median.  So the agencies responsible have apparently determined that the road design is at least partially to blame for the collisions that happen.

In a similar way, if an Interstate highway has clearances lower than what are commonly found on Interstates elsewhere, then it's reasonable to say that the design could be partially to blame for a truck running into a bridge.  Of course it's the responsibility of every driver to obey signs and laws and all that jazz, but it also shouldn't happen that simply being in the wrong lane might cause catastrophic damage.

Just looked through  NTSB report regarding I-5 bridge collapse: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1401.pdf
Washington DOT failed miserably, but received little blame.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kernals12 on August 07, 2021, 07:09:01 AM
The program should have been 100% repair and replace. Throwing money into I-14 is going to be about as useful as building a FritzOwl corridor.

Contrary to popular belief, we are repairing our roads and bridges at a steady clip (https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=17926).

This highway will offer an alternative to I-10 and I-20 and it will bring all the benefits of Interstate Highway Access to one of the poorest parts of the United States.

O'Toole is not a reliable source.

One of the items he cites in that very article (the I-5 Skagit River collapse) could have been easily prevented by replacing the bridge and its outdated overhead design, which requires federal funding.

Western Washington has hundreds of bridges that are in need of seismic retrofits, if not full replacements, because the full extent of earthquake risks were not known until the past 30 years. I-5 through Seattle is in need of a full rebuild, especially the Ship Canal Bridge, for example. We're definitely not doing "just fine".

The FHWA's statistics shows a decline in the number of structurally deficient bridges from 124,000 in 1992 (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/no10/defbr92.cfm) to 54,000 in 2017 (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/no10/defbr17.cfm). At that rate, America will have no more deficient bridges by the year 2035.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kernals12 on August 07, 2021, 07:14:13 AM
The program should have been 100% repair and replace. Throwing money into I-14 is going to be about as useful as building a FritzOwl corridor.

Contrary to popular belief, we are repairing our roads and bridges at a steady clip (https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=17926).

This highway will offer an alternative to I-10 and I-20 and it will bring all the benefits of Interstate Highway Access to one of the poorest parts of the United States.

O'Toole is not a reliable source.

One of the items he cites in that very article (the I-5 Skagit River collapse) could have been easily prevented by replacing the bridge and its outdated overhead design, which requires federal funding.


Western Washington has hundreds of bridges that are in need of seismic retrofits, if not full replacements, because the full extent of earthquake risks were not known until the past 30 years. I-5 through Seattle is in need of a full rebuild, especially the Ship Canal Bridge, for example. We're definitely not doing "just fine".

So could have the Mianus Bridge in Greenwich, CT, which collapsed in 1983 because an error during maintenance a decade earlier caused the pin assemblies to rust.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on August 07, 2021, 10:25:59 AM
The program should have been 100% repair and replace. Throwing money into I-14 is going to be about as useful as building a FritzOwl corridor.

Contrary to popular belief, we are repairing our roads and bridges at a steady clip (https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=17926).

This highway will offer an alternative to I-10 and I-20 and it will bring all the benefits of Interstate Highway Access to one of the poorest parts of the United States.

O'Toole is not a reliable source.

One of the items he cites in that very article (the I-5 Skagit River collapse) could have been easily prevented by replacing the bridge and its outdated overhead design, which requires federal funding.

Western Washington has hundreds of bridges that are in need of seismic retrofits, if not full replacements, because the full extent of earthquake risks were not known until the past 30 years. I-5 through Seattle is in need of a full rebuild, especially the Ship Canal Bridge, for example. We're definitely not doing "just fine".

The FHWA's statistics shows a decline in the number of structurally deficient bridges from 124,000 in 1992 (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/no10/defbr92.cfm) to 54,000 in 2017 (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/no10/defbr17.cfm). At that rate, America will have no more deficient bridges by the year 2035.
I believe definitions changed over that time as well, so that effect has to be taken into account before just doing a simple linear extrapolation.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on August 07, 2021, 12:32:48 PM
Also, structurally deficient bridges aren't fungible. This bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0637545,-97.4855576,3a,75y,171.8h,85.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snOvTxUfWXhsRF5SpGk0qoA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is structurally deficient, functionally obsolete, and fracture critical. Last time I looked it up in NBI it had a single-digit sufficiency rating. But it's unlikely to be replaced any time soon because it's on an old alignment of OK-24, and the bridge on the current alignment does the job perfectly fine. This is also a county road bridge, and counties usually have a lot less money for bridge replacement than state DOTs do.

At a certain point you just reach a background level of structurally deficient bridges that either aren't worth replacing (spot repairs or demolition only) or the money just isn't in the right hands to be able to replace.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hbelkins on August 07, 2021, 09:27:59 PM
Also, structurally deficient bridges aren't fungible. This bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0637545,-97.4855576,3a,75y,171.8h,85.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snOvTxUfWXhsRF5SpGk0qoA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is structurally deficient, functionally obsolete, and fracture critical. Last time I looked it up in NBI it had a single-digit sufficiency rating. But it's unlikely to be replaced any time soon because it's on an old alignment of OK-24, and the bridge on the current alignment does the job perfectly fine. This is also a county road bridge, and counties usually have a lot less money for bridge replacement than state DOTs do.

At a certain point you just reach a background level of structurally deficient bridges that either aren't worth replacing (spot repairs or demolition only) or the money just isn't in the right hands to be able to replace.

They will probably end up blocking that bridge to vehicular traffic and leaving it open for pedestrians, possibly as part of a park or walking trail, if there is a nearby alternative.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on August 07, 2021, 09:50:10 PM
Where would you even want walk to from there? The side of the creek across from town is all farmland, and the closest business is a feed and seed store 2 road miles away at the OK 24/OK 74 junction. I doubt it'd be worth spending any money on making it a trail. They might just block it off and let it rot like they did with a bridge of a similar vintage further west over the same creek. Might be a spot for the local kids to go fishing or make out or something.

The real question is which happens first: Washington growing enough to make having the second bridge open enough of a necessity to justify replacing it directly, or the bridge being unable to support vehicular traffic.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kernals12 on August 10, 2021, 08:31:00 AM
I wish they had included a few billion for funding the development of cooperative adaptive cruise control (https://path.berkeley.edu/research/connected-and-automated-vehicles/cooperative-adaptive-cruise-control). It would double the capacity of our freeways, saving us enormous sums on widenings.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: HighwayStar on August 10, 2021, 10:45:24 AM
I wish they had included a few billion for funding the development of cooperative adaptive cruise control (https://path.berkeley.edu/research/connected-and-automated-vehicles/cooperative-adaptive-cruise-control). It would double the capacity of our freeways, saving us enormous sums on widenings.

I am not interested in having that tech in my vehicle, nor in having people depend on that to not ram me.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hbelkins on August 10, 2021, 11:28:39 AM
I wish they had included a few billion for funding the development of cooperative adaptive cruise control (https://path.berkeley.edu/research/connected-and-automated-vehicles/cooperative-adaptive-cruise-control). It would double the capacity of our freeways, saving us enormous sums on widenings.

I am not interested in having that tech in my vehicle, nor in having people depend on that to not ram me.

On this, we agree. I want to be in charge of my vehicle. I love traditional cruise control, but am not interested at all in the adaptive version.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: SkyPesos on August 10, 2021, 11:51:34 AM
I wish they had included a few billion for funding the development of cooperative adaptive cruise control (https://path.berkeley.edu/research/connected-and-automated-vehicles/cooperative-adaptive-cruise-control). It would double the capacity of our freeways, saving us enormous sums on widenings.
So basically a slightly worse version of Tesla Autopilot?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: thefro on August 10, 2021, 12:08:02 PM
Bill passed the Senate 69-30 (https://apnews.com/article/senate-infrastructure-bill-politics-joe-biden-a431f8c9f3f113b661cb3526512fc4e0)

There will be some wrangling in the House but this should pass that chamber in the next couple months.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on August 10, 2021, 01:44:32 PM
I wish they had included a few billion for funding the development of cooperative adaptive cruise control (https://path.berkeley.edu/research/connected-and-automated-vehicles/cooperative-adaptive-cruise-control). It would double the capacity of our freeways, saving us enormous sums on widenings.

I am not interested in having that tech in my vehicle, nor in having people depend on that to not ram me.

On this, we agree. I want to be in charge of my vehicle. I love traditional cruise control, but am not interested at all in the adaptive version.
Have to say I hate adaptive cruise.  It is distracting from driving when you slow down automatically and the car doesn't speed up again similarly or in a manner appropriate for the traffic. 
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Mr. Mattť on August 10, 2021, 03:41:40 PM
Bill passed the Senate 69-30 (https://apnews.com/article/senate-infrastructure-bill-politics-joe-biden-a431f8c9f3f113b661cb3526512fc4e0)

Nice.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: JoePCool14 on August 10, 2021, 09:57:22 PM
I wish they had included a few billion for funding the development of cooperative adaptive cruise control (https://path.berkeley.edu/research/connected-and-automated-vehicles/cooperative-adaptive-cruise-control). It would double the capacity of our freeways, saving us enormous sums on widenings.

I am not interested in having that tech in my vehicle, nor in having people depend on that to not ram me.

On this, we agree. I want to be in charge of my vehicle. I love traditional cruise control, but am not interested at all in the adaptive version.
Have to say I hate adaptive cruise.  It is distracting from driving when you slow down automatically and the car doesn't speed up again similarly or in a manner appropriate for the traffic.

Throw me down for the list of anti-adaptive cruise. Hugely frustrating to me. It slows down excessively early, and does not speed up nearly quick enough.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: I-55 on August 10, 2021, 10:01:25 PM
I wish they had included a few billion for funding the development of cooperative adaptive cruise control (https://path.berkeley.edu/research/connected-and-automated-vehicles/cooperative-adaptive-cruise-control). It would double the capacity of our freeways, saving us enormous sums on widenings.

I am not interested in having that tech in my vehicle, nor in having people depend on that to not ram me.

On this, we agree. I want to be in charge of my vehicle. I love traditional cruise control, but am not interested at all in the adaptive version.
Have to say I hate adaptive cruise.  It is distracting from driving when you slow down automatically and the car doesn't speed up again similarly or in a manner appropriate for the traffic.

Throw me down for the list of anti-adaptive cruise. Hugely frustrating to me. It slows down excessively early, and does not speed up nearly quick enough.

Add my name as well. I will drive how I'm gonna drive, not how the manufacturer thinks I should drive. I trust my ability to judge the full road of traffic over the adaptive cruise that tracks one car in front of me.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: 3467 on August 10, 2021, 10:56:18 PM
Any details on specific projects yet?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on August 11, 2021, 11:29:55 AM
NY evidently stands to get hundreds of millions more over five years above its current levels from the Act.  That's infrastructure funding.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 11, 2021, 11:33:42 AM
NY evidently stands to get hundreds of millions more over five years above its current levels from the Act.  That's infrastructure funding.

I don't know about the soft bill but the hard bill will give Oklahoma 5.4 billion dollars. It will completely transform the state's infrastructure and I'm VERY excited to see what OkDOT does with it. I'm all for it. I'm just saying pushing forward with the soft bill while it's still in the process of being debated has the potential to derail it. Far too many voters in this country can't be bothered to form their opinions on anything more than a tabloid headline.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 11, 2021, 12:47:12 PM
Is there a state-by-state rundown of what each state is getting?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Avalanchez71 on August 11, 2021, 01:57:39 PM
Is there a state-by-state rundown of what each state is getting?

Doubtful.  There is still wrangling that must be hammered out.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 11, 2021, 02:18:18 PM
Is there a state-by-state rundown of what each state is getting?

Doubtful.  There is still wrangling that must be hammered out.

There's probably some adjustments that. We'd to be made, but I've seen numerous news reports saying "NJ is getting $..., TX is getting $..., etc, so there must be something that shows these estimates.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 11, 2021, 02:44:51 PM
In a world with decent government, you'd think an "infrastructure bill" would be almost 100 percent infrastructure.

It's all infrastructure. Not all infrastructure is transportation.
From the article posted above:
$110 billion for roads and bridges.
$39 billion for public transit.
$66 billion for passenger and freight rail.
17 billion for ports and $25 billion for airports
$55 billion for water and wastewater infrastructure
$65 billion to expand broadband access,
$21 billion to clean up superfund
$73 billion for electric grid
$ 7.5 billion for electric vehicle charging stations,
$5 billion for the purchase of electric school buses
___________________________
$458.5 B total of $1.2T bill
Which of this is "pork"? Just because the whole bill isn't going towards interstates doesn't mean that there aren't other worthwhile things being funded. None of this looks like "pork" to me.

His point is that the parts don't add up to $1.2T.
What is the rest of the money going to be used for?
Hereís is the entire bill. Iíll let someone else read through 2000+ pages

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=21031305-infrastructure-bill
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on August 11, 2021, 06:29:16 PM
Did some pruning here.

What is OK in this thread:
- Discussing the specific highway projects this bill will fund
- Discussing the potential funding increases this bill will give to state DOTs and what they are likely to be spent on

What is not OK in this thread:
- Your opinion on whether the bill should have been passed or not/how big it is/percentage breakdown of highway funding vs. other things in the bill (that's all politics, share your opinions with your Congressman, not us)
- Your opinion on individual Senators (that's politics)
- Discussing the non-highway portions of this bill (that's either politics or belongs in Mass Transit)
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: ITB on August 12, 2021, 02:15:56 AM
From some of the comments there seems to be some confusion about the infrastructure bill. And, yes, the legislation is complex, which can easily lead to misconceptions.

The infrastructure bill, officially called the Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, incorporates four different pieces of legislation into one large bill. These are:

• the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act of 2021
• the Surface Transportation Act
• the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act
• the Energy Infrastructure Act

The above Acts are the typical pieces of legislation used to distribute federal funds and grants to the states for public works projects, such as bridges, roads, wastewater treatment plants, power transmission upgrades, etc. Some of the funding authorized by the Acts is, of course, directed to maintain federal agencies like the FHWA, the FAA, and the National Park Service.

The legislation emerged from three different Senate committees. The Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act was passed by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, while the Surface Transportation Act came from the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The Energy Infrastructure Act emerged from the Energy and Natural Resources committee, and the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act, from the Committee of Environment and Public Works. To be sure, a number of senators had a hand in drafting the legislation. The Senate leadership, to help ease passage, brought the disparate pieces together into one large omnibus bill.

The total amount of appropriations authorized by the bill is $1.2 trillion. Of this sum, $550 billion is new authorized spending. This is the new funding the Biden administration wanted. Originally, the administration wanted much more, but settled on the $550 billion. Eventually, the Senate, through long negotiations came to agreement, and the additional $550 billion was incorporated into the four Acts listed above. The legislation and spending will cover a five year period from 2022 to 2026. It's interesting to note that if the Senate did not approve the $550 billion in new spending, the federal government's appropriations under the four Acts for the five year period would have been roughly $650 billion ($1.2 trillion - $550 billion); that is, if the Acts were approved fully funded and signed into law, which probably would have happened without much ado. That would have been, to put it another way, business as usual.

But the 2021 Infrastructure Bill was not business as usual because it included the additional $550 billion in new spending, which, by any measure, is significant. The new funding nearly doubles the amount of federal investment in infrastructure over the next five years. With passage by the Senate on a bipartisan 69-30 vote, the legislation moves to the House, which will take up the bill when it reconvenes in mid-September.


Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 12, 2021, 05:16:00 AM
Thanks for clearing up when the house will take this on. I was wondering when that will happen.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on August 12, 2021, 06:51:35 AM
In the end, it's really the notice that FHWA issues that lets DOTs know how much apportionment they're getting in each fund source that matters.

I mean, it doesn't change the fact that people have been running around NYSDOT excited about the possibilities, but until I see the FHWA notice, I really hold back judgment.

NY has been hit with a wave of retirements, both in the private and public sectors.  Without contractors/consultants or governmemts (State and local) having the ability to hire, this may be a case where you have more money than ability to develop projects (i.e., get them through preliminary design).
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 12, 2021, 06:59:56 AM
Iím really surprised NYSDOT is so strapped for cash. I donít know if a California like SB-1 would fly there.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: LM117 on August 12, 2021, 08:17:45 AM
With passage by the Senate on a bipartisan 69-30 vote, the legislation moves to the House, which will take up the bill when it reconvenes in mid-September.

The House is now planning to reconvene on Aug. 23.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/567269-its-now-pelosis-move-on-bipartisan-roads-bill (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/567269-its-now-pelosis-move-on-bipartisan-roads-bill)
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Avalanchez71 on August 12, 2021, 08:35:37 AM
We still do not know what will be spent on transportation.  It appears that there is opposition to transportation.  Not delving further with this post.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on August 12, 2021, 11:22:20 AM
Iím really surprised NYSDOT is so strapped for cash. I donít know if a California like SB-1 would fly there.
I find the public mostly ignorant of how much of transportation is supported by bonding (borrowing money) rather than taxes at the state level...
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on August 12, 2021, 11:23:03 AM
We still do not know what will be spent on transportation.  It appears that there is opposition to transportation.  Not delving further with this post.
Wut.

The summary a few points above provides a lot of info that is contrary to your conclusion.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: vdeane on August 12, 2021, 12:34:04 PM
Iím really surprised NYSDOT is so strapped for cash. I donít know if a California like SB-1 would fly there.
I find the public mostly ignorant of how much of transportation is supported by bonding (borrowing money) rather than taxes at the state level...
To be fair, NY is a bit odd relative to many states because we're funded entirely out of the general fund, not the gas tax (which goes to that fund and is just another tax in NY).  In many states, probably even most, the DOT is funded directly from the gas tax.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on August 12, 2021, 12:50:54 PM
Iím really surprised NYSDOT is so strapped for cash. I donít know if a California like SB-1 would fly there.
I find the public mostly ignorant of how much of transportation is supported by bonding (borrowing money) rather than taxes at the state level...
To be fair, NY is a bit odd relative to many states because we're funded entirely out of the general fund, not the gas tax (which goes to that fund and is just another tax in NY).  In many states, probably even most, the DOT is funded directly from the gas tax.
Well, no, NYSDOT is not entirely funded by taxes -- not by a long shot.  Various types of bonds -- especially personal income tax bonds -- represent a significant percentage of NYSDOT's capital program now.

And, in my personal opinion, even if a citizen looked at the types of bonds, they would mistake what those bonds are being spent on (i.e., the bonds may sound like they are for a specific initiative, but the projects really are just core projects).
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on August 12, 2021, 01:20:30 PM
Meanwhile, Oklahoma DOT has no bonding authority at all, and can only pay for projects with the money the Legislature gives them. (This is why, among other things, the I-235/I-44 interchange has taken 11 years to reconstruct, because only so much money is available each year for the project).

OTA is allowed to issue bonds because they have a non-tax income source to pay them off, which is why turnpike projects are completed so much faster than free road projects here.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on August 12, 2021, 01:30:47 PM
Meanwhile, Oklahoma DOT has no bonding authority at all, and can only pay for projects with the money the Legislature gives them. (This is why, among other things, the I-235/I-44 interchange has taken 11 years to reconstruct, because only so much money is available each year for the project).

OTA is allowed to issue bonds because they have a non-tax income source to pay them off, which is why turnpike projects are completed so much faster than free road projects here.
It's a weird arrangement in NY.  I don't think NYSDOT does the bonding itself, but it is handled by the Department of Budget and then handed over to NYSDOT.  This is definitely true for personal income tax bonds (i.e., bonds that use income tax revenue as collateral).

Every year (or maybe semi-annually), NYSDOT submits a report to DOB on its bondable projects and the "bond life" of such projects for other bonds taken out against the value of the assets affected.

NY is great at taking full advantage of the legal framework and any loopholes contained therein.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: ITB on August 12, 2021, 01:55:44 PM
With passage by the Senate on a bipartisan 69-30 vote, the legislation moves to the House, which will take up the bill when it reconvenes in mid-September.

The House is now planning to reconvene on Aug. 23.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/567269-its-now-pelosis-move-on-bipartisan-roads-bill (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/567269-its-now-pelosis-move-on-bipartisan-roads-bill)

Nice catch. I wasn't aware of that.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Avalanchez71 on August 12, 2021, 02:29:19 PM
We still do not know what will be spent on transportation.  It appears that there is opposition to transportation.  Not delving further with this post.
Wut.

The summary a few points above provides a lot of info that is contrary to your conclusion.

The bill has to go back to the House.  There are those in the House that do not want money spent on non-green type transportation.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on August 12, 2021, 02:41:41 PM
The House has fewer procedural rules than the Senate does that allow a minority to block legislation they do not like, though. Once it gets put on the calendar by the Speaker, the only real way to defeat legislation in the House is to have more than half of the body vote against it. (No filibuster rules here.) And I'm pretty sure that the idea that more than half of the House "does not want money spent on non-green type transportation" enough to defeat the bill is wishful thinking.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 12, 2021, 03:10:57 PM
Iím really surprised NYSDOT is so strapped for cash. I donít know if a California like SB-1 would fly there.
I find the public mostly ignorant of how much of transportation is supported by bonding (borrowing money) rather than taxes at the state level...
To be fair, NY is a bit odd relative to many states because we're funded entirely out of the general fund, not the gas tax (which goes to that fund and is just another tax in NY).  In many states, probably even most, the DOT is funded directly from the gas tax.
Well, no, NYSDOT is not entirely funded by taxes -- not by a long shot.  Various types of bonds -- especially personal income tax bonds -- represent a significant percentage of NYSDOT's capital program now.

And, in my personal opinion, even if a citizen looked at the types of bonds, they would mistake what those bonds are being spent on (i.e., the bonds may sound like they are for a specific initiative, but the projects really are just core projects).
Has there been any interest at all to change that?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on August 12, 2021, 03:20:59 PM
Iím really surprised NYSDOT is so strapped for cash. I donít know if a California like SB-1 would fly there.
I find the public mostly ignorant of how much of transportation is supported by bonding (borrowing money) rather than taxes at the state level...
To be fair, NY is a bit odd relative to many states because we're funded entirely out of the general fund, not the gas tax (which goes to that fund and is just another tax in NY).  In many states, probably even most, the DOT is funded directly from the gas tax.
Well, no, NYSDOT is not entirely funded by taxes -- not by a long shot.  Various types of bonds -- especially personal income tax bonds -- represent a significant percentage of NYSDOT's capital program now.

And, in my personal opinion, even if a citizen looked at the types of bonds, they would mistake what those bonds are being spent on (i.e., the bonds may sound like they are for a specific initiative, but the projects really are just core projects).
Has there been any interest at all to change that?
No.  Frankly, I don't think anyone cares enough to look at this level of detail when it comes to transportation funding.  You say "bonding" and people's eyes glaze over and the roads get paved and bridges fixed like they want as hundreds of millions a year in bonds are issued and treated as a drop in NY's debt bucket.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 12, 2021, 03:54:33 PM
NY has been hit with a wave of retirements, both in the private and public sectors.  Without contractors/consultants or governmemts (State and local) having the ability to hire, this may be a case where you have more money than ability to develop projects (i.e., get them through preliminary design).

Makes me think this infusion of funds would be cause for state DOT's to staff up a little more; same for all the contractors out there who bid on these types of projects.  If they have 5 years to turn this money into action, it's all hands on deck and then some.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hbelkins on August 12, 2021, 03:58:36 PM
NY has been hit with a wave of retirements, both in the private and public sectors.  Without contractors/consultants or governmemts (State and local) having the ability to hire, this may be a case where you have more money than ability to develop projects (i.e., get them through preliminary design).

Makes me think this infusion of funds would be cause for state DOT's to staff up a little more; same for all the contractors out there who bid on these types of projects.  If they have 5 years to turn this money into action, it's all hands on deck and then some.

