Chart of the Day – Exposing the intersection of obesity and poor infrastructure design/spending in the U.S.

August 8, 2016 at 6:36 pm

This chart, via Jennifer Keesmaat, shows the important nexus between the infrastructure design and public health.. As evident from the chart, when it comes to building healthy communities the United States has a long way to go in catching up with their counterparts and the huge (no pun intended) disparity in % of obese people shows how unhealthy we are as a nation.

Health implications of city design: more walking, cycling and transit means less obesity + chronic disease (via @jen_keesmaat on Twitter)

Spurred by this tweet, I went looking for data on healthcare spending in the US vs. other OECD countries. Sigh! The chart below shows how much we spend on health compared to other countries (slightly older data).  If we spent a few billion dollars on building more walking/biking/transit infrastructure instead of building more highways and encouraged more people to walk/bike/ride transit, may be we don’t have to incur such an expensive medical bills after all.  Despite all the evidence, our lawmakers seems to be favoring the highway lobbies (and the optics of ribbon cutting for new highways) but talk endlessly about healthcare spending every election cycle!

U.S health spending vs. other countries

Here is a snapshot of the US health spending, according to the OECD:

  • Health expenditure per capita: $8,713
  • Expenditure as a pct. of GDP: 16.4%
  •  Obesity rate: 35.3%
  • Life expectancy: 78.8 yrs

“Health spending in the United States (excluding investment expenditure in the health sector) was 16.4% of GDP in 2013, well above the OECD average of 8.9% and the next highest spenders – the Netherlands (11.1%), Switzerland (11.1%) and Sweden (11.0%). The share of GDP spent on healthcare has remained unchanged since 2009 and health spending growth has matched economic growth. The share of government spending in the United States as a share of total spending on health has increased from around 44% in 2000 to above 48% by 2013. Over this period there has been an increase in health coverage for the population – in 2006, Medicare Part D, a voluntary drug benefit programme for seniors and certain disabled persons was introduced.

U.S. Surface Transportation Re-authorization Bill – Update as of July 6, 2011

July 6, 2011 at 6:26 pm

Update via ITS America

House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., will introduce the committee’s multi-year surface transportation reauthorization proposal tomorrow — Thursday, July 7, at 11 a.m. Eastern time. According to Chairman Mica, the bill will not only reauthorize and reform the nation’s federal highway, transit and highway safety programs, but will also make significant improvements to passenger and freight rail programs and maritime transportation policy. “This fiscally responsible, multi-modal initiative would streamline federal programs, cut red tape, better leverage our federal resources, make wise investments in our infrastructure and create needed jobs for Americans,” according to the Chairman. The rollout event is scheduled to last approximately 90 minutes.  Live video of the event will also be available at www.transportation.house.gov by clicking the “Live Webcasts” link.

Streetsblog Capitol Hill reports that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, wants transportation reauthorization bill passed soon in order to avoid the loss of 600,000 jobs in the construction and transit industries. She issued a call to action this morning, pushing for a new bill before the current extension of SAFETEA-LU expires on September 30.   Though she had initially pushed for a six-year bill, Boxer made it official that the EPW proposal is for a two-year bill that will only cover current funding levels plus inflation—about $109 billion over the two years.

At today’s press conference, Boxer focused mostly on the urgency of saving 500,000 construction sector jobs and 100,000 transit jobs, citing new Federal Highway Administration stats about the ramifications if Congress passes Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget, with its 30 percent cuts to transportation. Boxer’s aides pulled out charts detailing just how many jobs would be lost in each state (See Chart here), and Boxer pointed to the over 43,000 that her home state of California would shed. Click here to read the rest on Streetsblog Capitol Hill

Note: And I found this interesting nugget on infrastructure spending on the EPW Press Release. It shows we have a long way to go to match the Chinese: According to a report by the Department of the Treasury and the Council of Economic Advisors, the United States currently spends 2 percent of GDP on infrastructure, a 50 percent decline from 1960. Meanwhile, China is spending close to 9 percent of their GDP on infrastructure.

