Infrastructure Bill 2021

[kalvado]

While everyone loves to spend money, sometimes spending money one doesn't have is not a great idea.

But it has become the m.o. for every President lately, no matter which Party they're with.

Question is not if that is sustainable, question is when it would bite back. And Biden seem to really push the throttle on the issue. $5k per person in 2024, when things are more or less smooth...
It is especially interesting in terms of infrastructure financing, where technical debt and quickly growing costs make things even more funny. I suspect we're about to see some really high tolls, and that may be the least painful option. 

[wanderer2575]

And keeping it apolitical, can a president decree on his/her own to render null a bill signed into law by a previous president?  Seems to me it would require that Congress first pass a law effectively negating the existing law.

[Plutonic Panda]

I've only read one news article about this, but it appeared to me this was primarily about, pausing the funding and repurposing the funding that was gonna go to the EV charging stations. I don't think it would be politically smart for Trump to halt this for very long. I wouldn't be surprised nor care too much if the electric car charging stations did or didn't happen.

I will say this, though, if there's one project that Trump seems to have a weird distain for it's the Hudson River tunnel project. I'm also less optimistic about project such as the heartland flyer happening under Trump's administration. I don't think we're gonna get the Amtrak expansion some might've been hoping for including myself. I also wouldn't be surprised to see funding at risk for the California high-speed rail projects.

[Rothman]

Exec Order was vague and idiotic, really.  Sent local FHWA into chaos and briefly stopped run-of-the-mill maintenance-by-contract projects -- all construction authorizations leading up to lettings in time for this construction season.

FHWA figured out a way to keep things moving for the time being, but for anyone that has interest in just bridge and pavement conditions being improved, this was boneheaded, especially as new funding based on new priorities will need to be had in the short term, anyway.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[SEWIGuy]

Frankly speaking, spending patterns under Biden were anything but healthy. Or reasonable. Or sane.  While everyone loves to spend money, sometimes spending money one doesn't have is not a great idea.

Through the sale of bonds, the government literally has the money. It was approved in a law by Congress and signed by the President. Now a new President has decided to simply not spend the money even though all sorts of planning and construction has taken place.

[kalvado]

Frankly speaking, spending patterns under Biden were anything but healthy. Or reasonable. Or sane.  While everyone loves to spend money, sometimes spending money one doesn't have is not a great idea.

Through the sale of bonds, the government literally has the money. It was approved in a law by Congress and signed by the President. Now a new President has decided to simply not spend the money even though all sorts of planning and construction has taken place.

It's a mess on many layers. As @Rothman said, a mess in the field.
On a grand scheme of things, overspending is a mess regardless of who signs it off. Most of us can certainly hurt our own future by maxing out on a credit card. Stopping that spending is wise, even if it means no 200" TV would go on already prepared spot on a wall.

[Scott5114]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds

[SEWIGuy]

Frankly speaking, spending patterns under Biden were anything but healthy. Or reasonable. Or sane.  While everyone loves to spend money, sometimes spending money one doesn't have is not a great idea.

Through the sale of bonds, the government literally has the money. It was approved in a law by Congress and signed by the President. Now a new President has decided to simply not spend the money even though all sorts of planning and construction has taken place.

It's a mess on many layers. As @Rothman said, a mess in the field.
On a grand scheme of things, overspending is a mess regardless of who signs it off. Most of us can certainly hurt our own future by maxing out on a credit card. Stopping that spending is wise, even if it means no 200" TV would go on already prepared spot on a wall.

Comparing a country's spending to your own personal spending is really not a smart thing to do.

[vdeane]

Complaining that the government can't afford infrastructure spending because of Biden while ignoring the Trump tax cuts is like complaining that you can't afford to maintain your home after quitting your job in favor of one that pays less.

all construction authorizations leading up to lettings in time for this construction season.

Wasn't that one the Comptroller changing the DBE rules?  Or am I thinking of something else with the lettings?

[kalvado]

Complaining that the government can't afford infrastructure spending because of Biden while ignoring the Trump tax cuts is like complaining that you can't afford to maintain your home after quitting your job in favor of one that pays less.

all construction authorizations leading up to lettings in time for this construction season.

Wasn't that one the Comptroller changing the DBE rules?  Or am I thinking of something else with the lettings?

Two wrongs don't make it right.

[Rothman]

Wasn't that one the Comptroller changing the DBE rules?  Or am I thinking of something else with the lettings?

