Environmental groups identify $145B of immediate green stimulus

Public Spaces

Environmental groups identify $145B of immediate green stimulus

by David Alpert • December 11, 2008 10:18 am

Does an immediate economic stimulus package have to include anti-environmental, sprawl-inducing projects like new highways or highway widenings, such as those many state DOTs are just itching to fund? Yesterday, in the discussion over Barack Obama's proposed stimulus, commenter Alex B. wrote,

Photo by greenforall on Flickr.
Any STIMULUS must move fast. A national high speed rail system is a great investment, but it's not something that we can ramp up in time to boost our way out of this recession. Likewise, as much as operational assistance to MARC and other transit agencies may be a good idea, it is not a good STIMULUS spending plan.
It's worth noting that of the transit projects that are in a position to serve as a stimulus, they all look like Obama will aim to include them. The simple reality is that the economic package will require much, much more.

This morning, a coalition of 17 environmental groups, including Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, NRDC, Environmental Defense, Greenpeace, and many more, released a list of 78 projects that could spend $145 billion over the next 12 months on immediate economic stimulus. (See the summary table or detailed list.) On transportation, the list includes fixing existing roads and bridges, operating grants to keep up transit service and current fares, and fully funding all New Starts transit projects that are in the pipeline, but no new lane miles of highways.

Transportation is responsible for a third of global warming pollution and more than 60 percent of domestic oil consumption. To mitigate this, we need a comprehensive transportation sector investment strategy that includes substantial build out of public transportation and other alternative transportation resources, rehabilitation and maintenance of existing roads and bridges (which creates more jobs than investments in new road capacity), investment in next generation alternative fuels, and acceleration of increases in vehicle efficiency. Meeting these needs can reduce our dependence on oil, reduce global warming pollution, and create millions of good jobs by investing in low-carbon transportation projects.
We recommend at least $58.8 billion investment in transit, other transportation alternatives, environmental mitigation, road and bridge maintenance, and vehicle and fuel technologies ...
We also strongly oppose spending any portion of an economic stimulus package on highway projects that include new capacity. Adding road capacity has been shown to induce additional vehicle use, leading to increased oil consumption, greenhouse gasses, and traffic congestion in the long term. These projects also promote sprawling land development patterns that further exacerbate these problems and require future infrastructure investments to mitigate. Any spending on highways and roads (including bridges) should be based on Fix-It First principles of asset management.

The list also includes funds for alternative energy research and starting up production of non-corn biofuels, worker training for green jobs, energy efficiency tax credits, weatherization for households, schools, and local governments, incentives for energy efficient appliances, purchasing foreclosed land for conservation, maintenance in national parks and wildlife refuges, solar panel depeloyment on public and private buildings, energy transmission grid upgrades, dam repair, coastal restoration from Long Island Sound to the Great Lakes to the Mississippi delta and coastal Louisiana, and more.

One of the largest water items on the list is a Combined Sewer Overflow fix. DC currently has a CSO system which dumps raw sewage into the rivers when heavy rains overflow the system. The DC area will have to spend over $2 billion over the next few years to build the holding tanks and tunnels so that this doesn't happen; stimulus money for this here and in other cities would create jobs and fix a major source of water contamination.

Even economists aren't sure which of these bailout and stimulus programs will actually work. But if we do need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to stimulate the economy, we can do it without covering the countryside in new freeways. We needn't bail out homebuilders who bought up too much land and constructed too many houses in the distant exurbs beyond the actual market demand, while there's a shortage of housing and good transit in walkable, closer-in areas. We can stimulate the economy in ways that set our country on the right course to sustainability for the next generation.

15 comments — Share	— tags: Barack Obama, Combined Sewer Overflow, economics, environment, induced demand, transit

Sustainable Transportation Five, please step forward (Feb 6, 2009)
Boxer to ask for $50 billion more for highways (Feb 3, 2009)
Stimulus draft released; $30B for highways vs. $10B for transit (Jan 15, 2009)
Change? (Dec 10, 2008)
Sen. Wyden's favored economic stimulus: road resurfacing (Jan 26, 2008)

Comments

Thank you, David, for making the argument I was trying (rather unsuccessfully, I'll admit) to make a couple days ago.

by Adam on Dec 11, 2008 10:57 am

I think the difference is that, unlike mass transit funding, when we fund new roads and highways, we are really only funding the smallest part of the economic expansion that will result from the short to the long term as a result of the new roads and highways. We (the taxpayer) are putting in the seed money for what is otherwise overwhelmingly funded by the individuals and businesses whose opportunities are opened up by the new roads and highways. (E.g., individuals will pay for the cars/motorcycles/bicycles that operate on the roads and highways and businesses will pay for the trucks and electronic tracking networks using these same roads and highways.)

When you build mass transit, we the taxpayer must put up ALL the upfront costs ... and then, if history is any guide, continue subsidizing the venture long "down the road".

Net effect is that the return on investment, and participatory investment, is far greater when funding roads and highways than mass transit.

At least IMHO ...

by Lance on Dec 11, 2008 11:14 am

Do you have a link to the original report? I would be really interested in reading and understanding some of these projects.

by Jake on Dec 11, 2008 11:44 am

Jake: Here's the report.

by David Alpert on Dec 11, 2008 11:49 am

Lance: Yes, when we are talking about transit, there is often a larger up front public investment because the rolling stock has to be purchased as well as the right-of-way construction. But it is inaccurate to state that only transit is subsidized after that. Governments spend million of dollars maintaining roadways after they are constructed. And before you say all that money comes from gas taxes, it doesn't. Roads are heavily subsidized by income, sales, and property taxes.