U.S. Surface Transportation Re-authorization Bill – Update as of June 29, 2011

June 30, 2011 at 4:55 pm

Update Courtesy: ITS America

As the House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee continues to work on finalizing its six-year surface transportation reauthorization bill in anticipation of an early July introduction, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has announced plans to introduce the Senate version of the bill during the week of July 11, hold hearings the week of July 18, and is expected to proceed with a Committee mark-up on July 27.  The Senate bill, which is rumored to be a two-year bill instead of six, is expected to face a $12 billion funding shortfall which would require the Senate Finance Committee to come up with additional revenues before the legislation could be passed.  Committee staff continues to craft the bill in a bipartisan fashion with their most recent work focusing on a freight section.  ITS America is working closely with Senate staff to include provisions that would promote greater deployment of ITS.

On the House side, T&I Committee majority staff continues to work on their bill but have provided limited details as to what specific policies and programs will be included.  Speculation continues about the time frame for moving a surface transportation bill through the House, with Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA/7) taking heat for not including the reauthorization bill in a June 10 memo to House Republicans outlining key pieces of legislation that will be debated on the House floor this summer.  The American Road & Transportation Builders Association obtained the memo and has posted the document on its website here.

Meanwhile Congressman Richard Hanna (R-NY/24), Vice-Chair of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, joined ITS America’s Congressional Roundtable members for breakfast to discuss ITS and the transportation reauthorization bill.  As a businessman who spent nearly three decades in the construction industry before being elected to Congress, Rep. Hanna stressed the need for technology solutions that can help public agencies do ‘more with less’.  The Congressman made note of Portland, Oregon as an example of a city that is investing in ITS to help create a more efficient, user-friendly transportation network, while acknowledging the pressure many agencies face to roll out more visible ‘bricks and mortar’ projects.  He also said the “argument is building daily” for investing in transportation as a means to create jobs and bring down the nation’s high unemployment rate.  Read more about the Congressional Roundtable in the AASHTO Journal.

USDOT Secy LaHood Says Highway Trust Fund May Be Insolvent By Mid-August; Vows to Avert Bankruptcy and Pay For It

June 5, 2009 at 3:32 pm

(Source: Streetsblog & Wall Street Journal)

The Obama administration is working on a plan to fill the shortfall in the nation’s highway trust fund by August without adding to the federal deficit, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told Congress yesterday.

The highway trust fund, which relies mostly on gas-tax revenue, will need up to $7 billion in additional money by the end of summer to ensure states continue receiving payments, LaHood told the transportation subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. The fund also will need up to $10 billion in the 12 months after September to ensure its solvency, LaHood said.

The circumstances behind the trust fund’s financial troubles are well-known: a nationwide decline in driving coupled with political resistance to raising the gas tax — which has remained static since 1993 — forced the Bush administration to push $8 billion into the federal transportation coffers last summer. But that infusion was not offset by corresponding spending cuts, which LaHood says the Obama team is committed to this time around.

“We believe very strongly that any trust fund fix must be paid for,” LaHood told members of the House Appropriations Committee’s transportation panel. “We also believe that any trust fund fix must be tied to reform of the current highway program to make it more performance-based and accountable, such as improving safety or improving the livability of our communities — two priorities for me.”

The administration’s quest to offset its trust fund fix, which will cost as much as $7 billion, could prove fruitless.  Rep. John Olver (D-MA), chairman of the panel that greeted LaHood today, put it simply when asked if the necessary spending cuts could be found. “That’d be very tough,” he said, noting that his own annual transportation spending is unlikely to become law before the highway trust fund runs out of cash.  Replenishing the trust fund with a cost offset, as LaHood suggests, requires a serious conversation about finding new long-term revenue sources for not just highways but all modes of transportation.

But he said the President Barack Obama administration has ruled out raising the gas tax to provide additional funding, saying an economic recession isn’t the time to make such a move.  “We are not going to raise the gasoline tax. I’ll just say that emphatically,” LaHood said.

