A blog post over at the Oregon Environmental Council makes the case that fixing our existing roads and bridges will generate more jobs than building new roads or lanes.
A blog post over at the Oregon Environmental Council makes the case that fixing our existing roads and bridges will generate more jobs than building new roads or lanes.
20 responses to “Fix it First Generates More Jobs?”
Job creation should not even be considered.
We need to plan for the future, whollistically.
What is most needed, what is best for a future with differing energy costs and supplies, what is best for providing flexibility, choice, energy independence, environmental stewardship, and human well being?
If we can create jobs in the process that is nice, but jobs should not be considered in what we do. We don’t want the products that simply provide the most jobs. If that is the case, just tear up and rebuild what we have over and over… That would provide jobs but would solve no transportation problems…
(The other part of the post is that transit project generate more jobs than highway projects…)
If we can create jobs in the process that is nice, but jobs should not be considered in what we do. We don’t want the products that simply provide the most jobs.
WTF?
“Job creation should not even be considered.
We need to plan for the future, whollistically.”
Care to clarify? Those sentences are diametrically opposed to each other. How can we plan in a comprehensive way if we categorically reject job creation as a valid outcome?
As for the rest of your comment, nobody is saying that job creation should be the ONLY goal. The point of the post is that job creation is more important now with the economy tanking than it was a few years ago. And that infrastructure projects, which were needed anyway, can create jobs. Certain types more than others.
Construction Job Creation is unrelated to a transportation project’s merit.
Whether the project creates 100 jobs or 1000 jobs should not be part of the criteria for project evaluation.
Would a 1000 job project which sucks be better than a 100 job project which could provide benefits for decades?
Let me clarify my statements, I was typing on my phone before and they were too short.
Job creation should not be considered as part of transportation project evaluation. We should be holistically planning for transportation needs in the future.
Perhaps if all other factors are 100% equal, then we could look at the number of jobs it will take to make it happen. But when was the last time that projects were 100% equal?
As far as transportation goes, job creation is a nice (albeit temporary) side effect. But we need to focus on transportation for the long term otherwise the more permanent jobs will go away.
I would hate to see that because we are in a tough economy that we simply do things wrong because it looks good. Getting more people credit doesn’t solve the credit crunch. Getting more people jobs building transportation infrastructure that costs more money in the long run won’t save the economy.
Our current highways and roads are prohibitively expensive to maintain. Any short term gain from highway construction is easily used up with long term costs.
We need to plan for a future where we are not dependent on one energy source, on one mode of transportation, or on one funding mechanism.
So to sum myself up – I just don’t want “job creation” to be a sacred cow. A mantra repeated as we rape and pillage or children’s future.
“The economy” is part of a bigger whole, and cannot be the only consideration when making decisions.
ValkRaider –
I think there is a middle ground here… look at it this way:
Given that there are way more proposed projects out there than funding, there will situations where we must choose between two very good transportation projects. Given a choice between two projects which fulfill a particular identified need, it makes sense to then look at other factors such as short-term job creation when deciding which project gets the green light.
Matthew wrote: The other part of the post is that transit project generate more jobs than highway projects
To build a highway the same skill-set worker can bulldoze the grade, pour down the base, pour down asphalt, install landscaping and signage…so you don’t need as many people.
To build a light rail line, you need a rail building crew, an electrical crew, a signal crew, general construction crew for building stations, the parking lot contractors, and a crew to build the light rail cars.
After construction, the highway crew will continue to have work with general maintenance of the roadway, while all of the light rail contractors will be out of work while the transit operating agency will have to hire a whole new set of people to operate the trains, maintain the track and a separate crew to maintain the trains.
When you look at intra-agency efficiencies, ODOT can – and does – use the same highway crews to maintain a two-lane road as a six-lane freeway.
TriMet has one set of employees for light rail, and another set for bus. And they do not cross paths – you are one or the other, as if they are really two separate companies or agencies.
So, yes, a transit project has a greater quantity of jobs, but very few of those jobs are sustaining jobs.
So to sum myself up – I just don’t want “job creation” to be a sacred cow. A mantra repeated as we rape and pillage or children’s future.
I don’t mean to be disrespectful,
BUT THAT IS BASURA!
Erik H:
TriMet has one set of employees for light rail, and another set for bus. And they do not cross paths – you are one or the other, as if they are really two separate companies or agencies.
If you’re referring just to maintenance, you could make a case for this because the equipment is very different. It’s not true as a general statement, because employees move back and forth from bus to rail.
So, yes, a transit project has a greater quantity of jobs, but very few of those jobs are sustaining jobs.
There are far more people put to work after a light rail project is in place than ever work on a highway after it is built. Maintenance of equipment and right of way is a constant project, yet highways go years without any maintenance at all. The rail jobs aren’t the same skill set that built the system, but the jobs have been created and they persist. The people who built light rail? They don’t ever seem to be out of work, but move on to other projects.
JOBS=AMERICA
Not CEO’s,
Not Kellog Brown and Root,
Not Halliburton,
Not Blackwater,
Not the entire savings an loan farce which bails out people making money off other peoples money and produces
NOTHING,NADA,?????,NIC,???,?? ????,????!!!!!!