I'm talking generally about upcoming lettings.  FHWA literally put on the brakes on all authorizations temporarily.  And for what?  Delaying paving projects to the next season when they'll be even more expensive due to inflation?  Stupid.

[Rothman]

Frankly speaking, spending patterns under Biden were anything but healthy. Or reasonable. Or sane.  While everyone loves to spend money, sometimes spending money one doesn't have is not a great idea.

Through the sale of bonds, the government literally has the money. It was approved in a law by Congress and signed by the President. Now a new President has decided to simply not spend the money even though all sorts of planning and construction has taken place.

It's a mess on many layers. As @Rothman said, a mess in the field.
On a grand scheme of things, overspending is a mess regardless of who signs it off. Most of us can certainly hurt our own future by maxing out on a credit card. Stopping that spending is wise, even if it means no 200" TV would go on already prepared spot on a wall.

This is simply too simplistic a view to justify the Exec Order.  It ignores the different types of funding available in the IIJA/BIL (e.g., just your typical apportionments versus discretionary grants, of which the level in the latter was totally unprecedented).  It also displays an ignorance of how federal funds now support activities that once fell under the maintenance umbrella a couple of decades ago. Finally, it displays an ignorance of how construction projects progress through the development, design and letting processes and the time needed for such.

The idea that the IIJA represents "overspending" and that a 90-day halt on all FhWA authorizations somehow will...what?  Cut spending?  You're just delaying projects not only by 90 days, but threatening the upcoming construction season due to authorizations not happening in a timely manner to get projects awarded in a timely manner.

It's just dumb.

And, I have simply accepted the fact that this administration is exactly what the populace wanted.  I'll still call dumb actions dumb, but I'll be over here fiddling while Rome burns...

 

[kalvado]

Frankly speaking, spending patterns under Biden were anything but healthy. Or reasonable. Or sane.  While everyone loves to spend money, sometimes spending money one doesn't have is not a great idea.

Through the sale of bonds, the government literally has the money. It was approved in a law by Congress and signed by the President. Now a new President has decided to simply not spend the money even though all sorts of planning and construction has taken place.

It's a mess on many layers. As @Rothman said, a mess in the field.
On a grand scheme of things, overspending is a mess regardless of who signs it off. Most of us can certainly hurt our own future by maxing out on a credit card. Stopping that spending is wise, even if it means no 200" TV would go on already prepared spot on a wall.

This is simply too simplistic a view to justify the Exec Order.  It ignores the different types of funding available in the IIJA/BIL (e.g., just your typical apportionments versus discretionary grants, of which the level in the latter was totally unprecedented).  It also displays an ignorance of how federal funds now support activities that once fell under the maintenance umbrella a couple of decades ago. Finally, it displays an ignorance of how construction projects progress through the development, design and letting processes and the time needed for such.

The idea that the IIJA represents "overspending" and that a 90-day halt on all FhWA authorizations somehow will...what?  Cut spending?  You're just delaying projects not only by 90 days, but threatening the upcoming construction season due to authorizations not happening in a timely manner to get projects awarded in a timely manner.

It's just dumb.

And, I have simply accepted the fact that this administration is exactly what the populace wanted.  I'll still call dumb actions dumb, but I'll be over here fiddling while Rome burns...

 

Mr Trump team doesn't look like people who can, or want, to get into nuanced nature of things. And having good intentions (or at least seeing own intentions as good) never guaranteed correct implementation, and even less so for a positive outcome.
I can certainly agree with idea of reduced spending, but there is some difference between cutting hair and cutting head. Looking at the cut line is the minimum requirement...

[Bobby5280]

Screwing around with infrastructure funding, particularly on things like highway maintenance, is a pretty stupid act. It takes years for the projects to get planned and scheduled. If some spiteful jackass can upend all of that in one day what will it do for future planning?

As for all the "wasteful spending," it seems pretty clear most Americans believe their own alternative facts -like 50% of the budget goes to welfare moms and their crack babies. They won't look at a pie chart from the Treasury Dept to see how the spending was divided. They just want to believe their own bullshit -just like the guy they elected. Even Elon had to back-track from his claims of how much federal spending waste his DOGE outfit was going to find.

Discretionary spending is a pretty small percentage of the federal budget compared to other categories like payments to Social Security recipients, interest payments on the national debt, the national defense budget, Medicare, etc.

I can't make sense of the stoppage of infrastructure funding, other than the bill being the previous President's "baby." Or is it because some construction workers belong to unions? I don't know.

