I’m broadly in favor this policy, described at Politico by Sam Mintz:
The bill, H.R. 3684 (117), would erect new bureaucratic hurdles for states seeking to spend federal money on laying asphalt, while steering them to more climate-friendly options like transit. It also would give cities more power over selecting and funding transportation projects — boosting the leverage of Democratic-led enclaves in red states such as Texas, where Houston is engaged in a high-profile fight with the state’s DOT over a highway expansion local pols don’t want.
The bill is, for now, is separate from a compromise infrastructure bill backed by the Biden administration and key GOP senators, which would provide $579 billion in new spending, as well as a $3.5 trillion go-it-alone proposal that Democrats hope to approve by party-line votes. These chess pieces are separate for now, but portions of all three could end up blended together into whatever Congress ends up enacting.
The structure of the empowering legislation for the Interstate Highway System encourages building new roads. Constructing new roads is largely free to the states while the cost of maintaining them falls squarely on the states’ treasuries. Does anyone else see the roots of our present situation there?
I think that state and local officials are much better positioned to identify state and local needs than federal officials and my observation is that people are willing to pay for things that they genuinely want and need.
At this point every city in the U. S. of any substantial size is already served by an interstate. Under the circumstances does it actually make sense to build more? Said another way how much sense does it make to tax people in Racine to pay for commuter highways in Los Angeles?
Who has more clout, a cabal of road builders, real estate speculators, lawyers, consultants of all sorts in California vs Janos Bagofkolaches in Racine paying two weeks pay at the alignment shop?
Watching the State DOT and city planners fight over how the money should be spent will be entertaining when they learn while they fought, the money are diverted else where.
Other than buses, in what way is transit climate friendly? From various posts at antiplanner, we learn that on a passenger-mile basis, trains of every kind are:
1. the most expensive capital cost;
2. the most expensive operating and maintenance costs;
3. the most fuel consumption;
4. the most emissions, especially carbon dioxide;
5. the most rigid, inflexible routes and schedules.
Both passenger cars and buses beat trains in every category.
Every train system, except in very high density cities, where you can walk to your destination, requires buses and/or cars for the final mile.
Trains can only be justified in a very few, very high density cities, like New York. There is no justification for trains in a city like Indianapolis or Los Angeles.
Every train in service, including especially the various European, Japanese, and Chinese high speed trains, is heavily subsidized, and the subsidies are hidden. For normal transit, the subsidy is usually 80% to 90% of total costs.
Because of their gross inconvenience and substantial danger from mugging, trains generally have low ridership, except, of course, in the high density cities. Even then, the trains run mostly empty during most of the day.
Almost every city is better served by buses than trains. Every transit authority that builds trains of any kind ends up cancelling bus routes and service.
Buses in every city mostly serve the poor and working class. Trains are a perq for middle and upper middle class suburbanites.
For distances of a couple hundred to several thousand miles, airplanes beat trains in almost every category, even fuel consumption and emissions.
Decentralization is even more environmentally friendly. Commuting to work whether by personal vehicle or mass transit is part of the superstructure of centralization. One of the things we have learned over the last year is that a lot of present centralization is completely expendable.
Streetcars were even better than buses.
You may have put your finger on it there.
Cities grow.
Not Chicago though, can you stop maintenance on freeways as you shrink, as we do rural roads?
The concrete industry is easily consolidated and is a major economic force in most communities.
But you know, they pour bike paths too.
Are highways extended because cities grow or do cities grow because highways are extended? I have seen both. Sometimes in the same city.
Maintenance is largely a state and local matter as things stand. BTW concrete production is the sector that emits the most carbon after transportation and energy production.
“Carbon” Maybe so, but I don’t believe it matters.
Our relatives in the plant kingdom simply love co2, and we love them.
Concrete has caused more so called climate related floods by blocking absorption, destroying alluvial floodplains etc.
But on the other hand, it cuts down mowing and gets us back to the game.