Obama Infrastructure
By Greg Rock
Link to Obama’s Speech on Infrastructure Investment:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gGxtgj
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT: RIGHT PLAN WRONG ACTION
An investment in our infrastructure is exactly what this country needs right now. Not only will it stimulate our economy, and create jobs our country is also in need of a major infrastructure overhaul. I believe this strategy represents both the most effective short term option the federal government has to combat the current economic slowdown, while at the same time making critical investments in our future. Our current infrastructure as we saw during the summer of 2008 is extremely expensive and inefficient to operate on high energy prices. The most direct correlation lies in the transportation sector which is 98% dependent on liquid fuels which spiked to nearly $150 per barrel this summer. Nearly 4 times its current $40 price.
Oil and other energy prices have collapsed due to the demand destruction created by the recession we now find ourselves in; but these low prices can not be expected to last. As soon as we recover and restart growth, which is our goal, we will be faced again with the same underlying energy challenges that created $4/gallon gasoline this past summer. But next round we will see even higher prices and more extreme price volatility unless we are better prepared. In the near future, supply will have decreased and demand will likely reach even higher levels.
Over the last 3 years, worldwide conventional oil production has essentially stopped growing; something that the U.S. saw happen domestically in the 1970's. Before that, the U.S. peak in oil production led us to start importing oil from the Middle East, and created our current dependence on foreign oil. However this time it is not a domestic problem it is a worldwide problem. With no other planets to import oil from we have been turning to alternatives; some clean (Biodiesel), some dirty (Tar Sands) but all made cost competitive due to higher energy prices. The collapse in prices we are experiencing will impact the alternative energy industry the most. Both existing and planned projects are being delayed, canceled and shut down. If this drop off in energy production is allowed, we will face extremely high price volatility and price acceleration in the energy sector once growth in demand resumes. Extreme price volatility as we have seen can critically damage our economy.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY: THE MOST VITAL COMPONENT OF ANY INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
While it is clear that we must maintain the course on increased domestic energy production, something President-elect, Obama, agrees with, what is even more important to our economic success is not our energy production but our reduction in energy consumption. Our ability to achieve significantly less energy consumption will be essential, if we are to maintain the same level of commerce and standard of living - essential to the long term success of American cities, citizens and the country as a whole.
Obama has laid out a great plan of attack to stimulate the economy and create jobs through a federally funded infrastructure redevelopment push. In many regards it has the correct focus.
* Short Term: Stimulate Economy and Generate Jobs
* Long Term: Invest in our Future: Education, Energy Production, Efficient Buildings
In regards to Peak Oil, the most important goal we need to achieve over the next 10 years is to redevelop our infrastructure so that it can function more effectively on less and higher priced energy.
MORE ROADS: WHERE THE OBAMA PLAN GOES WRONG
While many of Obama’s proposed actions will assist in this, during his Dec. 8th speech, Obama made a troubling announcement about where he plans on making major investments for our future. He is calling for a major new investment in roadways and bridges. This is exactly what we did over 50 years ago with the launch of the Interstate Highway System of the 50’s. While this action did successfully create jobs and stimulate our economy, it also moved this country down a path of auto orientation. In a high priced energy world this orientation is to our economy’s detriment not benefit.
During the 50’s, our highway systems were expanded and most major U.S. cities tore out their rail based mass transit systems. Truck transport replaced huge volumes of rail cargo, and the highway, trucking and oil & gas lobby groups became the most influential non-elected voices in Washington. This decision, although it has since cost the U.S. trillions of dollars in imported foreign oil and created massive environmental degradation, still was probably the right choice for our country at that time. The automobile was new and innovative and acted as the backbone of our new growing economy. Federally funding the construction of the massive roadway infrastructure which was both expensive to build and is expensive to maintained was the correct choice especially without the hindsight we have today regarding the negative external impacts of such a strong auto orientation.