Click here to read the entire article.

US lawmakers say Highway Trust Fund faces new hole; as much as $17 billion in additional federal money is needed to maintain roads and bridges over the next two years

June 4, 2009 at 1:05 pm

(Source: ENR.com & Wall Street Journal)

The Obama administration said as much as $17 billion in additional federal money is needed to maintain roads and bridges over the next two years, underscoring the challenges policy makers face as driving habits change.

Image Courtesy; Stateline.org via Gmanet.com

The recession and gas-price increases over the past two years have caused many consumers to drive less and switch to more fuel-efficient cars. The result has been a fall in revenue from taxes on gasoline and vehicle purchases, which are used to fund state and local transportation projects.

Officials from the  Obama administration and U.S. Dept. of Transportation have said that the trust fund will not have enough cash to cover commitments to states for highway projects, according to Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and the panel’s top Republican, James Inhofe of Oklahoma.

According to administration and DOT officials, $5 billion to $7 billion will be needed by August to avert having to slow down Federal Highway Administration reimbursements to state DOTs, Boxer and Inhofe said on June 2. The lawmakers added that a further $8 billion to to $10 billion will be needed in fiscal year 2010 to maintain the highway program at its current level. Congress has set the 2009 federal highway program obligation limit at $40.7 billion.

Boxer and Inhofe discussed the trust fund’s problem at a June 2 committee hearing on the nomination of former Arizona DOT Director Victor Mendez to be the new head of the Federal Highway Administration.

Inhofe raised the possibility of tapping the interest on the Highway Trust Fund balance as one solution. That interest goes to the general Treasury, not the trust fund.

The administration has resisted calls to increase the 18.4-cent federal tax on a gallon of gas; the tax hasn’t been raised since 1993.

Last year, Congress transferred $8 billion from the government’s general fund to the highway trust fund in response to a similar shortfall, allowing states to move ahead with hundreds of job-creating transportation projects. Congress may do that again this year.

Lawmakers could also consider tweaking the economic-stimulus law so states could use some of their stimulus money to compensate for other budget shortfalls. In most cases, states can’t use stimulus funds to compensate for budget deficits in their transportation-spending plans.

Congress and the administration are crafting legislation that would determine how the federal government funds transportation projects over the next several years. With the White House opposed to a gas-tax increase, lawmakers are trying to identify new money sources to maintain the nation’s infrastructure.

One hint of their approach could come later this month when Rep. James Oberstar (D., Minn.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is slated to unveil his blueprint for transportation spending.

Scoring the New Starts Report, from the Transit perspective

May 10, 2009 at 10:58 pm

(Source: The Transport Politic)

The Federal Transit Administration releases its budget for FY ‘10, and recommends new transit capital projects

On Friday, the Obama Administration released details on its proposed budget for fiscal year 2010. The recommended appropriations affect each agency, and will have to be approved by Congress in a succession of relevant bills before they become law, but since Democrats control both the executive and legislative branches, there are likely to be few divergences from the President’s proposals.

The Federal Transit Administration’s budget will increase to $10.34 billion this year, up from $10.23 billion in FY 2009. These amounts were set in stone by the 2005 surface transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU, so there was little expectation that the President would propose massive increases in funding for public transportation. However, the budget significantly expands funding for New and Small Start transit capital projects, from $1.57 billion in ‘09 to $1.83 billion in ‘10. ARRA stimulus funds were included in FY ‘09.

Because the dedicated highway trust fund, which funds highways and transit and which relies on fuel tax revenues, is running out of cash as people drive less and automobiles become more frugal, the government needs a new source of funds for transportation. This year, as in 2008, the Hosue and Senate will likely have to divert general fund revenues to compensate, and the budget assumes that fact, proposing that a large percentage of both transit and highway money be appropriated directly by the Congress.

