The White House released detailed information today on the $28 billion the stimulus bill directs toward highway construction. According to a press release (sorry, no link), the highway spending will "lead to 150,000 jobs saved or created by the end of 2010." An estimated 95,000 jobs would come from the "direct impact of building new roads and fixing old ones," while 55,000 jobs would come from "the economic activity generated when these new workers spend more than they would have otherwise."

It is also worth noting that jobs in highway construction tend to pay better than average. The typical, or median hourly wage for all jobs in the economy was $15.10 in 2007 according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But for workers in the highway industry, the typical hourly wage was $18.31, a premium of over $3 per hour over the economy-wide median wage.

Looking more closely at different types of jobs within the industry helps to explain the difference. The median wage of blue collar, or production workers--folks who do jobs like welding and mixing--comes to about $16 per hour in highway construction compared to about $13.50 in the overall economy.

This page at Recovery.gov has a map you can use to see how much money in highway funds will go to individual states. For instance, Iowa is slated to receive about $358 million, of which about $240 million can be used in any part of the state. The remaining money is to be allocated as follows: $10.7 million for "mandatory transportation enhancements," $20.8 million for use in urban areas, $73.2 million for use in suburban areas and $13.4 million for use in rural areas. (By the way, "'enhancement' is a legally defined term for projects such as sidewalk repairs, bicycle paths, and beautification projects.")

Decisions within each state on where to spend the money need to be made quickly:

Parts of the allocation are set aside to make sure that urban, suburban, and rural areas alike all get a share. But since local leaders -- mayors and governors -- know their communities best, much of the money is left to states' discretion. And if states don't use it, they lose it. To make sure that funds go out quickly to give our economy the jolt it needs, states have 120 days to assign the funds to specific projects.

As a rule, federal highway funds tend to go toward new road construction, but it would be better to direct the stimulus funds primarily toward fixing the roads and bridges we have. Repairing crumbling roads and bridges improves safety, the quality of life and property values in existing neighborhoods. Building new roads stimulates sprawl without solving traffic congestion problems.

Attempts to ease congestion with road-building have been only temporarily effective; communities that have built the most roads have had no more success in keeping congestion in check than areas that have not added much road capacity - and in some cases less. Automobile-oriented transportation is also expensive: most Americans spend more on transportation than on health care, education or food, and those costs are highest in the most sprawling metropolitan areas.

Most of us like to think of America as a land of choices. Yet in just about any community built in the last 50 years, when it comes to transportation there is only one choice: to own a car and use it for every single activity of the day.

Sprawling development also increases "vehicle miles traveled" per capita and consequently greenhouse-gas emissions from cars and trucks.

Spending stimulus highway money on a "fix-it-first basis" would not only be wise, but also popular. A national survey by Hart Research Associates, released last week, found that

An overwhelming majority of Americans believe restoring existing roads and bridges and expanding transportation options should take precedence over building new roads [...]

To accommodate future U.S. population growth, which is expected to increase by 100 million by 2050, Americans favor improving intercity rail and transit, walking and biking over building new highways. When asked what the federal government's top priority should be for 2009 transportation funding, half of all respondents recommended maintaining and repairing roads and bridges, while nearly one third said "expanding and improving bus, rail, and other public transportation." Only 16 percent said "expanding and improving roads, highways, freeways and bridges."

When asked about approaches to addressing traffic, 47 percent preferred improving public transportation, 25 percent chose building communities that encourage people not to drive, and 20 percent preferred building new roads. fifty-six percent of those surveyed believe the federal government is not devoting enough attention to trains and light rail systems, and three out of four favor improving intercity rail and transit.

Transportation for America, a new coalition of more than 225 organizations, has called on President Barack Obama and Congress to "launch a new federal transportation mission" when the federal transportation program comes up for reauthorization later this year. That will be a major battle in Congress. In the meantime, here's hoping most states with spend their stimulus money wisely and not on building every new road on developers' wish lists.

Crossposted at Projectile Politics

Yglesias brings up a good point about today's Governor's Association meeting in Philadelphia. Biden issued a speech laying out some reasons that we should promote public transportation, specifically rail transit. Focusing Obama's stated desire to promote public works projects on public transportation would be incredibly smart. There are still many American cities that have sub-par transportation systems within the city and almost non-existent rail options from the `burbs.

Jumpstarting a massive rail construction program would kill many birds with one giant, expensive stone. It would prompt suburbanites who live outside the city to visit and spend on urban businesses and entertainment; it would provide cheap, public transportation for urban workers who live outside the city; and most importantly, it would drastically reduce the number of people who commute in personal vehicles, and thereby benefit our degraded, asthma-ridden natural environment.

Seattle is a good example of the need for more rail-centric public transportation. Within the city, it is fairly easy to get around using the bus system. But there is no rail transit besides the monorail that goes about three blocks and was created as spectacle for the World's Fair in 1962.

But a Light Rail will be completed next year to transport people from SeaTac airport to downtown Seattle and back. I'm very glad that this is happening, but its impact will not reach its potential unless complemented by a more extensive rail program becuase traffic west into Seattle from the Eastside is awful for hours every morning and evening. And the same goes for along I-5 north of the city center. Both are areas that the Light Rail will not service.

Biden's suggestion for developing more rail transit would help cities like Seattle develop their rail programs to benefit workers, drivers, and the environment.

There's more...

The Drum Major Institute for Public Policy has been deeply engaged in the debate over New York's proposed congestion pricing plan. We invited London Deputy Mayor Nicky Gavron to give a first-hand account of her city's experience with a congestion charge, as part of our Marketplace of Ideas series. We analyzed the New York proposal and concluded it would benefit the city's current and aspiring middle class. When the New York State Assembly issued a misguided critique of congestion pricing, we argued against it.

Now DMI has the opportunity to become more closely involved in setting a just and sustainable transportation policy for New York City with the appointment of Executive Director Andrea Batista Schlesinger to the New York City Traffic Mitigation Congestion Commission.  Andrea was appointed by City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, and will serve on the 17-member commission alongside MTA Director Elliot Sander, Kathryn Wylde of the Partnership for New York City, and Assemblyman Herman Farrell Jr., among others. The commission will study both Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan and alternate ways to mitigate congestion and will make recommendations to the City Council and state legislature by the end of January 2008.  

There's more...

Proposition 1B - Bond money for roads - No

First of all, I object to the amount of bonded indebtedness we've already incurred with exorbitant measures that have been pushed and passed at a bipartisan level.  The money isn't free.  The 20 billion the state would borrow for this measure will double in costs over the next 30 years.

Secondly, the money is ostensibly for congestion relief, but the bulk of the funds would go to road expansions which is temporary relief.  The expansions historically lead to more mass housing developments, which quickly fill up the roads again - or to quote my environmental law professor: "if you build it, they will come." Only a small portion of the funds go to public transportation, the only serious way to address traffic congestion.

There's more...