Unfortunately he can't mandate how states spend it. We may have rid ourselves of Republicans, but this country is still a republic.

Obama loves reality...as do I.

Exurbia must expand into Agraria.

The dying Urbs must be gutted, depopulated, abandoned.

Kent needs more highways.

Let's goooOOOOOBama!

http://you-read-it-here-first.com/viewto…

Well, duh. America is kind of large and shit like that. Any kind of mass transit option would be rolled away as local pork.

silly twits

of course it is roads, quick money into real jobs for sorely needed infrastructure

ALL state have a backlog of projects ready to go - Utah, 3.5 billion all designed and ready to construct, unfunded - these are just what Obama wants, jobs now

rich cities can build their own stuff - impose a tax on whine, whine, whine - designated for the future of walking and bycycles and push carts

If the bulk of this road and bridge construction is simply replacing structures that are on the verge of falling apart, of which there are millions throughout the country, I don't see a problem. Take the South Park Bridge, for instance; it's a hundred times more decrepit than the Viaduct, and the Governor is going to shut it down next year whether there's a replacement plan or not. It's absolutely essential for the survival of that neighborhood and the well-being of its residents. Good candidate.

If it's building Kemper Freeman's Cascades Foothills Highway, it's a disaster.

@5,

Given the political reality in this country, I'm very worried that it'll be more of the latter than the former.

Just keep pointing at Minneapolis. People understand Minneapolis.

A sad report.

Members of Congress and some officials with the incoming administration are moving toward legislation that gives states funds through existing formulas that provide little oversight

It's neither one or the other. They're going to allocate funding on the state level. Which is good if you like local control, and bad if you think the locals are even dumber and more corrupt than the feds. But either way, the battle isn't over. Obama is punting it to us instead of fighting it out in Washington and then shoving it down our throats.

I presume he's saving his ammo for healthcare.

So the question is, who do we contact to try and make sure oversight is going on and that transit gets a fair shake? Is it the federal government at the moment, or do we start with the states? Lets get going before it gets distributed.

Erica, are you freakin' retarded? Our infrastructure is falling apart. Doing something about it is a good thing. Other posters have already pointed out the sad, sad state of our nation's bridges. I'm all for putting bullet trains everywhere... but that is not something that is going to happen currently. Thankfully Obama isn't a Stranger staff member... you guys sound like the worst imbeciles in the Green Party.

@5, exactly. "infrastructure" does mean roads, but not necessarily NEW roads. i'm sure some will be built, and that will be unfortunate. but i don't think i'm overly optimistic in thinking that most of the money will go toward fixing existing roads and bridges that are badly in need of attention. plus, the term "shovel ready" has been operative in infrastructure discussions, which means things that are basically ready to go, with a quick turnaround to create jobs now. this is a recipe for tons of smaller projects rather than simply a few megaprojects that will take years to come to fruition.

@11 Wow. You know, there are several decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty.

do y'all read or think, or is it just a contest to see who can be more hysterical in their dislike of ECB?

if all they want to do is to repair roads, then why not call it A Roads Project? the issue she is trying to highlight isn't that repairing roads is bad, but that "building infrastructure" suggests that something more comprehensive.

she is noting that the spin and the language they are using may be BETTER than what we will actually be GETTING, if we don't pay attention. like calling a certain invasion "operation iraqi freedom", isn't fully accurate.

now you can get hysterical about my being confused about the important moral differences between wars and roads, because you will need to do something to obfuscate what has actually been said.

The infrastructure stimulus plan, first and foremost, is about creating jobs, now, and stimulating the economy, now. Building (or repairing) roads and bridges is a byproduct of the job creation and economy boost. At least it is more productive than throwing billions at the banks.

Because of the strong emphasis on a short term stimulus, they are seeking projects which can begin within the next few months.

Under years of republican control, the federal government has been far more willing to fund road projects than mass transit. For example, it was relatively easy to get federal dollars to expand I-90 and I-405, and we got very little to build light rail. Because of this, most states have more plans currently ready to go for roads than for light rail because they know they have been more likely to be able to get federal money for it.

Therefore, when Obama wants to fund projects that are ready to begin within the next few months, mostly he is getting road projects by default, because that is mostly what is currently on the planning schedule.

We might wish to get more federal money for our expansion of light rail that we just voted on, but that project won't break ground until 2010 at the earliest. Therefore it won't qualify for the current stimulus plan.

I think once the initial stimulus plan is over, it would be good to readdress our infrastructure priorities, and try to put more emphasis and incentives on transit and other greener transportation options. But I think that is a more long term issue. I'm not really alarmed that the short-term stimulus plan focuses largely on roads. It is a natural consequence of what the federal incentives have dictated for the last decade or so.

Rollerball!

today was the worst day of slog ever.

Buses run on... roads! Trains cross rivers by going over... bridges!

I must now conclude my lay
By telling the world fearlessly without the least dismay,
That your central girders would not have given way,
At least many sensible men do say,
Had they been supported on each side with buttresses,
At least many sensible men confesses,
For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed.

It is time for Seattle to have takes it's money from Metro and have it's own transit agency. Seattle money to pay for Seattle Transit!

Why not Llama ranches and roads made of kelp?

@18 wins.

@17, no thanks to you Mr. Poe

Won't someone think of the choidren!

It is true that many roads and bridges need repair/ replacement. It is also true that a lot of repair/ replacement projects have been designed and shelved for lack of money. It is not true that this is the quickest way to build jobs however.

Modest subsidies to existing mass transit services will allow them to purchase more buses/ trains, which will allow them to hire more drivers and increase the number of routes served - or allow increased frequency of service on existing routes. This will make mass transit more popular *now*, while additional lines/ routes/ services can be designed.

Roads are the most heavily subsidized means of travel in this country. We must take steps, even modest steps, to wean ourselves from the single vehicle obsession that grips this country.

I am not saying that required repairs/ replacements should be ignored - they, too, generate jobs [good ones] and are necessary for the public good. But as a former highway engineer, I can tell you that there are a LOT of small bridges that should be torn down instead of replaced and strips of highway that should be turned over to local control [and possible abandonment].

More important than mass transist is mass shipping. If the government would subsidize rail-shipping so that goods could be carried cheaper by train than by truck, it would save the general public an enormous amount of money in the long run. There is no logical reason for long-distance trucking - except that it is subsidized with highway money and therefor "cheaper". The amount of damage a single tractor-trailer does to the road is easily 5 times what it pays in taxes. If trucks were required to pay their fair share of road costs, or if shipping were equally subsidized, our roads and bridges would see so much less wear that they'd last for a hundred years longer than designed.

Dude, the money for transit is there, it's just the rules that make it impossible to get it funded from the federal side which discourages cities from trying to tackle building it.

Redo the cost-effectiveness ratio to be in-line with a city's needs, such as comparing savings against HOV rather than SOV for a city with HOV lanes and high carpooling rates (Seattle, SF, NYC, etc.).

When you can fix that, you can get a lot of transit projects off the ground.

We don't need to be giving hand-outs to transit-stupid cities like Austin or Kansas City. It shouldn't be made more difficult, of course, for them to get transit funded, but we shouldn't be handing over blank checks if they're going to be running infrequent exurban systems.

If a city includes a transit addition to the cost-effectiveness and viability of certain road projects, then the feds should stop cutting those out and pony up what it can. Otherwise, writing blank checks to some Sunbelt city that they'll squander is silly.

The New Deal caused tons of environmental damage. Was it worth it Golob?

Can you say 'Two Lane HOT'?

Hernandez is right, @18 wins.