Punching down at low income people by promising big cuts to SNAP would have some nasty consequences. Quite a few people working low wage service industry jobs need SNAP to get by. It's not fair certain big companies are able to skate by not paying workers a livable wage and relying on taxpayers to make up the difference with government benefits. If SNAP gets cut to a large degree I think we'll see worker shortages in the service sector worsen dramatically. Obviously some people would get forced into the shadow economy doing all sorts of things. I'd brace for a big uptick in property crime. The biggest change would be more people forced into co-habitation situations. Adult kids stuck living with parents. Or multiple adults crammed into one apartment. It should help our already falling birth rates plummet even further.

[kalvado]

Screwing around with infrastructure funding, particularly on things like highway maintenance, is a pretty stupid act. It takes years for the projects to get planned and scheduled. If some spiteful jackass can upend all of that in one day what will it do for future planning?

As for all the "wasteful spending," it seems pretty clear most Americans believe their own alternative facts -like 50% of the budget goes to welfare moms and their crack babies. They won't look at a pie chart from the Treasury Dept to see how the spending was divided. They just want to believe their own bullshit -just like the guy they elected. Even Elon had to back-track from his claims of how much federal spending waste his DOGE outfit was going to find.

Discretionary spending is a pretty small percentage of the federal budget compared to other categories like payments to Social Security recipients, interest payments on the national debt, the national defense budget, Medicare, etc.

I can't make sense of the stoppage of infrastructure funding, other than the bill being the previous President's "baby." Or is it because some construction workers belong to unions? I don't know.

Punching down at low income people by promising big cuts to SNAP would have some nasty consequences. Quite a few people working low wage service industry jobs need SNAP to get by. It's not fair certain big companies are able to skate by not paying workers a livable wage and relying on taxpayers to make up the difference with government benefits. If SNAP gets cut to a large degree I think we'll see worker shortages in the service sector worsen dramatically. Obviously some people would get forced into the shadow economy doing all sorts of things. I'd brace for big uptick in property crime. The biggest change would be more people forced into co-habitation situations. Adult kids stuck living with parents. Or multiple adults crammed into one apartment. It should help our already falling birth rates plummet even further.

That's all great. Where the money should be coming from?

[Scott5114]

That's all great. Where the money should be coming from?

Somewhere that isn't the General Highway Talk section of a road forum.

Please keep this thread limited to discussion of the projects funded by this bill, and how the incoming administration's policies affect those projects.

[Rothman]

Come to think of it, if people are looking to the IIJA to see what can be done about overspending, I wonder if all the discretionary grant funding was even utilized.  Although I think some DOTs finally caught on that all the grants were a way to subsidize consultants (i.e., too many grants available for DOT in-house forces to handle the applications), USDOT did quietly admit that not all grant funding was being spent early on with the bill.  So, if anything, underspending was incorporated right into the bill, however unintentionally.

[SEWIGuy]

Screwing around with infrastructure funding, particularly on things like highway maintenance, is a pretty stupid act. It takes years for the projects to get planned and scheduled. If some spiteful jackass can upend all of that in one day what will it do for future planning?

As for all the "wasteful spending," it seems pretty clear most Americans believe their own alternative facts -like 50% of the budget goes to welfare moms and their crack babies. They won't look at a pie chart from the Treasury Dept to see how the spending was divided. They just want to believe their own bullshit -just like the guy they elected. Even Elon had to back-track from his claims of how much federal spending waste his DOGE outfit was going to find.

Discretionary spending is a pretty small percentage of the federal budget compared to other categories like payments to Social Security recipients, interest payments on the national debt, the national defense budget, Medicare, etc.

I can't make sense of the stoppage of infrastructure funding, other than the bill being the previous President's "baby." Or is it because some construction workers belong to unions? I don't know.

Punching down at low income people by promising big cuts to SNAP would have some nasty consequences. Quite a few people working low wage service industry jobs need SNAP to get by. It's not fair certain big companies are able to skate by not paying workers a livable wage and relying on taxpayers to make up the difference with government benefits. If SNAP gets cut to a large degree I think we'll see worker shortages in the service sector worsen dramatically. Obviously some people would get forced into the shadow economy doing all sorts of things. I'd brace for big uptick in property crime. The biggest change would be more people forced into co-habitation situations. Adult kids stuck living with parents. Or multiple adults crammed into one apartment. It should help our already falling birth rates plummet even further.