Along with the general budget, the Department of Transportation released itsannual New Starts Report. This document, which is well worth reading through if you have the time, documents the federal government’s commitment to funding new transit corridors in the United States. The FTA rated and recommended a number of new corridors for funding — five major New Starts projects and five Small Start projects in addition to several already announced over the past year.

This is the last New Starts report before the writing of the next transportation bill, which may include important changes in the way projects are funded, and which is likely to significantly increase expenditures for transit capacity expansion project such as those charted below.
—–
This Year’s FTA Project Ratings
New Starts Recommended for FFGA
Project Total Cost 2030 Riders (new)
Starts Share Rating Federal $/Rider ($/New R)
Orlando, FL – Central Florida CR $356 m 7,400 (3,700)
50% MEDIUM 24 k (48 k)
New York, NY – ARC CR $8.7 b 254,200 (24,800)
34% MED-HI 12 k (119 k)
Sacramento, CA – South LRT II $270 m 10,000 (2,500) 50% MEDIUM 14 k (54 k)
Houston, TX – North LRT $677 m 29,000 (7,500)
49% MEDIUM 11 k (44 k)
Houston, TX – Southeast LRT $681 m 28,700 (4,500)
49% MEDIUM 12 k (74 k)
New Starts In Limbo
Project Total Cost 2030 Riders (new)
Starts Share Rating Federal $/Rider ($/New R)
Boston, MA – Silver BRT III $1.7 b 85,900 (13,700)
60% MED-LOW 12 k (74 k)
Miami, FL – Orange North HR II $1.3 b 22,600 (13,000)
47% MED-LOW 27 k (47 k)

Click here to read the rest of this interesting analysis (Note: It is a lengthy analysis too).

Oberstar’s Handwritten Outline Of New Transportation Bill Leaks; Points to transformation of USDOT management structure “from prescriptive to performance”

May 8, 2009 at 4:45 pm

(Source: The Infrastructurist BNA)

A few days ago, Jim Oberstar, head of the House transportation committee, tipped his hand that he has big changes in mind for transportation policy in this country.

Now his outline for the new transportation bill has leaked. Oberstar has recently been circulating a “two-page handwritten outline” around the Hill, according to the BNA’s Daily Report for Executives, which obtained a copy of the document . They report the following tidbits:

Under the heading “the future of transportation,” the framework seeks to create a new undersecretary or assistant secretary for intermodalism that would meet monthly with all modal administrators. The outline includes the phrases “national strategic plan” and “mega-projects” in the list of agencies that would take part in the monthly meetings.  

It also includes a consolidation of DOT’s 108 programs into four “major formula programs”: critical asset preservation, highway safety improvement, surface transportation program, and congestion mitigation and air quality improvement. The “surface transportation program” section suggests that metropolitan planning organizations receive suballocations based on population.

According to the document, Oberstar would like the DOT’s management structure to shift “from prescriptive to performance.” He would call for DOT and states to design six-year targets for each of four performance categories and the framework would ask for annual reports to DOT and Congress as well as posting data online.   

Oberstar’s outline also addresses transit equity, including a hope to “level decision-making factors between highway and transit choices/projects.” The federal government pays for half of transit projects while it funds 80 percent of highway and bridge work, and transit advocates have been rallying for equal federal treatment.

SEE ALSO:

Obama, DOE slash hydrogen fuel cell funding in new budget

May 8, 2009 at 10:53 am

(Source: Autobloggreen)

The message has been hinted at before, but the federal government is now serious about shifting the focus away from hydrogen and onto plug-in vehicles. In an important statement yesterday, Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu said that hydrogen vehicles are still 10 to 20 years away from practicality and that millions in federal government funding for hydrogen programs will be cut from the 2010 federal budget. Chu said, “We asked ourselves, ‘Is it likely in the next 10 or 15, 20 years that we will covert to a hydrogen car economy?’ The answer, we felt, was ‘no'” (well, duh).

Did we mention this is a big reversal? Just a few weeks ago, Chu announced $41.9 million for hydrogen projects. A major switch, but not totally surprising. During the presidential campaign last fall, Obama did call for a million PHEVs by 2015.

