Your vote, your crummy highways

[Heracles 417]

Your vote, your crummy highways

The economy is in trouble - so are the roads, bridges and trains it depends on. Here's a close look at how the candidates would fix the problem.

By Tami Luhby, CNNMoney.com senior writer

October 15, 2008: 6:02 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The economy isn't the only thing falling apart in the United States.

Much of the nation's infrastructure - the highways, bridges, airports and transit lines that keep the American economy humming - is also crumbling and in dire need of improvement. Clearly, a top job for the next president will be finding the funds to fix these sprawling systems.

In fact, it would take $1.6 trillion over five years to address the nation's infrastructure problems, according to a 2005 report by the American Society of Civil Engineers, which gave the country's system a "D."

Both presidential candidates have acknowledged the importance of rebuilding the roads and rails, but have offered very different solutions. John McCain, the Republican nominee, advocates shifting financing from earmarks to high-priority projects, while Barack Obama, his Democratic challenger, would create a federally-funded bank to invest in improvement projects.

Experts, however, say what's really needed is money and a lot of it.

One of the main reasons the nation is in this sorry state is that the federal government has pulled back on funding improvement projects. Fifty years ago, the federal government allocated 10% of its non-defense spending on infrastructure, said Polly Trottenberg, executive director of Building America's Future, a coalition of elected officials advocating increased infrastructure funding. Nowadays, the amount has shriveled to between 3.5% and 4%.

"A significant increase in investment is required at all levels," said John Horsley, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, a trade group. "We can't deliver services and sustain the highways and bridges."

Whoever wins will have to address the issue next year since Congress must reauthorize the federal transportation spending law, which expires in September 2009. The current law, approved in 2005, allocates $286 billion to highway and transportation projects.

"The next administration will have an important role to play in setting the vision for the federal transportation program for the 21st century," said Robert Puentes, fellow at the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program.

McCain's shift away from earmarks

His plan: The Republican presidential nominee is famous for his opposition to earmarks. He's made it a hallmark of his campaign. Instead of funneling money to crumbling highways and bridges, many of these earmarks go to building bike paths, beautifying highways or constructing "bridges to nowhere," he said a year ago, speaking out against a transportation spending bill.

"Funding for transportation infrastructure and transportation safety is of enormous importance," said McCain, who chaired the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee when the Republicans controlled the Senate between 1997 and 2005. "But we simply must do so in a fiscally responsible manner. If Congress fails to recover from its addiction to earmarks, then crumbling bridges, congested highways, and crowded airports will continue much to the determent of all Americans."

Instead, McCain would address the problem by determining how much the federal government can spend on infrastructure and making sure the money gets to the most pressing projects first, his advisers say. He favors funding the projects through the budget so proposals can be scrutinized every year. And he wants more input from state and local governments on what projects they think should get top priority.

"You have to have a commitment to saying we have genuine infrastructure needs," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's senior economic policy adviser. "We cannot simply write checks to everyone who raises their hand. We have to develop a system that identifies national priorities and ensures the funding goes there."

Experts say: Most applaud McCain for his desire to end earmarks, which they say divert money from critical projects. Earmarks accounted for about 15% of the current transportation law, Horsley said.

Otherwise, McCain has offered little insight into how much federal funding he'd set aside for infrastructure and what projects he'd support.

"What will replace earmarks? That's the great open question," said James Burnley, former McCain adviser and transportation secretary in the Reagan administration.

Obama's infrastructure bank

His plan: The centerpiece of the Democratic presidential nominee's infrastructure plan is a $60 billion National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank, which would expand and enhance existing federal projects. It would also seek to bring in private-sector funds.

The bank would be funded over 10 years with money saved by reducing the nation's involvement in Iraq.

"But when it comes to rebuilding America's essential but crumbling infrastructure, we need to do more, not less," Obama said in June before the U.S. Conference of Mayors. "Maintaining our levees and dams isn't pork barrel spending, it's an urgent priority, and that's what we'll do when I'm president. The work will be determined by what will maximize our safety, security, and shared prosperity."

In addition to improving roads, Obama supports investing in mass transit to bolster metropolitan areas. He also supports investing in high-speed trains.

Obama is also looking at infrastructure as an opportunity to stimulate the economy. He estimates that the projects the bank finances would create up to two million jobs - both those directly involved in the project and indirectly supporting it, such as suppliers - and generate approximately $35 billion a year in economy activity.

In addition, Obama wants to create a $25 billion emergency Jobs and Growth Fund to replenish the Highway Trust Fund, prevent cuts in road and bridge maintenance and fund school repairs. It would create or save one million new jobs.

Experts say: Obama has consistently supported greater spending on infrastructure. They were also pleased he did not advocate suspending the federal gas tax.

Most favor the creation of an infrastructure bank that can harness the financial power of the private sector, which is increasingly interested in leasing or investing in highways and airports. Setting up such a bank also would make the federal government more involved in infrastructure projects than it is now.

Still, $60 billion over 10 years is a far cry from what's needed to address the nation's crumbling roads and bridges, they said.

"It would be a small improvement," Puentes said. "There's still a long way to go."

http://robots.cnnfn.com/2008/10/15/news/ec...sion=2008101506

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Infrastructure is the big elephant in the room that no one is talking about.

Good post, Boo Yah!

[Heracles 417]

Yep seriously Obama gets is: Economics 101..

Obama is also looking at infrastructure as an opportunity to stimulate the economy. He estimates that the projects the bank finances would create up to two million jobs - both those directly involved in the project and indirectly supporting it, such as suppliers - and generate approximately $35 billion a year in economy activity.

