Members of the House of Representatives submitted their requests for 6,868 earmarks for the next reauthorization of federal surface transportation spending. That’s only about 500 more than the number that was officially in the 2005 transportation act (an “official” earmark is numbered in the bill; the asterisk in the linked table indicates there were several hundred more unnumbered earmarks).
At $136 billion, the total cost of these earmarks would be almost six times as much as the $24 billion cost of earmarks in 2005. Of course, this is far from the final total. The House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee says it may pare these down. On the other hand, the Senate is likely to add to the list.
Congress’ new transparency rules require that each earmark be identified with the member who made it. This is supposed to embarrass them into keeping their keeping their earmarks to a minimum. It didn’t do much good, however: only 29 of the 434 members of the house failed to request any earmarks.
In fact, transparency may backfire by encouraging members of Congress to ask for ever-more earmarks to please every public and private advocacy group in their states or districts. Rail nuts in Minnesota, for example, criticized Representative Michele Bachman for not asking for an earmark for an idiotic commuter rail line.
He see for more buy cialis overnight laughed and gave me a hand up, and then he skulked away. They are dedicated in their task and they remain updated with all necessary technologies so that they can enjoy sex and at the same time, give cost of viagra their partner what they desire sexually. If you are a tea or coffee lover, then use herbal tea at the tea time. sildenafil india It covers everything viagra samples cheap from the recent movies to the inauguration of some new theater.
I am sure every member who requested earmarks thinks he or she is doing a good thing. But Congress already requires metropolitan areas to spend close to $300 million per year, and the states to spend even more, on transportation planning. Yet it obviously doesn’t trust the results of those plans enough to let them guide spending (of course, neither does the Antiplanner, but for different reasons). We could at least save money by junking those transportation planning requirements.
The Antiplanner, of course, blames planners for this mess. Before 1982, Congress allocated funds to the state and trusted state highway engineers to spend those funds on the most appropriate projects. But planners argued that the criteria used by engineers — safety and efficiency — were too narrow, and that those criteria should be broadened to include such things as pollution, neighborhood integrity, livability, walkability, reducing auto dependence, global climate change — the list of planner priorities is endless. The problem is that it is impossible to make decisions based on an endless list of priorities, so the decisions become political.
The real sticking point for reauthorization this year is not where the money will be spent, but where it is going to come from. Gas tax revenues are down, and the Reason Foundation’s Adrian Moore points out that $136 billion is equal to just four years of gas tax and other federal transportation revenues. Since the reauthorization is supposed to be for the next six years of spending, that doesn’t leave much left over for non-earmarked funds.
The real point of the earmarking process seems to be to get most members of Congress to buy into whatever whacko policies the House Transportation Committee comes up with. Such is the state of policy making in Washington, DC.
But planners argued that the criteria used by engineers  safety and efficiency  were too narrow, and that those criteria should be broadened to include such things as pollution, neighborhood integrity, livability, walkability, reducing auto dependence, global climate change  the list of planner priorities is endless. The problem is that it is impossible to make decisions based on an endless list of priorities, so the decisions become political.
The Antiplanner would have us believe that “safety and efficiency” are non-political criteria, with obvious, unambiguous definitions that everyone agrees upon. If every single person were assigned the task of transportation planning using only “safety and efficiency”, they would inevitably arrive at the exact same solution.
Sorry: not buying it. The traditional notion of value-free, apolitical decision-making has been widely rejected in the social sciences as an unrealistic ideal for multiple decades now. It is now widely acknowledged that all public decision-making is “political”, with our values shaping our views on what the problems are and how they should be addressed.
The Antiplanner’s definition of safety apparently does not include the ability to breathe clean air, the ability to walk and not be struck by cars, etc. But who gets to decide that the Antiplanner’s definition of safety is better than a definition that includes clean air, walkability, etc.? Why is a narrowly-defined safety unpolitical but a broadly-defined safety political?
And with respect to “efficiency”, the concept usually refers to some ideal (or at least, acceptable) ratio of benefits to costs. But again: whose benefits and costs count, and whose do not? For example: by excluding the criterion of walkability, the Antiplanner has implicitly determined that the benefits and costs of pedestrians don’t count. This is an inherently “political” decision, that is ultimately affected in large part by one’s values. The Antiplanner doesn’t value walking as a transportation mode (as much as he values automobiles), and his values affect his definition of the problem (e.g. we don’t have enough roads for cars) and his preferred solution (e.g. build more roads that don’t need to safely accommodate pedestrians).
Decision-making based on fewer criteria isn’t less political: it’s just less democratic.
1. The Antiplanner is “Dedicated to the sunset of government planning”.
2. The Antiplanner has defined government planning as “the idea that a trained elite can make better decisions about your land and resources than you can yourself”.
3. The Antiplanner apparently believes that state highway engineers (i.e. trained elites) should be allowed to spend public funds on the “most appropriate projects” using “safety and efficiency” as the criteria (i.e. to make decisions about your land and resources on your behalf).