When you look at total construction, operation, and maintenance, private vehicles are much more expensive both to individuals and society.

But we still need roads. Transit cannot provide access to every place people need to go or handle freight or emergency vehicles. That is probably why the report includes maintenance of existing roads.

by Stanton Park on Dec 11, 2008 12:25 pm

Stanton Park: I've heard this fact repeated on a number of occasions (and I tend to believe it too), however, I can't seem to find any statistical or financial proof. Aside from the TxDOT report on the new highway in Houston only being 16% paid for by taxes, are there any other reports, etc that could be used to bolster a defense of the tax-shortfall. (Direct costs would be better, though external costs such as health, etc are good too)

by Michael on Dec 11, 2008 1:19 pm

When there is a public investment in permanent transit, like trolley/tram/street-car/subway/intercity tracks there is a quantitative positive economic response by private enterprise in the areas where the investment took place. This is not my opinion. The effect is measurable and reported. In our own area see 13th and U NW before and after the green-line stop opened for an example. The effect is greater when the transit invested in is permanent (rails) rather than a bus line on an existing road.

by Bianchi on Dec 11, 2008 1:52 pm

Michael - Brookings Institution has a good study from 2003. I haven't read it in a long time but from re-glancing the graphs, the gas tax covers 35% of highway costs, vehicle fees and taxes another 20% and the rest is covered by other general taxes and fees unrelated to car/road use.

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2003/04transportation_wachs.aspx

by Chris on Dec 11, 2008 6:03 pm

A few relevant notes:

- In the early 2000s, the University of Minnesota did a far-encompassing study of transportation in the Twin Cities metro. One of their findings was that highway users pay roughly 84% of the total costs of driving. (this in reply to Stanton Park's comment)

- The slide between gas (and other transportation) taxes and other taxes for roads goes in two directions. First, there's the time slide, hinted at in the Brookings report, where gas tax revenue has much less purchasing power now than it did in past decades.

- Then there's the jurisdictional slide, from the Federal level, where 100% of Federal highway funding comes from the Federal gas tax (this year's "save the trust fund" notwithstanding) and ranging down to the local level, where almost all road funding is done with property, sales, and other non-transportation taxes. The states are in between, with some states using mostly or 100% transportation-related taxes for state highway funding, while other states (Virginia among them) make heavy use of sales taxes.

by Froggie on Dec 12, 2008 11:22 am

Froggie: Did the Twin Cities study include other associated costs of sprawl, like utility costs? One of Leinberger's major points is that by outlawing compact, walkable development and legally requiring the suburban form, we passed a lot of secondary costs onto taxpayers, such as the cost of building power and telephone lines out to these more far-flung locations. It costs much more to build those per unit than to build them in denser areas, but since taxpayers at the county or state level paid for it, everyone paid the same.

by David Alpert on Dec 12, 2008 11:28 am

Freakonomics authors Stephen J. Dunbar and Steven D. Levitt look at all the external costs of autos in this piece in NYT Magazine back in April: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/magazine/20wwln-freakonomics-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

They conclude the average 20 mpg car should be paying $2 a gallon in gas taxes to cover the true cost of driving.

Donald Shoup looks at the enourmous costs of free parking in his work. Check out "The High Cost of Free Parking."

Please don't go on about the economic benefit of roads unless you are ready to look at their true costs.

Besides, we've built plenty of roads over the last 50 years - so many that we can't afford to maintain them all. Let's start there before we construct more roads.

What's more, if we are going to actually get to 80% GHG reductions by 2050, which all the science says we must to avoid catastrophe, or achieve energy independence, then we have to cut driving rates. That means building transit, bike/ped, intercity rail, and telecommuting infrastructure. That means incentivizing walkable, mixed use, transit oriented neighborhoods.

by Colin Peppard on Dec 12, 2008 10:35 pm

David: not sure offhand. The study is still available online.

Colin: first, not all science agrees with that (this is the reality of the argument). Second, do you realistically think that, given the pushes that have occurred already for alternate transportation modes, that enough can be made to actually REDUCE driving? Especially with population increase? If there were zero-net population growth I could see it as possible. But not with a net population increase.

by Froggie on Dec 13, 2008 8:09 am

Froggie: When I said driving rates, I meant to imply driving per capita. So yes, you make a good point. However, this is a generic statement that isn't location specific. There are plenty of areas of the country, mostly in more established, older cities, that should be able to reduce driving overall. That is if they had a real incentive to do so, and a federal partner to help pay for the transit build out, road pricing, zoning redesign, etc.

by Colin on Dec 14, 2008 10:47 am

PS - Could you please share the studies you refer to that disagree? Thanks.

by Colin on Dec 14, 2008 10:48 am

Froggie, not only is it possible, but it's already happening. Today's New York Times reports that "As the city’s economy soared and its population grew from 2003 through 2007,... the volume of traffic on the streets and highways remained largely unchanged, in fact declining slightly. Instead, virtually the entire increase in New Yorkers’ means of transportation during those robust years occurred in mass transit, with a surge in subway, bus and commuter rail riders."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/nyregion/14traffic.html

by Ben Ross on Dec 14, 2008 1:10 pm