2/3'rds the population, oldest roads, <50 transport funds.

[SirNitram]

What am I talking about? Cities, of course. Link

Two-thirds of the country lives in large metropolitan areas, home to the nation’s worst traffic jams and some of its oldest roads and bridges. But cities and their surrounding regions are getting far less than two-thirds of federal transportation stimulus money.

According to an analysis by The New York Times of 5,274 transportation projects approved so far — the most complete look yet at how states plan to spend their stimulus money — the 100 largest metropolitan areas are getting less than half the money from the biggest pot of transportation stimulus money. In many cases, they have lost a tug of war with state lawmakers that urban advocates say could hurt the nation’s economic engines.

The stimulus law provided $26.6 billion for highways, bridges and other transportation projects, but left the decision on how to spend most of it to the states, which have a long history of giving short shrift to major metropolitan areas when it comes to dividing federal transportation money. Now that all 50 states have beat a June 30 deadline by winning approval for projects that will use more than half of that transportation money, worth $16.4 billion, it is clear that the stimulus program will continue that pattern of spending disproportionately on rural areas.

“If we’re trying to recover the nation’s economy, we should be focusing where the economy is, which is in these large areas,” said Robert Puentes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program, which advocates more targeted spending. “But states take this peanut-butter approach, taking the dollars and spreading them around very thinly, rather than taking the dollars and concentrating them where the most complex transportation problems are.”

The 100 largest metropolitan areas also contribute three-quarters of the nation’s economic activity, and one consequence of that is monumental traffic jams. A study of congestion in urban areas released Wednesday by the Texas Transportation Institute found that traffic jams in 2007 cost urban Americans 2.8 billion gallons of wasted gas and 4.2 billion hours of lost time.

The Times analysis shows that a little more than half of the stimulus money will be spent on “pavement improvement” projects, mostly repaving rutted and potholed roads. Nearly one-tenth of it will be spent to fix or replace bridges. More than a quarter of the money will be spent to widen roads or build new roads or bridges.

But the projects also offered vivid evidence that metropolitan areas are losing the struggle for stimulus money. Seattle found itself shut out when lawmakers in the State of Washington divided the first pot of stimulus money. Missouri has directed nearly half its money to 89 small counties which, together, make up only a quarter of the state’s population. The United States Conference of Mayors, which did its own analysis of different data last month, concluded that the nation’s metropolitan areas were being “shortchanged.”

Pat McCrory, the mayor of Charlotte, N.C., said his city “did pretty terrible” when it came to getting money. Of the $423 million in projects approved so far in North Carolina, only $7.8 million is going to Mecklenburg County, the state’s most populous county and the home of Charlotte.

Cleveland was initially promised $200 million of Ohio’s stimulus money to help build a five-lane bridge to replace the 50-year-old Innerbelt Bridge, which is so deteriorated that officials banned heavy truck traffic on it last fall. But state officials, worried about meeting federal deadlines, took back $115 million in stimulus money and decided to use it on shovel-ready projects elsewhere.

The state promised to find another source of money for the bridge project, but now Ohio’s largest stimulus project is the $150 million it is spending to build the Nelsonville Bypass in southeastern Ohio, which officials say will alleviate a bottleneck and improve transportation to Appalachia.

Transportation experts said the stimulus was drawing attention to a longstanding trend.

“We have a long history of shortchanging cities and metropolitan areas and allocating transportation money to places where few people live,” said Owen D. Gutfreund, an assistant professor of urban planning at the City University of New York who wrote “20th Century Sprawl: Highways and the Reshaping of the American Landscape” (Oxford University Press, 2004).

Professor Gutfreund said that in some states the distribution was driven by statehouse politics, with money spread to the districts of as many lawmakers as possible, or given out as political favors. In others, he said, the money is distributed by formulas that favor rural areas or that give priority to state-owned roads, often found far outside of urban areas.

Mayors had lobbied Congress to send the money directly to cities, but in the end, 70 percent of the money was sent to the states to be divided, and 30 percent was sent to metropolitan planning organizations, which represent the local governments in many metropolitan areas.

Those organizations were not bound by the June 30 deadline for getting their projects approved, so metropolitan areas could eventually see their share of the transportation money go up. Other pots of money in the transportation bill stand to benefit metropolitan areas more, including the $8.4 billion for mass transit and the $1.5 billion that the federal Department of Transportation can award to projects of national or regional importance.

Some cities have been delayed in winning approval for their projects. New York City is expecting $261 million of the highway stimulus money. It had hoped to start work in May on its biggest project, a $175 million rehabilitation of the St. George Ferry Terminal in Staten Island, but the project has yet to win approval.