Hard to do that when you have people who won't work and would rather draw whatever benefits they can than actually hit a lick at a snake. If fast-food places are having trouble hiring at $12-15 per hour, governments (that typically pay less than the private sector for the same types of work) are certainly going to have trouble.

We have trouble keeping CDL holders, especially in our counties that are closer to central Kentucky.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on August 12, 2021, 03:59:31 PM
NY has been hit with a wave of retirements, both in the private and public sectors.  Without contractors/consultants or governmemts (State and local) having the ability to hire, this may be a case where you have more money than ability to develop projects (i.e., get them through preliminary design).

Makes me think this infusion of funds would be cause for state DOT's to staff up a little more; same for all the contractors out there who bid on these types of projects.  If they have 5 years to turn this money into action, it's all hands on deck and then some.
The States need money to hire.  Capital program federal funds do not pay for salaries and wages and a basic level (i.e., right out of pocket).  That said, some activities, like in-house design are reimbursible.  Scoping and the like can be funded with Statewide Planning and Research (SPR) funding. 

Short of it:  States put up the wages and benefits cost up front out of State funds and then only some of those can be federally reimbursed.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on August 12, 2021, 04:02:01 PM
NY has been hit with a wave of retirements, both in the private and public sectors.  Without contractors/consultants or governmemts (State and local) having the ability to hire, this may be a case where you have more money than ability to develop projects (i.e., get them through preliminary design).

Makes me think this infusion of funds would be cause for state DOT's to staff up a little more; same for all the contractors out there who bid on these types of projects.  If they have 5 years to turn this money into action, it's all hands on deck and then some.

Hard to do that when you have people who won't work and would rather draw whatever benefits they can than actually hit a lick at a snake. If fast-food places are having trouble hiring at $12-15 per hour, governments (that typically pay less than the private sector for the same types of work) are certainly going to have trouble.

We have trouble keeping CDL holders, especially in our counties that are closer to central Kentucky.

Pfft.  The higher minimum wage is not an issue for NY.

Are your CDLs going private because public salaries aren't competitive?  That's the case up here with licensed engineers and our CDL shortage, rather than people wanting to work minimum wage or collect welfare.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on August 12, 2021, 05:33:35 PM
NY has been hit with a wave of retirements, both in the private and public sectors.  Without contractors/consultants or governmemts (State and local) having the ability to hire, this may be a case where you have more money than ability to develop projects (i.e., get them through preliminary design).

Makes me think this infusion of funds would be cause for state DOT's to staff up a little more; same for all the contractors out there who bid on these types of projects.  If they have 5 years to turn this money into action, it's all hands on deck and then some.

Hard to do that when you have people who won't work and would rather draw whatever benefits they can than actually hit a lick at a snake. If fast-food places are having trouble hiring at $12-15 per hour, governments (that typically pay less than the private sector for the same types of work) are certainly going to have trouble.

Total bullshit. Fast food places are having trouble hiring because it's a shit job and you have to deal with customers with personalities comparable to diseased feral cats. The increased wages in food service and retail are a correction to what they always deserved to be paid in the first place.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Dirt Roads on August 12, 2021, 07:43:08 PM
Hard to do that when you have people who won't work and would rather draw whatever benefits they can than actually hit a lick at a snake. If fast-food places are having trouble hiring at $12-15 per hour, governments (that typically pay less than the private sector for the same types of work) are certainly going to have trouble.

Total bullshit. Fast food places are having trouble hiring because it's a shit job and you have to deal with customers with personalities comparable to diseased feral cats. The increased wages in food service and retail are a correction to what they always deserved to be paid in the first place.

Kind of harsh, don't you think?  I'm hearing someone who is a KyTC employee that doesn't make enough money to fund a modest Roadgeek hobby get whacked after he tried to make a connection between one type of employment issue with another type of employment issue.  Not sure that I see the connection between the two types of employment, but I understand why he is angry.  And I understand why others on the opposite side of this argument are angry.  Unfortunately, the Infrastructure Bill isn't going to help either group unless you want to "grab a shovel" and go where the work is.  I did just that some 36 years ago, and it was a blast.  If I could, I'd love to get back in the trenches.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on August 12, 2021, 07:50:00 PM
Not at all. The idea that the current employee shortages in the service sector are because "people won't work because they're drawing benefits" is bullshit and needs to be called out as such.

That being said, H.B. deserves a raise too.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: vdeane on August 12, 2021, 08:25:32 PM
Another issue with DOT staffing is that the civil service system is slow.  By the time your typical civil engineering graduate has taken a civil service exam, gotten the results, applied for a posting, gotten an interview, and finally gotten an offer, they've probably already been employed elsewhere for a while.  This is true even if you only count from the time one gets the test results.  Hiring in the state takes a LONG time.  When I got my job, I applied in January, interviewed in mid-March, and got the offer at the end of April.

All that is moot, of course, because getting approval to post a job for anything other than a maintenance worker is hard these days for NYSDOT.  IIRC, the hiring freeze that was put into place in 2020 hasn't been fully lifted.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Mapmikey on August 12, 2021, 09:14:49 PM
One cannot quit a job to get the Covid benefits (outside narrow circumstances involving having Covid).  Also, if you were laid off and are receiving the enhanced benefits, if your former employer offers you the job back, you have to take it or lose the benefits (again, outside some narrow circumstances).

That said there will always be a way for a small group of people to figure out how to game the system.  It's difficult to not have this in a nationwide program of any kind.

But I see plenty of 'we're hiring' signs for all kinds of businesses offering well more than $600 a week (the enhanced benefit is only $300 a week now anyway, and 26 states have already stopped giving the enhanced benefits, which currently stop Sep 6 everywhere else).  There are other issues as well...is there enough child care available? 

Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hbelkins on August 12, 2021, 09:54:36 PM
Kentucky did away with the civil service exam a few years ago, and now applicants qualify based on experience and education, although I'm sure there are some subjective criteria in there as well, and there are veterans preference points.

That being said, it's slow getting a job posted and filled here too. Even if someone gives ample notice of retirement and the upcoming vacancy is known well in advance, they wait until the position is vacant before they hire someone to fill it, instead of having someone ready to move in the next day after the retiring employee departs.

As far as retaining employees goes, in our westernmost counties, there are better-paying jobs available in adjacent counties. And some of them are close enough to Lexington to make commuting an attractive option if the pay is good enough. And even in other, more remote counties. it's often cheaper for CDL holders to take jobs as OTR truckers because the financial gain for their families is worth being away from them for days at a time. Plus, there's the issue of being on-call 24/7/365, not just in winter for snow removal, but for rock/mudslides, fallen trees, flooding, etc.

In general, this region has gone from people looking for work and being told no one is hiring, to plenty of open jobs but people unwilling to take them. Those people are surviving somehow if they're not working for a living.

As far as what employment boosts the infrastructure bill might give, wages will be impacted by Davis-Bacon provisions and contractors will have to pay prevailing wage (union scale) on those jobs that are federally funded. No such restrictions exist for state-funded projects and they're subject only to the state's minimum wage laws.

There have been some salary adjustments for various classes, but in Kentucky, an employee who has held the same job title and classification has effectively not had a raise since 2007. Minuscule raises given during the last years of Gov. Steve Beshear's second term did not offset the negative impacts of furloughs earlier in his tenure. No raises were given during Matt Bevin's four years and none so far have been forthcoming during two years under Andy Beshear. Ernie Fletcher was the last governor who budgeted raises across the board, and Paul Patton was the last governor who budgeted for the statutorily-required 5 percent annual increments.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on August 12, 2021, 11:31:05 PM
So, yes, private sector pays more for CDLs and engineers in KY.

Still not sure what that has to do with help wanted signs for minimum wage jobs.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: HighwayStar on August 13, 2021, 11:47:55 AM
NY has been hit with a wave of retirements, both in the private and public sectors.  Without contractors/consultants or governmemts (State and local) having the ability to hire, this may be a case where you have more money than ability to develop projects (i.e., get them through preliminary design).

Makes me think this infusion of funds would be cause for state DOT's to staff up a little more; same for all the contractors out there who bid on these types of projects.  If they have 5 years to turn this money into action, it's all hands on deck and then some.

Hard to do that when you have people who won't work and would rather draw whatever benefits they can than actually hit a lick at a snake. If fast-food places are having trouble hiring at $12-15 per hour, governments (that typically pay less than the private sector for the same types of work) are certainly going to have trouble.

Total bullshit. Fast food places are having trouble hiring because it's a shit job and you have to deal with customers with personalities comparable to diseased feral cats. The increased wages in food service and retail are a correction to what they always deserved to be paid in the first place.

People don't "deserve" a wage any more than than they are "entitled" to gravity or electromagnetism. Wages are, in the absence of market distortion, the market clearing price for an equilibrium where quantity supplied is equal to quantity demanded.
Fast food wages have historically been low because it is low value added work. The marginal productivity of an additional worker is low, therefore employers do not demand labor past a certain price point as it would be NPV negative to do so.
The end result is low wages. Wages are high now, not because people "deserve" anything, but because the labor supply curve has been shifted left by paying people to not work. When you are paid to sit on the couch and drink you have no incentive to go work for the same or slightly more money.
There is some demand side mixed in here as well, but by far the largest issue is a supply side problem of people not going back to work because they have too much free money to make it worth their while.
If the rule of a man not working, neither shall he eat, is reimposed, then the supply curve would shift right, resulting in wages ceasing to rise, or perhaps even falling.
And of course laid on top of all of this is a strong inflationary component, where I have doubts that real fast food wages have risen as much as  people think.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: 1 on August 13, 2021, 11:58:48 AM
People deserve a living wage. Why do you think that some jobs should pay so little that you can't even afford rent on your apartment?

The market equilibrium is not the optimal solution here, since it puts many people in poverty.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: HighwayStar on August 13, 2021, 12:13:56 PM
People deserve a living wage. Why do you think that some jobs should pay so little that you can't even afford rent on your apartment?

The market equilibrium is not the optimal solution here, since it puts many people in poverty.

People do not "deserve" anything. What you decide one person "deserves" beyond its actual value implies you must steal from another.

What do I think of those jobs? The answer is actually obvious, that the market value of that person's labor in that job produces less wealth than it takes for them to live in their own apartment. Simple as that. The obvious implication is that they need to either A) live within their means, which might mean taking roommates, living with mom and dad for a bit, etc. or B) increase their skills and their labor market value to try and earn a higher income or C) a combination of both.

And it does NOTHING to put people in poverty, since poverty is defined as some lower tier of the current incomes.
There was a study done a few years ago, which is still applicable, on what people who were below the "poverty line" had, it found, amongst other things, that the typical household below the poverty line "has a car and air conditioning, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR". On a more personal note, when I worked in the grocery store (for minimum wage mind you) I got a first hand look at how the supposedly "poor" live. By and large, people that came in to pay with food stamps were overweight indicating they had plenty of food, tattooed indicating they had disposable income for body art, and bought more junk food, booze, and cigarettes than the average customer. And yet they still needed my income taxes to be taken from me to pay for their food stamps.

The point here is that the poverty line is always a relative definition, so no amount of increasing wages will remove poverty defined that way, and if we define it in constant terms it is exceptionally rare today by any reasonable definition.

That is not to say I don't want high wages and prosperity, I do, but that cannot be produced by paying people more than their contribution actually is, nor can it be done by simply transferring it from those who produced it to those that don't. High wages and general prosperity result from macroeconomic conditions that have to be carefully developed though good policies, among them building roads, bridges, tunnels, etc. that are a public good.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rick Powell on August 13, 2021, 12:34:04 PM
Makes me think this infusion of funds would be cause for state DOT's to staff up a little more; same for all the contractors out there who bid on these types of projects.  If they have 5 years to turn this money into action, it's all hands on deck and then some.

In Illinois, we passed a large capital improvement plan called "Rebuild Illinois" that created more work. However, the IDOT's plan to rebuild the department hasn't generated the results they wanted, and the same is pretty much true for Chicago DOT and the counties, all of who I work with, who are sometimes losing more employees to early retirement than they are gaining with new hires. Typically, state infusion of cash has yielded more work than federal funding increases, so even with the largesse of the coming federal bill, I am not sure it will translate to a hiring increase by the state and local DOTs. Consultant and contractor world, yes. Our skills are in high demand in the private sector these days (and in turn makes it harder for the DOTs to hire new or experienced employees at their pay scales). In heavily unionized states like IL, the contractors are limited by the number of available employees in the unionized labor pool, so it's either ramp up the apprenticeship program, work more OT and pay the premium (which is built into bid prices), or a combination of both.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: 1 on August 13, 2021, 12:44:55 PM
People deserve a living wage. Why do you think that some jobs should pay so little that you can't even afford rent on your apartment?

The market equilibrium is not the optimal solution here, since it puts many people in poverty.

People do not "deserve" anything. What you decide one person "deserves" beyond its actual value implies you must steal from another.

What do I think of those jobs? The answer is actually obvious, that the market value of that person's labor in that job produces less wealth than it takes for them to live in their own apartment. Simple as that. The obvious implication is that they need to either A) live within their means, which might mean taking roommates, living with mom and dad for a bit, etc. or B) increase their skills and their labor market value to try and earn a higher income or C) a combination of both.

And it does NOTHING to put people in poverty, since poverty is defined as some lower tier of the current incomes.
There was a study done a few years ago, which is still applicable, on what people who were below the "poverty line" had, it found, amongst other things, that the typical household below the poverty line "has a car and air conditioning, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR". On a more personal note, when I worked in the grocery store (for minimum wage mind you) I got a first hand look at how the supposedly "poor" live. By and large, people that came in to pay with food stamps were overweight indicating they had plenty of food, tattooed indicating they had disposable income for body art, and bought more junk food, booze, and cigarettes than the average customer. And yet they still needed my income taxes to be taken from me to pay for their food stamps.

The point here is that the poverty line is always a relative definition, so no amount of increasing wages will remove poverty defined that way, and if we define it in constant terms it is exceptionally rare today by any reasonable definition.

That is not to say I don't want high wages and prosperity, I do, but that cannot be produced by paying people more than their contribution actually is, nor can it be done by simply transferring it from those who produced it to those that don't. High wages and general prosperity result from macroeconomic conditions that have to be carefully developed though good policies, among them building roads, bridges, tunnels, etc. that are a public good.

Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on August 13, 2021, 01:03:00 PM
Free market works both ways, bub. If demand exceeds supply prices go up. Same is true of labor as it is of goods. If you don't like it, move to Venezuela or something. That's what you're supposed to say when someone complains about capitalism, right? I'm new to this.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on August 13, 2021, 01:03:06 PM
Headed towards a thread lock...
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: 1 on August 13, 2021, 01:04:27 PM
Headed towards a thread lock...

Delete the offending posts; keep the thread open.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kphoger on August 13, 2021, 02:36:11 PM
  • Poor people are more likely to be overweight because healthier food costs more. That's also why they're buying junk food.

Yes, thank you!  As a general rule, fit and trim people tend to be eating healthier food than fat people, and eating healthy costs more.



As for the poverty line, I agree that it is artificially high in this country.  (Note that there are countless "poverty lines", depending on which agency is making the definitions.)  As for fast food workers, wages around here average about $8.50 per hourówhich isn't super low for a starting position at an unskilled job.  However, considering that almost everyone would answer "fast food" if you asked them what one job they would never take, it does seem a shame they don't make more money than that.

Yes, some people are not looking for work because they've gotten a bunch of cash from Uncle Sam this year.  People who don't believe that either (1) need to meet more poor people or (2) need to get some common sense.  Of course, that's always been the case with unemployment benefits too.  But making it so nobody takes advantage of the system would take a much higher level of precision than government agencies can afford to have.  Better to have a decent benefit system that some people take advantage of than an insufficient one that prevents such from happening.

What does this have to do with the infrastructure bill, again?  Oh, yeah, that's right:

1.  (Rothman) The government gives a big wad of cash to the DOTs.
2.  (Rothman) The DOTs now have more money than they have projects ready to spend it on.
3.  (triplemultiplex) The DOTs should hire more staff and contractors to get through projects faster.
4.  (hbelkins) The DOTs are having a hard time hiring people because people are still living off Uncle Sam's fun-checks.

Well, that does seem like a bit of a dilemma (if true), but how much longer will the situation remain as it is?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Avalanchez71 on August 13, 2021, 02:42:42 PM
So how many contractors are lined up with their hands out?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on August 13, 2021, 02:48:42 PM
1.  (Rothman) The government gives a big wad of cash to the DOTs.
2.  (Rothman) The DOTs now have more money than they have projects ready to spend it on.
3.  (triplemultiplex) The DOTs should hire more staff and contractors to get through projects faster.
4.  (hbelkins) The DOTs are having a hard time hiring people because people are still living off Uncle Sam's fun-checks.

Well, that does seem like a bit of a dilemma (if true), but how much longer will the situation remain as it is?

Where the "people are still living off Uncle Sam's fun-checks" line of reasoning breaks down, though, is that I would expect someone with the credentials necessary to get a DOT job could probably use those credentials to make way more money actually working, either for the DOT or in the private sector, than they would sitting at home on benefits.

Which means that either the DOT is really competing with the private sector and losing, or people aren't motivated by money anymore. The former means that public sector jobs need to boost their salary and benefits to compete on a more equal level. The latter means that capitalism as a whole is breaking down, which is something that can't be fixed by an infrastructure bill, no matter how many trillions of dollars you put in it.

So how many contractors are lined up with their hands out?

4d12 + 2.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on August 13, 2021, 03:14:18 PM
Right, it's not Uncle Sam's fun money that is causing the lack of recruitment into the public sector for CDLs and PEs.  Public sector wages and benefits are no longer competitive with the private sector.  Has nothing to do with minimum wage earners.

That said, contractors and consultants are having a hard time keeping up with their contract work.  Seems to be a shortage of competent managers (NYSDOT has been DQ-ing a lot of bids lately, it seems) and qualified candidates. 

Could be very interesting if States decide to dump more work on consultants to get preliminary engineering done.  Might slow down the work due to the procurement processes in place.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: JoePCool14 on August 14, 2021, 08:43:48 AM
  • Poor people are more likely to be overweight because healthier food costs more. That's also why they're buying junk food.

Uh, what? You're telling me that poor people have no choice but to eat McDonald's all day long?

You know what's cheaper than drinking juice, soda, or beer? Drinking water. You do not have to drink sugary drinks. Even if you do go to a fast food joint and you get a cup with a meal. Just ask for water.

You're also implying that all fruits and vegetables are prohibitably expensive and that's just flat-out false. You can get half a dozen bananas for a buck or two. Even when it comes to meat, there are cheaper options that aren't as expensive. You don't have to go and buy a t-bone or filet mignon steak. You could buy a package of frozen burgers or chicken. Eggs are also fairly cheap and easy to cook. You can get a dozen for a couple dollars there too.

There's also the idea of simply... eating less which will automatically help lose weight and help save money. I shouldn't have to explain this one.

The problem is that some (key word here) people are just chronically poor. They are unable to hold jobs, unable to learn good financial practices, and unable to control themselves when it comes to their diet and other habits. In these cases, there's a reason they are poor, and it's their own fault (or the fault of some sort of disability), and it's likely they will never, ever change. Others will recognize their poverty, make changes to their lifestyle, save up money, and try to move themselves up out of poverty.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Flint1979 on August 14, 2021, 09:00:45 AM
  • Poor people are more likely to be overweight because healthier food costs more. That's also why they're buying junk food.

Uh, what? You're telling me that poor people have no choice but to eat McDonald's all day long?

You know what's cheaper than drinking juice, soda, or beer? Drinking water. You do not have to drink sugary drinks. Even if you do go to a fast food joint and you get a cup with a meal. Just ask for water.

You're also implying that all fruits and vegetables are prohibitably expensive and that's just flat-out false. You can get half a dozen bananas for a buck or two. Even when it comes to meat, there are cheaper options that aren't as expensive. You don't have to go and buy a t-bone or filet mignon steak. You could buy a package of frozen burgers or chicken. Eggs are also fairly cheap and easy to cook. You can get a dozen for a couple dollars there too.

There's also the idea of simply... eating less which will automatically help lose weight and help save money. I shouldn't have to explain this one.

The problem is that some (key word here) people are just chronically poor. They are unable to hold jobs, unable to learn good financial practices, and unable to control themselves when it comes to their diet and other habits. In these cases, there's a reason they are poor, and it's their own fault (or the fault of some sort of disability), and it's likely they will never, ever change. Others will recognize their poverty, make changes to their lifestyle, save up money, and try to move themselves up out of poverty.
I drink pop because I like it but man I love drinking water more often. Last night I wanted a pop but got water instead. It's healthier.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on August 14, 2021, 09:11:02 AM
  • Poor people are more likely to be overweight because healthier food costs more. That's also why they're buying junk food.

Uh, what? You're telling me that poor people have no choice but to eat McDonald's all day long?

You know what's cheaper than drinking juice, soda, or beer? Drinking water. You do not have to drink sugary drinks. Even if you do go to a fast food joint and you get a cup with a meal. Just ask for water.

You're also implying that all fruits and vegetables are prohibitably expensive and that's just flat-out false. You can get half a dozen bananas for a buck or two. Even when it comes to meat, there are cheaper options that aren't as expensive. You don't have to go and buy a t-bone or filet mignon steak. You could buy a package of frozen burgers or chicken. Eggs are also fairly cheap and easy to cook. You can get a dozen for a couple dollars there too.

There's also the idea of simply... eating less which will automatically help lose weight and help save money. I shouldn't have to explain this one.

The problem is that some (key word here) people are just chronically poor. They are unable to hold jobs, unable to learn good financial practices, and unable to control themselves when it comes to their diet and other habits. In these cases, there's a reason they are poor, and it's their own fault (or the fault of some sort of disability), and it's likely they will never, ever change. Others will recognize their poverty, make changes to their lifestyle, save up money, and try to move themselves up out of poverty.
Eating McDonald's isn't the only way of getting fat. 

Eating healthy can not only be expensive, but time-consuming.  When you're working two jobs, spending an hour cooking just isn't going to happen.  So, you go the convenient route and end up eating more processed, somewhat ready to go meals -- stuff that takes minutes that is less healthy.

And that is why obesity is not only a poor people's problem and a third of Americans are prediabetic.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Flint1979 on August 14, 2021, 09:19:21 AM
  • Poor people are more likely to be overweight because healthier food costs more. That's also why they're buying junk food.

Uh, what? You're telling me that poor people have no choice but to eat McDonald's all day long?

You know what's cheaper than drinking juice, soda, or beer? Drinking water. You do not have to drink sugary drinks. Even if you do go to a fast food joint and you get a cup with a meal. Just ask for water.

You're also implying that all fruits and vegetables are prohibitably expensive and that's just flat-out false. You can get half a dozen bananas for a buck or two. Even when it comes to meat, there are cheaper options that aren't as expensive. You don't have to go and buy a t-bone or filet mignon steak. You could buy a package of frozen burgers or chicken. Eggs are also fairly cheap and easy to cook. You can get a dozen for a couple dollars there too.

There's also the idea of simply... eating less which will automatically help lose weight and help save money. I shouldn't have to explain this one.

The problem is that some (key word here) people are just chronically poor. They are unable to hold jobs, unable to learn good financial practices, and unable to control themselves when it comes to their diet and other habits. In these cases, there's a reason they are poor, and it's their own fault (or the fault of some sort of disability), and it's likely they will never, ever change. Others will recognize their poverty, make changes to their lifestyle, save up money, and try to move themselves up out of poverty.
Eating McDonald's isn't the only way of getting fat. 

