roads

by

What is is Biden’s $2.6 Trillion Infrastructure Plan?


Republicans recently declared that only 7-8% of Biden’s $2.6 trillion request will actually go to infracture claiming the rest will go to Democrats pet projects. So what is the truth.

First off, I cannot see how Republicans came up with 7-8%. The bill calls for 24% to go to our nation’s transportation: roads, bridges, public transit, rail, ports, waterways, airports and electrical vehicles. The only portion of that which is questionable is the investment in electic vehicles unless it is directed towards the government’s purchase of such vehicles. The other parts are unquestionably urgent infracture needs.

Then there is $400b for home care services and workforce. I think this portion, though a good investment, belongs in a different congressional request.

Then there is $300b for manufacturing. Biden and the Democrats need to remove this portion as well and present it as another bill. Those two, the $400b for home care/workforce and $300b for manufacturing, reduce the bill to $1.9t, already more platable to Republicans.

Next there is $180b earmarked for research and developement. The idea behind this portion is to help in climatology and other notable projects. This part is tangentally important to infrasture but again needs to be part of a different bill.

There is also $100b for digital infrastructure. Again, tangental to into main infracture but important in its own right, not here.

Then there is $100b for workforce developement. This most certainly does not belong here. That is $1080b which should be removed for this bill and takes us down to $1.5t. Please do not worry that the numbers I have put for do not add up, that is intentional. This is just to show that Republicans are at least partially correct in pointing out that this bill, as presented, does not accurately or properly state pure infrastructure needs, those that the public at large need now.

In 1933-35 President Roosevelt got three bills passed to help the nation recover from the depression, the National Recovery Act (NRA), the Works Progress Administration (WPA) of 1935, and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). The WPA built many of the roads and bridges still in existence today which puts them at 90 years of age. Engineers were reluctant then, as now, to allow for anything they built to have more than a 50-year life span. We are long overdue.

In 1953, drawing upon his experience as a General in Europe, and seeing Germany’s autobahn, Eisenhower helped develop today’s Interstate Hiway System. In each case of the afore mentioned project, millions of Americans were put to work. Biden’s bill will do the same as our infracture, both transport and utility, is in desperate need of either replacement or upgrading, will put million of Americans to work for years to come. It is a worthy bill but each side, Democrat and Republican must accede, and find a middle ground where both sides are relatively happy. More importantly, that Americans will quickly see a strong positive result.

by

Dealing With Traffic Congestion in America’s Cities


Even though I am addressing the growing problem of congestion in America’s cities, I am going to refer almost entirely to Boston as it is the city I am most familiar with.  In an article in today’s (August 5, 2012) Boston Globe entitled “Teh cure for congestion”  p. K10 by Derrick Z. Jackson, the method Stockholm Sweden used is put forth.  In 2006, it states, Stockholm began a 7-month trial where it charged each automobile entering the city about $1.50 on off-peak hours and about $3 during peak traffic hours.  It used 18 city entry points armed with cameras that took photos of the license plates of cars entering the city and sent the charges to the registered owners.  Public opposition t this idea ran as high as 75%.  But at the end of the trial period the amount of traffic entering the city had been reduced by 22%, and when the measure was put to the vote, the public passed the measure to make it permanent.

In 1991 I attended a professional conference initiated by then Senator Paul Tsongas at the University of New Hampshire where professional traffic management specialists put on a symposium.  At the time Boston’s “Big Dig” was in its infancy.  Even so, for reasons that eluded rational and reasonable explanation, the plan for the North/South rail link had been discarded.  And this in spite of the fact that it had been fully engineered and was included in the original plans.  For those of you unfamiliar with Boston, the city has two rail terminus, one called North Station and the other, South Station.  This is, and never has been, a rail line that links the two which has meant passengers coming from north of Boston have had to use other means of transportation to get them to South Station so they could continue the journey, if the so desired.   The additional cost of the North/South link, had it been carried out, would have cost in the tens of millions of dollars in a project that ended up costing over $15 billion.

But such short-sightedness, and political chicanery, not unusual in the world of Massachusetts politics.  To the contrary, anyone who lives in the state knows only too well the state in known for its political patronage which Bay Staters have been at a loss to do much about.

Curiously, Boston is home to one of the foremost schools for urban planning which exists within the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  Moreover, the U.S. Department of Transportation has one of its larger research and development centers in Cambridge at the Volpe Center.  M.I.T. and the Volpe Center sit side-by-side not coincidentally.  But Massachusetts, in its infinite wisdom, has seldom seen fit to avail itself of these facilities most likely because its political influence does not extend to either.  By extension, if you look at other major American cities, you can find other private facilities which would welcome public monies in a state’s efforts to deal with its transportation problems.  These institutions, having no political agenda, would likely give a comprehensive and reason response to any transportation problem which is happening the city and state in which they reside.  And for far fewer dollars than corporate America can deliver with a product that would challenge any.

All major cities need a comprehensive system of rapid transportation.  By definition, that means subways systems and street cars, and any other facility whose movement is affected little, if at all, by street congestion.

Boston’s subway, the oldest in the nation, though by definition is a rapid transit system, suffers from its own form of congestion which during rush hours frequently renders it little faster than the street level automobile.  Worse yet, the infrastructure of the subway system itself is in need of extensive repair and rebuilding.  This, of course, is costly.  Worse, the system, the MBTA, is currently in debt to the tune of over $100 million.  The political response to this problem has been to raise fares, reduce service, and leave the long-term problems unanswered and unaddressed.  Other systems, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Chicago, I have little doubt, suffer from similar problems.

