Infrastructure Bill 2021

[SkyPesos]

I wish they had included a few billion for funding the development of 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?

[thefro]

Bill passed the Senate 69-30

There will be some wrangling in the House but this should pass that chamber in the next couple months.

[Rothman]

I wish they had included a few billion for funding the development of 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. 

[Mr. Matté]

Bill passed the Senate 69-30

Nice.

[JoePCool14]

I wish they had included a few billion for funding the development of 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.

[I-55]

I wish they had included a few billion for funding the development of 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.

[3467]

Any details on specific projects yet?

[Rothman]

NY evidently stands to get hundreds of millions more over five years above its current levels from the Act.  That's infrastructure funding.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

Is there a state-by-state rundown of what each state is getting?

[Avalanchez71]

Is there a state-by-state rundown of what each state is getting?

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

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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?

Here's is the entire bill. I'll let someone else read through 2000+ pages

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=21031305-infrastructure-bill

[Scott5114]

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)

[ITB]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

Thanks for clearing up when the house will take this on. I was wondering when that will happen.

[Rothman]

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).

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm really surprised NYSDOT is so strapped for cash. I don't know if a California like SB-1 would fly there.

[LM117]

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

[Avalanchez71]

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.

[Rothman]

I'm really surprised NYSDOT is so strapped for cash. I don't 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...

[Rothman]

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.

[vdeane]

I'm really surprised NYSDOT is so strapped for cash. I don't 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.

[Rothman]

I'm really surprised NYSDOT is so strapped for cash. I don't 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).

[Scott5114]

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.