With some individual exceptions, I would agree maintenance and repair of existing infrastructure would put people to work faster and needs to come first – before super-sizing sidewalks such as was done on NE 102nd at a cost $5.2m, before building any new specialized bicycle infrastructure, before any new transit infrastructure such as streetcars, before couplets are considered, etc. Then when the backlog of street maintenance and bridge repair is for the most part eliminated, the discussion needs to center around which infrastructure projects offer continued financial self-sustainability paid for by the users without reoccurring debt that historically has been subsidized by non-users.
For example, in addition to paying for road and bridge infrastructure with fuel taxes, license and registration fees, motorists are also continually bailing out bicyclists because the bicycling mode of transport has yet to be directly taxed. Sam Adams is requesting $24m in bailout dollars from the Federal Government to pay for bicycle infrastructure. Before he even receives a single penny, congress should require he develop a credible long range plan for financial self-sustainability whereby bicyclists are directly taxed to pay any local match monies required, to pay for the maintenance of any bicycle infrastructure constructed, and to return that $24m back into the taxpayer coffers as if it were a loan.
The same premise must apply with requests for bailout dollars to pay for transit infrastructure. Instead of expecting taxpayers, motorists and parking meter revenues to subsidize an increasing ongoing debt for transit operations, a fare structure needs to be developed whereby transit passengers, including on streetcars, cover the entire costs of operations instead of just 21 percent. Furthermore, fares should also be required to help pay any local match dollars for transit infrastructure projects in addition to returning money to federal coffers for future projects similar to the way Federal gas tax dollars pump money into the Federal Highway Trust Fund.
The continuing ongoing debt of paying for bicycle infrastructure, transit operations and infrastructure by non-user taxpayers must not be continually passed on to the next and future generations. The freeloading pedal pushers and transit passenger that cover just over one-fifth of the costs of their ride must start paying their own way instead of poaching from and expecting other people to subsidize their lifestyles.
Terry Parker Says:
Sam Adams is requesting $24m in bailout dollars from the Federal Government to pay for bicycle infrastructure.
Actually, Sam Adams has requested $847 million for eight major projects repairing streets, bridges, sewers, water supply and housing for veterans, among others. You appear to have missed that.
The freeloading pedal pushers and transit passenger that cover just over one-fifth of the costs of their ride must start paying their own way instead of poaching from and expecting other people to subsidize their lifestyles.
That would be right after we all got paid back by the railroad companies, airlines and oil companies that have gotten a free ride over the years.
First off… yeah, we absolutely need to spend on infrastructure and especially transit and road infrastructure. More than anything we need to spend on existing infrastructure and make sure it doesn’t fall apart on us.
I agree, yes, yes, yes, and yes.
However, job creation should NOT be a primary ideal behind this. It is massive folly in an economic sense to consider this. The Government (unless we start doing it differently) does NOT accurately plan, operate, build to demand, or otherwise handle the infrastructure in a way that creates economically sustainable jobs.
Jobs for these projects come, and then they go. Maintenance jobs are a small, VERY SMALL, fraction of the jobs it takes to build out a highway or transit system. The fact is, many of these people will end up out of work when the Government fails to appropriately handle or budget for maintenance or has to cut budgets to mitigate shortfalls or other things of that nature.
Overall, infrastructure jobs are NOT and should NOT be considered economically sustainable, being that in fact they are not.
I will however also admit, there is no single job that is truly economically sustainable as the economy changes all the time. Infrastructure though, is one of the least sustainable under our current model and need in the mixed mode (not free) market system we have.
To use job creation as a criteria is folly, and will only cause us more harm than good over the long term.
JOBS=AMERICA
I disagree. Politely of course.
Liberty, Freedom, and the pursuit of happiness are American ideals. These things are what makes America what it is.
Jobs should stand for “Just Over Broke”. Jobs equate to paid servitude. One has to free themselves of working a “job” to truly know the ideal of America.
One has to become independent, run their own business, invest, or otherwise become self sufficient and be able to step away from owing someone (or some corporation or Governmental department) a days worth of work and instead freely interact and work with other Americans to do business and live life.
That is what made America great, the ability to do this. To rise above the rat race.
Jobs are what trade pacts, kings and queens, and the proletariat gives someone. America gives people the choice, it’s what we bled ourselves for in revolution after revolution and battle after battle.
…we have to be careful not to confuse this ideal. Japan promises jobs, but I don’t want to live there. The USSR promised jobs, but I definitely don’t want to live there.
Whenever America has taken this ideal, and independent people move forward, we have the best rates of employment with jobs in the world. To attain this though, we need not artificially associate jobs with what the country, specially the Government, is supposed to provide.
Just a point of philosophical reference on history. :)
Adron Says:
However, job creation should NOT be a primary ideal behind this. It is massive folly in an economic sense to consider this. The Government (unless we start doing it differently) does NOT accurately plan, operate, build to demand, or otherwise handle the infrastructure in a way that creates economically sustainable jobs.