Transportation is currently a hot topic in Washington, where Congress plans to pass a new six-year transportation law within the next year and a half. Washington’s difficulty in directing its transportation aid has led to calls for a national infrastructure bank, which would rank projects and help them get financed.

Obama administration officials, who have called for ending sprawl and making sure that federal transportation spending is cost-effective, say they are looking at how states are spending the money from the stimulus law, officially called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of the current system.

“The transparency that comes with Recovery Act funds is letting us see what’s happening in real time, and that’s a good thing,” said Roy Kienitz, an under secretary of transportation for policy. “Understanding where recovery dollars go and why will help us determine how to shape long-term transportation policies with the goal of getting the most benefit for every dollar.”

And so it goes on, fucking 2/3rd's of the populace in favor of rurals out of the fact they whine loudly otherwise.

[MKSheppard]

Martin, please don't fucking post stupid like that anymore here in SDN, Okay?

This study is quite disingenous and lies like crazy; and ignores the fact that in a dense urbanized area like a city; it is close to impossible to carry out big projects -- because of the cost of building a divert road while construction is underway -- and because of the cost of acquiring the land anyway.

I also like how he simply says "metropolitian area"; lumping the cities and their suburbs in together; I'm sure the traffic and road construction system in DC and it's neighboring PG County and Montgomery County are so similar as to be lumped together under the "metropolitan area" rubric.

In fact; until recently, about 50% of all MD state funding for roads, etc went to Baltimore City; and this has long been a point of contention in the Maryland Legislature; with the Washington Suburbs locked in a death match with the decaying urban crap-ness of Baltimore for funding.

[SirNitram]

Yet, city roads get alot more wear and tear than rural ones, given that whole '2/3rds' of the population' thing, despite a much smaller area. Yes, it is both suburbs and cities. So? You also manage to name why a city should get disproportionately more transit money, given you cite two different costs which are much higher in densely populated areas.

In short, the only stupid shit I see is your reply, which seems to postulate up is down for no reason other than to be contrary, or perhaps some lingering hate of big cities(Did a city bite you as a kid?).

[Dark Hellion]

This article is incredible disingenuous, as Shep points out. Not because of his reasons though. Much more of it has to do with the way the interstate commerce system of trucking works. Look at is this way, if people in Chicago want to get Tyson's meat products they have to make sure the roads in Henry Country, IL are repaired (Henry country has less people than many of Chicago's suburbs). If someone want uparmoured humvees delivered to Chicago, you need to make sure the roads of Rock Island County, Henry County, Whiteside County and Kane County are all in working order, even though if you combine these, and all surrounding counties except DuPage, you have less population than DuPage county.

The point of urbanization is to decrease the per capita spending on infrastructure. If anything it is these metro areas fault for their years of poor city planning and failures to implement proper public transportation. Way more than 2/3rds of all the road millage exists outside of metro areas, so why should metro areas, which can afford to perform their own road maintenance, get preference over the podunk fuck counties that provide the backbone of all that shipping that lets these metro areas contribute economically?

[MKSheppard]

Yet, city roads get alot more wear and tear than rural ones

So repave them, which is relatively cheap. It's not like repaving is a very cost intensive thing, unless you're giving contracts out to mobbed-up companies from New Jersey.

The only thing that is hideously expensive are widening roads or building bridges, and guess what? Here in DC, we just finished a project to replace the antique Wilson Bridge; it was a multi-state program in which MD, VA, DC, and the Feds all worked togehter to replace a bridge meant to only carry 75k vehicles a day, which was carrying 200k a day by the 2000s.

Course, perhaps if the fucking kennedys hadn't eaten up so much goddamn federal funding for the "big dig" in Boston, which was not only hideously overschedule and over budget, but also fatal to commuters, many of the "problems" cited in the article could have had federal funds injected to fix them.

In short, the only stupid shit I see is your reply, which seems to postulate up is down for no reason other than to be contrary, or perhaps some lingering hate of big cities(Did a city bite you as a kid?).

Stop eating paint chips Martin, they're bad for you.

[Themightytom]

Does this study consider how recently roads were repair and what their level of need was? My understanding from a regional transportation planning board meeting I sat in on recently was that they were specifically throwing projects at rural areas because urban and suburban areas receieved regular attention vs the backroads that everyone ignores, forgets about or tables in favor of higher traffic roads.

That being said they appear to have repaved my entire city in the space of three weeks. Which they pretty much did last year anyway, but its a seasonal thing in the northeast.