Eating healthy can not only be expensive, but time-consuming.  When you're working two jobs, spending an hour cooking just isn't going to happen.  So, you go the convenient route and end up eating more processed, somewhat ready to go meals -- stuff that takes minutes that is less healthy.

And that is why obesity is not only a poor people's problem and a third of Americans are prediabetic.
Yeah like my families restaurant here in Saginaw. It's not the best food for you but it tastes good and that's what people go for I think is how it tastes and everything. And then having probably the most popular restaurant in Saginaw helps too but that don't have nothing to do with healthy eating it's not healthy I'll say that but I'll never discourage anyone from eating there.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on August 14, 2021, 09:20:05 AM
  • Poor people are more likely to be overweight because healthier food costs more. That's also why they're buying junk food.

Uh, what? You're telling me that poor people have no choice but to eat McDonald's all day long?

You know what's cheaper than drinking juice, soda, or beer? Drinking water. You do not have to drink sugary drinks. Even if you do go to a fast food joint and you get a cup with a meal. Just ask for water.

You're also implying that all fruits and vegetables are prohibitably expensive and that's just flat-out false. You can get half a dozen bananas for a buck or two. Even when it comes to meat, there are cheaper options that aren't as expensive. You don't have to go and buy a t-bone or filet mignon steak. You could buy a package of frozen burgers or chicken. Eggs are also fairly cheap and easy to cook. You can get a dozen for a couple dollars there too.

There's also the idea of simply... eating less which will automatically help lose weight and help save money. I shouldn't have to explain this one.

The problem is that some (key word here) people are just chronically poor. They are unable to hold jobs, unable to learn good financial practices, and unable to control themselves when it comes to their diet and other habits. In these cases, there's a reason they are poor, and it's their own fault (or the fault of some sort of disability), and it's likely they will never, ever change. Others will recognize their poverty, make changes to their lifestyle, save up money, and try to move themselves up out of poverty.
Eating McDonald's isn't the only way of getting fat. 

Eating healthy can not only be expensive, but time-consuming.  When you're working two jobs, spending an hour cooking just isn't going to happen.  So, you go the convenient route and end up eating more processed, somewhat ready to go meals -- stuff that takes minutes that is less healthy.

And that is why obesity is not only a poor people's problem and a third of Americans are prediabetic.
Yeah like my families restaurant here in Saginaw. It's not the best food for you but it tastes good and that's what people go for I think is how it tastes and everything. And then having probably the most popular restaurant in Saginaw helps too but that don't have nothing to do with healthy eating it's not healthy I'll say that but I'll never discourage anyone from eating there.
Heh.  That's a fun conflict of interest. :D
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: JoePCool14 on August 14, 2021, 09:25:01 AM
Eating McDonald's isn't the only way of getting fat. 

Eating healthy can not only be expensive, but time-consuming.  When you're working two jobs, spending an hour cooking just isn't going to happen.  So, you go the convenient route and end up eating more processed, somewhat ready to go meals -- stuff that takes minutes that is less healthy.

And that is why obesity is not only a poor people's problem and a third of Americans are prediabetic.

I knew someone was going to bring up time to cook! I didn't feel like addressing it in my last reply (I'm lazy too sometimes). It's a valid point. There are things that take less cook time - or no cook time in the case of fruit or a simple sandwich - but again, that can take some know-how and more importantly the will to go that route.

So at the end of the day, it's the same problem. You have to have the will to eat better but still within your means of time and money.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on August 14, 2021, 09:28:49 AM
Eating McDonald's isn't the only way of getting fat. 

Eating healthy can not only be expensive, but time-consuming.  When you're working two jobs, spending an hour cooking just isn't going to happen.  So, you go the convenient route and end up eating more processed, somewhat ready to go meals -- stuff that takes minutes that is less healthy.

And that is why obesity is not only a poor people's problem and a third of Americans are prediabetic.

I knew someone was going to bring up time to cook! I didn't feel like addressing it in my last reply (I'm lazy too sometimes). It's a valid point. There are things that take less cook time - or no cook time in the case of fruit or a simple sandwich - but again, that can take some know-how and more importantly the will to go that route.

So at the end of the day, it's the same problem. You have to have the will to eat better but still within your means of time and money.
This kind of preaching smells of someome who needs some expsoure to the other side of life.  I've been poor and have tried to help a decent number of poor people through church service.  Life and diet just isn't this simple for a whole lot of people.  The pressures and circumstances are just too nuanced.

The only answer is to control the supply rather than the demand. :D
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Mapmikey on August 14, 2021, 10:00:10 AM
Eating McDonald's isn't the only way of getting fat. 

Eating healthy can not only be expensive, but time-consuming.  When you're working two jobs, spending an hour cooking just isn't going to happen.  So, you go the convenient route and end up eating more processed, somewhat ready to go meals -- stuff that takes minutes that is less healthy.

And that is why obesity is not only a poor people's problem and a third of Americans are prediabetic.

I knew someone was going to bring up time to cook! I didn't feel like addressing it in my last reply (I'm lazy too sometimes). It's a valid point. There are things that take less cook time - or no cook time in the case of fruit or a simple sandwich - but again, that can take some know-how and more importantly the will to go that route.

So at the end of the day, it's the same problem. You have to have the will to eat better but still within your means of time and money.

Hoping as you age you will learn both nuance and empathy.

Next time you're in an impoverished area, rural or urban, try to find a large grocery store that sells fruits and vegetables at the prices you indicate are available.  Then go to the convenience store or rural market that actually does exist and see how much more expensive everything is.  The local fast food eatery is often cheaper.  Google the term 'food desert' sometime.

So maybe they should just travel to where the cheaper groceries exist?  Sure.  Ever done grocery shopping on a bus (assuming there is one) for a family of 4?  How often would you have to go shopping to make that work?

Save money so you won't be poor anymore.  Why didn't they think of that?  When you are near the bottom of the economic ladder, the amount you can put away is pretty small.  So that strategy can only work at all if (and it would still take quite a while):  nobody in your family EVER needs to visit a doctor and you definitely can't need an ambulance; if you happen to have a car (as you would have to in a rural area) it can't ever need repair and you can't ever be involved in an accident (your fault or not); none of your appliances ever go bad; nothing bad ever happens to whatever structure you live in; you never lose the job(s) you have out of the blue.  These things are even true for people who make good money but live in a large city because housing eats up everything they make.

Yes, when talking about any sociological standard there will be some people at the bottom of that through their own choices and given we are a very large country there are enough of them to be visible.  However, there are enough people born into their economic status that it is necessary to try to be more understanding and help where possible.



Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Occidental Tourist on August 14, 2021, 11:51:01 AM
Eating McDonald's isn't the only way of getting fat. 

Eating healthy can not only be expensive, but time-consuming.  When you're working two jobs, spending an hour cooking just isn't going to happen.  So, you go the convenient route and end up eating more processed, somewhat ready to go meals -- stuff that takes minutes that is less healthy.

And that is why obesity is not only a poor people's problem and a third of Americans are prediabetic.

I knew someone was going to bring up time to cook! I didn't feel like addressing it in my last reply (I'm lazy too sometimes). It's a valid point. There are things that take less cook time - or no cook time in the case of fruit or a simple sandwich - but again, that can take some know-how and more importantly the will to go that route.

So at the end of the day, it's the same problem. You have to have the will to eat better but still within your means of time and money.

Hoping as you age you will learn both nuance and empathy.

Next time you're in an impoverished area, rural or urban, try to find a large grocery store that sells fruits and vegetables at the prices you indicate are available.  Then go to the convenience store or rural market that actually does exist and see how much more expensive everything is.  The local fast food eatery is often cheaper.  Google the term 'food desert' sometime.

So maybe they should just travel to where the cheaper groceries exist?  Sure.  Ever done grocery shopping on a bus (assuming there is one) for a family of 4?  How often would you have to go shopping to make that work?

Save money so you won't be poor anymore.  Why didn't they think of that?  When you are near the bottom of the economic ladder, the amount you can put away is pretty small.  So that strategy can only work at all if (and it would still take quite a while):  nobody in your family EVER needs to visit a doctor and you definitely can't need an ambulance; if you happen to have a car (as you would have to in a rural area) it can't ever need repair and you can't ever be involved in an accident (your fault or not); none of your appliances ever go bad; nothing bad ever happens to whatever structure you live in; you never lose the job(s) you have out of the blue.  These things are even true for people who make good money but live in a large city because housing eats up everything they make.

Yes, when talking about any sociological standard there will be some people at the bottom of that through their own choices and given we are a very large country there are enough of them to be visible.  However, there are enough people born into their economic status that it is necessary to try to be more understanding and help where possible.




Thank you for the lecture on empathy and nuance.  You are clearly better than all of us.  As to ďfood desertsĒ being the cause of obesity among poorer populations, not everyone accepts the premise.
https://www.npr.org/2010/12/15/132076786/the-root-the-myth-of-the-food-desert
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-resource-101620-080307
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on August 14, 2021, 01:16:11 PM
Not to mentionófresh fruits and vegetables have a tendency to go bad if you don't get around to eating them. Cheap, high-calorie processed foods like frozen dinners don't. It's reasonable for someone with only a few dollars to choose to spend them on food that is less likely to be wasted.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Mapmikey on August 14, 2021, 01:49:57 PM
The definition of a food desert includes the word "affordable"

The NPR article talks about getting healthier foods into these smaller stores that are common in big cities (which my response about bananas clearly indicates I think they are available).  Nowhere in the article does it say these items were at prices poorer people can afford.

The second article (an abstract) closes with this sentence (emphasis mine) - Therefore, from the public health perspective, policies that lower the relative price of healthy food or change the ďdeep parametersĒ of preferences in favor of healthy food would be more appealing than eliminating food deserts.

The whole point of my response is that poor people by and large don't choose to be poor and they have more obstacles to eating healthy.  People (excluding those with medical conditions) who are OK financially are much more likely to be making intentional choices that result in being fatter than poorer people are.

Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but of the 10 poorest states (2019 data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_poverty_rate)), 9 are also the most obese (2019 data (https://stateofchildhoodobesity.org/adult-obesity/)).

MS, WV, AR, OK, KY, TN, AL, MI, LA and SC are all in the 10 worst for both.

Outliers were:
49th in poverty is NM but they are mid-pack for obesity.
8th worst in obesity is MI but they are 34th in poverty.

I grew up in South Carolina...I get that if everyone deep fries everything, regardless of how healthy the food started out, that is a recipe for getting fat.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on August 14, 2021, 02:22:44 PM
Speaking for rural Oklahoma...the two things that every small Oklahoma town has are a Sonic and a Dollar General, neither of which have much in the way of healthy options (Sonic's grilled chicken is good but not good enough to want to eat every single day). If you want something healthier, you may well have to drive to another county to get to a full-service grocery store Walmart. If you're poor, using the gas and time to make the drive to the grocery store may seem like a bad deal when you can just pick up some stuff at the Dollar General.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: ilpt4u on August 14, 2021, 02:38:01 PM
UmÖoff topic much? Food/Diet habits have very little to do with the Infrastructure Bill
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Bruce on August 14, 2021, 07:47:36 PM
Speaking for rural Oklahoma...the two things that every small Oklahoma town has are a Sonic and a Dollar General, neither of which have much in the way of healthy options (Sonic's grilled chicken is good but not good enough to want to eat every single day). If you want something healthier, you may well have to drive to another county to get to a full-service grocery store Walmart. If you're poor, using the gas and time to make the drive to the grocery store may seem like a bad deal when you can just pick up some stuff at the Dollar General.

The food deserts worsened by dollar chains are also becoming a huge issue in the rural Northwest. Lots of towns have lost their actual grocers, and these stores aren't mandated to provide any fresh food.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on August 14, 2021, 07:56:02 PM
Speaking for rural Oklahoma...the two things that every small Oklahoma town has are a Sonic and a Dollar General, neither of which have much in the way of healthy options (Sonic's grilled chicken is good but not good enough to want to eat every single day). If you want something healthier, you may well have to drive to another county to get to a full-service grocery store Walmart. If you're poor, using the gas and time to make the drive to the grocery store may seem like a bad deal when you can just pick up some stuff at the Dollar General.

The food deserts worsened by dollar chains are also becoming a huge issue in the rural Northwest. Lots of towns have lost their actual grocers, and these stores aren't mandated to provide any fresh food.

That's largely become a nationwide issue in general. I've heard all kinds of horror stories of DG contributing to rural grocery stores going out of business and I see them in far too many places. Two North Shore towns in MN chased DG out when they wanted to build there.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hbelkins on August 15, 2021, 11:41:35 PM
Back to the "staffing up" comment ... there was legitimate concern at KYTC that we didn't have enough inspectors to cover the regular projects we had going when the Mountain Parkway widening began. They've borrowed personnel from some of the other section offices to cover (we have people assigned to the Estill-Powell county section working in Morgan and Magoffin, which is an entirely different section office) but have also started using contracted inspectors, frequently referred to as "rent-a-techs."
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on August 15, 2021, 11:45:04 PM
Back to the "staffing up" comment ... there was legitimate concern at KYTC that we didn't have enough inspectors to cover the regular projects we had going when the Mountain Parkway widening began. They've borrowed personnel from some of the other section offices to cover (we have people assigned to the Estill-Powell county section working in Morgan and Magoffin, which is an entirely different section office) but have also started using contracted inspectors, frequently referred to as "rent-a-techs."
Inspectors for construction?  NYSDOT is probably way ahead of KYTC in contracting that out, for better or for worse.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Flint1979 on August 16, 2021, 07:50:50 AM
Speaking for rural Oklahoma...the two things that every small Oklahoma town has are a Sonic and a Dollar General, neither of which have much in the way of healthy options (Sonic's grilled chicken is good but not good enough to want to eat every single day). If you want something healthier, you may well have to drive to another county to get to a full-service grocery store Walmart. If you're poor, using the gas and time to make the drive to the grocery store may seem like a bad deal when you can just pick up some stuff at the Dollar General.

The food deserts worsened by dollar chains are also becoming a huge issue in the rural Northwest. Lots of towns have lost their actual grocers, and these stores aren't mandated to provide any fresh food.

That's largely become a nationwide issue in general. I've heard all kinds of horror stories of DG contributing to rural grocery stores going out of business and I see them in far too many places. Two North Shore towns in MN chased DG out when they wanted to build there.
Yeah Dollar General's are EVERYWHERE. I mean you could be driving along and thinking man I'm really in the middle of nowhere and bam there's a Dollar General.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: 1 on August 16, 2021, 07:52:07 AM
Side note: Dollars General?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Avalanchez71 on August 16, 2021, 08:07:00 AM
UmÖoff topic much? Food/Diet habits have very little to do with the Infrastructure Bill

The heavier folks are equates to more weight on roads and bridges.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: 1 on August 16, 2021, 09:01:02 AM
Wear is proportional to the fourth power of the weight.

An average car weighs 2,871 pounds.
(2871+250◊4)⁴ / (2871+100◊4)⁴ = 1.96: not insignificant, but that's for four people at 250 lb vs. 100 lb, which is the maximum reasonable case.

However, compare this to pickup truck vs. regular car.

6000⁴ / 2871⁴ = 19 times as much wear, and unlike semis, pickup trucks aren't limited in which roads or lanes they can use.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kalvado on August 16, 2021, 09:05:15 AM
Wear is proportional to the fourth power of the weight.

An average car weighs 2,871 pounds.
(2871+250◊4)⁴ / (2871+100◊4)⁴ = 1.96: not insignificant, but that's for four people at 250 lb vs. 100 lb, which is the maximum reasonable case.

However, compare this to pickup truck vs. regular car.

6000⁴ / 2871⁴ = 19 times as much wear, and unlike semis, pickup trucks aren't limited in which roads or lanes they can use.
Remember to add Tesla to your comparison
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hobsini2 on August 16, 2021, 09:10:11 AM
It is interesting to see how a topic goes from tangent to tangent to tangent. I once did a Wiki tangent from U.S. Grant to the Milwaukee Bridge Wars to Hank Williams Jr in a span of 3 hours. Don't ask.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kalvado on August 16, 2021, 01:26:53 PM
Trying to steer back to the bill. An interesting quote from syracuse.com article, primarily in connection with I-81 construction
Quote
The bill [ ... ]  will make permanent a provision that allows governments to require contractors to staff transportation projects with a certain amount of local workers.
[..]
 allows that targeted hiring to give priority to certain workers: People whoíve been out of work for a while. Low-income earners. People with disabilities. People who were incarcerated.

Is it just me who is becoming concerned about the quality of those builds?

https://www.syracuse.com/state/2021/08/1t-infrastructure-bill-strengthens-local-hiring-rules-for-projects-like-i-81-in-syracuse.html
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Avalanchez71 on August 16, 2021, 02:45:18 PM
Trying to steer back to the bill. An interesting quote from syracuse.com article, primarily in connection with I-81 construction
Quote
The bill [ ... ]  will make permanent a provision that allows governments to require contractors to staff transportation projects with a certain amount of local workers.
[..]
 allows that targeted hiring to give priority to certain workers: People whoíve been out of work for a while. Low-income earners. People with disabilities. People who were incarcerated.

Is it just me who is becoming concerned about the quality of those builds?

https://www.syracuse.com/state/2021/08/1t-infrastructure-bill-strengthens-local-hiring-rules-for-projects-like-i-81-in-syracuse.html

What ever happened to the best man/woman for the job?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: MCRoads on August 19, 2021, 12:24:37 AM
I have a question:
Will the feds pay states the remaining funds for projects that were previously given partial funding under old legislation? My example would be the HRBT expansion, a $3.8B dollar project that only got a small percentage of that in federal funding. I know that not all of the project could possibly be paid for by this bill, but I imagine a god portion of it could (say, $1B, about 25% of the cost. Still a lot, but this is one of the largest highway projects in the US, certainly right now, maybe in history).
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on August 19, 2021, 08:02:15 AM


I have a question:
Will the feds pay states the remaining funds for projects that were previously given partial funding under old legislation? My example would be the HRBT expansion, a $3.8B dollar project that only got a small percentage of that in federal funding. I know that not all of the project could possibly be paid for by this bill, but I imagine a god portion of it could (say, $1B, about 25% of the cost. Still a lot, but this is one of the largest highway projects in the US, certainly right now, maybe in history).

For the most part, federal funding is not tied to specific projects (outside of grants and earmarks -- formula funds are the vast majority of a state's available funds).  That said, it is rare for any type of federal funds to outright expire -- even when legislation decrees it.  There's usually a way to wriggle out of such restrictions by submitting extension requests and the like.

But, partial funding of a particular project in the past is by no means any guarantee that the Feds will come through with the rest of the funding for the rest of design or construction.  As a matter of fact, the majority of earmarked funds were woefully inadequate and instead of funding the rest of the project, over the past few years FHWA allowed the repurposing of underused or unused earmarks to different purposes.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: ilpt4u on August 19, 2021, 01:03:51 PM
Trying to steer back to the bill. An interesting quote from syracuse.com article, primarily in connection with I-81 construction
Quote
The bill [ ... ]  will make permanent a provision that allows governments to require contractors to staff transportation projects with a certain amount of local workers.
[..]
 allows that targeted hiring to give priority to certain workers: People whoíve been out of work for a while. Low-income earners. People with disabilities. People who were incarcerated.

Is it just me who is becoming concerned about the quality of those builds?

https://www.syracuse.com/state/2021/08/1t-infrastructure-bill-strengthens-local-hiring-rules-for-projects-like-i-81-in-syracuse.html
What ever happened to the best man/woman for the job?
Because the Political Machine and DOTs can develop, either naturally thru human interactions or thru ďfavoredĒ mechanisms to favor a certain contractor or company, with little regard to their competency or ability.

I see it locally: The same pavement contractor seemingly gets 90+% of road/bridge construction contracts, whether IDOT or Local. Do they do good work? Sure. Does anyone else even have a chance to get the jobs? No idea. Part of our human condition favors the familiar over trying something different. Then there is the whole other concept of being Politically ConnectedÖ
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 23, 2021, 07:10:21 PM
Sigh, it looks like Pelosi has set both the hard and soft infrastructure bills for October first.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pelosi-sets-oct-1-target-infrastructure-biden-spending-bill-2021-08-22/
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: ctkatz on August 24, 2021, 07:24:05 PM
I'm actually a little excited about a non road based project, amtrak expansion. a line is planned to run from chicago to louisville. I'd like to take a train to the west coast and then rent a car to drive back home.

im all for the interstate highway system and road tripping but for some people who are not interested in flying and the mess that entails passenger rail and high speed passenger rail is a great alternative for those on a time crunch.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: LM117 on August 24, 2021, 07:37:30 PM
The deadline for voting on the bipartisan bill in the House has been set for September 27.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/amid-turmoil-democrats-delay-house-vote-infrastructure-budget-bills-n1277516 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/amid-turmoil-democrats-delay-house-vote-infrastructure-budget-bills-n1277516)
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: ITB on September 03, 2021, 09:30:20 PM

CNBC has assembled some charts detailing the breakdown of how much money each state might receive from the 2021 infrastructure bill. As expected, the states with the largest populations accrue the most money, but several less populated states gain more money per capita. California and Texas, as usual, lead the pack, each estimated to receive $44.56 and $35.44 billion, respectfully. New York comes in third, projected to receive $26.92 billion.

The CNBC story and charts, as well as the complete list of projected allocations for all states, can be accessed here. (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/31/infrastructure-bill-map-which-states-get-the-most-money.html)
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on September 21, 2021, 03:56:05 PM
I donít know if itís just me but I really feel like weíre getting setup to see the larger bill pass and the actual infrastructure bill thrown under the water. Nancy seems more focused on the soft bill and Iíve long figured even mentioning that with the hard bill is enough to piss off enough house members to simply vote against both due to that fact. I really hope Iím wrong but I see that in this article as well:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/21/house-gop-infrastructure-count-513230
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rick Powell on September 21, 2021, 05:41:12 PM
I see it locally: The same pavement contractor seemingly gets 90+% of road/bridge construction contracts, whether IDOT or Local. Do they do good work? Sure. Does anyone else even have a chance to get the jobs? No idea. Part of our human condition favors the familiar over trying something different. Then there is the whole other concept of being Politically ConnectedÖ
Construction contracts for IDOT are based on lowest responsible bid, so theoretically anyone has a shot who is qualified and doesn't mess up their bid. In your area of the state there are few contractors equipped to handle the variety and size of work, and far away contractors have to bid mobilization and staffing from afar into their bid (as well as access to materials like asphalt which the local contractor may control) if they want to chase non-local work, so there is less natural competition.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on September 21, 2021, 05:51:10 PM
Warning: this is a political post. Please note that I am not attempting to endorse any of the views of any of the players here, but rather to explain the wheeling and dealing that is going on at the moment.

I donít know if itís just me but I really feel like weíre getting setup to see the larger bill pass and the actual infrastructure bill thrown under the water. Nancy seems more focused on the soft bill and Iíve long figured even mentioning that with the hard bill is enough to piss off enough house members to simply vote against both due to that fact. I really hope Iím wrong but I see that in this article as well:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/21/house-gop-infrastructure-count-513230

So what's happening here is a reflection of the fact that the modern Democratic Party is kind of two parties in one. You have the traditional neoliberal wing that is made up of folks who cut their teeth during the Clinton administration. Most of the experienced politicians, and thus Democratic leadership (Biden, Schumer, Pelosi), are from this wing of the party.  Then you have the progressive wing. These are mostly younger, less experienced politicians who are further to the left than the liberal wing and favor bolder reforms. This wing includes your Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and "the Squad" types. This type of Democrat is somewhat new on the scene; they started to become relevant around the 2016 election as a result of frustration that the Obama administration did not do enough to further its goals, instead getting lost in the weeds chasing Republican support that never came.