Republicans you are letting me down bro.. $10 bill in Iraq per month while zilch here.. ####### man..

Edited October 18, 2008 by Aficionado

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Infrastructure is the big elephant in the room that no one is talking about.

Good post, Boo Yah!

Yep. I agree. Although I hope our next President will invest in alternative energy which would help us twofold - creating jobs and helping us reduce our consumption of fossil fuels.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

McCain is on record saying he wants to get rid of Amtrak.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

McCain is on record saying he wants to get rid of Amtrak.

...and replace it with what?

[Heracles 417]

McCain is on record saying he wants to get rid of Amtrak.

Tell me he means replace it. There is no way anyone can be silly enough to mean get rid of the last remaining national public transit system. Especially when every other country cannot build new systems fast enough.

Do these guys not look at China or what..

[IAMX 3,055]

Surprised he didn't mention that providing more infrastructure jobs (go through government contracts or full government employment) means more middle and lower class employment with decent pay.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

McCain is on record saying he wants to get rid of Amtrak.

...and replace it with what?

He never gets that far.

He just works himself into a frothy frenzy over 'wasteful expenditures' like Amtrak but has no suggestions for an alternative.

If there are problems with Amtrak - and there are - there's a case to be made to remedy those problems. But he just wants to get rid of it.

Because you see, my friends, he is mavericky like dat.

[Heracles 417]

Infrastructure is the big elephant in the room that no one is talking about.

Good post, Boo Yah!

Yep. I agree. Although I hope our next President will invest in alternative energy which would help us twofold - creating jobs and helping us reduce our consumption of fossil fuels.

For once that makes sense. Build alternative energy stations alongside a new electrified high speed national rail network. Totally self sufficient. With nuclear power as backup.

This alone would create a boom for the US that you guys have not seen since the 20th century. Think of the hundreds of thousand of jobs such a project alone would generate.

Edited October 18, 2008 by Aficionado

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Dude, the 20th century was only 8 years ago

[IAMX 3,055]

Infrastructure is the big elephant in the room that no one is talking about.

Good post, Boo Yah!

Yep. I agree. Although I hope our next President will invest in alternative energy which would help us twofold - creating jobs and helping us reduce our consumption of fossil fuels.

For once that makes sense. Build alternative energy stations alongside a new electrified high speed national rail network. Totally self sufficient. With nuclear power as backup.

This alone would create a boom for the US that you guys have not seen since the 20th century...

Well, nuclear power would not make sense in California. Maybe in one of those other places that has plenty of water.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Infrastructure is the big elephant in the room that no one is talking about.

Good post, Boo Yah!

Yep. I agree. Although I hope our next President will invest in alternative energy which would help us twofold - creating jobs and helping us reduce our consumption of fossil fuels.

For once that makes sense. Build alternative energy stations alongside a new electrified high speed national rail network. Totally self sufficient. With nuclear power as backup.

This alone would create a boom for the US that you guys have not seen since the 20th century. Think of the hundreds of thousand of jobs such a project alone would generate.

Reducing U.S. Oil Dependence

A Real Energy Security Policy

# Long-term Solutions for U.S. Energy Security Raise fuel economy standards to 40 mpg by 2012 and 55 mpg by 2020.

# Require fuel-efficient replacement tires by 2002.

# Enact tax incentives for hybrids and fuel-cell vehicles.

# Reinvest in public transit and inter-city railroads.

# Promote "smart growth."

# Make fuel from farm wastes.

# Launch an "Apollo Project" for fuel cells and hydrogen fuel.

Short-term Solutions for U.S. Energy Security

# Check your tire pressure.

# Obey the speed limit.

# Turn off the car engine while waiting in line.

# Use car pools and public transit, and telecommute.

# Keep cars tuned and use fuel-efficient engine oil.

# Buy the most fuel-efficient car that meets your needs.

http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/fensec.asp

[Heracles 417]

He just works himself into a frothy frenzy over 'wasteful expenditures' like Amtrak but has no suggestions for an alternative.

That is actually my biggest pet peeve with McCain. Spending is not the dam issue. Where you spend is the problem.

Spending my bad. Investing in the right places lifted China, Australia and Dubai.

Dubai is planning on building a 1.5 mile high skyscraper. Our freakin bridges are falling down.

Infrastructure is the big elephant in the room that no one is talking about.

Good post, Boo Yah!

Yep. I agree. Although I hope our next President will invest in alternative energy which would help us twofold - creating jobs and helping us reduce our consumption of fossil fuels.

For once that makes sense. Build alternative energy stations alongside a new electrified high speed national rail network. Totally self sufficient. With nuclear power as backup.

This alone would create a boom for the US that you guys have not seen since the 20th century...

Well, nuclear power would not make sense in California. Maybe in one of those other places that has plenty of water.

CA has enough sunshine for solar, wind etc but the north will need nuclear. Cold weather is also better for the plant.

Dude, the 20th century was only 8 years ago

It was I joke. I meant like during the 50's / 60's when everyone pretty much had a job and actually loved the country. Look at the interstate system or going to space.

Edited October 18, 2008 by Aficionado

[IAMX 3,055]

CA has enough sunshine for solar, wind etc but the north will need nuclear. Cold weather is also better for the plant.

Not really enough water in the north either. The valley, extending all the way north of Sacramento, is drier than ####.

Northern Cal was also the place that got hampered by dry lightning storms which caused the major fires.