Today however is not the 1950’s. A new movement towards auto orientation, a new investment in a system for moving personal automobiles and transport trucks is not the change this country currently needs. The change we need is away from auto orientation and thus away from oil dependency. Certainly we still need automobiles and roads on which to drive them but we do not need to expand the existing system. We need to expand our transportation options. Big budget spending on transportation should be reserved for creating new options, specifically to bring back rail based passenger and cargo transport to this country and its city centers.
Rail transit, be it inter/intra city passenger or cargo, is a far more energy efficient and thus environmentally and oil price friendly method for transporting people or objects around a built environment. Rail transit would provide a more advanced construction projects which creates the higher paying, advanced jobs on which we in America pride ourselves. Most importantly, it is an investment in our future that will earn our states and our country a return on investment over time. Over its life a public transit system will save its riders many times more energy and dollars, from the avoided fuel consumption and vehicle maintenance costs, compared to the costs associated with constructing and operating the transit system. Having a cheap and affordable transportation system for getting employees, and consumers from their homes to their destinations as well as goods across the country will make the difference between economic growth and collapse during the decades of high energy prices we face ahead.
Obama is calling for a use it or lose it strategy. This is also a good idea as we don’t want states sitting on funds but rather spending them so that they actually are stimulating the economy and creating jobs. Unfortunately, this may corner many states and cities into choosing easy roadway expansion or redevelopment rather than the more challenging but more important public transit infrastructure systems our future requires.
Obama has not made his plan completely clear however, if history is any representation of what we might expect from federal funds being allocated to states it is highly likely that funding may be specifically allocated for only road and bridge construction. This would make it impossible for states to use these new federal dollars to fund the growth of new rail based transit systems and the energy efficient urban economy we should be promoting. This plan will actually force many states to expand roads even if they weren’t planning on it just so they can get access to the new funds to promote their local economic growth --- thus creating a major growth in our nation’s auto dependency and escalating the annual maintenance cost associated with our highway system.
SEATTLE: A CASE STUDY
As a resident of Seattle, Washington, I’ve seen an ongoing battle here between constructing a public transit system or expanding our state and federal roadways. Perhaps the best example of this story is the Washington State Route 99 Viaduct. This portion of the state highway runs through the city center, along the waterfront on an elevated viaduct parallel to our federal interstate route 5 which also slices through the city center.
As an auto orientated city with no public transit system, except our buses that get stuck in traffic with the cars, it has been perceived important to have multiple highways going into the heart of the city center to provide good automobile access and to create multiple routes for through traffic. The viaduct is however listed as one of the most dangerous major highways in the country and needs to be torn down.
Thus the debate begins. On one side auto advocates and businesses, that fear anything that reduces the number of vehicles flowing into or around the city, believes rebuilding this state route is essential (Cost: 2 Billion). Then there is another group that feels that the Seattle water front is too valuable to waste with an elevated highway and proposes a massive and expensive tunnel for the vehicles so the highway still exists but we get to reclaim the waterfront for other business and recreational uses (Cost 3.5 Billion). Finally there is a third camp that says tear down the viaduct and don’t rebuild it. Replace it with surface streets, transit and walkable/bikable recreational and business corridors (Cost: 1 Billion). This type of non-auto focused redevelopment has been extremely successfully in revitalizing urban centers and stimulating economic growth in European cities like Copenhagen, Denmark. Copenhagen has spent the last 30 years successfully moving away from auto orientation by tearing out existing roads and parking lots which it converted into bike and pedestrian routes, public squares and parks.
In Seattle we don’t need two major highways intersecting our city; one is enough. Our waterfront could be a thriving downtown attraction and center for commerce if made accessible by alternative transportation instead of being held hostage to 1000’s of vehicles flying by at 60 mph. The nearby city of Vancouver, BC has proven that having no major highways transecting the city center is an effective strategy to reduce urban sprawl, increase public transportation use and encourage shorter commutes. This is the type of change we need in America - not more assistance to the already highly subsidized auto orientated infrastructure.