The neoliberal wing is mostly concerned with the hard bill. Improving physical infrastructure is broadly popular, and theoretically they should be able to get Republican support for it. The progressive wing is more interested in the soft bill. It contains at least the first steps toward a lot of the big social changes they are wanting to see happen.

At one point, both the hard and soft bills were merged into one big bill. Senate leadership decided to break the bill into two parts, hard and soft, to make it easier to pass. Since hard infrastructure is broadly popular, they did manage to get 19 votes from the Republicans and it passed 69-30. The bill went to the House, and that's where it is now. So the Democratic leadership and the liberals got what they want. The progressives aren't as concerned about the hard billóthey have no real objection to it (other than the fact that maybe some of them don't care for the highway funding; most of them represent dense cities where New Urbanism is the prevailing ideology) but they can live with it and wouldn't mind passing it if they got their soft bill.

Enter Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ). They are the furthest-right Democrats, which makes sense because they represent a red state and what used to be a red state when she was elected, respectively. They want to show the conservative voter base in their states that they don't like wasteful spending and big-government overreach so they can get re-elected. And they don't like the soft bill. The problem is because Democrats only have 50 votes in the Senate, they need both Manchin and Sinema on board for anything they want to do, or else find Republican support to replace them, but none of the Republicans like the soft bill either.

So the House progressives see party leadership getting all of the stuff they wanted, while the stuff they care about is being left to twist in the wind. And this was kind of by designóafter all, if the bill had been left in one piece instead of split there would have been no way for Manchin et al to vote against community college funding without also voting against highway funding, which would have made him look bad. So now, the progressive wing is using the only leverage they have, which is to say "we will torpedo leadership's shiny new hard infrastructure bill unless we also get our soft bill too".

So what Pelosi has to do is publicly walk the fine line and try to keep the progressives' eye on the prize while making them feel that leadership hears and values their concernsó"vote for our infrastructure bill and you will get your infrastructure bill too"ówhile also not having any actual control over the forces that might torpedo the soft bill, since those are in the Senate and kind of immune to any real consequences (Sinema could easily be dispatched in a primary, but Manchin has been in West Virginia politics for years, and any other Democrat has a snowball's chance in Texas of winning statewide in West Virginia).

There's basically no universe in which the soft bill passes and the hard bill fails. The paths forward are:

Which outcome is most likely seems to change from day to day. My guess is that the most likely option is #3, followed by #1. But the devil's in the details, and the person with the most control over the outcome at this point is not Nancy Pelosi, but Joe Manchin.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on September 21, 2021, 06:01:13 PM
Scott, thanks for that in depth analysis. That is encouraging. I frankly have not really been up to speed in *everything* the soft bill includes which I do know is more social safety net type stuff. I need to read more about it but Iíve been focused on the hard bill as it could be a game changer. Hopefully passes and soon.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hbelkins on September 21, 2021, 09:05:49 PM
The evolution of West Virginia into a "red state" is fairly new and somewhat parallels Kentucky's progress in this area. I can remember when Arch Moore, a former Republican governor from my youth, was somewhat of a novelty. West Virginia's entire federal delegation was made up of Democrats when I was a kid, and the state legislature was dominated by them. The current governor, Jim Justice, ran and won as a Democrat and only changed parties once in office.

I'm certainly no expert on West Virginia politics, but as someone whose family's roots are there and someone who lives far enough east in Kentucky to get some media bleedover, it's been interesting to watch from a distance. West Virginia is, and to the best of my knowledge always has been, conservative on moral and cultural issues, but very much a liberal state when it comes to government spending (Robert Byrd, anyone?). Gas taxes there have always been consistently higher than neighbors in Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia.

But keep in mind that you have a very rural section of the state in the southern region, an industrialized section in the north, and an exurb of the federal district in the far east. Manchin has to balance all of that, and he's a former governor so he has a good read on the state.

I'm still trying to figure out Sinema. Conservatives were dead-set against her when she ran.

At any rate, I've been witness to an interesting discussion over exactly what constitutes "infrastructure" in which one of the participants is Congressman Thomas Massie, the libertarian-leaning Republican who graduated from MIT and lives on a self-sustaining farm near the Ohio River in Lewis County. He's not opposed to funding an additional bridge to complement the Brent Spence, which is in his district, but there's a bunch of other stuff in the bill he doesn't like.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: 1 on September 21, 2021, 10:06:03 PM
The evolution of West Virginia into a "red state" is fairly new and somewhat parallels Kentucky's progress in this area. I can remember when Arch Moore, a former Republican governor from my youth, was somewhat of a novelty. West Virginia's entire federal delegation was made up of Democrats when I was a kid, and the state legislature was dominated by them. The current governor, Jim Justice, ran and won as a Democrat and only changed parties once in office.

People usually define red/blue by which way they vote for President. In general, state-level changes lag presidential changes.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on September 22, 2021, 01:49:43 AM
The evolution of West Virginia into a "red state" is fairly new and somewhat parallels Kentucky's progress in this area. I can remember when Arch Moore, a former Republican governor from my youth, was somewhat of a novelty. West Virginia's entire federal delegation was made up of Democrats when I was a kid, and the state legislature was dominated by them. [...] West Virginia is, and to the best of my knowledge always has been, conservative on moral and cultural issues, but very much a liberal state when it comes to government spending (Robert Byrd, anyone?).

This mostly has to do with the ongoing "switch" between Democrats and Republicans that's been going on since the 1960s. Before the 1960s, the Republican party was the big business party and the Democrats were more in favor of social programs like the New Deal, but other than that, many of their positions were reversed from the present day. It's taken quite a while for state-level politics to catch up.

You see a similar trend in Oklahoma politicsósolid Democratic state until Lyndon B. Johnson, then voted for Richard Nixon and hasn't gone blue for President once since then. Same goes with the Governoróall Democrats from statehood in 1907 on until 1962, when we elected our first Republican, Henry Bellmon. Oklahoma has only had five Republican governors, but since the fourth one (Fallin) was elected in 2010 they've had a lock on statewide office, and it seems unlikely we'll see another Democratic governor for a long time.

I'm still trying to figure out Sinema. Conservatives were dead-set against her when she ran.

Everyone's trying to figure out Sinema, even her own staffers. I've read social media posts from people who worked for her in her campaigns that are entirely baffled by her Senate record because it doesn't square with her previous positions or values at all. The prevailing theory seems to be that she is attempting to emulate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and his "maverick" reputation, without understanding why McCain did the things he did. Besides, Sinema's voting record prior to becoming a Senator was much closer to that of the Democratic party as a whole. Voting against your party because you're making a principled stand might get you grudging respect, but doing it just because you want to draw attention to how different you are makes you primary bait.



ETA: I just wanted to point out that the sort of wheeling and dealing described above is made much easier to potentially resolve by earmarks being allowed again. A "well I don't really care one way or the other but I have to vote no to look good to the people in my state" or type of no vote can sometimes become a "yes" by including funds for a project in that legislator's district or state. Then they can go back home and say "Well, yes, it was a big government spending bill, but look, I got you a new Interstate out of it." Likewise, a "I don't want to vote for the hard bill unless I get the soft bill" can potentially be neutralized by including an earmark for that legislator's district or state, because then they may be called to account for why they were voting against their constituents' interest by voting down a bill that would get them new infrastructure.   
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hbelkins on September 22, 2021, 01:06:21 PM
ETA: I just wanted to point out that the sort of wheeling and dealing described above is made much easier to potentially resolve by earmarks being allowed again. A "well I don't really care one way or the other but I have to vote no to look good to the people in my state" or type of no vote can sometimes become a "yes" by including funds for a project in that legislator's district or state. Then they can go back home and say "Well, yes, it was a big government spending bill, but look, I got you a new Interstate out of it." Likewise, a "I don't want to vote for the hard bill unless I get the soft bill" can potentially be neutralized by including an earmark for that legislator's district or state, because then they may be called to account for why they were voting against their constituents' interest by voting down a bill that would get them new infrastructure.

I'm somewhat of an anomaly among those of like ideology in that I am not only not against earmarks, I am actually in favor of them. I think someone elected from a particular district knows the needs of that area better than some DC-based bureaucrat when it comes to including items for funding.

I don't like the horse-trading that earmarking can sometimes cause to get legislators to vote for bad overall bills because they include a bone thrown to them -- "I'll vote for your bridge if you'll vote for my airport" -- and it makes it more difficult for a legislator to vote against something on overarching principle. Opponents will say, "Congressman Smith voted against improving our freeway," when in reality Congressman Smith voted against a huge spending program that just happened to include a locally beneficial public project while at the same time included a bunch of stuff like studying the mating habits of squirrels while they're high on cocaine, that benefits no one except putting money in the pockets of the researchers who get the grants.

I'm seeing some of that with the Brent Spence Bridge parallel span project. The Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce is pushing the infrastructure bill really hard because they think it might fund the bridge without tolls, but they're running into opposition from within their own party constituency because of a bunch of superfluous stuff.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on September 22, 2021, 04:18:02 PM
I'm somewhat of an anomaly among those of like ideology in that I am not only not against earmarks, I am actually in favor of them. I think someone elected from a particular district knows the needs of that area better than some DC-based bureaucrat when it comes to including items for funding.

I don't like the horse-trading that earmarking can sometimes cause to get legislators to vote for bad overall bills because they include a bone thrown to them -- "I'll vote for your bridge if you'll vote for my airport" -- and it makes it more difficult for a legislator to vote against something on overarching principle.

Well, that exact kind of earmark horse-trading is about the only thing that gets anything done. It's no accident that when earmarks were banned in 2011, the number of bills passed by Congress dropped:
(https://images.axios.com/xT4v2E6TffClyCsaUWi0xGi5eAE=/302x302:2119x1324/1366x768/2020/12/12/1607734064173.png)

Opponents will say, "Congressman Smith voted against improving our freeway," when in reality Congressman Smith voted against a huge spending program that just happened to include a locally beneficial public project while at the same time included a bunch of stuff like studying the mating habits of squirrels while they're high on cocaine, that benefits no one except putting money in the pockets of the researchers who get the grants.

You know they only do that because studying the mating habits of humans while they're high on cocaine is unethical, right?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on September 23, 2021, 10:31:45 PM
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), Republican Minority Whip, is telling his caucus that House Republican leadership is opposed to the infrastructure bill and is trying to convince Republicans to vote against it. Meanwhile, Axios is reporting (https://www.axios.com/dems-infrastructure-allies-senate-republicans-bipartisan-0edc284c-fab1-42b5-a762-1217cbf1c22c.html) that, in a highly unusual move, Republican senators that worked on and/or voted for the bill (Portman [OH], Romney [UT], Collins [ME], Cassidy [LA], Murkowski [AK]) are going behind leadership's back to try to whip them to vote for it!

I have no idea how this is likely to turn out, as this is the first time since I've been watching politics that I've seen this particular situation.

House vote is scheduled for Monday.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on September 23, 2021, 10:43:00 PM
Youíd think Louisiana would be the last state that would vote against more infrastructure funding lol
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: HighwayStar on September 23, 2021, 10:49:44 PM
Youíd think Louisiana would be the last state that would vote against more infrastructure funding lol

If it were actually all infrastructure funding yes, but its doubtful much of this is going to end up in real infrastructure.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on September 23, 2021, 11:25:33 PM
Youíd think Louisiana would be the last state that would vote against more infrastructure funding lol

You'd think, but when it comes time to vote, it's more about how it will look to people back home than it is about what's actually best for the state. Vote against wasteful spending (i.e. any spending you don't personally like), vote against anything the President does if he's not in your party so you can keep him from getting a win.

Besides being a rep from Louisiana, Scalise is also Minority Whip, which makes him part of Republican leadership. If he wants to keep that spot, he also has to keep his boss, Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), happy. McCarthy seems to have decided that his team will do better next November, and therefore he will become Speaker, if they defeat the bill, so Scalise is following the boss's orders.

You see similar maneuvering among the rank and file members. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and John Boozman (R-AR) both sponsored the amendment to the infrastructure bill to get US-412 upgraded to Interstate status, but then voted against the amended bill. This allows them to tell voters both that they got their state road money and also that they voted against "Biden's wasteful spending". They figure nobody is actually going to look up the details and will just take their advertising at face value.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on September 23, 2021, 11:32:06 PM
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), Republican Minority Whip, is telling his caucus that House Republican leadership is opposed to the infrastructure bill and is trying to convince Republicans to vote against it. Meanwhile, Axios is reporting (https://www.axios.com/dems-infrastructure-allies-senate-republicans-bipartisan-0edc284c-fab1-42b5-a762-1217cbf1c22c.html) that, in a highly unusual move, Republican senators that worked on and/or voted for the bill (Portman [OH], Romney [UT], Collins [ME], Cassidy [LA], Murkowski [AK]) are going behind leadership's back to try to whip them to vote for it!

I have no idea how this is likely to turn out, as this is the first time since I've been watching politics that I've seen this particular situation.

House vote is scheduled for Monday.

Might explain why suddenly after being stalled out for two weeks that the Senate Dems announced a tentative agreement on the soft bill - some "oh shits" that the irritated House progressives willing to sink the ship over not getting their soft bill might be able to torpedo the hard bill in concert with the GOP's own need to block Biden could have motivated Biden/Schumer to blink in the Manchin/Synema stalemate.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: 1 on September 24, 2021, 07:16:42 AM
Youíd think Louisiana would be the last state that would vote against more infrastructure funding lol

You'd think, but when it comes time to vote, it's more about how it will look to people back home than it is about what's actually best for the state. Vote against wasteful spending (i.e. any spending you don't personally like), vote against anything the President does if he's not in your party so you can keep him from getting a win.

Besides being a rep from Louisiana, Scalise is also Minority Whip, which makes him part of Republican leadership. If he wants to keep that spot, he also has to keep his boss, Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), happy. McCarthy seems to have decided that his team will do better next November, and therefore he will become Speaker, if they defeat the bill, so Scalise is following the boss's orders.

You see similar maneuvering among the rank and file members. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and John Boozman (R-AR) both sponsored the amendment to the infrastructure bill to get US-412 upgraded to Interstate status, but then voted against the amended bill. This allows them to tell voters both that they got their state road money and also that they voted against "Biden's wasteful spending". They figure nobody is actually going to look up the details and will just take their advertising at face value.

People who sometimes vote against their party are typically more likely to be re-elected (e.g. Susan Collins, John Katko, Jared Golden, even Justin Amash 2010-2018 and it wasn't his voting record that caused an issue in 2020).
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 24, 2021, 07:41:13 AM
The evolution of West Virginia into a "red state" is fairly new and somewhat parallels Kentucky's progress in this area. I can remember when Arch Moore, a former Republican governor from my youth, was somewhat of a novelty. West Virginia's entire federal delegation was made up of Democrats when I was a kid, and the state legislature was dominated by them. [...] West Virginia is, and to the best of my knowledge always has been, conservative on moral and cultural issues, but very much a liberal state when it comes to government spending (Robert Byrd, anyone?).

This mostly has to do with the ongoing "switch" between Democrats and Republicans that's been going on since the 1960s. Before the 1960s, the Republican party was the big business party and the Democrats were more in favor of social programs like the New Deal, but other than that, many of their positions were reversed from the present day. It's taken quite a while for state-level politics to catch up.

You see a similar trend in Oklahoma politicsósolid Democratic state until Lyndon B. Johnson, then voted for Richard Nixon and hasn't gone blue for President once since then. Same goes with the Governoróall Democrats from statehood in 1907 on until 1962, when we elected our first Republican, Henry Bellmon. Oklahoma has only had five Republican governors, but since the fourth one (Fallin) was elected in 2010 they've had a lock on statewide office, and it seems unlikely we'll see another Democratic governor for a long time.

I'm still trying to figure out Sinema. Conservatives were dead-set against her when she ran.

Everyone's trying to figure out Sinema, even her own staffers. I've read social media posts from people who worked for her in her campaigns that are entirely baffled by her Senate record because it doesn't square with her previous positions or values at all. The prevailing theory seems to be that she is attempting to emulate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and his "maverick" reputation, without understanding why McCain did the things he did. Besides, Sinema's voting record prior to becoming a Senator was much closer to that of the Democratic party as a whole. Voting against your party because you're making a principled stand might get you grudging respect, but doing it just because you want to draw attention to how different you are makes you primary bait.



ETA: I just wanted to point out that the sort of wheeling and dealing described above is made much easier to potentially resolve by earmarks being allowed again. A "well I don't really care one way or the other but I have to vote no to look good to the people in my state" or type of no vote can sometimes become a "yes" by including funds for a project in that legislator's district or state. Then they can go back home and say "Well, yes, it was a big government spending bill, but look, I got you a new Interstate out of it." Likewise, a "I don't want to vote for the hard bill unless I get the soft bill" can potentially be neutralized by including an earmark for that legislator's district or state, because then they may be called to account for why they were voting against their constituents' interest by voting down a bill that would get them new infrastructure.   

Would it be possible, Scott, for me to give my own perspective of the battle royal? Or, would that be a bit too political for this thread?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: 1 on September 24, 2021, 07:45:40 AM
Would it be possible, Scott, for me to give my own perspective of the battle royal? Or, would that be a bit too political for this thread?

If Scott5114 gave that long explanation, you should also be able to. If he didn't allow it, it would be hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 24, 2021, 08:13:02 AM
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), Republican Minority Whip, is telling his caucus that House Republican leadership is opposed to the infrastructure bill and is trying to convince Republicans to vote against it. Meanwhile, Axios is reporting (https://www.axios.com/dems-infrastructure-allies-senate-republicans-bipartisan-0edc284c-fab1-42b5-a762-1217cbf1c22c.html) that, in a highly unusual move, Republican senators that worked on and/or voted for the bill (Portman [OH], Romney [UT], Collins [ME], Cassidy [LA], Murkowski [AK]) are going behind leadership's back to try to whip them to vote for it!

I have no idea how this is likely to turn out, as this is the first time since I've been watching politics that I've seen this particular situation.

House vote is scheduled for Monday.

I believe I see the politics behind both moves.

Scalise is attempting to hold the line against the "hard infrastructure" bill so that he forces Pelosi's hand and in support of the "moderate" conservative Democrats attempting to nuke the reconciliation (aka the "soft infrastructure" bill), since it would only take three Democrat votes flipped to kill the latter. He's also strengthening the hardline base of his own party, who simply opposes initiatives because they don't want Biden and the Democrats to accomplish anything; and that they feel they can stand on their hands and let everything fall apart and rake the political rewards in the midterm elections next year.

Meanwhile, the "moderate" conservative Senate Republicans are also holding their own line of backing the "bipartisan" hard bill as a buffer for the conservative Democrats (not only Manchin and Sinema, but also long time "moderates" like Mark Warner (VA), Chris Coons (DE), Richard Durbin (IL)), who also helped draft the "hard" bill. Both sides would rather see the "soft" bill defeated in the House by conservative Dems, or at least gutted to remove most of the social spending initiatives because of their concern (I would say "obsession") with deficit reduction and reducing public spending on anything not approved as "pork" for Wall Street, the Pentagon, or private interest groups.

Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kalvado on September 24, 2021, 08:22:57 AM
Would it be possible, Scott, for me to give my own perspective of the battle royal? Or, would that be a bit too political for this thread?

If Scott5114 gave that long explanation, you should also be able to. If he didn't allow it, it would be hypocrisy.
Key difference is that Scott gave his overview in a pretty factual manner, with little agenda included.
Something Anthony didn't try to achieve.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 24, 2021, 08:49:48 AM
There is now a new player in the game that could also bolster the "moderates" and deal the final blow to the "progressives".

The debt ceiling now has to be resolved, and quickly; the Treasury recently stated that they can hold the government ship together only until around early-to-mid October before they would be forced to declare the US in default for their debt. To put it mildly, US default would not be good.

Problem is, the Treasury has now eliminated any solution that would ease the problem that doesn't require Congressional action, and there are only two approaches Congress can take in resolving the crisis.

1) They can extend the debt ceiling or even suspend it through an act of Congress. That, though, requires "regular order" and a 60 vote cushion for cloture (ending debate and allowing a final vote for passage) in the Senate; and the GOP is solidly opposed to giving Biden and the Democrats any wiggle room. In fact, GOP leader Mitch McConnell is on record saying that he would oppose any debt ceiling rise that does not include severe social spending cuts in the name of "deficit reduction" and codifies permanently the corporate tax cuts passed by the previous Trump administration; and that is the standard default position shared by most of the GOP Senate "conference". In a Senate split down the middle at 50-50, that's a big problem.

2) The only other option is for Democrats to raise the debt ceiling on their own, through the reconciliation process. This is the same process that Democrats are using in order to attempt to pass the "soft" infrastructure bill. But, there is a HUGE problem there: Reconciliation has distinct rules on its use for the debt ceiling; meaning that if the current reconciliation process now ongoing for the "soft" bill is adjusted for the debt ceiling, it can't be used for the increased spending initiatives that the "progressives" want.

In short, the debt ceiling battle gives even more of a political nuke to the ConservaDems wanting to kill the social spending parts of the reconciliation bill. If worse comes to worse and the government shuts down or even goes to default, there will be major pressure on Congress to act with warp speed; and the only lifeline that would be available for the Democrats to defuse the situation would be to readjust the current reconciliation bill strictly for raising the ceiling, and then pass the bill with Democrat votes only. The Democrats could try to use another reconciliation bill process beginning in October based on the new 2022 fiscal year starting in October 1st after that to try to initiate the social spending goals of the "progressives", but more than likely that would get blocked by the "moderates" and Manchin/Sinema, who would say that one reconciliation debacle is enough and it's time to get back to "regular order" and let the GOP in.

In other words, it's not looking good for the progressives in any form.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on September 24, 2021, 08:51:36 AM
Youíd think Louisiana would be the last state that would vote against more infrastructure funding lol

You'd think, but when it comes time to vote, it's more about how it will look to people back home than it is about what's actually best for the state. Vote against wasteful spending (i.e. any spending you don't personally like), vote against anything the President does if he's not in your party so you can keep him from getting a win.

Besides being a rep from Louisiana, Scalise is also Minority Whip, which makes him part of Republican leadership. If he wants to keep that spot, he also has to keep his boss, Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), happy. McCarthy seems to have decided that his team will do better next November, and therefore he will become Speaker, if they defeat the bill, so Scalise is following the boss's orders.

You see similar maneuvering among the rank and file members. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and John Boozman (R-AR) both sponsored the amendment to the infrastructure bill to get US-412 upgraded to Interstate status, but then voted against the amended bill. This allows them to tell voters both that they got their state road money and also that they voted against "Biden's wasteful spending". They figure nobody is actually going to look up the details and will just take their advertising at face value.

People who sometimes vote against their party are typically more likely to be re-elected (e.g. Susan Collins, John Katko, Jared Golden, even Justin Amash 2010-2018 and it wasn't his voting record that caused an issue in 2020).
Katko's in a very tenuous position due to his purple district which is turning more blue.  He's making some missteps:  Focusing on implementing punitive measures to stem immigration, when that is a secondary issue at most for his constituents.  Going to be another nail-biter of an election for him.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 24, 2021, 08:52:24 AM
Would it be possible, Scott, for me to give my own perspective of the battle royal? Or, would that be a bit too political for this thread?

If Scott5114 gave that long explanation, you should also be able to. If he didn't allow it, it would be hypocrisy.
Key difference is that Scott gave his overview in a pretty factual manner, with little agenda included.
Something Anthony didn't try to achieve.

