Funding for reparing our roads under question, again

[The Premier]

Looks like some of the critical roadway constructions across the country might not be able to occur because the bill authorizing $2.4 billion in transportation infrastucture construction did not get through Congress because of all that (expletive) gridlock. 

I wonder what everyone thinks of this.

Please keep this civil; I DON'T want to be held responsible for someone trolling.

[txstateends]

Without reading the linked article and making myself mad, is there any chance this bill will see another try or do we have to wait till someone else has the, >cough< nerve (for lack of a better word) >coughcough< to draft a new bill later?   

OK, those of the beltway, that's fine, you've obviously forgotten about, uhmmmm, I-35W in Minneapolis ?????

[hbelkins]

They'll work something out. They always do.

Interesting that this story singles out the Brent Spence Bridge. Only problems I've ever encountered there were due to traffic going to Reds games. To me, the daily backup near the Lateral and Paddock, and again approaching I-275 near Sharonville, are worse than anything around the bridge.

[realjd]

With all the unnecessary spending that barely (if at all) qualifies under the "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution, I find it amusing that something that clearly IS in support of interstate commerce (a bridge between states) is cut.

[The Premier]

With all the unnecessary spending that barely (if at all) qualifies under the "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution, I find it amusing that something that clearly IS in support of interstate commerce (a bridge between states) is cut.

And that in itself is kinda dissapointing that even repairing our roads can be dubbed wasteful. I don't find it amusing when a bridge collaspes which results in numerous deaths or crappy roads that are beyond due for repair or replace.

I have mentioned in one thread about the need for a pay-to-play system to repair, rebuild, or replace our aging roads (IDK which one it was and I'm not going to bother looking it up) in an effort to fund our roads, but there seems to be no political will by either party to get it done.

No wonder why Congress can't get anything done.

Interesting that this story singles out the Brent Spence Bridge. Only problems I've ever encountered there were due to traffic going to Reds games. To me, the daily backup near the Lateral and Paddock, and again approaching I-275 near Sharonville, are worse than anything around the bridge.

It's probably because you don't live in the Cincinnati area, which makes sense given the fact that there are two stadiums (GreatAmerican Ballpark and Paul Brown Stadium) near the bridge, but keep in mind that I-75 is a major truck route, and the most common route for people in the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Area to go to and from work, its a dangerous mix. Even when me and my family travel to Birmingham, we have to use the bridge.

[Scott5114]

This "all government spending is bad" idea that seems rampant in the country today needs to die out quick.

[hbelkins]

It's probably because you don't live in the Cincinnati area, which makes sense given the fact that there are two stadiums (GreatAmerican Ballpark and Paul Brown Stadium) near the bridge, but keep in mind that I-75 is a major truck route, and the most common route for people in the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Area to go to and from work, its a dangerous mix. Even when me and my family travel to Birmingham, we have to use the bridge.

I'd say that I live closer to Cincy than you do, even though I'm in Kentucky.

[SidS1045]

This "all government spending is bad" idea that seems rampant in the country today needs to die out quick.

The crash on the Bronx River Parkway this past weekend should be all the evidence one needs.  Seven people died due, in part, to the fact that this road is long overdue for a major redesign and rebuild...and that is hardly an isolated case.

The "all government spending is bad" crowd doesn't seem to think that roads need upkeep and rebuilding, despite the fact that those roads move our economy in ways that weren't even imagined 60 years ago.

[F350]

People have no idea how bad the transportation infrastructure is in this country right now. They must think asphalt is invincible or something so they keep chiseling transportation funds.

Transportation is one of the few things where government spending is good. Cheap bastards.

[cpzilliacus]

People have no idea how bad the transportation infrastructure is in this country right now. They must think asphalt is invincible or something so they keep chiseling transportation funds.

Transportation is one of the few things where government spending is good. Cheap bastards.

They also don't usually know how expensive it is - and more than a few elected officials pander to the  "don't increase my motor fuel taxes" and "don't increase my tolls and don't you dare impose tolls on my 'free' roads" crowd.

[kphoger]

I have mixed feelings....

On the one hand, I don't buy it that potholes will sink our economy, or that improving our already excellent highway infrastructure will have all that big of an effect on the economy.  It seems like every construction project these days is promoted with the infrastructure=economy jingle.  But, I'm sorry, reconfiguring an interchange is not going to reduce the transit time of goods, bring a new industry to my town, or persuade a company to open a plant in the U.S. instead of China.  We have a nationwide system of both freeways and surface roads, and both systems function very well.

On the other hand, if you don't maintain something, it falls apart.  To reduce how well we maintain our roads is to just put off the inevitable.  Eventually, they will need repair, and then they'll all need it at once.  Imagine if a city stopped all repaving projects for five years.  Then imagine the next five years.

[J N Winkler]

Looks like some of the critical roadway constructions across the country might not be able to occur because the bill authorizing $2.4 billion in transportation infrastucture construction did not get through Congress because of all that (expletive) gridlock. 

