A sobering article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. The premise is that we are underinvesting in our infrastructure to the point that it will make us uncompetitive. While it’s not apples-to-apples because we’re maintaining while the other countries are developing, here are the comparative levels of infrastructure as a percentage of GDP:
China: 9%
India: 3.5%
U.S.: 0.93%
Note that this is NOT a modal question – this is about roads, transit, water systems, sewer systems, etc. COMBINED. How to allocate it is a different question. The point here is are we investing at the right level?
20 responses to “Woeful Infrastructure Investment”
Chris Smith:
China: 9%
India: 3.5%
U.S.: 0.93%
…..The point here is are we investing at the right level?
Bob T:
Hmmmm….don’t the figures for China and (to a lesser extent) India reflect the fact that they are playing catch-up and that therefore these shares of GDP will be much higher than ours?
Of course.
But do you know any private enterprise that budgets less than 1% annually for capital maintenance and replacement?
Not that I’m disagreeing that we need to spend more on our infrastructure, but certainly another thing to consider is the fact that 9% of China’s GDP is about the same amount (in dollars) as .93% of US’s… And while labor is cheaper in China, (they use people to carry telephone poles,) a lot of things, (copper, or steel, or concrete,) are about the same price all over the world…
Cost of Iraq War: $424 Billion.
Other ways that amount of money could have been spent on infrastructure (or not spent at all in order to balance the budget):
800+ light rail starter lines at $500 million each, or 400+ complex light rail lines with portions of tunnel, grade separation, etc. (Up to 16 light rail lines in each state.)
4,200+ circulator streetcar systems at $100m each.
12 million “free” electric commuter cars ($35,000 each) given to urban, solo-commuting households — would completely free us of dependence on middle-east oil imports.
Between 2,000-8,000 freeway lane miles, depending on location conditions and construction style.
7,438 custom aerial trams. :-)
400,000+ articulated hybrid BRT-style buses. Or, 17,000+ starter “BRT” systems like the one in Eugene/Springfield, including road work and buses.
200+ double-tracked miles of automated, fully underground subway in dense urban areas like Manhattan, many more miles in less dense areas.
5,000+ miles of inter-city maglev (270+ miles per hour), or 15,000+ miles of conventional electrified semi-high-speed (80mph+) rail.
And so on…
– Bob R.
And to add: How many solar power plants, storm sewer upgrades, school buildings, emergency communications systems, flood control levies, etc?
– Bob R.
According to the report:
http://www.uli.org/reports/i18
…even Australia spends at least 3.6% of their GDP on Infrastructure. Japan has traditionally used 10% of government spending for infrastructure, and shows no signs of slowing down.
Clearly, the U.S. is far behind, and the report makes this extremely clear.
Yes, China is a developing nation, and the U.S. is a developed nation.
But, when compared with Japan and Europe, the U.S. actually has infrastructure more along the lines of a developing nation. That is, our nation *is* growing rapidly, at least in the West (Texas, Phoenix/Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada (Las Vegas), etc. And further, we have not spent the cash to build the sorts of modern infrastructure (high speed rail, for instance) that other “developed” countries have had for decades, and continue to invest in.
Clearly, the U.S. needs to stop spending so much on these useless military excursions, and start spending more on US. Our own country. Our own infrastructure needs. The tyrants need to stop playing at empire and start just doing a good job of running the country, like the democracy that it’s supposed to be, not the tyranny that it was founded to escape from.
Chris Smith: Of course.
But do you know any private enterprise that budgets less than 1% annually for capital maintenance and replacement?
Bob T: Well, while 0.93% is low as
a percentage, all that tells me is that
there’s 99.07% that’s mostly waste. Can’t
always go by the percentage. We’re still
spending a heckuva lot of money on
infrastructure regardless of what percentage
it is.
Bob Tiernan
Well, while 0.93% is low as
a percentage, all that tells me is that
there’s 99.07% that’s mostly waste.
Bob Tiernan, do you really think that 99.07% of the Gross Domestic Product of the United States of America is “mostly waste”?
– Bob R.
Let’s look at TriMet.
2/3rds of its passengers use the bus system.
TriMet’s investment in its bus capital program is actually in the red, because it is spending several times more on the rail system.