I'm offering my own personal perspective on this battle. Nothing more, nothing less. Same as everyone else.
Not everyone on this forum is bent to the Right.

I'll move on from this now and stick to the rules.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: JoePCool14 on September 24, 2021, 10:42:34 AM
Not everyone on this forum is bent to the Right.

Based on my experience here, I think that might be an understatement.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 24, 2021, 10:48:59 AM
The longer this drags on, the stupider it gets.  Makes me think the whole thing implodes and we get jack-dick out of this process and shit crumbles for another 2-4 years.
Republicans don't need to torpedo infrastructure to win back the House and maybe the Senate.  That's going to happen anyway due to history and reapportionment.
And they don't have to worry about Democrats riding the success of an infrastructure bill in 2021 to the polls 3 years from now.  First off, that's so far in the future no one will remember or care.  And secondly, Dems are just awful at running on accomplishments.  It'll be a non-factor, I guarantee it.  Might as well snag some cash for local projects while you can, for crying out loud.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on September 24, 2021, 10:50:49 AM
So is Monday the turning point on this then? Thatís what it seems like.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on September 24, 2021, 12:47:52 PM
So is Monday the turning point on this then? Thatís what it seems like.

It is, unless it isn't. That's currently when the House vote is scheduled for. But the real power in the Speaker position is that you get to set the calendar. So if Pelosi feels she needs more time to negotiate, she can push the vote back to whenever she likes. The only hard deadline is the end of the Congress (that is, the vote has to be held before January 2023, or else the bill will expire).
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hbelkins on September 24, 2021, 12:51:18 PM
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), Republican Minority Whip, is telling his caucus that House Republican leadership is opposed to the infrastructure bill and is trying to convince Republicans to vote against it. Meanwhile, Axios is reporting (https://www.axios.com/dems-infrastructure-allies-senate-republicans-bipartisan-0edc284c-fab1-42b5-a762-1217cbf1c22c.html) that, in a highly unusual move, Republican senators that worked on and/or voted for the bill (Portman [OH], Romney [UT], Collins [ME], Cassidy [LA], Murkowski [AK]) are going behind leadership's back to try to whip them to vote for it!

I know nothing of the internal politics of Louisiana or of Cassidy's ideology to posit an opinion, but Portman's a lame duck so he can do whatever he wants, and Romney, Collins, and Murkowski are RINOs who are often unpredictable.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: abefroman329 on September 24, 2021, 04:24:59 PM
Not everyone on this forum is bent to the Right.

Based on my experience here, I think that might be an understatement.
Considering we all have our own personal definition of left, right, and center, it's hard to say with any certainty.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on September 26, 2021, 08:37:00 PM
So is Monday the turning point on this then? Thatís what it seems like.

It is, unless it isn't. That's currently when the House vote is scheduled for. But the real power in the Speaker position is that you get to set the calendar. So if Pelosi feels she needs more time to negotiate, she can push the vote back to whenever she likes. The only hard deadline is the end of the Congress (that is, the vote has to be held before January 2023, or else the bill will expire).

In an interview this morning with George Stephanopolis Stephanoupl Stephanapoul Steppenwolf Indianapolis, Pelosi said:
Quote from: Speaker of the House
Iím never bringing a bill to the floor that doesnít have the votes. [...] You cannot choose the date. You have to go when you have the votes.

It would appear, then, she does not have the votesóthis afternoon, she rescheduled the vote to Thursday.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: JoePCool14 on September 27, 2021, 11:15:44 AM
Not everyone on this forum is bent to the Right.
Based on my experience here, I think that might be an understatement.
Considering we all have our own personal definition of left, right, and center, it's hard to say with any certainty.

Sure, you can't say with total certainty, but you can make a reasonable assumption.

Also on topic, the federal government will probably end up shutting down over all this. I guess that's basically a yearly occurrence at this point.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on September 27, 2021, 08:15:35 PM
Also on topic, the federal government will probably end up shutting down over all this. I guess that's basically a yearly occurrence at this point.

The potential government shutdown/debt ceiling/budget continuing resolution ball of wax is a completely separate thing that just happens to be hitting at the same time. Based on the positions everyone is taking over that, I have no doubt it would still be going down the same way even if both infrastructure bills had passed three months ago.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 01, 2021, 12:06:59 AM
This is so frustrating. Basically certain members are holding a bill that is less partisan and greatly needed hostage to push their pet bill forward.

https://apple.news/Aj0HeB2KPT1yipo9krsmPow

The longer this plays out the less optimistic I get.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 11:36:56 AM
This is so frustrating. Basically certain members are holding a bill that is less partisan and greatly needed hostage to push their pet bill forward.

https://apple.news/Aj0HeB2KPT1yipo9krsmPow

The longer this plays out the less optimistic I get.

I would be happy with a D none of the above outcome. None of these bills address the fundamental infrastructure needs so no sense in wasting the money.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on October 01, 2021, 01:00:00 PM
This is so frustrating. Basically certain members are holding a bill that is less partisan and greatly needed hostage to push their pet bill forward.

https://apple.news/Aj0HeB2KPT1yipo9krsmPow

The longer this plays out the less optimistic I get.

I would be happy with a D none of the above outcome. None of these bills address the fundamental infrastructure needs so no sense in wasting the money.

k Avalanchez71
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 01, 2021, 01:03:38 PM
This is so frustrating. Basically certain members are holding a bill that is less partisan and greatly needed hostage to push their pet bill forward.

https://apple.news/Aj0HeB2KPT1yipo9krsmPow

The longer this plays out the less optimistic I get.

I would be happy with a D none of the above outcome. None of these bills address the fundamental infrastructure needs so no sense in wasting the money.

k Avalanchez71
lol my thoughts exactly. I wonder if any progress will be made today.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on October 01, 2021, 02:26:51 PM
This is so frustrating. Basically certain members are holding a bill that is less partisan and greatly needed hostage to push their pet bill forward.

https://apple.news/Aj0HeB2KPT1yipo9krsmPow

The longer this plays out the less optimistic I get.

I would be happy with a D none of the above outcome. None of these bills address the fundamental infrastructure needs so no sense in wasting the money.

k Avalanchez71
lol my thoughts exactly. I wonder if any progress will be made today.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), who has taken on the role as spokesperson for the progressives, said about an hour ago that while she doesn't expect a deal to be reached today, conversations are ongoing and she's optimistic about how things are going. She also stated that progressives are really just looking for a commitment of some kind toward the soft bill (which has started to be identified in media as the Build Back Better or BBB bill) before they'll support the bipartisan infrastructure bill (which I've seen referred to as BIB or BIF). They prefer an actual Senate vote, but Jayapal says "If thereís something else thatís short of a voteÖ that gives me those same assurances, I want to listen to that." I have no idea what would have the same assurances as an actual vote, but presumably Jayapal has something in mind.

Meanwhile, over on the Senate side, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) has finally been beaten into at least releasing his "list of demands", such as they are, for the soft bill, so at least there's something to work with there, even if the progressives are not terribly happy about it. Among the things Manchin wants is a reduction in its size, which caused a very irritated Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to remark that the bill had already been negotiated down to half of what it started out as. The more conservative Democrats are also irritated that if he was going to quote a dollar amount that he didn't do it at the beginning of the process and save everyone the trouble of having to try to read his mind.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), meanwhile, is saying nothing about what she wants, instead getting drawn into a controversy regarding some 10-year-old tweets that seemed to imply that 2011 Sinema would be pretty disappointed in 2021 Sinema for holding up the bill. Sinema's response was to say nothing and delete the old tweets. [ETA: Apparently Sinema isn't even in town today, instead taking the day off to go to Phoenix for a doctor's appointment. So nothing is likely to get done on the Senate side today.]

Of course, we could be spared this whole drama if there were some House Republicans that wanted to step up and announce they supported the hard bill. That would give Pelosi some room to maneuver since she wouldn't have to care so much about what Jayapal wants. But, unlike the Senate Republicans, so far none of them are willing to do so.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: FrCorySticha on October 01, 2021, 04:06:31 PM
Of course, we could be spared this whole drama if there were some House Republicans that wanted to step up and announce they supported the hard bill. That would give Pelosi some room to maneuver since she wouldn't have to care so much about what Jayapal wants. But, unlike the Senate Republicans, so far none of them are willing to do so.

The Republicans are having a good time watching the Democrats fight among themselves. They're not going to give Pelosi any favors. They know the bill is going to pass, and most will vote for it regardless of what's in it. They just like the optics of groups of Democrats fighting against her causing the bill to be delayed.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on October 01, 2021, 05:22:26 PM
Of course, we could be spared this whole drama if there were some House Republicans that wanted to step up and announce they supported the hard bill. That would give Pelosi some room to maneuver since she wouldn't have to care so much about what Jayapal wants. But, unlike the Senate Republicans, so far none of them are willing to do so.

The Republicans are having a good time watching the Democrats fight among themselves. They're not going to give Pelosi any favors. They know the bill is going to pass, and most will vote for it regardless of what's in it. They just like the optics of groups of Democrats fighting against her causing the bill to be delayed.

I think we're likely to see far fewer Republican votes in the House than in the Senate because Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the Republican leader in the House, is much more focused on opposing the bill than Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Senate leader, was. McConnell remained mostly non-committal about the hard bill and ended up voting in favor of it (all of his opposition has been focused on the soft bill).
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 01, 2021, 10:40:41 PM
?s=21
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: LM117 on October 02, 2021, 10:33:55 AM
I'm still trying to figure out Sinema. Conservatives were dead-set against her when she ran.

Everyone's trying to figure out Sinema, even her own staffers. I've read social media posts from people who worked for her in her campaigns that are entirely baffled by her Senate record because it doesn't square with her previous positions or values at all. The prevailing theory seems to be that she is attempting to emulate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and his "maverick" reputation, without understanding why McCain did the things he did.

Hell, Sinema is trying to figure out Sinema! It's not too hard to see why some people think she's trying to be McCain 2.0 after tapping McConnell on the shoulder to get his attention and then immediately pulling her curtsy "thumbs down" stunt earlier this year.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 06, 2021, 03:28:56 PM
October 5th White House press release:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/10/05/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-and-build-back-better-agenda/
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: LM117 on October 14, 2021, 04:45:21 PM
The game of "chicken" continues...

https://www.newsweek.com/kyrsten-sinema-wont-support-reconciliation-bill-without-passing-infrastructure-report-1639099 (https://www.newsweek.com/kyrsten-sinema-wont-support-reconciliation-bill-without-passing-infrastructure-report-1639099)
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on October 17, 2021, 09:45:32 PM
The game of "chicken" continues...

https://www.newsweek.com/kyrsten-sinema-wont-support-reconciliation-bill-without-passing-infrastructure-report-1639099 (https://www.newsweek.com/kyrsten-sinema-wont-support-reconciliation-bill-without-passing-infrastructure-report-1639099)

Well, that's fuckin' fantastic. House progressives won't pass the hard bill unless the soft bill is passed. Sinema won't vote for the soft bill unless the hard bill is passed. Unless someone can somehow back Sinema off her position, she will have basically single-handedly killed both bills.

Whichever member of Senate Democratic leadership had the bright idea to split the combined bill into two must really feel like a chump right now.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: vdeane on October 17, 2021, 10:06:46 PM
I'm honestly surprised the first bill even passed the Senate at all with this two-track stuff.  I would have thought the Republicans would have abandoned the bill once it became clear that the budget reconciliation bill was a supplement to the bipartisan one and not a fall-back position, just like their counterparts in the House have now.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: LM117 on October 18, 2021, 08:05:33 AM
I'm honestly surprised the first bill even passed the Senate at all with this two-track stuff.  I would have thought the Republicans would have abandoned the bill once it became clear that the budget reconciliation bill was a supplement to the bipartisan one and not a fall-back position, just like their counterparts in the House have now.

I'm not. I'd bet my house that the Senate GOP was counting on the House progressives to hold up the hard bill so that they won't take the heat before the midterms if or when the hard bill crashes and burns. McConnell is a lot of things, but stupid ain't one of them (except for his dumb decision to kill a stimmy, which cost him control of the Senate).
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: LM117 on October 18, 2021, 08:29:46 AM
The game of "chicken" continues...

https://www.newsweek.com/kyrsten-sinema-wont-support-reconciliation-bill-without-passing-infrastructure-report-1639099 (https://www.newsweek.com/kyrsten-sinema-wont-support-reconciliation-bill-without-passing-infrastructure-report-1639099)

Well, that's fuckin' fantastic. House progressives won't pass the hard bill unless the soft bill is passed. Sinema won't vote for the soft bill unless the hard bill is passed. Unless someone can somehow back Sinema off her position, she will have basically single-handedly killed both bills.

Whichever member of Senate Democratic leadership had the bright idea to split the combined bill into two must really feel like a chump right now.

Agreed. At least Manchin is willing to talk, even though he doesn't have much wiggle room to negotiate since he represents one of the reddest states in the country. His seat is guaranteed to go red once he decides to call it quits. He knows that and so does Schumer. That's why Manchin got pissed when Bernie wrote his op-ed in WV.

Sinema, on the other hand, is just being a pain in everybody's ass. She's not saying what she will accept in the soft bill since she's too busy saying what she's against. Hell, there was period where she wouldn't even take phone calls from the damn president. She's from a state that's turning more and more purple, so I'm not sure what the hell her excuse is for pulling a 180. I don't see her surviving a primary challenge. I'll leave it at that.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: LM117 on October 19, 2021, 07:08:36 AM
Looks like the two sides are finally talking.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/jayapal-manchin-meet-first-time-negotiations-spending-bill-ramp-n1281809 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/jayapal-manchin-meet-first-time-negotiations-spending-bill-ramp-n1281809)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/white-house-dials-urgency-biden-meets-democrats-economic-bill-n1281790 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/white-house-dials-urgency-biden-meets-democrats-economic-bill-n1281790)
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on October 28, 2021, 06:16:45 PM
It looks like good news on the infrastructure front today, as Manchin, Sinema, and leadership have reached a tentative agreement on the soft bill/reconcilation bill/Build Back Better bill. Everyone is being cautious, however, as the bill text has yet to be written, so someone could theoretically find something objectionable in the final product. The House progressives are signaling that they intend to support the hard infrastructure bill, but they too want to see the final soft bill text come out to make sure they're not getting screwed (and to see whether Manchin/Sinema walk back their support) before they support the hard bill.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 28, 2021, 07:13:21 PM
No vote today
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: LM117 on October 28, 2021, 07:16:29 PM
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-spending-bill-build-back-better-social-climate-change/   (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-spending-bill-build-back-better-social-climate-change/)
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 29, 2021, 02:08:16 PM
Aaaaannnnnddddd another short term fast act extension

https://aashtonews.wpengine.com/2021/10/29/aashto-disappointed-with-yet-another-transportation-bill-extension/
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: LM117 on October 30, 2021, 02:13:50 PM
Tuesday is the newest goalpost.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-democrats-eye-tuesday-vote-infrastructure-safety-net-bills-n1282782 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-democrats-eye-tuesday-vote-infrastructure-safety-net-bills-n1282782)
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: LM117 on November 01, 2021, 08:57:05 PM
Looks like the House progressives have finally caved.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/politics/pramila-jayapal-joe-manchin-biden-agenda-cnntv/index.html  (https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/politics/pramila-jayapal-joe-manchin-biden-agenda-cnntv/index.html)
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Brandon on November 05, 2021, 09:16:44 AM
Looks like the House progressives have finally caved.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/politics/pramila-jayapal-joe-manchin-biden-agenda-cnntv/index.html  (https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/politics/pramila-jayapal-joe-manchin-biden-agenda-cnntv/index.html)

Not quite.  After the election results in NJ and VA, itís gotten a bit weird.

Iím going to go on a limb here and say that none of these bills will be passed.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: LM117 on November 05, 2021, 11:03:28 AM
Looks like the House progressives have finally caved.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/politics/pramila-jayapal-joe-manchin-biden-agenda-cnntv/index.html  (https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/politics/pramila-jayapal-joe-manchin-biden-agenda-cnntv/index.html)

Not quite.  After the election results in NJ and VA, itís gotten a bit weird.

Iím going to go on a limb here and say that none of these bills will be passed.

The House is supposed to vote on them today. I'm pretty sure the hard bill will pass and hit Biden's desk, but the soft bill will probably get killed in the Senate by Manchinema.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/house-democrats-move-advance-biden-agenda-after-election-losses-without-n1283324 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/house-democrats-move-advance-biden-agenda-after-election-losses-without-n1283324)
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Brandon on November 05, 2021, 04:21:35 PM
Looks like the House progressives have finally caved.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/politics/pramila-jayapal-joe-manchin-biden-agenda-cnntv/index.html  (https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/politics/pramila-jayapal-joe-manchin-biden-agenda-cnntv/index.html)

Not quite.  After the election results in NJ and VA, it’s gotten a bit weird.

I’m going to go on a limb here and say that none of these bills will be passed.

The House is supposed to vote on them today. I'm pretty sure the hard bill will pass and hit Biden's desk, but the soft bill will probably get killed in the Senate by Manchinema.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/house-democrats-move-advance-biden-agenda-after-election-losses-without-n1283324 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/house-democrats-move-advance-biden-agenda-after-election-losses-without-n1283324)

Was supposed to vote on them today.  Now Pelosi has five representatives asking for a CBO review of it.  I’m still going to stick by my limb here and say neither passes.

On top of that, Jayapal just shut Pelosi down (again) on the vote today, unwilling to separate the two bills now.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on November 05, 2021, 05:15:32 PM
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Brandon on November 05, 2021, 05:32:03 PM
^^ It does seem like a Benny Hill skit at this point.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: LM117 on November 05, 2021, 06:21:46 PM
Looks like the House progressives have finally caved.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/politics/pramila-jayapal-joe-manchin-biden-agenda-cnntv/index.html  (https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/politics/pramila-jayapal-joe-manchin-biden-agenda-cnntv/index.html)

Not quite.  After the election results in NJ and VA, itís gotten a bit weird.

Iím going to go on a limb here and say that none of these bills will be passed.

The House is supposed to vote on them today. I'm pretty sure the hard bill will pass and hit Biden's desk, but the soft bill will probably get killed in the Senate by Manchinema.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/house-democrats-move-advance-biden-agenda-after-election-losses-without-n1283324 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/house-democrats-move-advance-biden-agenda-after-election-losses-without-n1283324)

Was supposed to vote on them today.  Now Pelosi has five representatives asking for a CBO review of it.  Iím still going to stick by my limb here and say neither passes.

On top of that, Jayapal just shut Pelosi down (again) on the vote today, unwilling to separate the two bills now.

Shit, they might as well give Jayapal the gavel until 2023 when McCarthy takes over, since she's clearly the one running the show at this point. :banghead:

What a shitshow.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Bruce on November 05, 2021, 06:36:50 PM
A Speaker of the House from the real Washington would be welcome. Haven't had one of those since 1995.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: LM117 on November 05, 2021, 11:01:25 PM
According to a live update from CNN, Jayapal and the other House progressives reached an agreement with moderates to vote and pass the hard bill tonight in exchange for voting on the soft bill no later than the week of Nov. 15.

Took long enough for sanity to prevail.

EDIT: The vote is taking place right now.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: KCRoadFan on November 05, 2021, 11:26:44 PM
The bill has passed!!! (that is, the one that cleared the Senate in August, the "hard" bill)

Final count: 228 - 206 (13 Republicans voted "yes" while 6 Democrats voted "no").

Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on November 05, 2021, 11:27:18 PM
Infrastructure Week is finally here!
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: LM117 on November 05, 2021, 11:37:03 PM
Infrastructure Week is finally here!

Promises made, promises kept!
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: mvak36 on November 06, 2021, 03:14:35 AM
Never thought this day would come. Great to hear.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on November 06, 2021, 04:21:55 AM
YAY!!  :clap: :clap: :clap:
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kernals12 on November 06, 2021, 07:54:15 AM
$4 billion for highways in Massachusetts, maybe they can finally fix the damn 93/95 cloverleaf
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Crown Victoria on November 06, 2021, 09:14:14 AM
Maybe, just maybe, with the money that PA will get from this bill, the long-awaited widening of I-81 will finally get underway.

Maybe...
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kernals12 on November 06, 2021, 09:42:42 AM
Hopefully Connecticut can rebuild 84 in Danbury and Hartford.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on November 06, 2021, 09:48:42 AM
You guys are underestimating outstanding maintenance needs to preserve conditions.

Even with getting 20-25% more in the Northeast, that will just allow the usual capital programs to progress with less financial puzzles to figure out.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kernals12 on November 06, 2021, 09:51:53 AM
You guys are underestimating outstanding maintenance needs to preserve conditions.

The number of structurally deficient bridges in the United States has fallen by 60% since 1992
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/deficient.cfm
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on November 06, 2021, 10:08:50 AM
You guys are underestimating outstanding maintenance needs to preserve conditions.

The number of structurally deficient bridges in the United States has fallen by 60% since 1992
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/deficient.cfm
...and it costs a lot of money to keep the numbers that low.  You think you rehab or replace a bridge and you're just done and don't look back?  DOTs are constantly working on bridges to keep their conditions up -- everyone has a list of bridges that are patched every year or otherwise routinely.  And then there's the pavement side of things, where band-aid treatments eventually require deeper solutions.  Reconstructions through urban or village settings have skyrocketed in cost due to having to address drainage, utility and ADA issues.  Estimates for such in upstate NY are now $16m a mile.  And don't forget culverts, which probably have increased in cost for than anything.  Replacing a large culvert just a few years ago would generally cost some hundreds of thousands when now they're costing a few million.

Roadgeeks on this forum that even bother to look at capital programs are only looking for the fun megaprojects while only skimming the routine or mundane usual ones that really make up an annual drain on DOT capital projects.

