Obama's first step to changing the economy

[GoodGame]

from http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-12-13-obama-transportation_N.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) — When President-elect Barack Obama says he wants to get the economy moving again, he means it quite literally.
Transportation will play a central role in Obama's first months in office, not just for policy changes aimed at improving highway, air and rail travel, but as a road toward economic recovery, energy independence and environmental protection.

Solve road congestion, Obama's reasoning goes, and you put people to work.

Use less gasoline and help clean the air.

Build better trains and move goods more efficiently.

We will create millions of jobs," he said recently, "by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s."

Sounds like Obama will be trying to kill two birds with one stone initially---reduce un-employment via jobs created by a combination of national transportation projects/initatives with the aim of reducing oil usage.

Will this simply mean more rails and electrical-based mass transit? Overhaul of the national bridges?

Will the funding come from increasing the gas tax, however?

What do you think?

 

[luiz]

"To govern is to build roads" - brazilian politician of the 40's.

Not a very orginal idea.

 

[GoodGame]

Original or not, do you think it will be an effective strategy to fighting recession---make-work based, energy saving, mass transit projects--- or is this purely feel-good spin?

 

[Grimz101]

The problem is many of these things will require planning, there will be a delay for construction to start, and workers will got get paid till construction starts, which may be when America is coming out of the recession..
National projects always take long in Britain, i shall assume the same is true in the USA?

 

[Princeps]

"To govern is to build roads" - brazilian politician of the 40's.

Not a very orginal idea.

It's kind of orginial idea in American politics.

 

[Mise]

Didn't the Japanese invest billions in useless infrastructure projects such as this a decade ago? And didn't it fail?

That said, Japan is different -- they're a small, compact island, so already had really good infrastructure and communications. The USA is vast and mostly empty, so perhaps infrastructure is a good idea? I don't know, I'm not American so I really can't say whether it's needed or not.

I do know, however, that clean, efficient mass transit in densely populated areas is exactly what businesses are calling for, in London in particular. So maybe it might help in certain American cities.

 

[luiz]

Original or not, do you think it will be an effective strategy to fighting recession---make-work based, energy saving, mass transit projects--- or is this purely feel-good spin?

The first notion that needs to be abandoned is that the US actually can have a mass transit system as comprehensive as those in Europe or Japan - it can't, because of the way the population is distributed. Sure, the likes of NYC, Chicago and DC can (and frequently do) have a big mass transit system, but suburbia doesn't and won't.

That said, if he is determined to pursue a fiscal exit to this crisis, than I'd agree that infra-structure investments are better than short-term measures to boost consumption, like an extension of unemployement benefits or a tax rebate (the correct way to cut taxes as part of a short-term fiscal stimulus is to reduce them permanently, so that the people know that it is not a one time deal and actually go and use the money).

 

[luiz]

Didn't the Japanese invest billions in useless infrastructure projects such as this a decade ago? And didn't it fail?

The great thing about crisis like this is that they prove, once again, that you can't get out of crisis just by throwing money everywhere. Luiz's bold prediction: the multiplier of Obama's fiscal stimulus will be very close to 1, possibly even below that.

 

[ArneHD]

Infrastructure is always useful.

 

[Cutlass]

Didn't the Japanese invest billions in useless infrastructure projects such as this a decade ago? And didn't it fail?

That said, Japan is different -- they're a small, compact island, so already had really good infrastructure and communications. The USA is vast and mostly empty, so perhaps infrastructure is a good idea? I don't know, I'm not American so I really can't say whether it's needed or not.

I do know, however, that clean, efficient mass transit in densely populated areas is exactly what businesses are calling for, in London in particular. So maybe it might help in certain American cities.

US infrastructure is in poor condition in many places, and much of it underdeveloped.

And there are plans already drawn up and ready to go in many cases. Lack of funding has stopped many projects that the states have already made plans for.

 

[vhhawk]

Infrastructure is always useful.

US infrastructure is in poor condition in many places, and much of it underdeveloped.

Our infrastructure is appalling, but much of it has to do with maintenance. Anybody who has ever owned a house knows you can't just build a house and never maintain it. Yet that's the way we treat our bridges, at least around here in Oklahoma City. The expansion seams fill with dirt and are never cleaned out. The stormwater drains get clogged and never get cleaned out. In about a hundred years we've become a nation who does not clean. I don't know how that happened.

Well, I didn't multipost to disagree with the above two posts, but to point out that we need more than just new stuff. We need a commitment to take care of what we have. It's amazing how long things will last with a little TLC. As for whether Obama's right or wrong, well, the right or wrong is going to be in the details. It could wind up being more economic waste, or it could be an engineer's dream. For a Democrat, he's making it sound pretty good to this old curmudgeon.

 

[Gooblah]

The problem is many of these things will require planning, there will be a delay for construction to start, and workers will got get paid till construction starts, which may be when America is coming out of the recession..
National projects always take long in Britain, i shall assume the same is true in the USA?

Well, it depends. The National Highway System took a relatively short time to complete (a decade?), and took that long because many major cities had 'Freeway Riots' due to people not wanting the gov't to exercise eminent domain, take their property, destroy it, then add a freeway there.

On the other hand, the Big Dig in Boston just got finished (all the major highways in the city are now underground), but spiraled out of cost estimates, construction accidents, and corruption.

 

[Cutlass]

Well, it depends. The National Highway System took a relatively short time to complete (a decade?), and took that long because many major cities had 'Freeway Riots' due to people not wanting the gov't to exercise eminent domain, take their property, destroy it, then add a freeway there.

On the other hand, the Big Dig in Boston just got finished (all the major highways in the city are now underground), but spiraled out of cost estimates, construction accidents, and corruption.

That's often a problem of poor oversight. Letting the private sector police itself too much combined with not holding them accountable for later problems. Sometimes there are just unforeseen problems. Sometimes it's just poor planning. And sometimes it's just shoddy work by companies that know they can get away with crap.

 

[MobBoss]

It's kind of orginial idea in American politics.

Nope. We went through this phase decades ago.

 

[Gooblah]

Nope. We went through this phase decades ago.

If not centuries. The railroad boom post-Civil War, the Federal Highway System (built for Cold War purposes, right?), and similar urban projects. It's just been a few years since the last national proposal that people are talking about.

 

[MobBoss]

If not centuries. The railroad boom post-Civil War, the Federal Highway System (built for Cold War purposes, right?), and similar urban projects. It's just been a few years since the last national proposal that people are talking about.

I was referring to our interstate highway systems that were built throughout the 60s and 70s. When I was a kid in eastern Arkansas, they built the 4 lane Highway 67 that went through my home town and connected Little Rock with Memphis. Took a really long time to build.

 

[Grimz101]

Does anyone know the time required to plan these big infrastructure projects?
Are they not useless if construction starts after America comes out of recession..

 

[Cutlass]

Does anyone know the time required to plan these big infrastructure projects?
Are they not useless is construction starts after America comes out of recession..

There's a lot of variation. There are many projects already planned, just waiting approval. New planning depends on locations. When the railroads and highways were first built, it was mostly open land. So easier to plan on. Now more things are going in already built up areas. That's one of the key variables slowing things down.

 

[Merkinball]

Letting the private sector police itself - Cutlass

I think its hilarious that you tried to turn the big dig, or any state financed construction gigs, as a private sector problem.

 

[Gooblah]

I was referring to our interstate highway systems that were built throughout the 60s and 70s. When I was a kid in eastern Arkansas, they built the 4 lane Highway 67 that went through my home town and connected Little Rock with Memphis. Took a really long time to build.

ah, never mind.