The U.S. Fuel Cell Council and the National Hydrogen Association quickly released a joint statement against the budget cuts.  Here is the full presser:

PRESS RELEASE:

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Associations Criticize DOE Program Cuts

Official Joint Statement

Washington, DC

May 7, 2009-The National Hydrogen Association (NHA) and U.S. Fuel Cell Council (USFCC) issued the following joint statement regarding the Obama Administration’s FY 2010 budget request for the U.S Department of Energy:

“The cuts proposed in the DOE hydrogen and fuel cell program threaten to disrupt commercialization of a family of technologies that are showing exceptional promise and beginning to gain market traction.

“Fuel cell vehicles are not a science experiment. These are real vehicles with real marketability and real benefits. Hundreds of fuel cell vehicles have collectively logged millions of miles. 

“Both the National Academy of Sciences and NHA’s recent Energy Evolution report conclude that a portfolio of vehicle technologies is needed to achieve the nation’s energy and environmental security goals and that hydrogen is essential to success. Hydrogen also advances the Obama Administration’s goals of greener power generation and a smarter power grid.

“The newest fuel cell vehicles get 72 miles per gallon equivalent with no compromise in creature comforts. Fuel cell buses operating in revenue service achieve twice the fuel economy of diesel buses. Hydrogen production costs are already competitive with gasoline. Projected vehicle costs have been reduced by 75%. These are accomplishments of the Department’s own program in partnership with industry. It would truly be a government waste to squander them by walking away just as success is in sight.

“The National Academy recommended a portfolio approach and we are frankly puzzled at the Energy Department’s decision to ignore that recommendation even as the Department uses other material from the same report to justify its proposed cut.

“We are also concerned that the Department appears to be walking away from its Market Transformation activities, which support fuel cell deployment in early commercial applications. This Congressionally-mandated program is demonstrating the ability of fuel cells to provide a competitive and green alternative to battery-based systems in vehicles and in power supply.

“Finally, we are concerned that the Department has proposed to cut funds for the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA). SECA success could dramatically lower the cost of carbon sequestration, improve power plant efficiency, and enable a virtually pollution-free coal plant in the future. Additional funding will hasten SECA progress.”

The NHA and USFCC collectively represent more than 200 companies and organizations.

———————————————————————————————————————————————-

A related post on TransportGooru.com: 

Biofuels Get a Boost – Secretary Chu Announces Nearly $800 Million from Recovery Act to Accelerate Biofuels Research and Commercialization

Rethinking Infrastructure – ULI’s new report says the US Infrastructure is outmoded and reiterates need for upgrade

May 6, 2009 at 7:09 pm

(Source: Architect Online’s Federal Weekly Report,  Urban Land Institute  via, Planetizen)

IT’S NOT JUST U.S. INFRASTRUCTURE THAT’S OUTMODED, SAYS A NEW REPORT BY THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE. THE WAY CITIZENS AND POLITICIANS THINK ABOUT IT NEEDS AN UPGRADE, TOO.

Even as the U.S. government pumps billions of stimulus dollars into rebuilding aging infrastructure, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) has issued its third annual infrastructure report, which takes the nation to task for not having a comprehensive infrastructure development plan and for not wisely planning the use of stimulus money. The report, “Pivot Point,” highlights how China, India, and Europe have invested heavily in modern infrastructure over recent decades, while the U.S. has coasted on its own prosperity, content with patching and repairing its outdated bridges, roads, and other transit and water projects.

“We will not continue to be a major world power if we can’t get goods in and out of the country in an efficient, productive way,” ULI executive vice president for initiatives, Maureen McAvey, tells ARCHITECT. “And the more we waste time in congestion on our roads, in having inadequate ports and inadequate delivery systems, and having congested airports—that’s all loss of productivity.”