So, there may be a few more big projects out there funded with these funds, but more likely the funds will go towards projects already existing on their programs that they knew were underfunded as is.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on November 06, 2021, 12:27:10 PM
Speak for your own state, Oklahoma is getting a new interstate designation out of the bill. :D
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: snowc on November 06, 2021, 01:55:41 PM
Lets see if I95 in Dunn gets that dreaded double diamond interchange!
And also, with this bill, will I81 in NY and NC 540 in NC be rebuilt and completed, respectively? :hmmm:
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: sprjus4 on November 06, 2021, 01:58:02 PM
Lets see if I95 in Dunn gets that dreaded double diamond interchange!
That would already be happening with the ongoing I-95 widening project.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: snowc on November 06, 2021, 02:02:11 PM
Lets see if I95 in Dunn gets that dreaded double diamond interchange!
That would already be happening with the ongoing I-95 widening project.
That's good to know.
See the I-95 Widening page for a new MAJOR bump on the thread. :pan:
They are clearing trees left and right!
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on November 06, 2021, 04:00:39 PM
Lets see if I95 in Dunn gets that dreaded double diamond interchange!
And also, with this bill, will I81 in NY and NC 540 in NC be rebuilt and completed, respectively? :hmmm:
The I-81 viaduct removal was a given.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kalvado on November 06, 2021, 04:11:02 PM
Lets see if I95 in Dunn gets that dreaded double diamond interchange!
And also, with this bill, will I81 in NY and NC 540 in NC be rebuilt and completed, respectively? :hmmm:
The I-81 viaduct removal was a given.
It is a given until Hochul decides to review all previous studies and orders a study for another review.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on November 06, 2021, 04:56:58 PM
Lets see if I95 in Dunn gets that dreaded double diamond interchange!
And also, with this bill, will I81 in NY and NC 540 in NC be rebuilt and completed, respectively? :hmmm:
The I-81 viaduct removal was a given.
It is a given until Hochul decides to review all previous studies and orders a study for another review.
At this point, that will not happen.  The community grid option is now proceeding.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kalvado on November 06, 2021, 05:26:23 PM
Lets see if I95 in Dunn gets that dreaded double diamond interchange!
And also, with this bill, will I81 in NY and NC 540 in NC be rebuilt and completed, respectively? :hmmm:
The I-81 viaduct removal was a given.
It is a given until Hochul decides to review all previous studies and orders a study for another review.
At this point, that will not happen.  The community grid option is now proceeding.
That's what they said about the LGA Airtrain as well.
I'll believe it once 481 work is substantially complete.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Bruce on November 06, 2021, 05:59:20 PM
This website has links to the state-by-state fact sheets released by the White House in August: https://www.cohnreznick.com/insights/state-by-state-infrastructure-funding-an-overview

According to The Seattle Times (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/bridges-rail-airports-whats-washington-states-cut-of-the-senates-1-trillion-infrastructure-bill/), Washington should expect $4.7B for highways and $605M for bridges, along with $380M for transit expansion. I imagine a good chunk of that highway appropriation will be for the Interstate Bridge Replacement down in Vancouver/Portland, but since it will be split with Oregon it shouldn't take up all of it.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on November 06, 2021, 06:13:11 PM
Lets see if I95 in Dunn gets that dreaded double diamond interchange!
And also, with this bill, will I81 in NY and NC 540 in NC be rebuilt and completed, respectively? :hmmm:
The I-81 viaduct removal was a given.
It is a given until Hochul decides to review all previous studies and orders a study for another review.
At this point, that will not happen.  The community grid option is now proceeding.
That's what they said about the LGA Airtrain as well.
I'll believe it once 481 work is substantially complete.
Heh.  Good point, but I'd consider it real when Phase 1 starts, not ends.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: snowc on November 06, 2021, 07:34:57 PM
Lets see if I95 in Dunn gets that dreaded double diamond interchange!
And also, with this bill, will I81 in NY and NC 540 in NC be rebuilt and completed, respectively? :hmmm:
The I-81 viaduct removal was a given.
It is a given until Hochul decides to review all previous studies and orders a study for another review.
At this point, that will not happen.  The community grid option is now proceeding.
That's what they said about the LGA Airtrain as well.
I'll believe it once 481 work is substantially complete.
Heh.  Good point, but I'd consider it real when Phase 1 starts, not ends.
@Rothman, when do you estimate that the I481 project be starting? My family is heading to NY in couple weeks around 🦃 Thanksgiving and I would like to know that.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kalvado on November 06, 2021, 07:41:08 PM
Lets see if I95 in Dunn gets that dreaded double diamond interchange!
And also, with this bill, will I81 in NY and NC 540 in NC be rebuilt and completed, respectively? :hmmm:
The I-81 viaduct removal was a given.
It is a given until Hochul decides to review all previous studies and orders a study for another review.
At this point, that will not happen.  The community grid option is now proceeding.
That's what they said about the LGA Airtrain as well.
I'll believe it once 481 work is substantially complete.
Heh.  Good point, but I'd consider it real when Phase 1 starts, not ends.
@Rothman, when do you estimate that the I481 project be starting? My family is heading to NY in couple weeks around 🦃 Thanksgiving and I would like to know that.
Not in 2021.
I wouldn't worry too much about 2022 Thanksgiving as well.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: vdeane on November 06, 2021, 10:01:24 PM
While I'm happy to see a much-needed federal investment in the country's infrastructure, I am not at all happy with the privatization incentives in the bill.  This bill is basically Trump's bill with a realistic amount of money behind it.  I suspect that is why Progressives consider voting for this bill in and of itself to be a compromise (that, and they'd rather tear down highways than invest in them).

Lets see if I95 in Dunn gets that dreaded double diamond interchange!
And also, with this bill, will I81 in NY and NC 540 in NC be rebuilt and completed, respectively? :hmmm:
The I-81 viaduct removal was a given.
It is a given until Hochul decides to review all previous studies and orders a study for another review.
At this point, that will not happen.  The community grid option is now proceeding.
That's what they said about the LGA Airtrain as well.
I'll believe it once 481 work is substantially complete.
Keep in mind that the LaGuardia Air Train was a controversial project with Progressives in opposition.  Same for Penn Station/"East Side Access".  I-81, on the other hand, is uniformly supported by the left, with only DestiNY USA, the hotels in Salina, NIMBYs in DeWitt who don't want the traffic, and members of this forum opposed; everyone else in indifferent to it.  And despite the results from Tuesday, Hochul's greatest threat to remaining governor isn't whoever wins the GOP primary - it's Latisha James, her most formidable primary challenger.  Working against the I-81 tear-down would place the NYC Progressives in lock-step opposition against her (Progressives hate urban freeways, remember?).
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: nwi_navigator_1181 on November 06, 2021, 10:36:04 PM
A milestone day.

Now that Infrastructure is an official thing, I think Northwest Indiana will see work that they either have been sitting on, or that I can tell is sorely needed. A list, if you will.

What Will Happen
What I think Will Happen
A much needed modernization of the Ripley Street/Toll Road/I-80/94 interchange in Lake Station - The current cloverleaf to trumpet structure is woefully outdated and needs a major refresh. It will likely be difficult for the current lessees of the Indiana Toll Road to play ball with INDOT on such a project, but the interchange between the Borman and Ripley could be done. On top of that, they could extend the extra lane to Ripley Street.

I bring this one up because former governor Mitch Daniels said that Major Moves funding was exhausted before this was proposed…and the NWI Times corroborated on the fact that it was in talks. It’s possible that it could be revived.

Maybe…just maybe?
I know this is a long shot, but maybe this will be the spark needed to resurrect talks of the Iliana Expressway. Sure, there are some talks in place to implement a “Flex road” system on the Borman, but that can only work for so long. Eventually, a new road needs to be built to alleviate pressure on US 30 and I-80/94.

No matter what gets done or what is in the works, let’s see how Northwest Indiana takes advantage.[/list][/list]
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 06, 2021, 10:38:57 PM
The Iliana freeway and railroad needs to happen ASAP!
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on November 06, 2021, 10:54:15 PM
Lets see if I95 in Dunn gets that dreaded double diamond interchange!
And also, with this bill, will I81 in NY and NC 540 in NC be rebuilt and completed, respectively? :hmmm:
The I-81 viaduct removal was a given.
It is a given until Hochul decides to review all previous studies and orders a study for another review.
At this point, that will not happen.  The community grid option is now proceeding.
That's what they said about the LGA Airtrain as well.
I'll believe it once 481 work is substantially complete.
Heh.  Good point, but I'd consider it real when Phase 1 starts, not ends.
@Rothman, when do you estimate that the I481 project be starting? My family is heading to NY in couple weeks around Thanksgiving and I would like to know that.
Not in 2021.
I wouldn't worry too much about 2022 Thanksgiving as well.
It depends on if the project achieves ROD as planned and if construction funding authorization comes as planned before the summer.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on November 06, 2021, 11:07:03 PM
Have some states actually released wishlists for what they would do with their money?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on November 06, 2021, 11:41:04 PM
Have some states actually released wishlists for what they would do with their money?
Not NY, I don't believe.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: KCRoadFan on November 07, 2021, 12:12:52 AM
What does the KC region, where I live, want to do with the money? How about Missouri and Kansas in general? Have any state or local officials said anything regarding that?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: mvak36 on November 07, 2021, 12:42:42 AM
What does the KC region, where I live, want to do with the money? How about Missouri and Kansas in general? Have any state or local officials said anything regarding that?
I have been looking but I havenít seen anything so far.

I would guess most of the money will go to repairing roads and bridges, as it should. But Iím still curious to see what expansion/modernization projects they will use the money for.

My best guesses:
Missouri might use that money for some of their Tier 1 projects in their Unfunded Needs  (https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/High-Priority%20Unfunded%20Needs%202021%20final.pdf) list.

Kansas might use it to move some of the IKE (https://www.ksdotike.org/) development projects to construction.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hbelkins on November 07, 2021, 08:19:11 PM
Kentucky's biggest priority will be the companion span for the Brent Spence Bridge (I-71/I-75) but I don't know if Ohio will share the same enthusiasm for it.

I wonder if this will allow the bridge to be built without tolls. Or if this will allow for the I-69 bridge to be a free crossing instead of a toll one?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: froggie on November 09, 2021, 09:42:44 AM
^ The only thing preventing either the new Brent Spence or the I-69 bridges to be built as free bridges is the funding capacity of the respective states (KY/OH and KY/IN).  If the states want to plunk enough money down for each bridge to avoid tolls, there's nothing stopping them.  But that would also eat up a hefty chunk of each state's transportation budget.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hbelkins on November 09, 2021, 10:28:38 AM
^ The only thing preventing either the new Brent Spence or the I-69 bridges to be built as free bridges is the funding capacity of the respective states (KY/OH and KY/IN).  If the states want to plunk enough money down for each bridge to avoid tolls, there's nothing stopping them.  But that would also eat up a hefty chunk of each state's transportation budget.

There's a loud contingent in northern Kentucky that is dead-set against tolls. I'm sure they'll be screaming loudly, "we've got all these Biden Bucks (TM) now, so we don't need to toll it." This mindset is a bipartisan one. And Kentucky has a lot more pressing transportation needs for its residents than a bridge to Ohio. There are a whole lot of people who just don't realize that a new bridge isn't going to happen without tolls.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Flint1979 on November 09, 2021, 05:24:33 PM
Not good at all.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: LM117 on November 10, 2021, 06:15:42 PM
According to this article, Biden will sign the bill Monday.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-hits-road-baltimore-port-stop-tout-infrastructure-win-n1283616 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-hits-road-baltimore-port-stop-tout-infrastructure-win-n1283616)
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on November 10, 2021, 06:24:19 PM
I've always thought that if I were President I'd be in the gallery whenever they were voting on an important bill, so I could go downstairs and sign it right there on the dais the moment the gavel dropped and the bill was declared passed.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: LM117 on November 10, 2021, 06:59:33 PM
I've always thought that if I were President I'd be in the gallery whenever they were voting on an important bill, so I could go downstairs and sign it right there on the dais the moment the gavel dropped and the bill was declared passed.

Yeah, if I were Biden, I'd be signing this ASAP, especially after my party just got done telling everyone that the delays in bringing the bills to a vote were a major factor in Democratic losses in VA last week.

On a side note, as someone living in VA, I can say firsthand that the bills were hardly a factor in the gubernatorial race. McAuliffe's campaign was a trainwreck, and once he made his infamous comment about parents and teachers during a debate, Youngkin took that soundbite and ran it all the way to the end zone. It was game over after that. The other losses downballot was collateral damage from McAuliffe's collapse, IMO.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 10, 2021, 09:29:21 PM
YAY!!  :clap: :clap: :clap:
If this didn't include demolishing highways that are supposedly racist, I'd feel the same way as you.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on November 10, 2021, 09:38:54 PM
Maybe I-70 can be finished to I-95 and go to Baltimore. :bigass:
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 10, 2021, 10:16:10 PM
Maybe I-70 can be finished to I-95 and go to Baltimore. :bigass:
You could say the same about I-83, but you know that's being thwarted too.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: HighwayStar on November 10, 2021, 10:40:37 PM
Maybe I-70 can be finished to I-95 and go to Baltimore. :bigass:

It would be wonderful, but my guess is building I-70 is racist so it won't happen.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kernals12 on November 10, 2021, 10:55:46 PM
Maybe I-70 can be finished to I-95 and go to Baltimore. :bigass:

It would be wonderful, but my guess is building I-70 is racist so it won't happen.

Aren't they planning to tear out the Franklin-Mulberry Expressway?

And I think it's understandable that building an interstate highway through a beloved city park would provoke controversy.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 11, 2021, 12:09:16 AM
YAY!!  :clap: :clap: :clap:
If this didn't include demolishing highways that are supposedly racist, I'd feel the same way as you.
Letís see what really gets torn down. Freeways like 375 in Detroit should go. Hopefully most of these funds can go to creating tunnels or park caps instead of all out removals.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kernals12 on November 11, 2021, 12:25:28 AM
YAY!!  :clap: :clap: :clap:
If this didn't include demolishing highways that are supposedly racist, I'd feel the same way as you.
Letís see what really gets torn down. Freeways like 375 in Detroit should go. Hopefully most of these funds can go to creating tunnels or park caps instead of all out removals.

They're only allocating $1 billion. That's not going to buy a lot of removals.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 11, 2021, 12:29:30 AM
YAY!!  :clap: :clap: :clap:
If this didn't include demolishing highways that are supposedly racist, I'd feel the same way as you.
Letís see what really gets torn down. Freeways like 375 in Detroit should go. Hopefully most of these funds can go to creating tunnels or park caps instead of all out removals.

They're only allocating $1 billion. That's not going to buy a lot of removals.
Lol thatís nothing. That wouldnít even cover half of the cost of the stupid I-81 removal project in Syracuse. Hell, just blow all the money on that shit and be done with it.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kernals12 on November 11, 2021, 12:36:21 AM
YAY!!  :clap: :clap: :clap:
If this didn't include demolishing highways that are supposedly racist, I'd feel the same way as you.
Letís see what really gets torn down. Freeways like 375 in Detroit should go. Hopefully most of these funds can go to creating tunnels or park caps instead of all out removals.

They're only allocating $1 billion. That's not going to buy a lot of removals.
Lol thatís nothing. That wouldnít even cover half of the cost of the stupid I-81 removal project in Syracuse. Hell, just blow all the money on that shit and be done with it.

They should try using open pore asphalt like they have in Europe. It massively reduces noise. It also costs more, but for highways in extremely densely populated areas (think Cross-Bronx Expressway), it would be a gamechanger.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 11, 2021, 01:06:37 AM
^^^ I havenít ever heard of that. Thanks for sharing Iím going to search it up.

PS, hereís a cool video from B1M about this bill.

Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: HighwayStar on November 11, 2021, 01:27:05 AM
If anyone wanted proof that democracy is a failed system this is it. Paying to demolish infrastructure while the rest of the world is building it.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 11, 2021, 02:41:25 AM
If anyone wanted proof that democracy is a failed system this is it. Paying to demolish infrastructure while the rest of the world is building it.
Lol wut
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on November 11, 2021, 04:29:26 AM
If anyone wanted proof that democracy is a failed system this is it. Paying to demolish infrastructure while the rest of the world is building it.
Lol wut

While china and other countries build roads, in america weíve decided that highways are all racist, so we need to ruin our own cities to atone for it.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: 1 on November 11, 2021, 06:09:56 AM
I don't think this particular bill is removing any freeways.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 11, 2021, 07:22:50 AM
They're only allocating $1 billion. That's not going to buy a lot of removals.
If they're going to use that $1B for any road projects, it should be for building them up, not tearing them down.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kernals12 on November 11, 2021, 08:38:12 AM
Why is public transit never asked to reckon with its history of racism?

The South didn't have any segregated highways but it did have segregated buses, streetcars, and trains.

Also, why do elevated highways "divide communities" while elevated trains don't?

Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on November 11, 2021, 09:56:58 AM
YAY!!  :clap: :clap: :clap:
If this didn't include demolishing highways that are supposedly racist, I'd feel the same way as you.
Letís see what really gets torn down. Freeways like 375 in Detroit should go. Hopefully most of these funds can go to creating tunnels or park caps instead of all out removals.

They're only allocating $1 billion. That's not going to buy a lot of removals.
Lol thatís nothing. That wouldnít even cover half of the cost of the stupid I-81 removal project in Syracuse. Hell, just blow all the money on that shit and be done with it.
Just under half of the I-81 project cost is going towards improvements along I-481 and bridge replacements on I-690.  It's not all just tearing down the viaduct.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on November 11, 2021, 10:02:35 AM


Why is public transit never asked to reckon with its history of racism?

The South didn't have any segregated highways but it did have segregated buses, streetcars, and trains.

Also, why do elevated highways "divide communities" while elevated trains don't?

Probably because of the differing histories of how such facilities were built, in regards to elevated trains.  See also Caro's discussion in The Power Broker regarding the differences between an elevated train and highway (e.g., the Gowanus).

In terms of overt segregation, that obviously has been discussed, taught and mostly done away with.

Brought to mind a sidewalk project I'm aware of that a city has proposed a couple of blocks away from where a bus line actually runs on a street without sidewalks.  In that case transit is serving a disadvantaged population whereas the city is prioritizong sidewalks away from their need for them.  It's an interesting case.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kalvado on November 11, 2021, 10:15:30 AM
YAY!!  :clap: :clap: :clap:
If this didn't include demolishing highways that are supposedly racist, I'd feel the same way as you.
Letís see what really gets torn down. Freeways like 375 in Detroit should go. Hopefully most of these funds can go to creating tunnels or park caps instead of all out removals.

They're only allocating $1 billion. That's not going to buy a lot of removals.
Lol thatís nothing. That wouldnít even cover half of the cost of the stupid I-81 removal project in Syracuse. Hell, just blow all the money on that shit and be done with it.
Just under half of the I-81 project cost is going towards improvements along I-481 and bridge replacements on I-690.  It's not all just tearing down the viaduct.
People on this forum focus on "teardown" part of it.
IMHO it is more fair to talk about replacement of that damn 45 MPH, high accident rate stretch. Which, given ROW constrains, soil constrains, city center location constrains, etc. has to be done via rerouting the highway.
"Teardown" part of it triggers a lot of emotions, but so is pretty much any major change. Reroute will inconvenience quite a few people, but again - so is pretty much any major change.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 11, 2021, 12:42:04 PM
YAY!!  :clap: :clap: :clap:
If this didn't include demolishing highways that are supposedly racist, I'd feel the same way as you.
Letís see what really gets torn down. Freeways like 375 in Detroit should go. Hopefully most of these funds can go to creating tunnels or park caps instead of all out removals.

They're only allocating $1 billion. That's not going to buy a lot of removals.
Lol thatís nothing. That wouldnít even cover half of the cost of the stupid I-81 removal project in Syracuse. Hell, just blow all the money on that shit and be done with it.
Just under half of the I-81 project cost is going towards improvements along I-481 and bridge replacements on I-690.  It's not all just tearing down the viaduct.
lol I was wondering how long itíd take you to come in here defending the I-81 project.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kalvado on November 11, 2021, 01:53:25 PM
YAY!!  :clap: :clap: :clap:
If this didn't include demolishing highways that are supposedly racist, I'd feel the same way as you.
Letís see what really gets torn down. Freeways like 375 in Detroit should go. Hopefully most of these funds can go to creating tunnels or park caps instead of all out removals.

They're only allocating $1 billion. That's not going to buy a lot of removals.
Lol thatís nothing. That wouldnít even cover half of the cost of the stupid I-81 removal project in Syracuse. Hell, just blow all the money on that shit and be done with it.
Just under half of the I-81 project cost is going towards improvements along I-481 and bridge replacements on I-690.  It's not all just tearing down the viaduct.
lol I was wondering how long itíd take you to come in here defending the I-81 project.
Frankly speaking, it was some west coast  gentlemen - who likely never been to upstate NY and has no idea about the local situation - who brought up I-81 issue here. 
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 11, 2021, 02:37:56 PM
YAY!!  :clap: :clap: :clap:
If this didn't include demolishing highways that are supposedly racist, I'd feel the same way as you.
Letís see what really gets torn down. Freeways like 375 in Detroit should go. Hopefully most of these funds can go to creating tunnels or park caps instead of all out removals.

They're only allocating $1 billion. That's not going to buy a lot of removals.
Lol thatís nothing. That wouldnít even cover half of the cost of the stupid I-81 removal project in Syracuse. Hell, just blow all the money on that shit and be done with it.
Just under half of the I-81 project cost is going towards improvements along I-481 and bridge replacements on I-690.  It's not all just tearing down the viaduct.
lol I was wondering how long itíd take you to come in here defending the I-81 project.
Frankly speaking, it was some west coast  gentlemen - who likely never been to upstate NY and has no idea about the local situation - who brought up I-81 issue here.
Itís just a funny thing Iíll come out and support the tunnel or the viaduct and bitch and moan about removing I 81 and Rothman sure to come in and play devils advocate. Iím just teasing
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kalvado on November 11, 2021, 02:41:59 PM
YAY!!  :clap: :clap: :clap:
If this didn't include demolishing highways that are supposedly racist, I'd feel the same way as you.
Letís see what really gets torn down. Freeways like 375 in Detroit should go. Hopefully most of these funds can go to creating tunnels or park caps instead of all out removals.

They're only allocating $1 billion. That's not going to buy a lot of removals.
Lol thatís nothing. That wouldnít even cover half of the cost of the stupid I-81 removal project in Syracuse. Hell, just blow all the money on that shit and be done with it.
Just under half of the I-81 project cost is going towards improvements along I-481 and bridge replacements on I-690.  It's not all just tearing down the viaduct.
lol I was wondering how long itíd take you to come in here defending the I-81 project.
Frankly speaking, it was some west coast  gentlemen - who likely never been to upstate NY and has no idea about the local situation - who brought up I-81 issue here.
Itís just a funny thing Iíll come out and support the tunnel or the viaduct and bitch and moan about removing I 81 and Rothman sure to come in and play devils advocate. Iím just teasing
While we're at this, do you also support a bridge to Hawaii? 
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 11, 2021, 03:01:57 PM
YAY!!  :clap: :clap: :clap:
If this didn't include demolishing highways that are supposedly racist, I'd feel the same way as you.
Letís see what really gets torn down. Freeways like 375 in Detroit should go. Hopefully most of these funds can go to creating tunnels or park caps instead of all out removals.

They're only allocating $1 billion. That's not going to buy a lot of removals.
Lol thatís nothing. That wouldnít even cover half of the cost of the stupid I-81 removal project in Syracuse. Hell, just blow all the money on that shit and be done with it.
Just under half of the I-81 project cost is going towards improvements along I-481 and bridge replacements on I-690.  It's not all just tearing down the viaduct.
lol I was wondering how long itíd take you to come in here defending the I-81 project.
Frankly speaking, it was some west coast  gentlemen - who likely never been to upstate NY and has no idea about the local situation - who brought up I-81 issue here.
Itís just a funny thing Iíll come out and support the tunnel or the viaduct and bitch and moan about removing I 81 and Rothman sure to come in and play devils advocate. Iím just teasing
While we're at this, do you also support a bridge to Hawaii?
A tunnel actually being part of an I-40 extension. I started off thinking hey while Iím proposing a tunnel underneath Syracuse, in similar fashion to how other modern countries build infrastructure, why not take it a step further and extend I-40 under the ocean after finally bringing it to the ocean through Bakersfield. Whatís so difficult about that when we dream of building cities on mars? We canít even build a road under water?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hbelkins on November 11, 2021, 07:13:23 PM
I've always thought that if I were President I'd be in the gallery whenever they were voting on an important bill, so I could go downstairs and sign it right there on the dais the moment the gavel dropped and the bill was declared passed.

Except that they probably don't have the bill printed in its final form ready for a signature when it's voted on. And if it's happening at 3 a.m., it doesn't give an opportunity to draw a big crowd with all the pomp and circumstance.

Most of those bill-signing ceremonies are just that: ceremonial. The document the executive signs isn't actually the real bill that gets filed wherever.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on November 11, 2021, 07:38:01 PM
YAY!!  :clap: :clap: :clap:
If this didn't include demolishing highways that are supposedly racist, I'd feel the same way as you.
Letís see what really gets torn down. Freeways like 375 in Detroit should go. Hopefully most of these funds can go to creating tunnels or park caps instead of all out removals.