Doing it differently is the key. Take some time to read up on the New Deal with particular attention to the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Work Projects Administration, Public Works Administration and the TVA. You could do your reading while sitting in a comfy chair up at Timberline Lodge.
And I disagree with your premise completely. Jobs are what people do to put bread on the table and a roof over their heads. There is nothing ignoble or demeaning about a job.
Liberty, Freedom, and the pursuit of happiness are American ideals.
~~>If you don’t have a job and $$$ you have no
LIBERTY,
FREEDOM,
and are unable to pursue much happiness.
One has to become independent, run their own business, invest, or otherwise become self sufficient and be able to step away from owing someone
~~>That’s a very nice ideal, and unatainable for most Americans. However it does sound very good. As a matter of fact Adron, you may want to consider publishing American History books, since they love to perpetuate this sort of ‘myth’. I’ve owned several small businesses, to be honest, I’d rather drive a bus with health care, sick time, vacation time, and even some small money when I am old and decrepit.
Not too many people make it as Bill “the modern day robber barron” Gates has.
These myths are important for Americans.
Sorta like the “Columbus discovered America” myth. (You see there were actually no people here already, cause they weren’t really people)
And the “Thanksgiving” day myth, where all the lovely natives and settlers had one big old lovely time together. Of course they forgot to tell the rest of the tale, like the whole tribe that had participated in that “feast” was wiped out 50 years later and the head of son of Massasoit, (chief of the tribe) was put on a pole and displayed proudly for 10 years proclaiming something to the effect, WE HAVE DEFEATED OUR MORTAL ENEMIES, HERE IS THE HEAD OF THEIR CHIEF.
But the myths are good, gotta keep people believing in something.
Referring to my previous post “The freeloading pedal pushers and transit passenger that cover just over one-fifth of the costs of their ride must start paying their own way instead of poaching from and expecting other people to subsidize their lifestyles.” – Jeff F said: “That would be right after we all got paid back by the railroad companies, airlines and oil companies that have gotten a free ride over the years.”
Jeff indirectly pointed out that while there are other modes of transport do not pay back taxpayers for infrastructure costs (and motorists do through fuel taxes, license and registration fees); motorists are therefore the targets of politically motivated tax discrimination.
Jeff F also said: “Actually, Sam Adams has requested $847 million for eight major projects repairing streets, bridges, sewers, water supply and housing for veterans, among others. You appear to have missed that.”
Although I have not seen a specific list of projects; no, I did not miss the fact Sam was once again proposing an expensive spending spree of public dollars that undoubtedly includes frivolous spending on some of his own misaligned priorities. In focusing on the $24M requested for bicycle infrastructure, I was also pointing out that somewhat more money than just for a little paint for bicycle lanes was being requested, that there is an expensive fiscal cost to providing bicycle infrastructure, and that bicyclists are basically irresponsible when comes to paying their own way and expecting somebody other than themselves to pay for bicycle infrastructure.
Terry, you really should do some reading on the request rather than assume it’s “frivolous”.
This is from the Oregonian: The Portland City Council drafted a list of $847 million in projects that could be started in the next 18 months and generate 8,800 jobs. The projects include $428 million for replacement of century-old water reservoirs, $75 million for a Portland Streetcar eastside extension, $65 million in street paving, $22 million in bridge repairs, and $19 million for an emergency coordination center.
$847 million in projects and you’re obsessing about bicycles.
“$75 million for a Portland Streetcar eastside extension” equals frivolous spending if not reimbursed by the streetcar users. The Burnside Couplet, if included, would also fall in the column of pork barrel frivolous spending, and there are probably other examples too. When I said “I did not miss the fact Sam was once again proposing an expensive spending spree of public dollars that undoubtedly includes frivolous spending on some of his own misaligned priorities”; I did not state that all the proposed spending or projects were frivolous
Here’s the problem with using transportation projects as “job creation” projects.
Those jobs are TEMPORARY.
Once the construction is over, very, very few of those jobs – if any – translate into permanent, sustainable jobs.
How many of the folks who are working today to build the MAX Green Line will be offered jobs with TriMet in O&M?
How many of the folks who built the Portland Aerial Tram still have jobs with the Tram?
How many of the folks who worked on the various Portland Streetcar projects work for the City of Portland in the Streetcar operations?
You end up with a vicious cycle…unless there’s some type of a building boom where those guys can find work nearby, you’re stuck with having to create “more” “new” jobs over, and over, and over again.
A better solution is to encourage industry to take advantage of the people and resources here in Portland and create long lasting, permanent jobs. Portland has a major airport with extensive cargo operations. Portland has four mainline railroads leading out of here. Portland has access to deep-draft waterways and trans-Pacific steamship lines. Portland has extensive telecommunications network access.
And we’re still stuck on attracting “sportswear” companies (which don’t make a damn thing here in Portland, they outsource their manufacturing to companies in southeast Asia), “green energy” companies (little of which is manufactured here, and many of those companies are based in Europe and send their profits overseas)…when we should be encouraging…say…Daimler Trucks to land a Orion Bus manufacturing plant here, Toyota to land a Prius manufacturing plant here – both of whom would employ thousands of people in long lasting, sustainable jobs that don’t expire in three years.