What Americans do not understand, and which was brought out in detail at that 1991 conference, is that is costs many times more to maintain the nation’s roads per mile than it does to maintain the right-of-way for rapid transit and commuter trains.  Even more, public transportation has the ability to carry many more people between any two points per hour than even the best highway.

Why don’t Americans abandon their cars for the more economical and fiscally responsible public transportation.  Unfortunately public transportation has the tendency to be unreliable, uncomfortable, inconvenient and largely unattractive.  The “park and ride” facilities are frequently too small and inconveniently located.  Those that are heavily used tend to fill up early which provides a disincentive to the later commuter to even consider them.  In Massachusetts, for example, there is only one parking facility, the Interstate 95/Route 128 facility, that resides immediately next to a heavily used highway.  But there are more than 10 places where the commuter rail intersects with an Interstate highway.  Urban planners know, or should know, that easy of access is key to ridership in public transportation.  But Massachusetts, which has been increasing the size of its commuter rail had done absolutely nothing to address this.

The incentive to use public transportation, as shown in Stockholm, must be balanced with a disincentive to use the automobile.  Any person who has ever traveled to western Europe or the Far East and used their public transportation systems, knows how superior those systems are to any that presently exist in the United States.  In the world arena of public transportation, the United States is little more than a third-world country.

One thing the American public needs, to help it embrace public transportation, is knowledge of the cost to maintain a road per mile.  Politicians never give out such figures even though they have easy access to those figures.  Our roadways, as every American must know, are deteriorating faster than they can be rebuilt.  Roads that are in desperate need of rebuilding are patched which in itself is expensive.  Roads deteriorate not just from age, but also from the volume of traffic they carry.  The greater the traffic load, the faster the deterioration.  And that is extremely expensive.  Conversely, rail transportation can withstand increased use far better and much longer.  It only makes sense to shift traffic from roads to rails.

America would do well to take the lessons learned in Stockholm and other European and Asian countries that have adequately addressed their country’s transportation needed.  The solution to America’s traffic congestion is not easy but it does exist.

by

Why Taxes Must Go Up


I am the last one who needs to have his taxes raised.  I am retired and on a fixed income.  Although my income keeps me comfortable there is not much room for extra or emergencies.  I can get extra income by working but I am limited in doing that because it affects my retirement pay after I earn a certain amount.

Paul Ryan, Republican Wisconsin representative, says that he would reduce the size of the national deficit by reducing the size of the government.  But he would also reduce taxes.  If he does both then the deficit likely stays the same and our other national problems just get worse.  Ryan is on the short-list of possibilities for Mitt Romney’s running mate this fall.

I am four square in favor of reducing the size of our government but I have yet to hear a single politico say what that would look like, what goes and what stays.  My guess is Ryan and his cohort will go after the social programs first.  And that means they will go after welfare, those who wield the least power lose.  Is there even a PAC for welfare?

I think congress would be better served by first fixing the law that govern the economics of the various government agencies.  Fully funded oversight from the GAO is also a must.  I worked within the federal government for over 30 years, and I can tell you that one of the biggest problems is how the government contracts out its work.  For decades agencies have been begging for fully funded initiatives but congress almost always declines and requires annual begging from the agencies to keep its contracts funded.  This is extremely wasteful.  Having to justify project funding, let’s say there was a project to buy all new computers for the FAA’s air traffic control facilities, would be stretched out over 2, 3, or more budgets.   Even though the need to replace the computers does not change, congress’ priorities do, and on a whim congress can decide to not fund that particular initiative at all or at a very low-level.  That can cause contractors to raise their prices or remove themselves from the contract all together.  Now what was a bad problem just became worse.  The message here is, fully funded initiatives costs the government less in the long run.

But making government work better simply is not going to be enough.  We as Americans expect a lot from our government at all levels.  But as Americans we have become horribly spoiled.  We are always looking for a bargain.  We want a lot but we do not want to pay a lot for it.  In meeting those needs of the public, however, America has incurred a debt that goes far beyond money.  We have lost contact with the idea of “you get what you pay for.”  Somewhere along the way Americans have lost sight of that very simple but very real concept.  For many decades we have been paying for an efficiency apartment and now we are wondering why we do not live in a penthouse.  When we were single the efficiency apartment was fine but now that we are a family of five we have to accept that we need more space and that space costs more, much more.  There is also a debt to be paid beyond rent for living in that space and we have paid nothing towards that.

Our roads and bridges are crumbling before our eyes.  Our public transportation is woefully inadequate.  Our airspace control is in desperate need of modernizing.  Our police and fire forces are underfunded and hence undermanned.  Our military is too small.  Agencies like NOAA, NASA, NIH, VA, and many others are underfunded in their research capabilities.

Right now the average American pays less than 15% to the federal government in taxes.  We can afford more.  We have one of the lowest tax rates of any nation in the world.  We could almost double our tax rate and still be low relative to the rest of the world.  I am not saying we should double our personal taxes.  But in the interest of fixing our infrastructure and other governmental problems, I would personally be willing to have my taxes go up by 25%.  I would prefer to keep that money for myself, of course, but I cannot be so selfish that I am not willing to pay for what I use.

Americans, next time your car hits a pot hole that you think should have been fixed a long time ago, or, you come upon a closed bridge that you think should have been repaired or replaced long ago, or next time you wonder why you next door neighbor is going to the middle east for the national guard for a third or fourth time, remember it is because you are not willing to pay enough to make things different.  You get what you pay for and we are faced with that right now.