They're only allocating $1 billion. That's not going to buy a lot of removals.
Lol thatís nothing. That wouldnít even cover half of the cost of the stupid I-81 removal project in Syracuse. Hell, just blow all the money on that shit and be done with it.
Just under half of the I-81 project cost is going towards improvements along I-481 and bridge replacements on I-690.  It's not all just tearing down the viaduct.
lol I was wondering how long itíd take you to come in here defending the I-81 project.
Frankly speaking, it was some west coast  gentlemen - who likely never been to upstate NY and has no idea about the local situation - who brought up I-81 issue here.
Itís just a funny thing Iíll come out and support the tunnel or the viaduct and bitch and moan about removing I 81 and Rothman sure to come in and play devils advocate. Iím just teasing
Just stating the facts.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 11, 2021, 07:38:28 PM
YAY!!  :clap: :clap: :clap:
If this didn't include demolishing highways that are supposedly racist, I'd feel the same way as you.
Letís see what really gets torn down. Freeways like 375 in Detroit should go. Hopefully most of these funds can go to creating tunnels or park caps instead of all out removals.

They're only allocating $1 billion. That's not going to buy a lot of removals.
Lol thatís nothing. That wouldnít even cover half of the cost of the stupid I-81 removal project in Syracuse. Hell, just blow all the money on that shit and be done with it.
Just under half of the I-81 project cost is going towards improvements along I-481 and bridge replacements on I-690.  It's not all just tearing down the viaduct.
lol I was wondering how long itíd take you to come in here defending the I-81 project.
Frankly speaking, it was some west coast  gentlemen - who likely never been to upstate NY and has no idea about the local situation - who brought up I-81 issue here.
Itís just a funny thing Iíll come out and support the tunnel or the viaduct and bitch and moan about removing I 81 and Rothman sure to come in and play devils advocate. Iím just teasing
Just stating the facts.
*opinions
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on November 11, 2021, 07:45:45 PM
YAY!!  :clap: :clap: :clap:
If this didn't include demolishing highways that are supposedly racist, I'd feel the same way as you.
Letís see what really gets torn down. Freeways like 375 in Detroit should go. Hopefully most of these funds can go to creating tunnels or park caps instead of all out removals.

They're only allocating $1 billion. That's not going to buy a lot of removals.
Lol thatís nothing. That wouldnít even cover half of the cost of the stupid I-81 removal project in Syracuse. Hell, just blow all the money on that shit and be done with it.
Just under half of the I-81 project cost is going towards improvements along I-481 and bridge replacements on I-690.  It's not all just tearing down the viaduct.
lol I was wondering how long itíd take you to come in here defending the I-81 project.
Frankly speaking, it was some west coast  gentlemen - who likely never been to upstate NY and has no idea about the local situation - who brought up I-81 issue here.
Itís just a funny thing Iíll come out and support the tunnel or the viaduct and bitch and moan about removing I 81 and Rothman sure to come in and play devils advocate. Iím just teasing
Just stating the facts.
*opinions
Well, no.  It's a fact that just under half of the $1.9B is going towards other activities besides tearing down the viaduct.

Therefore, your representation was bad math.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 11, 2021, 07:56:20 PM
YAY!!  :clap: :clap: :clap:
If this didn't include demolishing highways that are supposedly racist, I'd feel the same way as you.
Letís see what really gets torn down. Freeways like 375 in Detroit should go. Hopefully most of these funds can go to creating tunnels or park caps instead of all out removals.

They're only allocating $1 billion. That's not going to buy a lot of removals.
Lol thatís nothing. That wouldnít even cover half of the cost of the stupid I-81 removal project in Syracuse. Hell, just blow all the money on that shit and be done with it.
Just under half of the I-81 project cost is going towards improvements along I-481 and bridge replacements on I-690.  It's not all just tearing down the viaduct.
lol I was wondering how long itíd take you to come in here defending the I-81 project.
Frankly speaking, it was some west coast  gentlemen - who likely never been to upstate NY and has no idea about the local situation - who brought up I-81 issue here.
Itís just a funny thing Iíll come out and support the tunnel or the viaduct and bitch and moan about removing I 81 and Rothman sure to come in and play devils advocate. Iím just teasing
Just stating the facts.
*opinions
Well, no.  It's a fact that just under half of the $1.9B is going towards other activities besides tearing down the viaduct.

Therefore, your representation was bad math.
Iím referring to other discussions we had not the one on this thread.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on November 11, 2021, 08:47:52 PM
YAY!!  :clap: :clap: :clap:
If this didn't include demolishing highways that are supposedly racist, I'd feel the same way as you.
Letís see what really gets torn down. Freeways like 375 in Detroit should go. Hopefully most of these funds can go to creating tunnels or park caps instead of all out removals.

They're only allocating $1 billion. That's not going to buy a lot of removals.
Lol thatís nothing. That wouldnít even cover half of the cost of the stupid I-81 removal project in Syracuse. Hell, just blow all the money on that shit and be done with it.
Just under half of the I-81 project cost is going towards improvements along I-481 and bridge replacements on I-690.  It's not all just tearing down the viaduct.
lol I was wondering how long itíd take you to come in here defending the I-81 project.
Frankly speaking, it was some west coast  gentlemen - who likely never been to upstate NY and has no idea about the local situation - who brought up I-81 issue here.
Itís just a funny thing Iíll come out and support the tunnel or the viaduct and bitch and moan about removing I 81 and Rothman sure to come in and play devils advocate. Iím just teasing
Just stating the facts.
*opinions
Well, no.  It's a fact that just under half of the $1.9B is going towards other activities besides tearing down the viaduct.

Therefore, your representation was bad math.
Iím referring to other discussions we had not the one on this thread.
That's one heckuva stretch of the goalposts in this conversation, then.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Duke87 on November 11, 2021, 11:30:20 PM
Why is public transit never asked to reckon with its history of racism?

The South didn't have any segregated highways but it did have segregated buses, streetcars, and trains.

Is anyone still segregating buses? No? Then we fixed that.

Quote
Also, why do elevated highways "divide communities" while elevated trains don't?

They do, and this very argument has been used to justify tearing them down in the past. That trend has stopped now that society has collectively decided that the benefits of removing them are not worth the loss of mobility.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 11:07:40 AM
Why is public transit never asked to reckon with its history of racism?

The South didn't have any segregated highways but it did have segregated buses, streetcars, and trains.

Is anyone still segregating buses? No? Then we fixed that.

Quote
Also, why do elevated highways "divide communities" while elevated trains don't?

They do, and this very argument has been used to justify tearing them down in the past. That trend has stopped now that society has collectively decided that the benefits of removing them are not worth the loss of mobility.

Society hast not collectively come to anything. The 90% of us that live in the real world never thought demolishing infrastructure was a good idea, and somehow we are still being held captive by a 10% minority of morons that belong behind bars.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 11:09:02 AM
Why is public transit never asked to reckon with its history of racism?

The South didn't have any segregated highways but it did have segregated buses, streetcars, and trains.

Also, why do elevated highways "divide communities" while elevated trains don't?

Because public transit can be used to control and manipulate people, while highways embody freedom of travel and more independence than some people want you to have.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hbelkins on November 12, 2021, 11:14:52 AM
I would submit that surface transportation arteries (roads and rail) divide communities more than elevated ones.

It's pretty easy to just walk or drive underneath the elevated structure. Not quite so easy to cross surface facilities when they're in use.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 11:39:28 AM
I would submit that surface transportation arteries (roads and rail) divide communities more than elevated ones.

It's pretty easy to just walk or drive underneath the elevated structure. Not quite so easy to cross surface facilities when they're in use.

A valid point.
More important however is the question of if separation is bad in the first place. I have never heard someone say "damn, I wish that big freeway was not there to separate me from that lovely sewage treatment plant", etc.
And anyone that has tried to buy a house in a city knows that a good freeway is often the best barrier keep the riffraff out and property values up.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kalvado on November 12, 2021, 11:42:31 AM
I would submit that surface transportation arteries (roads and rail) divide communities more than elevated ones.

It's pretty easy to just walk or drive underneath the elevated structure. Not quite so easy to cross surface facilities when they're in use.
Roads, as a long area of hazardous traffic, does divide land. Wildlife, community, what not.
So do rivers, for example.
It's a vicious circle, if you will - you need traffic line (rail, street, highway) for people to move around; people start building up around that line, traffic grows, road becomes hard to cross.
Grade separation is great but expensive, even if we're talking simple over/under passes. Things can be somewhat mitigated by long-term pre-planning; but that pre-planning back in 60s was... objectionable by today's standards.

What "advocates" don't understand is the true cost of transit, and that without roads and proper transit communities would not survive.... Destruction is easy, problem solving is difficult.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 11:47:15 AM
I would submit that surface transportation arteries (roads and rail) divide communities more than elevated ones.

It's pretty easy to just walk or drive underneath the elevated structure. Not quite so easy to cross surface facilities when they're in use.
Roads, as a long area of hazardous traffic, does divide land. Wildlife, community, what not.
So do rivers, for example.
It's a vicious circle, if you will - you need traffic line (rail, street, highway) for people to move around; people start building up around that line, traffic grows, road becomes hard to cross.
Grade separation is great but expensive, even if we're talking simple over/under passes. Things can be somewhat mitigated by long-term pre-planning; but that pre-planning back in 60s was... objectionable by today's standards.

What "advocates" don't understand is the true cost of transit, and that without roads and proper transit communities would not survive.... Destruction is easy, problem solving is difficult.

No, roads only divide foot traffic. Anyone with a car can simply drive across. Not once have I said "damn, I wish I could get there from here, but I can't because there is a road to cross." I just get in the car and go.

So the BS about roads "dividing" places is really just a complaint that people cannot walk there, which is really trivial in the scope of things, and in many cases a barrier to foot traffic is actually desirable. Example, two houses for sale one described as "lovely house on a quiet cul-de-sac" the other as "lovely house at a major intersection", the former is more desirable and commands higher prices as a result.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kernals12 on November 12, 2021, 11:52:40 AM
I didn't expect this, the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler debunked the racist low bridges claim.

https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/robert-moses-bridge-story-debunked/
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 11:55:51 AM
I didn't expect this, the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler debunked the racist low bridges claim.

https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/robert-moses-bridge-story-debunked/

Since all of these tinfoil hat conspiracy theories need only the slightest push to be shown up as absurd its not that surprising to me.  :bigass:
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kalvado on November 12, 2021, 12:07:05 PM
I would submit that surface transportation arteries (roads and rail) divide communities more than elevated ones.

It's pretty easy to just walk or drive underneath the elevated structure. Not quite so easy to cross surface facilities when they're in use.
Roads, as a long area of hazardous traffic, does divide land. Wildlife, community, what not.
So do rivers, for example.
It's a vicious circle, if you will - you need traffic line (rail, street, highway) for people to move around; people start building up around that line, traffic grows, road becomes hard to cross.
Grade separation is great but expensive, even if we're talking simple over/under passes. Things can be somewhat mitigated by long-term pre-planning; but that pre-planning back in 60s was... objectionable by today's standards.

What "advocates" don't understand is the true cost of transit, and that without roads and proper transit communities would not survive.... Destruction is easy, problem solving is difficult.

No, roads only divide foot traffic. Anyone with a car can simply drive across. Not once have I said "damn, I wish I could get there from here, but I can't because there is a road to cross." I just get in the car and go.

So the BS about roads "dividing" places is really just a complaint that people cannot walk there, which is really trivial in the scope of things, and in many cases a barrier to foot traffic is actually desirable. Example, two houses for sale one described as "lovely house on a quiet cul-de-sac" the other as "lovely house at a major intersection", the former is more desirable and commands higher prices as a result.

Walking is pretty natural, many people wouldn't mind walking few thousand feet to a business. At some point, you have to choose between walking and 1 acre parcell, though.

And in our suburban area, highway division IS somewhat a thing. Not really bad, but it is.
We have 3 highway exits nearby separated by about 5 miles, and no crossings between those (one foot trail doesn't really count). Getting to the business on the other side of highway requires quite a drive, even if I can see that pizza place from my driveway. Frankly speaking, most businesses cluster around highway exit anyway, though
It's not really bad, but sometimes it is irritating.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 12:13:29 PM
I would submit that surface transportation arteries (roads and rail) divide communities more than elevated ones.

It's pretty easy to just walk or drive underneath the elevated structure. Not quite so easy to cross surface facilities when they're in use.
Roads, as a long area of hazardous traffic, does divide land. Wildlife, community, what not.
So do rivers, for example.
It's a vicious circle, if you will - you need traffic line (rail, street, highway) for people to move around; people start building up around that line, traffic grows, road becomes hard to cross.
Grade separation is great but expensive, even if we're talking simple over/under passes. Things can be somewhat mitigated by long-term pre-planning; but that pre-planning back in 60s was... objectionable by today's standards.

What "advocates" don't understand is the true cost of transit, and that without roads and proper transit communities would not survive.... Destruction is easy, problem solving is difficult.

No, roads only divide foot traffic. Anyone with a car can simply drive across. Not once have I said "damn, I wish I could get there from here, but I can't because there is a road to cross." I just get in the car and go.

So the BS about roads "dividing" places is really just a complaint that people cannot walk there, which is really trivial in the scope of things, and in many cases a barrier to foot traffic is actually desirable. Example, two houses for sale one described as "lovely house on a quiet cul-de-sac" the other as "lovely house at a major intersection", the former is more desirable and commands higher prices as a result.

Walking is pretty natural, many people wouldn't mind walking few thousand feet to a business. At some point, you have to choose between walking and 1 acre parcell, though.

And in our suburban area, highway division IS somewhat a thing. Not really bad, but it is.
We have 3 highway exits nearby separated by about 5 miles, and no crossings between those (one foot trail doesn't really count). Getting to the business on the other side of highway requires quite a drive, even if I can see that pizza place from my driveway. Frankly speaking, most businesses cluster around highway exit anyway, though
It's not really bad, but sometimes it is irritating.

Under ideal climatic conditions, with tons of time to blow, and nothing heavy to carry back like groceries, nor any small children to haul there and back then sure, it is fine to walk thousands of feet to the store. Most of us living in the real world recognize how rarely those criteria are properly met.
I would only find driving that way irritating if I was in a crap car.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on November 12, 2021, 12:16:40 PM
None of this shit is about the infrastructure bill. Back on topic, or it'll be your post that gets demolished.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: jlam on November 12, 2021, 12:50:01 PM
I feel that Colorado's funding will mainly go to the improving of the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels, the completion of the HOV lanes, and a widening of I-270. Some fictional ideas of mine are to complete the NW parkway and an upgrade US 34 between Loveland and Wiggins to an expressway. Neither of the latter will likely happen in the foreseeable future, however.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Avalanchez71 on November 12, 2021, 01:18:25 PM
How many strings are attached?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on November 12, 2021, 01:20:45 PM
How many strings are attached?

Seven and a half. Next question?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hbelkins on November 12, 2021, 07:49:39 PM
None of this shit is about the infrastructure bill. Back on topic, or it'll be your post that gets demolished.

I would suggest that the suggestion about "racist bridges" is on-topic, given that Buttgieg referenced Robert Moses in his comments about it.

I have never read the book. I just wonder how accurate it is.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on November 12, 2021, 07:58:04 PM
None of this shit is about the infrastructure bill. Back on topic, or it'll be your post that gets demolished.

I would suggest that the suggestion about "racist bridges" is on-topic, given that Buttgieg referenced Robert Moses in his comments about it.

I have never read the book. I just wonder how accurate it is.
Given the accounts and sources, quite.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on November 12, 2021, 08:04:08 PM
None of this shit is about the infrastructure bill. Back on topic, or it'll be your post that gets demolished.

I would suggest that the suggestion about "racist bridges" is on-topic, given that Buttgieg referenced Robert Moses in his comments about it.

I have never read the book. I just wonder how accurate it is.

If this specific bill is funding the specific removal of a specific bridge, that's on topic. Otherwise, it isn't. It can still be discussed elsewhere, as has been done in the past, because it's transportation policy, but this thread should be about what this specific bill is going to fund.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: mvak36 on November 13, 2021, 12:34:27 PM
Posted this in the Missouri thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=799.msg2680374#msg2680374), but they're going to have meetings about updating their High Priority Unfunded Needs list. IMO, I think some of the Tier 1 Unfunded projects will get funded with this infrastructure bill. Will be interesting to see what comes out of these meetings.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Buck87 on November 15, 2021, 03:45:52 PM
The signing ceremony for this bill is currently underway.

Ohio Senator Rob Portman just finished his remarks, in which he mentioned the Brent Spence bridge by name as a project that "we've been trying to do for 25 years, and that this bill gives us the tools to finally accomplish" (quoted section paraphrased by me)

As I was typing this New York Senator Schumer mentioned by name the Gateway project, cross Bronx expressway, 2nd avenue subway, I-81 in Syracuse, and the inner loop in Rochester as things that will all "have the ability to get going"
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: US 89 on November 15, 2021, 04:32:12 PM
The unthinkable has happened... this bill, at long last, has been signed.

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/infrastructure-bill-biden-signing-ceremony-white-house/
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: DenverBrian on November 15, 2021, 04:45:09 PM
I feel that Colorado's funding will mainly go to the improving of the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels, the completion of the HOV lanes, and a widening of I-270. Some fictional ideas of mine are to complete the NW parkway and an upgrade US 34 between Loveland and Wiggins to an expressway. Neither of the latter will likely happen in the foreseeable future, however.
Third bore for the tunnels?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 15, 2021, 05:29:05 PM
I feel that Colorado's funding will mainly go to the improving of the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels, the completion of the HOV lanes, and a widening of I-270. Some fictional ideas of mine are to complete the NW parkway and an upgrade US 34 between Loveland and Wiggins to an expressway. Neither of the latter will likely happen in the foreseeable future, however.
Third bore for the tunnels?
How about a new deep bore tunnel that is tolled and doesn't go as high as the current road does. That'd do wonders for freight.

They also need to connect the NW Parkway to Boulder Turnpike. Such a small and simple project I can't understand why it hasn't been done yet.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Avalanchez71 on November 16, 2021, 08:55:58 AM
Does this mean that bridges must be built with a minimum height now?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hbelkins on November 16, 2021, 11:22:44 AM
I saw something that described Buttgieg as the most powerful transportation secretary ever because he had control of so much discretionary grant money.

I wonder if specific promises were made for some of that money. Specifically, the Brent Spence Bridge? Portman from Ohio voted for the bill, but of course he's a lame duck and won't suffer any ramifications in a primary. McConnell voted for it, too.

It will be interesting if someone later comes out and says they were promised a certain project would be funded if they voted for the bill, but they get angry if their project doesn't get funded.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kalvado on November 16, 2021, 11:31:42 AM
I saw something that described Buttgieg as the most powerful transportation secretary ever because he had control of so much discretionary grant money.

I wonder if specific promises were made for some of that money. Specifically, the Brent Spence Bridge? Portman from Ohio voted for the bill, but of course he's a lame duck and won't suffer any ramifications in a primary. McConnell voted for it, too.

It will be interesting if someone later comes out and says they were promised a certain project would be funded if they voted for the bill, but they get angry if their project doesn't get funded.
A second most powerful unelected transportation official after Robert Moses? Or overtaking for a #1 position?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: froggie on November 16, 2021, 01:45:01 PM
Buttigiegís ďpowerĒ in this case is mostly financial and stems from Congress increasing the purse for the discretionary programs under his purview.  He can perhaps influence transportation policy with the type of projects he selects, but itís still mainly financial.

Mosesí power was FAR beyond just financial.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on November 16, 2021, 03:28:07 PM
Buttigieg's real power is that he is a notably good speaker who can think on his feet and explain what his/the administration's goals are and why, without tripping over his words or getting bogged down in details nobody understands or cares about. That's a skill a lot of Democrats lack (and it's something that hurts them in elections, because while Democrats are going over their nuanced sixty-point plans to lower the deficit, raise wages, rotate the tires on every car in this country, and make everyone waffles for breakfast, the Republican opponent is summing up their own platform in four words, which comes across a lot clearer). Even when the interviewer is hostileóhe goes on Fox rather often for a Democratóhe's rarely knocked off-message and doesn't fall down the rabbit holes the interviewer tries to lead him down.

So I would imagine we're going to see a lot of Buttigieg in the next few months, as the administration is going to send him out to be the poster boy to sell the benefits of this bill to the others. As Transportation Secretary, he's the right person to do it, and it meshes with his skill set perfectly. So while the bill isn't giving him very much in the way of hard power, it is giving him quite a lot of soft power that could serve his reputation well in the futureóassuming he doesn't fuck it up somehow.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on November 16, 2021, 03:28:34 PM
Does this mean that bridges must be built with a minimum height now?

Why would it?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kalvado on November 16, 2021, 03:48:14 PM
Does this mean that bridges must be built with a minimum height now?

Why would it?
Because it is generally a good idea to have some expectations actually working?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on November 16, 2021, 03:54:32 PM
Does this mean that bridges must be built with a minimum height now?

Why would it?
Because it is generally a good idea to have some expectations actually working?

I mean, as far as I know, minimum bridge heights were never, at any point, discussed during the negotiations over this bill. And they really shouldn't be; appropriate bridge heights need to be determined by engineers. Things like the 11'8" bridge were built because of circumstances that made that the only viable option, not because bridge engineers were trying to get away with a cheap bridge or whatever flight of fancy or imagined government evil Avalanchez is chasing this week.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kalvado on November 16, 2021, 05:22:26 PM
Does this mean that bridges must be built with a minimum height now?

Why would it?
Because it is generally a good idea to have some expectations actually working?

I mean, as far as I know, minimum bridge heights were never, at any point, discussed during the negotiations over this bill. And they really shouldn't be; appropriate bridge heights need to be determined by engineers. Things like the 11'8" bridge were built because of circumstances that made that the only viable option, not because bridge engineers were trying to get away with a cheap bridge or whatever flight of fancy or imagined government evil Avalanchez is chasing this week.
There is also an exemption review process for other road deficiencies. Yet, it is a good idea to ensure clearance whenever practical.
I hope this would not be zero-tolerance, and if truck doesn't fit everyone is off to detour type of ADA thing though. But we had at least 3  bridge strikes within past week in the metro area, including 2 strikes of same bridge within an hour.  There is some hope around that funds from this bill may fix some of those bridges.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2021, 05:36:36 PM
Does this mean that bridges must be built with a minimum height now?

Why would it?
Because it is generally a good idea to have some expectations actually working?

I mean, as far as I know, minimum bridge heights were never, at any point, discussed during the negotiations over this bill. And they really shouldn't be; appropriate bridge heights need to be determined by engineers. Things like the 11'8" bridge were built because of circumstances that made that the only viable option, not because bridge engineers were trying to get away with a cheap bridge or whatever flight of fancy or imagined government evil Avalanchez is chasing this week.

I was under the impression the bridge height requirements were made to be 17ft or something to that extent. California recently completed a project to raise bridges on I-80 to meet or exceed federal standards.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hbelkins on November 17, 2021, 01:31:31 PM
Does this mean that bridges must be built with a minimum height now?

Why would it?

This is just another tangent of the Buttgieg vs. Moses comparison.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on November 17, 2021, 01:37:34 PM
As far as I know, Buttigieg wasn't directly involved in determining the contents of the bill; that was Senate staff.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: kalvado on November 17, 2021, 01:52:11 PM
As far as I know, Buttigieg wasn't directly involved in determining the contents of the bill; that was Senate staff.
What about allocation? Let me talk about it in terms of local examples.
 I-81 is one of those projects with a lot of connotation in terms of racial justice, anti-highway etc.
While I-81 is basically  a set of compromises in pretty inconvenient circumstances, once it is sold in those terms, it may set a precedent.  I wonder if Buttigieg would have enough power, for example, to override more realistic local opinions about I-787 and push for "more justice"? That would put him, from my perspective, right on the same page as Robert Moses.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: jamess on November 17, 2021, 02:32:56 PM
I wonder if Buttigieg would have enough power, for example, to override more realistic local opinions about I-787 and push for "more justice"? That would put him, from my perspective, right on the same page as Robert Moses.