Actually, that is not quite correct.  The longer-term transportation bill did not pass, but a 90-day extension did, which will carry funding through to the end of September.  The $2.4 billion amount refers to the estimated cost of replacing the Brent Spence Bridge, not to the transportation budget as a whole in any given year.  (As a country we spend about $100 billion annually on highways, of which about $50 billion is paid by the federal government, so the 90-day extension probably accounts for around $12.5 billion worth of federal subventions for highways.)

H.B. is correct--for all the brinkmanship we see not just on this issue, but on practically every other issue no matter how strong the underlying bipartisan agreement, I can remember no period of time that has not been covered by a federal transportation funding authorization of one kind or another.

On the one hand, I don't buy it that potholes will sink our economy, or that improving our already excellent highway infrastructure will have all that big of an effect on the economy.  It seems like every construction project these days is promoted with the infrastructure = economy jingle.  But, I'm sorry, reconfiguring an interchange is not going to reduce the transit time of goods, bring a new industry to my town, or persuade a company to open a plant in the U.S. instead of China.  We have a nationwide system of both freeways and surface roads, and both systems function very well.

Our system for allocating funding to highways is based partly on logrolling.  This has some advantages--for example, highway agencies in the US do not have to contend with cost-benefit analysis being converted from a limited tool for selecting projects into a mechanism for strangling the entire highway budget, as has happened in Britain.  But an important disadvantage is that it sometimes results in schemes being progressed (even to construction and opening to traffic) in spite of weak economic justification and occasionally at the expense of other projects for which a better economic case can be made.

Our highway infrastructure is generally good but its economic performance is constrained by its weakest links.  We have a long and growing list of freight bottlenecks as well as decades-old steel truss bridges of various kinds which need either to be rehabilitated or replaced outright.

On the other hand, if you don't maintain something, it falls apart.  To reduce how well we maintain our roads is to just put off the inevitable.  Eventually, they will need repair, and then they'll all need it at once.  Imagine if a city stopped all repaving projects for five years.  Then imagine the next five years.

This is why it is important to have a steady and consistent level of funding even if you don't have projects and funding in reserve to provide countercyclical stimulus during a slump.  Contractors can ride out short-term funding droughts but if highway construction limps along under a sustained reduction of funding, capacity starts to leach out of the construction industry because invested capital is constantly looking to migrate where it can earn a return.  Any abrupt restoration of funding (without leaving time for capacity to rebuild) then results in ridiculous bid prices as larger numbers of projects start chasing artificially scarce contractors and plant.

[kphoger]

Any abrupt restoration of funding (without leaving time for capacity to rebuild) then results in ridiculous bid prices as larger numbers of projects start chasing artificially scarce contractors and plant.

You also end up with the whole country (or state, or city, as the case may be) under road construction.  They'll run out of orange cones!

[realjd]

Any abrupt restoration of funding (without leaving time for capacity to rebuild) then results in ridiculous bid prices as larger numbers of projects start chasing artificially scarce contractors and plant.

You also end up with the whole country (or state, or city, as the case may be) under road construction.  They'll run out of orange cones!

But that's good for the economy! Cone-makers need jobs too.

EDIT: Fixed mangled quote

[kphoger]

But that's good for the economy! Cone-makers need jobs too.

Ah, yes, I forgot:  Creating high-wage jobs just for the sake of creating high-wage jobs, without actually producing a product that can be sold, is good for our budget.

It's like trying to pull yourself up off the ground by your shoelaces.

[The Premier]

People have no idea how bad the transportation infrastructure is in this country right now. They must think asphalt is invincible or something so they keep chiseling transportation funds.

Transportation is one of the few things where government spending is good. Cheap bastards.

Here's another reason why we need to seriously consider renovate or rebuild not just our roads, but our bridges as well. Recently, 5 people were charged in Federal court for plotting to (and unsuccessfully) blow up a bridge under the Cuyahoga Valley National Park early this week which carries SR 82 (I think).

So this is not only a infrastructure issue, its a national security issue as well.

This "all government spending is bad" idea that seems rampant in the country today needs to die out quick.

The crash on the Bronx River Parkway this past weekend should be all the evidence one needs.  Seven people died due, in part, to the fact that this road is long overdue for a major redesign and rebuild...and that is hardly an isolated case.

The "all government spending is bad" crowd doesn't seem to think that roads need upkeep and rebuilding, despite the fact that those roads move our economy in ways that weren't even imagined 60 years ago.

Agreed. This HAS to stop. The stakes are too high to be drawing lines in the sand over transportation.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

No wonder why Congress can't get anything done.

Congress can get plenty done.

Draft a bill that takes more of our rights away and Congress will almost unanimously pass it with a fierce quickness.

[vdeane]

So this is not only a infrastructure issue, its a national security issue as well.

In that case, expect to see LOTS of money spent on highways in the near future.

I never thought I'd be thankful for the security-industrial complex!

[hbelkins]

Here's another reason why we need to seriously consider renovate or rebuild not just our roads, but our bridges as well. Recently, 5 people were charged in Federal court for plotting to (and unsuccessfully) blow up a bridge under the Cuyahoga Valley National Park early this week which carries SR 82 (I think).

So this is not only a infrastructure issue, its a national security issue as well.

What does this have to do with repair and maintenance?

[pianocello]

You can't really plan for something like that to happen. It's not like they're going to rebuild every bridge in the nation so that it's bomb-proof.