It seems all too clear to me and others hoping to move away from an auto and oil dependency orientation that Obama’s plan, as he described it last weekend, will cause Seattle to rebuild its Viaduct something many believe is the wrong path for this city to follow. During this last election period, Seattle did pass the construction of a significant light rail public transit system estimated to cost 17 billion during its 12 year construction period. Shouldn’t federal transportation funding be allowed to fund this effort either by directly paying for construction over the next couple years, instead of local tax payers, or by using additional funds to accelerate the construction process. Instead, I fear the funds will force our local government to expand its roadways, further encouraging more auto usage and possibly delay Seattle’s long awaited public transit system.
Putting Seattle aside think about how this plan will impact less progressive cities that don’t have any intention of constructing rail based public transit systems? Obama is missing out on a golden opportunity to redevelop America’s transportation systems not into an expanded auto orientated system but instead into a multi modal system. By creating mass transit specific projects in excess of auto projects he could help shift the modal balance away from auto and oil dependency to create more transportation options. The more options consumers and workers have, especially lower cost options, the more successful our economy will be.
Personally, I do expect that rail expansion will be part of Obama’s plan but believe we must be very careful with how much he chooses to allocate to roadways. We already have a massive system which requires draining amounts of maintenance. This is a system that is already established and does not need to grow as it would thus require more annual maintenance and encourage more vehicle transit and less mass transit. The only way to shift the modal mix is to make significantly more investment in rail than we do in roads.
WHY WASN’T TRANSIT MENTIONED? TWO REASONS
Unlike Seattle, most cities don’t have a shovel ready mass transit project on the books. While almost every state has some new roadway expansion ready for funding. This challenge may delay the economic stimulus which is part of its intention, but it is far better to accelerate the correct plan, even if it creates a delay, than to act quickly and invest in a bad one.
The other challenge mass transit faces (aside from lobby groups) is that nothing will be more effective toward stimulating our current auto-orientated economy than an auto orientated subsidy. Subsidizing the roadways is a time tested and proven method for stimulating the auto sector and thus the whole economy. While effective, it is also short sighted if you believe that energy constraints are the greatest economic threat we face. This act will stimulate transportation inefficiencies rather than energy efficiency leading towards more extreme economic challenges in the near future.
More auto transit means more vehicle purchases and a re-strengthening of the old backbone of our American economy; the automobile industry. But it is an old backbone that is failing our economy. Today we need real change. We need to move forward by stimulating and growing a new economy not struggling to keep the old one alive. I believe both rail based infrastructure and alternative energy production projects can be the new and stronger backbone of the U.S. economy. To compete in the world economy, we need to become a world leader in these two critical sectors. The time to make that shift is now. The way to make that shift in a capitalist system is with dollars and Obama is talking about pumping billions if not trillions into the economy. An act that is sure to create movement.
Mark my words, higher energy prices will haunt our economy again if a diversification of our transportation options is not achieved. Obama is talking about a 50-100 year investment in our infrastructure. The question before us is will we use this window of opportunity --- before energy prices take off again to start moving ourselves onto a path of change toward future stability, or instead will we simply replicate what was done in the 1950’s and hope that it leads us somewhere else.
PLEASE JOIN ME IN LETTING PRESIDENT-ELECT, OBAMA, KNOW BY WRITING HIM THAT:
* At a minimum we want federally allocated transportation dollars to be flexible enough to allow spending on mass transit, sidewalks and bike paths instead of just roads and bridges.
* Call on him to mandate that the lion’s share of spending is invested on mass transit and other alternative transportation options while little to no money is spent on new roadway expansion - only on existing road maintenance.
Greg Rock
Sustainability Engineer
greg@greencarco.com
Founder
Labels: Greg Rock, Obama, Obama infrastructure, peak oil, us roads and bridges
posted by RPtizzle at
00:51
|
0 Comments
Links to this post