There has always been discretion in how federal funding is distributed. During the last admin, it was incredibly obvious that funds were being given primarily to red states as a political favor.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on November 17, 2021, 03:24:53 PM
As far as I know, Buttigieg wasn't directly involved in determining the contents of the bill; that was Senate staff.
What about allocation? Let me talk about it in terms of local examples.
 I-81 is one of those projects with a lot of connotation in terms of racial justice, anti-highway etc.
While I-81 is basically  a set of compromises in pretty inconvenient circumstances, once it is sold in those terms, it may set a precedent.  I wonder if Buttigieg would have enough power, for example, to override more realistic local opinions about I-787 and push for "more justice"? That would put him, from my perspective, right on the same page as Robert Moses.

I don't think he has that power, but Rothman is the expert on how federal funding from a bill such as this is allocated.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: hbelkins on November 17, 2021, 06:15:09 PM
As far as I know, Buttigieg wasn't directly involved in determining the contents of the bill; that was Senate staff.
What about allocation? Let me talk about it in terms of local examples.
 I-81 is one of those projects with a lot of connotation in terms of racial justice, anti-highway etc.
While I-81 is basically  a set of compromises in pretty inconvenient circumstances, once it is sold in those terms, it may set a precedent.  I wonder if Buttigieg would have enough power, for example, to override more realistic local opinions about I-787 and push for "more justice"? That would put him, from my perspective, right on the same page as Robert Moses.

I don't think he has that power, but Rothman is the expert on how federal funding from a bill such as this is allocated.

I'm not Rothman, and I don't do the same thing for my agency that he does for his, but I've heard enough about this bill to know that there are two different processes at work, and things will probably vary from state to state.

As far as Kentucky goes, we plan to use the regular allocations in the bill for already-planned federally-funded projects. Right now we're awaiting direction from FHWA on how the competitive grant process is going to work before knowing how to apply, what to apply for, which projects to include in the application process, and all that good stuff.

Everyone seems to assume that Kentucky's share is going to go for a companion to the Brent Spence Bridge, but that's definitely not yet set in stone.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on November 17, 2021, 10:10:51 PM
As far as I know, Buttigieg wasn't directly involved in determining the contents of the bill; that was Senate staff.
What about allocation? Let me talk about it in terms of local examples.
 I-81 is one of those projects with a lot of connotation in terms of racial justice, anti-highway etc.
While I-81 is basically  a set of compromises in pretty inconvenient circumstances, once it is sold in those terms, it may set a precedent.  I wonder if Buttigieg would have enough power, for example, to override more realistic local opinions about I-787 and push for "more justice"? That would put him, from my perspective, right on the same page as Robert Moses.

I don't think he has that power, but Rothman is the expert on how federal funding from a bill such as this is allocated.
We don't even have the FHWA apportionment notice yet, which is the actual document that divvies out the funds.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on November 18, 2021, 04:01:51 PM
As far as I know, Buttigieg wasn't directly involved in determining the contents of the bill; that was Senate staff.
What about allocation? Let me talk about it in terms of local examples.
 I-81 is one of those projects with a lot of connotation in terms of racial justice, anti-highway etc.
While I-81 is basically  a set of compromises in pretty inconvenient circumstances, once it is sold in those terms, it may set a precedent.  I wonder if Buttigieg would have enough power, for example, to override more realistic local opinions about I-787 and push for "more justice"? That would put him, from my perspective, right on the same page as Robert Moses.

I don't think he has that power, but Rothman is the expert on how federal funding from a bill such as this is allocated.
We don't even have the FHWA apportionment notice yet, which is the actual document that divvies out the funds.

What would you expect the process to look like from here on out? Is the apportionment notice basically just a sight draft saying "pay to the order of NYSDOT: X billion dollars" or is it more involved than that? Is there much leeway for Secretary Buttigieg to materially affect the process of how much money NYSDOT will get, or what it can be used on?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on November 18, 2021, 04:28:33 PM
As far as I know, Buttigieg wasn't directly involved in determining the contents of the bill; that was Senate staff.
What about allocation? Let me talk about it in terms of local examples.
 I-81 is one of those projects with a lot of connotation in terms of racial justice, anti-highway etc.
While I-81 is basically  a set of compromises in pretty inconvenient circumstances, once it is sold in those terms, it may set a precedent.  I wonder if Buttigieg would have enough power, for example, to override more realistic local opinions about I-787 and push for "more justice"? That would put him, from my perspective, right on the same page as Robert Moses.

I don't think he has that power, but Rothman is the expert on how federal funding from a bill such as this is allocated.
We don't even have the FHWA apportionment notice yet, which is the actual document that divvies out the funds.

What would you expect the process to look like from here on out? Is the apportionment notice basically just a sight draft saying "pay to the order of NYSDOT: X billion dollars" or is it more involved than that? Is there much leeway for Secretary Buttigieg to materially affect the process of how much money NYSDOT will get, or what it can be used on?

At least for core funding, FHWA will issue the official apportionments in document that is about 13 pages long showing their calculations (somewhat...it's a little swiss cheese like) and then -- hopefully -- updated the amount of obligation limitation available to utilize such apportionments.

Special programs will get separate notices and their own program codes.  Then, for those discretionary grant programs that people are so excited about for some reason, FHWA will set up their application processes and the overly-convoluted journey to either get approved or rejected will follow for years to come.

At this point, I'm most interested in what appears to be the re-establishment of bridge rehab/replacement funding.  I'll be looking for that in FMIS to see how NYSDOT is handling it.  So far, I'm assuming that they'll hold it back in the MO and divvy it out for specific projects at the Commissioner's/Governor's discretion.  Other states will definitely be handling that one differently.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: LM117 on November 19, 2021, 12:46:02 PM
As mentioned in the main NC thread, the infrastructure bill created a new High Priority Corridor and future interstate in NC, which would follow US-421 from I-85 in Greensboro to I-95 in Dunn. NCDOT is expected to seek approval from AASHTO (presumably at the spring meeting) to designate it as Future I-685.

https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/ (https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/)
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: DenverBrian on November 19, 2021, 12:57:45 PM
If Buttigieg was going to "pork" the distribution of funds, wouldn't there be something for Indiana by now?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: snowc on November 19, 2021, 12:57:54 PM
As mentioned in the main NC thread, the infrastructure bill created a new High Priority Corridor and future interstate in NC, which would follow US-421 from I-85 in Greensboro to I-95 in Dunn. NCDOT is expected to seek approval from AASHTO (presumably at the spring meeting) to designate it as Future I-685.

https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/ (https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/)
ITS ABOUT TIME THAT DUNN GETS A NEW INTERCHANGE!  :clap: :clap: :clap:
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: DenverBrian on November 19, 2021, 01:00:22 PM
As mentioned in the main NC thread, the infrastructure bill created a new High Priority Corridor and future interstate in NC, which would follow US-421 from I-85 in Greensboro to I-95 in Dunn. NCDOT is expected to seek approval from AASHTO (presumably at the spring meeting) to designate it as Future I-685.

https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/ (https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/)
Is the numbering system completely kaput at this time? Shouldn't this be an odd-numbered 3di? It's not a loop; it's a spur into a city.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: snowc on November 19, 2021, 01:01:16 PM
As mentioned in the main NC thread, the infrastructure bill created a new High Priority Corridor and future interstate in NC, which would follow US-421 from I-85 in Greensboro to I-95 in Dunn. NCDOT is expected to seek approval from AASHTO (presumably at the spring meeting) to designate it as Future I-685.

https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/ (https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/)
Is the numbering system completely kaput at this time? Shouldn't this be an odd-numbered 3di? It's not a loop; it's a spur into a city.
it should.  :banghead:
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: LM117 on November 19, 2021, 02:29:23 PM
As mentioned in the main NC thread, the infrastructure bill created a new High Priority Corridor and future interstate in NC, which would follow US-421 from I-85 in Greensboro to I-95 in Dunn. NCDOT is expected to seek approval from AASHTO (presumably at the spring meeting) to designate it as Future I-685.

https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/ (https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/)

To give some background on this, there's strong suspicion that Toyota will build a battery plant at the Greensboro-Randolph megasite, which sits along US-421. Can't help but wonder if that's the reason I-685(?) was included in the infrastructure bill...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-19/toyota-eyes-panasonic-as-partner-in-north-carolina-battery-plant (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-19/toyota-eyes-panasonic-as-partner-in-north-carolina-battery-plant)
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: sprjus4 on November 19, 2021, 03:29:25 PM
As mentioned in the main NC thread, the infrastructure bill created a new High Priority Corridor and future interstate in NC, which would follow US-421 from I-85 in Greensboro to I-95 in Dunn. NCDOT is expected to seek approval from AASHTO (presumably at the spring meeting) to designate it as Future I-685.

https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/ (https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/)
Is the numbering system completely kaput at this time? Shouldn't this be an odd-numbered 3di? It's not a loop; it's a spur into a city.
No, it connects two interstates (I-85 to I-95) therefore it would be an even number.

As mentioned in the main NC thread, the infrastructure bill created a new High Priority Corridor and future interstate in NC, which would follow US-421 from I-85 in Greensboro to I-95 in Dunn. NCDOT is expected to seek approval from AASHTO (presumably at the spring meeting) to designate it as Future I-685.

https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/ (https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/)
Seems foolish to send it to DunnÖ keep it going down NC-87 and terminate at I-295. Actually connect to Fayetteville instead of deliberately shifting away from it at Sanford.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: 1 on November 19, 2021, 03:35:27 PM
As mentioned in the main NC thread, the infrastructure bill created a new High Priority Corridor and future interstate in NC, which would follow US-421 from I-85 in Greensboro to I-95 in Dunn. NCDOT is expected to seek approval from AASHTO (presumably at the spring meeting) to designate it as Future I-685.

https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/ (https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/)
Is the numbering system completely kaput at this time? Shouldn't this be an odd-numbered 3di? It's not a loop; it's a spur into a city.
No, it connects two interstates (I-85 to I-95) therefore it would be an even number.

I'm seeing it as odd. Compare to I-135 and I-335 in Kansas, I-155 in Illinois, I-195 and I-395 in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, I-380 in Iowa, and I-385 in South Carolina. This isn't a loop or beltway.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: LM117 on November 19, 2021, 04:00:41 PM
As mentioned in the main NC thread, the infrastructure bill created a new High Priority Corridor and future interstate in NC, which would follow US-421 from I-85 in Greensboro to I-95 in Dunn. NCDOT is expected to seek approval from AASHTO (presumably at the spring meeting) to designate it as Future I-685.

https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/ (https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/)
Seems foolish to send it to DunnÖ keep it going down NC-87 and terminate at I-295. Actually connect to Fayetteville instead of deliberately shifting away from it at Sanford.

That was my thought as well, and when I mentioned it in the NC thread, WashuOatku suggested that it was routed to Dunn in order to avoid any interference with Fort Bragg.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: DenverBrian on November 19, 2021, 06:54:27 PM
As mentioned in the main NC thread, the infrastructure bill created a new High Priority Corridor and future interstate in NC, which would follow US-421 from I-85 in Greensboro to I-95 in Dunn. NCDOT is expected to seek approval from AASHTO (presumably at the spring meeting) to designate it as Future I-685.

https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/ (https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/)
Is the numbering system completely kaput at this time? Shouldn't this be an odd-numbered 3di? It's not a loop; it's a spur into a city.
No, it connects two interstates (I-85 to I-95) therefore it would be an even number.

I'm seeing it as odd. Compare to I-135 and I-335 in Kansas, I-155 in Illinois, I-195 and I-395 in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, I-380 in Iowa, and I-385 in South Carolina. This isn't a loop or beltway.
Exactly. Where did the "it connects two interstates" idea come from? That's never been protocol.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on November 19, 2021, 07:26:19 PM
As mentioned in the main NC thread, the infrastructure bill created a new High Priority Corridor and future interstate in NC, which would follow US-421 from I-85 in Greensboro to I-95 in Dunn. NCDOT is expected to seek approval from AASHTO (presumably at the spring meeting) to designate it as Future I-685.

https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/ (https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/)
Is the numbering system completely kaput at this time? Shouldn't this be an odd-numbered 3di? It's not a loop; it's a spur into a city.
No, it connects two interstates (I-85 to I-95) therefore it would be an even number.

I'm seeing it as odd. Compare to I-135 and I-335 in Kansas, I-155 in Illinois, I-195 and I-395 in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, I-380 in Iowa, and I-385 in South Carolina. This isn't a loop or beltway.
Exactly. Where did the "it connects two interstates" idea come from? That's never been protocol.

The NY Division of FHWA says hello (see I-86...).
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: vdeane on November 19, 2021, 08:51:52 PM
Given NCDOT's funding situation and whatnot, don't they have enough on their plate right now?  They don't need yet another interstate that's going to take forever to finish.  We're already talking about DECADES before the interstates they already added will be finished.  What point is a short stub of an interstate that won't be done for decades?  Even if we buy into the idea that simply having a shield is all that matters whether it goes anywhere or not, doesn't the fact that these routes won't be fully designated for decades devalue the brand?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on November 19, 2021, 09:54:55 PM
It's simpleóif NCDOT uses up all of the interstate numbers, nobody else will be able to build any, so NCDOT gets all of that sweet Interstate money to themselves.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: froggie on November 20, 2021, 09:57:14 AM
Quote from: Scott5114
so NCDOT gets all of that sweet Interstate money to themselves.

What "sweet Interstate money"?  A separate funding pot for Interstate highways went away years ago.  And all these new Interstates of the past 20 years were added as non-chargeable Interstates, meaning they weren't eligible for that Interstate funding to begin with.

They're eligible for NHS funding, but there are plenty of non-Interstate corridors also eligible for NHS funding.


No.  NCDOT is doing this because they (and a number of other states especially across the Southeast) see the Interstate shield as a brand...one that to them attracts business and revenue.  THAT is why they're so gung-ho with Interstates.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on November 20, 2021, 10:34:10 AM


Quote from: Scott5114
so NCDOT gets all of that sweet Interstate money to themselves.

What "sweet Interstate money"?  A separate funding pot for Interstate highways went away years ago.  And all these new Interstates of the past 20 years were added as non-chargeable Interstates, meaning they weren't eligible for that Interstate funding to begin with.

They're eligible for NHS funding, but there are plenty of non-Interstate corridors also eligible for NHS funding.


No.  NCDOT is doing this because they (and a number of other states especially across the Southeast) see the Interstate shield as a brand...one that to them attracts business and revenue.  THAT is why they're so gung-ho with Interstates.

The new interstates aren't eligible for 90% share of NHP?  I know there have been some screwy limitations in federal legislation in days of yore (e.g., the old IM funding was based upon the interstate system as defined in a certain year, but I thought more recent bills had been more flexible.  I could be wrong on that).
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: froggie on November 20, 2021, 10:40:13 AM
I could be wrong but I was under the impression that the newer Interstates were capped at 80% like the rest of the NHS...only the "legacy" Interstates (i.e. the chargable interstates) were 90%.  I do know that, before IM went away, the newer Interstates were not eligible for IM.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on November 20, 2021, 12:45:42 PM
- Interstate construction in the other 47 contiguous states not being possible anymore because NCDOT used up all the numbers: totally believable
- Implying that Interstate Maintenance funding still exists: UTTERLY IMPLAUSIBLE, GET HIS ASS

It was a joke, guys. :P
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Scott5114 on November 20, 2021, 01:09:54 PM
A politics site I follow had this reader Q&A question, which answers a question that was asked here upthread:

Quote from: electoral-vote.com
S.K. in Chappaqua, NY, asks: How much authority does the bipartisan infrastructure bill afford the executive branch with respect to allocation of funds to, oh, say. West Virginia vs. Alaska, to take a very nonrandomly selected example?

V & Z answer: Very little. A large portion of the funds are earmarked for specific projects, like a bridge from Kentucky to Ohio, restoration of the San Francisco Bay, and cleaning up the Great Lakes. Money that is not already earmarked is generally doled out by a formula that considers a state's population and a few other factors.

Like all veteran senators, Joe Manchin and Lisa Murkowski know that the time to stick your hand out is before the bill is voted on. And so, Manchin got a bunch of goodies related to coal, most obviously $11.3 billion for the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Fund. And Murkowski got a bunch, too, most obviously $3.5 billion to fix highways (particularly the Yukon Highway) and $225 million to fix broken bridges.

Presumably by "Yukon Highway" they mean Alaska Highway.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: Rothman on November 20, 2021, 07:06:07 PM
A politics site I follow had this reader Q&A question, which answers a question that was asked here upthread:

Quote from: electoral-vote.com
S.K. in Chappaqua, NY, asks: How much authority does the bipartisan infrastructure bill afford the executive branch with respect to allocation of funds to, oh, say. West Virginia vs. Alaska, to take a very nonrandomly selected example?

V & Z answer: Very little. A large portion of the funds are earmarked for specific projects, like a bridge from Kentucky to Ohio, restoration of the San Francisco Bay, and cleaning up the Great Lakes. Money that is not already earmarked is generally doled out by a formula that considers a state's population and a few other factors.

Like all veteran senators, Joe Manchin and Lisa Murkowski know that the time to stick your hand out is before the bill is voted on. And so, Manchin got a bunch of goodies related to coal, most obviously $11.3 billion for the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Fund. And Murkowski got a bunch, too, most obviously $3.5 billion to fix highways (particularly the Yukon Highway) and $225 million to fix broken bridges.

Presumably by "Yukon Highway" they mean Alaska Highway.

Whoever V&Z are, their description seems a little biased.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: froggie on November 21, 2021, 09:54:10 AM
- Interstate construction in the other 47 contiguous states not being possible anymore because NCDOT used up all the numbers: totally believable
- Implying that Interstate Maintenance funding still exists: UTTERLY IMPLAUSIBLE, GET HIS ASS

It was a joke, guys. :P

As I recall, it has been a serious discussion on this forum in the not-too-distant past.

Also, I'd like to know where these "earmarks" are.  I read through the Infrastructure Bill text and I did not see any.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: 3467 on November 21, 2021, 01:31:11 PM
I saw an early version of just the highway bill. It has some. Sometimes the bill is incorporated into the final bill by reference.
All I know is Illinois is to get 17 billion total . The Gov. Pritzger said money won't flow until next year. We may have to wait until next year state DOT budgets to find out what is getting funded ?
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: sprjus4 on November 23, 2021, 12:42:26 AM
USDOT reveals how much Virginia and NC will receive in infrastructure funding (https://www.wavy.com/news/virginia/usdot-reveals-how-much-virginia-and-nc-will-receive-in-infrastructure-funding/)
Quote
WASHINGTON (WAVY) ó The U.S. Federal Highway Administration has estimated both Virginia and North Carolina could receive more than $9.2 billion each in funds from the recently passed federal infrastructure legislation.

The money, which will flow in over the course of the next five years to the respective states, will help fund improvements in roads, bridges, railroads and airports.

There are also additional grants states and local governments can apply for thatíll help fund emission-reducing programs, port dredging projects and increase transportation safety.

The largest chunk of money, $7.7 billion for both states, will go toward funding for highways and bridges according to the federal highway funding formula. Itís a 33.5% increase in funding that Virginia gets under the current law. In North Carolina, itís roughly a 28.7% increase.

The Hampton Roads Planning District Commission already has a list of priority road projects they hope to use some of that money for.

Both states can expect to see more than $43 million for highway safety traffic programs, more than $920 million for public transit programs and more than $386 million for airports.

President Joe Biden signed a $1.2 trillion infrastructure package into law at the White House on Monday. Aside from modernizing the countryís infrastructure, it will also create 1.5 million jobs a year for the next decade, the Biden administration said.

ďFor decades, infrastructure in Virginia has suffered from a systemic lack of investment. In fact, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave Virginia a C- on its infrastructure report card,Ē the release from USDOT said. ďThe historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will make life better for millions of Virginia residents, create a generation of good-paying union jobs and economic growth, and position the United States to win the 21st century.Ē

For the Hampton Roads, with the third segment of I-64 widening near Williamsburg now virtually complete, the top priority for the area is completing the remaining nearly 30 miles of 6 lane widening to Richmond.

Highway projects, broadband among top local priorities (Hampton Roads) for infrastructure funds (https://www.wavy.com/news/virginia/highway-projects-broadband-among-top-local-priorities-for-infrastructure-funds/)
Quote
PORTSMOUTH, Va. ( WAVY) ó The head of the Hampton Roads Planning District commission has his wish list in place for when the money from the new $1.2 trillion federal infrastructure package begins to flow into Hampton Roads.

HRPDC Executive Director Bob Crum was part of a roundtable discussion Tuesday with U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) at the Port of Virginia International Gateway that included leaders from the shipping industry.

The infrastructure bill provides for $110 billion in road and bridge improvements. At the top of Crumís priority list is a $635 million project to continue widening Interstate 64 between the Virginia Peninsula and Richmond until itís three lanes in both directions all the way.

ď20 of those miles are outside the region in Hampton Roads,Ē Crum said. ďSo we are really excited and hopeful that this federal infrastructure package can add that additional lane in each direction.Ē

Kaine says it would help Hampton Roads join forces with the capital area when it comes to attracting business.

ďThereís this new effort to try to connect the 757 with RVA and think about it as a big region for economic development. That project would be really important for making that happen,Ē Kaine said.

The federal package also earmarks $65 billion in broadband development. Some of that money could help Hampton Roads attract new business, Crum says.

ďOur region is building out its regional fiber network and the super-fast sub-sea cables that come ashore in Virginia Beach,Ē Crum said.

ďWe have too many people in Virginia who donít have access, or if they do have access itís not affordable. We can [build broadband] in a way that will benefit Hampton Roads and all over the commonwealth,Ē Kaine said.

The federal infrastructure bill also provides $66 billion for rail improvements, $47 billion in resilience projects to combat sea level rise and climate change, and $39 billion in upgrades to public transit. The amount that will come to Hampton Roads has yet to be determined.
Title: Re: Infrastructure Bill 2021
Post by: LM117 on November 23, 2021, 08:08:22 AM
As mentioned in the main NC thread, the infrastructure bill created a new High Priority Corridor and future interstate in NC, which would follow US-421 from I-85 in Greensboro to I-95 in Dunn. NCDOT is expected to seek approval from AASHTO (presumably at the spring meeting) to designate it as Future I-685.

https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/ (https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/)

To give some background on this, there's strong suspicion that Toyota will build a battery plant at the Greensboro-Randolph megasite, which sits along US-421. Can't help but wonder if that's the reason I-685(?) was included in the infrastructure bill...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-19/toyota-eyes-panasonic-as-partner-in-north-carolina-battery-plant (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-19/toyota-eyes-panasonic-as-partner-in-north-carolina-battery-plant)

All but confirmed at this point.

https://greensboro.com/business/local/after-toyota-reports-surface-corps-of-engineers-files-public-notice-of-grading-the-greensboro-randolph/article_ebafba82-4bd9-11ec-be1c-c7d19f7b4aac.html#tracking-source=home-top-story (https://greensboro.com/business/local/after-toyota-reports-surface-corps-of-engineers-files-public-notice-of-grading-the-greensboro-randolph/article_ebafba82-4bd9-11ec-be1c-c7d19f7b4aac.html#tracking-source=home-top-story)