The ULI’s hope is for transit systems to be linked across jurisdictions and for transportation and land use to be integrated. Often, “there’s no easy way of getting from A to B, and those are all trips on the road,” McAvey says, which, in addition to causing congestion, means more carbon released into the air. “It’s a stupid way to run a country.”

Running throughout the report is the notion that the U.S. is at a tipping point, a moment when the country either shakes off the system it has been functioning under for decades and chooses to look at infrastructure, transportation, land use, and many other issues in a holistic and future-leaning way, or we continue to patch old problems, push solutions to the future, and hope to hold ourselves together. The latter, says the ULI, means the country will slide backward.

Click here to read the entire article.  Here is the ULI report.

Tallying the toll of transportation privatization

May 6, 2009 at 6:37 pm

(Source: MSNBC)

Image: Indiana Toll Road

Photo: Joe Raymond / AP file. In 2006, the 157-mile-long Indiana Toll Road was leased to a private operator for 75 years for $3.8 billion. Novel approaches to funding offer insights on how the U.S. will fund, build and manage its transportation infrastructure for years to come.

Call it a tale of two airports.

In Missouri, a plan to open the nation’s first privately developed and operated commercial airport will come to fruition when the built-from-scratch Branson Airport opens on May 11.

In Illinois, a plan to lease Chicago’s Midway Airport that was seen as a model for privatization has collapsed in the face of the global credit crunch.

Two airports, two unique approaches and two completely different outcomes. Yet each in its own way may offer insights on how the U.S. funds, builds and manage its transportation infrastructure for years to come.

Crumbling infrastructure, creative financing
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the nation’s infrastructure is in such dire shape that it would take $2.2 trillion over the next five years to reverse decades of underfunding and neglect. The shortfall for transportation infrastructure alone is pegged at more than $800 billion.

State and local governments are simply unable (or unwilling) to fill the gap. The proposed solution: sell or lease public assets to private companies that would provide money upfront in return for the right to run the operation and keep most of the revenue.

In aviation, the Midway proposal — a 99-year lease in exchange for an upfront payment of $2.5 billion — would have constituted the first privatization of a public airport in the U.S. under an FAA pilot program announced in 1996. “It was going to be the grand demonstration of the viability of privatization,” says Joseph Schwieterman, a professor at DePaul University and proponent of public-private partnerships (P3). “But the consortium overbid, got cold feet and the thing unraveled.”

Which is not to suggest that airport privatization is dead (although there are currently no active projects in the FAA program). Instead, say proponents, future deals will likely revolve around smaller, lower-profile projects that are structured to ensure that public assets aren’t being sold off for one-time cash payments. “You have to give the public some value for their dollars,” says Steve Steckler, chairman of Infrastructure Management Group, a P3 advisory firm, “and not just take it from future users.”

Meanwhile, Branson Airport is getting ready to receive its first commercial flights next week. As a brand-new project built without government funding, it presents a completely different proposition, yet it also presents an intriguing option as the nation confronts its transportation needs. “Branson is unique,” says Schwieterman, “but the model is one that will surely be tried in other places.”

Turnpikes, tollways and the road ahead

In the interim, most travelers’ experience with privatized transportation systems will continue to come via the tolls charged on various highways and turnpikes. According to a recent report by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG), 15 roads in the U.S. had undergone some form of privatization by the end of 2008, with another 79 projects currently under consideration.

Four years ago, Chicago once again proved to be a leader in the field when it leased the eight-mile Chicago Skyway to a private operator for 99 years in exchange for $1.8 billion. A year later, the 157-mile-long Indiana Toll Road was leased to the same group for 75 years for $3.8 billion. (Conversely, a proposal to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike for 75 years for $12.8 billion fell apart last fall.)

Whether such deals are good for consumers remains controversial. According to proponents, privatization leads to more efficient operations and better maintenance. It also “provides cover” for local governments unwilling or unable to raise tolls on their own. (Historically, toll increases have lagged the cost of living, one reason most tollway deals allow operators to raise fees in step with inflation or GDP.)

Click here to read the entire article.