The good news is that MAX trains don’t derail often. The bad news is, too bad if your bus was written up and didn’t leave the garage in the morning.
As for highways – on a federal basis some 20% of highway funds are stripped out and put in the mass transit account. That’s 20% – roughly $8-10B a year – that isn’t going to highways, but is paying for things like light rail and (in every city but Portland) busses and (in Portland only) streetcars.
On a local level, we’re more concerned with seldom used bike routes and “art” rather than functional facilities – that 1% of every major project has to go towards “art”. Those of you that ride MAX know it as “what is that weird thing on the platform?”. That is, if you notice it at all.
We have cities that aspire to build new parks – at the same time they lay off parks maintenance personnel, and cut back on landscaping – as was demonstrated when Salem opened their Riverfront Park, while nearly every other park was full of dead grass and weeds.
Our public school system is so enamored in athletic programs that the basic educational system is left to suffer. We have nice athletic fields, but classrooms have poor HVAC systems and peeling paint (hope there’s no lead in that paint.) We’re so obsessed with the idea that technology will make everything better, but I wouldn’t recommend recycling old Commodore 64s at one of those home-recycling stores for use as roofing material in a police station to keep it from leaking.
2/3rds of its passengers use the bus system.
I think it may be more accurate to say that 2/3’s of boarding rides are carried by buses. The ratio of how many distinct persons utilize bus and or max each day is not necessarily the same.
– Bob R.
I think it may be more accurate to say that 2/3’s of boarding rides are carried by buses.
You can spin it whatever way you want, but the point is that the majority of rides/boardings/passengers/total fare revenue is on BUSSES.
According to TriMet’s 2006 fiscal report (on the Oregon Secretary of State’s website), something along the lines of 10% of TriMet’s capital funds went to the bus network. 90% went to MAX.
It doesn’t matter if someone took both a MAX and bus ride or is bus only – if a passenger touches the bus network (which the average TriMet customer does), they suffer from TriMet’s lack of investment in the bus system. Pretty bus stop signs don’t mean anything if the bus never shows up, or is broke, or passes the stop by because TriMet can’t match capacity with demand.
Erik, what is your point? (Besides being angry.)
You can look at say, the operating budget for MAX vs buses, and note that even though 1/3rd of the boarding riders ride the MAX, TriMet is only spending 11% of the operating budget running it, and come to the conclusion that they aren’t running trains often enough*. Or look at the maintenance budget, which is indeed 1/3rds 2/3rds, but if you look at look at passenger miles instead of boarding rides, the split it 58% bus vs 42% MAX. It just depends upon how you look at the numbers and what numbers you look at.
In any case, they are in the middle of building a big new light rail line, so of course they are spending a lot of the capital budget on it.
*I was waiting at the station for a MAX train today downtown at 5pm, when one stopped but nobody got on because it was too full. (But I seemed to have made it to my destination anyways, it might have been because the one a whole 3 minutes behind it was mostly empty. :-)
That I’m tired of being given the shaft because I have to ride a bus?
That I’m tired of having poor quality bus service, and that TriMet doesn’t give a damn?
That TriMet has no problem taking my money, but when it comes to providing a service to me, I’m treated as a second-class citizen?
I don’t care that TriMet is in the middle of a MAX expansion. TriMet NEEDS to be in the middle of a bus fleet renewal program, a program that Fred Hansen put a stop to.
King County Metro (a bus only transit system) is having massive ridership gains. It’s heavily invested in its bus fleet. TriMet isn’t, and isn’t.
Erik,
Whatever your admiration for King County, their ridership level is still below the Portland Metro region.
I has become really clear to me after reading your posts why TriMet does not respond to you.
My suggestion is that you consider a change in tactics. Anger isn’t pretty and it isn’t working- although it may feel good (I don’t know).
My suggestion is that you consider a change in tactics. Anger isn’t pretty and it isn’t working- although it may feel good (I don’t know).
OK.
An Open Letter to TriMet:
I’m sorry that I have been downright rude and insensitive to your needs.
That I feel offended at the poor transit service that is available to me, I shouldn’t feel angry at it.
Instead, I will focus my efforts on supporting TriMet, no matter how the service is.
If my bus is 20 minutes late, I’ll understand.