That's all great. Where the money should be coming from?

Where it was already coming from. Why do you keep thinking we don't have money for this? It's been appropriated and everything.

[kalvado]

That's all great. Where the money should be coming from?

Somewhere that isn't the General Highway Talk section of a road forum.

Please keep this thread limited to discussion of the projects funded by this bill, and how the incoming administration's policies affect those projects.

Bringing it closer to transportation.. May I compare 2 projects with some degree of similarity - new Tappan Zee bridge ("bridge") and proposed Amtrak tunnel ("tunnel")
Both are really important for the long haul network, but commuters are a huge %% of travelers
Both serve over 100k daily.
Both are fairly expensive.

Bridge is funded through loans backed up by tolls on entire Thruway. Bridge toll is $6.75 and up per car, only bridge transit is included
Tunnel is funded through loans with uncertain repayment terms. Shortest trip on NJT train is $4.75, and includes use of stations on both ends and the train seat "rental"
Bridge cost - something like $5B after all overruns, tunnel $16B before any overruns.

For me that the difference between semi-responsible fiscal approach and irresponsible approach. Nobody likes tolls, but they give people a sense of what things cost.

That's all great. Where the money should be coming from?

Where it was already coming from. Why do you keep thinking we don't have money for this? It's been appropriated and everything.

Appropriations which are not backed up by real money.

[Rothman]

That's all great. Where the money should be coming from?

Where it was already coming from. Why do you keep thinking we don't have money for this? It's been appropriated and everything.

Appropriations which are not backed up by real money.

Man, those banks who issued the bonds sure thought it was real money...

[kalvado]

That's all great. Where the money should be coming from?

Where it was already coming from. Why do you keep thinking we don't have money for this? It's been appropriated and everything.

Appropriations which are not backed up by real money.

Man, those banks who issued the bonds sure thought it was real money...

They know some dreams may come true!

[vdeane]

Come to think of it, if people are looking to the IIJA to see what can be done about overspending, I wonder if all the discretionary grant funding was even utilized.  Although I think some DOTs finally caught on that all the grants were a way to subsidize consultants (i.e., too many grants available for DOT in-house forces to handle the applications), USDOT did quietly admit that not all grant funding was being spent early on with the bill.  So, if anything, underspending was incorporated right into the bill, however unintentionally.

It seems like Congress does budget that way, given how often they'll funding things by clawing back unspent funds from other things.  But a lot of it is probably just misconceptions of how federal funding works.  The one I've seen a few times is "they spent [large number] on EV charging and installed only four chargers", thinking that just because the funding was appropriated this year, that the project would be done this year.  In reality, these projects take a long time, but most laypeople expect everything now now now.

I also remember IIJA being marketed as "the biggest investment in infrastructure ever" as if its funding was on top of normal highway funding.  In reality, it WAS the normal highway bill.

[Rothman]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5101526-trump-executive-orders-gop-concerns/

Trump's budget office later clarified the order would not freeze funding for roads and bridges, transportation and drinking water projects.

Given the order specifically mentioned the IIJA...How can this be chalked up to anything but incompetence?

[SEWIGuy]

That's all great. Where the money should be coming from?

Somewhere that isn't the General Highway Talk section of a road forum.

Please keep this thread limited to discussion of the projects funded by this bill, and how the incoming administration's policies affect those projects.

Bringing it closer to transportation.. May I compare 2 projects with some degree of similarity - new Tappan Zee bridge ("bridge") and proposed Amtrak tunnel ("tunnel")
Both are really important for the long haul network, but commuters are a huge %% of travelers
Both serve over 100k daily.
Both are fairly expensive.

Bridge is funded through loans backed up by tolls on entire Thruway. Bridge toll is $6.75 and up per car, only bridge transit is included
Tunnel is funded through loans with uncertain repayment terms. Shortest trip on NJT train is $4.75, and includes use of stations on both ends and the train seat "rental"
Bridge cost - something like $5B after all overruns, tunnel $16B before any overruns.

For me that the difference between semi-responsible fiscal approach and irresponsible approach. Nobody likes tolls, but they give people a sense of what things cost.

That's all great. Where the money should be coming from?

Where it was already coming from. Why do you keep thinking we don't have money for this? It's been appropriated and everything.

Appropriations which are not backed up by real money.

What's "real money?"

[hotdogPi]

What's "real money?"

Money they use in Brazil.