Cities lose out on road funds from stimulus

[WriteDown]

Source: New York Times

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....



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31822065/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/

---

So over half the money is going to fix potholes in rural towns?

[anonymous171]

1. Wait a minute. Why aren't the cities' state representatives doing anything about this?

[Robb]

2. "spending disproportionately on rural areas"

In any state, the majority of the highway isn't in the city. It's getting to and from the city from "rural" areas.

Cities have the revenue streams to handle their own infrastructure. If you want the highway that gets there to be kept up, it has to come from the state's coffers, because the town of 120 that it runs through can't afford to do anything about it.'

Edited to add: if you think a city creates all that economic activity without trucks delivering stuff, you're in a dreamworld, NYT. :eyes:

[napi21]

3. Wasn't ost of this $$ to be for shovel ready projects?

IF that's right, I suspect it was the suburban & rural locations that had planned for new roads or maintaining their older ones. Cities are notorious for only fixing things when they fall apart, but never planning on routine maintenance. I now live north of Atlanta, and I KNOW that's the case there, and I spent 47 years in Pgh, Pa. and road maintenance was fixing pot holes when enough people in a specific area complained, or when the city received a dire warning about the safety of one or more of their many bridges.

[Sadie5]

5. Hmmmmm!

A lot of our bigger roads etc have been sold off to other countries. Why don't they fix those roads.

[Abq_Sarah]

4. Good.

Taxpayers in rural areas generally get short shrift when it comes to federal funds and road repairs.

[Demit]

8. Maybe cus 3/4 of the nation's economic activity takes place in metropolitan areas?

And because two-thirds of the country lives in large metropolitan areas?

The rest of the article is informative too:

...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.”


It only makes sense to concentrate the money where it will benefit, and be used by, the most people. I wonder what the rationale is for the states doing the opposite.

[Carl Skan]

10. It's pretty simple.

If you only spent the money in the counties where it came from, you'd have no highways between the cities.

[Demit]

11. Straw man argument. We're not talking 100% vs. 0%. We're talking disproportionate allotments.

[Carl Skan]

12. Do you even know what a straw man argument is?

If I wanted to make a straw man argument I would have said something like..."If you are against disproportionate allotments, I assume you would be okay with rich neighborhoods being paved with gold bricks while inner cities are plotted out with dirt roads?"

I'm not talking about a parallel scenario, I'm talking about the exact issue at hand. This isn't some wacky idea, it's actually a pretty fundamental conundrum of road planning.

No, we would not have major highways if the money were allocated 1:1 where it came from. There is no way remote rural counties would be able to build and maintain the major highways between the cities the tax money comes from.

Your argument assumes an equal density of tax revenue along all federal projects which is simply no where near true.

[Demit]

13. Demit patiently explains to Carl:

The topic is transportation project funding being allotted disproportionately to rural areas over metropolitan areas. No one—either me or anyone in the article— has suggested that it be all to one and nothing to the other, or that there should be no highways between cities. No one has suggested that federal funds should be allocated in proportion to where the taxes came from, either. Yet you counter argue as if those were the arguments. You set up something so you could knock it down.

If highway planning is your hobby horse you should start a thread about it. This thread was about federal stimulus money and where it would best be used to stimulate the economy. I agree that that would be where the greatest economic activity takes place.

[Carl Skan]

15. I'll go slowly...

You.

Replied.

To.

A.

Comment.

About.

Rural.

Roads.

[Demit]

16. I replied to a comment that said, "Good" (that cities were losing out on stimulus $ for roads)

She asserted that rural areas get less federal funding in general, which is not borne out by info cited in the article. It was a very narrow point that I was taking issue with. You, Mr. Snotty, were the one who decided to open it up, and respond to me with an irrelevant comment that had no bearing on the topic. You may respond to this comment in a way you will think very clever, but I've made my points, and it won't bother me in the least.

[Abq_Sarah]

17. Do you live in a rural area?

Of course they get less funding.

The vast majority of roads in my state are unpaved (about 78%). The paved roads are interstate highways, US highways and major state roads. Nearly half our counties don't even own a paved road. The governor spent 135 million, including federal funds, for a light rail system that even the supporters agree will lose money. The governor is proposing taking the rail system north, up along the Rio Grande into Taos, where even paved roads are washboard. Again, if he gains approval, it will use federal funds. Rural areas have long been neglected for pet projects in cities. We pay gasoline taxes. Because of our crappy roads, our automobile related expenses are higher. I'm not going to shed a tear for a major metro area having to cough up what they see as an entitlement.

[dkf]

6. At least they are prodding the states to spend the money.

A June 30 deadline to get their act together sounds good to me.

[SnowCritter]

7. Not in MN

Here it is common for the majority of any highway funding to be spent in the Twin Cities metro area - out-state is usually given short shrift.

[KamaAina]

9. No, over half the money is going to lay the groundwork for yet more exurban sprawl

So over half the money is going to fix potholes in rural towns?

At this rate, they won't stay rural for long. Just what we need: more of the kinds of utterly car-dependent cookie-cutter developments that gave us the phrase "drive 'til you qualify". :eyes:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. Rural areas tend more to puggery, urban to demmery.

Just a thought.