If my bus breaks down enroute, that’s a call for more MAX service.
If I can’t buy a ticket at a MAX ticket vending machine, I know that I can’t legally ride MAX – so I’ll just decide not to go anywhere for the day and help reduce congestion.
If I am late to work, and my employer has a major outage, I’ll not blame TriMet for it. I’ll blame myself – after all, I could have arrived at work 12 hours early (the day before).
And when TriMet wants to build more MAX lines, that’s OK. Anything TriMet wants, they can have. I’ll gladly vote for anything TriMet wants. And even if that involves TriMet condemning my property, or reducing my transit availability, or routing me somewhere that makes my trip 20 minutes longer – that’s OK. I’ll just bring my nonexistant laptop computer, with my nonexistant WiFi service, and try to use the computer in the very limited standing area that is available to me.
I understand that TriMet has many priorities with its limited funding, that sometimes sacrifices must be made. I understand that busses are, well, undesirable. Nobody wants to ride a bus. They smell, are dirty, and only losers, drunks, and people that wear shirts that say “muffdiving” and have sexually explicit pictures on them ride the bus. (true story from today, in case someone doesn’t see through my sarcasm.)
I’ll accept the fact that maybe I don’t need to go anywhere. It’s OK that I have a family to support, but I can’t afford to live in an expensive transit oriented development that is being supported, but that’s OK. Because that’s for the betterment of us all. I’ll sacrifice my quality of life so that others can live as they wish.
In closing, I’m sorry that I have personally offended Fred Hansen. He’s a good guy, who just is looking out for all of us. I know he cares about how I get to work, to recreation, and other places that I need to. I know that although my service has been cut several times, and now that my bus stop is being moved for the third time downtown, that he understands my concerns. And I’m sorry that I don’t understand that. I will consider taking anger management classes, if that will help TriMet become a better transit agency. Because I wouldn’t want to offend anyone.
Sincerely,
Erik Halstead
Former TriMet and transit critic, now a reborn TriMet enthusiast.
P.S. Please send me an application for employment, as I would love to become a part time employee with no benefits, after my current employer terminates me for attendance.
TriMet just needs to be eliminated, along with Metro, the PDC and the freaking UGB! Time for a revolution in Oregon.
TriMet just needs to be eliminated, along with Metro, the PDC and the freaking UGB! Time for a revolution in Oregon.
You should try a ballot initiative (or perhaps one for each)… judging by the many anti-Metro and anti-TriMet comments here, you’ll easily get a majority of the vote, right? (If not, perhaps your revolution wouldn’t garner much popular support.)
Incidentally, there is a vote to change how PDC’s budget receives oversight on the current ballot – any opinions from you on that?
Best wishes,
Bob R.
“Incidentally, there is a vote to change how PDC’s budget receives oversight on the current ballot – any opinions from you on that?”
Yeah, I voted to change it. I actually voted YES on all the initiatives for making changes in the city government. Ideally a total privatization of all these agencies would be nice but that’s asking for way too much in this socialist-leaning state and City. Despite what City of Portland says, it is not a very business friendly environment. Just look how many LARGE companies have packed up and moved outside of Portland the last few years – Columbia Sportswear, North Pacific Group, among others. Even the much touted Solar Works company is moving to Hillsboro, not Portland. What’s Portland going to look like in 20 years? I think it’s just going to be an overpriced slum bedroom community to the suburbs. All the major employers in the suburbs and everyone living in the central city? That doesn’t make sense, does it?
“Incidentally, there is a vote to change how PDC’s budget receives oversight on the current ballot – any opinions from you on that?”
Yeah, I voted to change it. I actually voted YES on all the initiatives for making changes in the city government. Ideally a total privatization of all these agencies would be nice but that’s asking for way too much in this socialist-leaning state and City.”
Oh the irony.
You’re funny Greg! Are you aware that by voting yes on this measure you actually voted for the opposite of privatization but instead voted for MORE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION AND INFLUENCE over the PDC thereby making it that much more of a “socialist leaning city?”
oops.
I actually voted YES on all the initiatives for making changes in the city government.
I take that to mean you voted yes for the “strong mayor” proposal? If so, you’re in good company, as B!x has thoroughly reported:
and:
– Bob R.