Gas Tax Holiday

This is a senseless idea:

Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized Barack Obama on Monday for opposing proposals to suspend federal gas taxes this summer, a plan she and Republican John McCain have endorsed. Obama didn't take the bait. He ignored Clinton and focused on McCain.

...

Clinton said she would make up the lost revenue by imposing a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies.

"If we suspended it and made up the lost revenues, that's the best of both worlds," she said.

The federal revenue generated from the gas tax goes directly back into federal transportation programs that fund highway and mass transit infrastructure. It is foolish to take money out of that system to score political points. Furthermore, what's to prevent the oil companies from hiking their prices? Consumer demand for gasoline is inelastic in the short-term.

Even if she devised a way to funnel the recovered revenue back into federal highway program, Clinton's scheme would require a lot of effort and negotiation - good luck getting such a bill passed the obstructionist Republican minority, especially with their warm, fuzzy feelings for her.

However, these arguments ignore the greater issue at hand, which is funding our nation's infrastructure. Obama has called for investing in our greying infrastructure, while Clinton has been silent. Repealing the gas tax, even if only temporarily, will only encourage people to drive more at the expense of other, lower cost, environmental-friendlier, options.

Losing the Vehicle

Atrios comments.

The annual cost of owning a vehicle is over $6K, but I only pay ~$1K a year for access to public transportation. Then again, I probably make up the difference in the cost of living, but I still have access to much more. And of course there's the environmental boost.

Texas to Spend on Transmission Lines

Part and parcel with energy generation is the distribution of that energy to households and businesses. As renewable energy sources - such as wind and solar - come online, wires, pipes and more will have to be built to transmit that energy. Take Texas for example:

Texas likes getting energy from wind, but drawing that power from the middle of nowhere in West Texas to more populated regions is going to be expensive. Despite the hefty price tag, construction on new transmission lines should begin by the end of 2009.

The Public Utility Commission of Texas met today to discuss a report released last week by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), outlining the costs and possibilities for constructing the new lines. According to that report, the state could spend between $2.95 billion and $6.38 billion building new transmission lines.

Part of the problem is the sheer size of the state. Miles of wire and substations are required along the way. Another issue is the variability of wind power. It’s a complex issue and ERCOT looked at four different transmission strategies.

It's not going to be cheap, but it will be built. I'll also note the little jab about the understated costs of sprawl. Population density is a good thing.

Neglecting Our Tubes

This is bad:

Two hours north of New York City, a mile-long stream and a marsh the size of a football field have mysteriously formed along a country road. They are such a marvel that people come from miles around to drink the crystal-clear water, believing it is bubbling up from a hidden natural spring.

The truth is far less romantic: The water is coming from a cracked 70-year-old tunnel hundreds of feet below ground, scientists say.

The tunnel is leaking up to 36 million gallons a day as it carries drinking water from a reservoir to the big city. It is a powerful warning sign of a larger problem around the country: The infrastructure that delivers water to the nation's cities is badly aging and in need of repairs.

The Environmental Protection Agency says utilities will need to invest more than $277 billion over the next two decades on repairs and improvements to drinking water systems. Water industry engineers put the figure drastically higher, at about $480 billion.

Water utilities, largely managed by city governments, have never faced improvements of this magnitude before. And customers will have to bear the majority of the cost through rate increases, according to the American Water Works Association, an industry group.

Forget oil, water is our most important resource. Government and the media need to be all over this, yet it's an issue that doesn't even attract a bare minimum of attention.

Congestion Pricing Fails

Below is Bloomberg's statement:

“Today is a sad day for New Yorkers and a sad day for New York City. Not only won’t we see the realization of a plan that would have cut traffic, spurred our economy, reduced pollution and improved public health, we will also lose out on nearly $500 million annually for mass transit improvements and $354 million in immediate federal funds.

“I will be speaking with Secretary Peters and will express my thanks for her commitment to innovative solutions to real problems facing large cities today. I will also express my deep disappointment that, sadly, even Washington, which most Americans agree is completely dysfunctional, is more willing to try new approaches to longstanding problems than our elected officials in the State Assembly. It takes true leadership and courage to embrace new concepts and ideas and to be willing to try something. Unfortunately, both are lacking in the Assembly today.