Which is ANOTHER factor to be considered. The northeast is more "Densely populated" but also needs more regular roadwork because of changing seasons.

[SirNitram]

This article is incredible disingenuous, as Shep points out. Not because of his reasons though. Much more of it has to do with the way the interstate commerce system of trucking works. Look at is this way, if people in Chicago want to get Tyson's meat products they have to make sure the roads in Henry Country, IL are repaired (Henry country has less people than many of Chicago's suburbs). If someone want uparmoured humvees delivered to Chicago, you need to make sure the roads of Rock Island County, Henry County, Whiteside County and Kane County are all in working order, even though if you combine these, and all surrounding counties except DuPage, you have less population than DuPage county.

You'll note I don't advocate we stop money to rurals and highways. So this point kinda falls flat.

The point of urbanization is to decrease the per capita spending on infrastructure. If anything it is these metro areas fault for their years of poor city planning and failures to implement proper public transportation. Way more than 2/3rds of all the road millage exists outside of metro areas, so why should metro areas, which can afford to perform their own road maintenance, get preference over the podunk fuck counties that provide the backbone of all that shipping that lets these metro areas contribute economically?

Er? I've never heard there being a 'point' to urbanization outside of planned cities. No one, at the founding of Rome, hauled out parchment showing the cost-benefit of forming a city.

The next reply is to you and Shep. It's NOT about maintenence. The Stimulus transit funds were never supposed to be for it(Though naturally it's being used to fill gaps). It's purpose was to promote new construction.. Which was pointed out by Shep of all people to cost much more for metropolitan areas than rural ones. I suppose one could try arguing 'No city should be assisted in improving any roads which happen to be really freakin' bad now that it's grown into a city'. But that's just a bit favoritist against cities in general. If it's being used for maintenence, that's stupid, but that's not a reason to short-shrift cities for any new projects.

[Master of Cards]

Highway 40 (I-64) is being completely redone through St Louis, they're completely shutting it down and tearing it up in 5 mile slabs. The problem ith this is althrough the highway needed it (exits should be wider then 30 feet), its causing horrible traffic delays and more congestion because its pushing traffic onto other alreadly loaded roads, I would be getting to work 15 minutes quicker on the old road on a ood day.

[Phantasee]

Highway 40 (I-64) is being completely redone through St Louis, they're completely shutting it down and tearing it up in 5 mile slabs. The problem ith this is althrough the highway needed it (exits should be wider then 30 feet), its causing horrible traffic delays and more congestion because its pushing traffic onto other alreadly loaded roads, I would be getting to work 15 minutes quicker on the old road on a ood day.

Who knew you had to deal with temporary delays while expanding capacity for the future? Christ, it pisses me off when people bitch and moan about the fucking delays at 23Ave/Calgary Trail intersection in Edmonton, which are partially being caused by one of the largest construction projects in Western Canada. But hey, remember before they started building the interchange? When it was not only the busiest intersection in Western Canada, but also the deadliest?

One guy actually told me that he wanted them to just stop the construction because "it isn't going anywhere and it just slows everything down". Despite, you know, the fucking mountains rising on both sides of the highway, for the exit/entrance ramps.

[CmdrWilkens]

So repave them, which is relatively cheap. It's not like repaving is a very cost intensive thing, unless you're giving contracts out to mobbed-up companies from New Jersey.

Actually it isn't "cheap" oh sure its cheaper than new builds but you have to dig up the existing road surface, pave the surface back down and you have to do your work in segments (which increases your vechile and personnel costs due to time) AND you have to work mostly at night (to avoid commuters but also driving up your costs). Repaving is only less expensive in the sense that you don't have to buy, clear, and grade the land but the time and opportunity costs are MUCH higher.

The only thing that is hideously expensive are widening roads or building bridges, and guess what? Here in DC, we just finished a project to replace the antique Wilson Bridge; it was a multi-state program in which MD, VA, DC, and the Feds all worked togehter to replace a bridge meant to only carry 75k vehicles a day, which was carrying 200k a day by the 2000s.

yet the same birdge would not have been needed if the city itself had sufficient transit to support the 50,000+ commutes and reverse commutes that take place over the bridge. Metro isn't able to cover that portion of PG county which leads to car dependency and the "need" for massive highway projects. Not sure if you've ever heard of the induced deman effect but by building more and wider highways we perpetuate growth more distant from the job cores that need servicing which means more VMT and in turn more maitnenance costs over a greater scope of pavement.

A purple line 10 years ago would have paid for itself by now in reduced travel and congestion time on the DC beltway whereas the Springfield Interchange and the Wilson Bridge won't even come close to doing so by time they reach their limits.