“If that wasn’t shameful enough, it takes a special type of cowardice for elected officials to refuse to stand up and vote their conscience– on an issue that has been debated, and amended significantly to resolve many outstanding issues, for more than a year. Every New Yorker has a right to know if the person they send to Albany was for or against better transit and cleaner air. People know where I stood, and where members of the City Council stood. They deserved at least that from Albany.

“The idea for congestion pricing didn’t start in our Administration and it won’t end today. The $354 million we would have received from Washington tomorrow will go to another city in another state. But the problems congestion pricing could have helped solve are only going to get worse. And too many people from more than 170 environmental, labor, public health and business organizations recognize the merits of congestion pricing and hopefully someday, we will have more leaders in the Legislature who recognize it too.

“We will continue to push forward on the other 126 proposals in PlaNYC that will reduce our carbon footprint and green our City. We will move forward on proposals to plant 1 million trees, introduce hybrid taxis and install green roofs on City buildings. Congestion pricing is just one part of our ambitious agenda.

“I want to thank everyone who has worked tirelessly for congestion pricing and I want to acknowledge the courage and leadership that our partners in the City Council, Speaker Quinn, Governor Paterson, former Governor Spitzer, Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco and some in the Legislature have shown by working together to convince their colleagues to support congestion pricing. Together, we will continue to work to build a greener, greater New York City.”

Expected, but still disappointing.

More Tunnels for New York City

The NYT has an article on a proposal for new tunnels running under the Hudson river to connect NY and NJ. Money excerpt:

The ARC tunnels are part of a larger tableau of civil projects that include the construction of the Second Avenue subway and the East Side Access project that will bring L.I.R.R. trains to a station adjacent to Grand Central Terminal. Some pundits have compared these days of large-scale projects to when master builders like Robert Moses reshaped New York’s landscape with aplomb.

But many of these projects were designed decades ago, when New York’s existing bridges, tunnels and rail lines had already reached capacity. In that light, many transportation officials view the ARC project as an urgent necessity, not unlike the first tunnels that were designed so riders could avoid crossing the Hudson by ferry.

“We’re still living off the past in many ways, and we have to think big again,” said Rae Zimmerman, the director of the Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems at New York University. “But we also really have to keep up the level of service because these big projects can take 20 to 30 years to build.”

As more people want to move into an already dense urban space we need to build transportation systems so they can properly commute. Several of the city's subway lines are approaching full capacity and if there was an easier commute from elsewhere, it's a safe bet that people might decide to live in an area of NJ with good rail access.

Manhattan's Congestion Pricing Stalled

Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan passed a City Council vote a couple days ago, but now has to make it past the state government in Albany before it can be signed into law. As of now, things don't look good:

The plan to charge drivers $8 to enter Manhattan below 60th Street met with stiff resistance from Democrats in the State Assembly on Wednesday night, suggesting that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has a difficult path ahead of him to persuade lawmakers to pass the initiative.

Assembly Democrats, who were weighing in on the proposal for the first time since the City Council handed the mayor a major victory by approving it on Monday night, appeared to be leaning heavily against the plan.

I think congestion pricing is a wonderful idea (up there in awesomeness with salt water taffy). The funds collected from charging drivers will be used to maintain and build out new mass transit. First will be buses, which are easy to deploy, and then eventually new subway lines can be built.

Congestion pricing is an investment in mass transit, which comes at both a lower financial and carbon cost than automobiles. Mass transit also implies a certain level of population density, which comes with other benefits such as reduced sprawl.

Here's hoping the plan passes!

Infrastructure Definition

According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, infrastructure can be defined as:

1. the basic underlying framework or features of a system or organization.
2. the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area, as transportation and communications systems, power plants, and schools.
3. the military installations of a country.
   

For the purposes of this blog I would like to focus on the second definition, as the first is too broad while the third is too specific and a little off topic. Even after cutting those two out, the second definition is still really huge! It is, however, concise and to the point. I plan on using most of the posts on this blog to discuss:

• Transportation
• Communications
• Energy & Utilities
• Public Institutions
  

This represents an enormous range of topics. Have I bit off more than I can chew? Probably, so any contributions in the form of discussion or links to interesting things are much appreciated!

As an aside, I live in New York City, so don't be surprised if several posts are devoted to New York.

Hello!

This blog is dedicated to infrastructure.

More coming soon!