Irony? Hypocrisy? Or just plain agenda-driven dishonesty?
d4p
the blog posting is about earmarks
The Bachmann article isn’t too poorly written overall. But it fails to point out that the reason the Big Lake to St. Cloud portion isn’t getting federal funding is because it doesn’t meet funding criteria. That is, there aren’t enough people that will use it to warrant getting funding. In fact, that’s why Northstar was built to Big Lake in the first place. After the project got under way, the feds realized everyone and their grandma wanted funds for their transit project so they tightened up the standards.
And this isn’t an anti-rails stance in and of itself. Keep in mind that money that would be earmarked for the Northstar extension would not only be money that either or children and grandchildren will be paying off (god knows how they’ll afford similar projects while paying off ours), but it would be money that could’ve at least went to a project that met funding criteria, maybe that’s a new LRT line in San Diego or BRT in Atlanta or other projects.
“The Antiplanner’s definition of safety apparently does not include the ability to breathe clean air, the ability to walk and not be struck by cars, etc. But who gets to decide that the Antiplanner’s definition of safety is better than a definition that includes clean air, walkability, etc.?” –D4P
Are you saying that 20 years ago people walking and being hit by cars was a problem and now it’s not?
Are you saying that 20 years ago people walking and being hit by cars was a problem and now it’s not?
I don’t understand your question. What I am saying here is that the Antiplanner’s definition of “safety” does not appear to include such elements as safety from pollution, safety to walk without getting hit, etc. Some people would include those elements in their definition of safety. The choice of which definition to use is ultimately political decision, though the Antiplanner would have us believe that a narrow definition is somehow unpolitical.
The traditional notion of value-free, apolitical decision-making has been widely rejected in the social sciences as an unrealistic ideal for multiple decades now.
That would be more impressive if the social ‘sciences’ were worthy of respect.
That would be more impressive if the social ’sciences’ were worthy of respect.
I can only assume then that you don’t respect economists, such as our very own Antiplanner*.
*Granted, he doesn’t actually have a degree in economics.
D4P, must you call the anti-planner dishonest all the time? Is every mistake a ‘lie’? Is every disagreement motivated by the dishonesty of one party?
Why bury your good point, namely that ‘engineering’ standards have some subjective elements under a load of tiresome invective?
Anyone who has had a building inspector tell him to rebuild a railing because the pickets were too far apart knows about engineering subjectivity. The engineers who wrote building code made a judgment call that infants will likely stick their head in between the pickets and injure themselves and a gap of not more than 4 inches will prevent that and that this is such a serious issue it needs be in a building code.
Even so, I think engineering standards and codes are much more likely to be objective and based on clear and rational reasoning from facts.
“The traditional notion of value-free, apolitical decision-making has been widely rejected in the social sciences as an unrealistic ideal…”. No doubt, but when I studied the social sciences back in the day I found it to be a bunch of illogical pseudo scientific claptrap.
per Heinlein: If it does not use mathematics, it is not science.
Craig is correct that this post is about earmarks but the antiplanner suggests, and I agree, that some earmarks are more equal than others, based on criteria as objective as possible, and that would be engineering criteria.
Today’s lesson from the Antiplanner Dictionary:
1. Government planning: When government makes decisions about land and resources based on criteria I (the Antiplanner) don’t like
2. Objective engineering: When government makes decisions about land and resources based on criteria I (the Antiplanner) like
D4P, must you call the anti-planner dishonest all the time? Is every mistake a ‘lie’? Is every disagreement motivated by the dishonesty of one party?
Is it your view that I treat the Antiplanner differently than he/Jim Karlock/etc. treat planners?
The Autoplanner:In fact, transparency may backfire by encouraging members of Congress to ask for ever-more earmarks to please every public and private advocacy group in their states or districts. Rail nuts in Minnesota, for example, criticized Representative Michele Bachman for not asking for an earmark for an idiotic commuter rail line.
THWM: The Empire Builder is already running here, you just don’t like people having other travel options.
ROT:The Antiplanner, of course, blames planners for this mess. Before 1982, Congress allocated funds to the state and trusted state highway engineers to spend those funds on the most appropriate projects. But planners argued that the criteria used by engineers  safety and efficiency  were too narrow, and that those criteria should be broadened to include such things as pollution, neighborhood integrity, livability, walkability, reducing auto dependence, global climate change  the list of planner priorities is endless. The problem is that it is impossible to make decisions based on an endless list of priorities, so the decisions become political.
THWM: Decisions didn’t become political, they were political right from the start.
Just look at one of YOUR most beloved planners, Robert Moses.
the highwayman [sic] asserted:
> Just look at one of YOUR most beloved planners, Robert Moses.
What about Moses? He most certainly did not have an
education in urban planning (or any other kind of planning),
since institutions of higher learning did not offer degrees
in that field back when he was an undergrad or grad student.
Now having said that, unlike most planners, Moses did
get things built (which is why at least some of his allies
called him the “master builder”).
Transit advocates generally (and especially rail
advocates) still love to bash Moses, but they don’t seem to
remember that Moses was never in charge of building
rail transit in New York City or elsewhere. And more to the
point, why don’t you tell us how many miles of new rail
transit lines have been opened to “revenue” service since
Moses was forced from power by then-Gov. Nelson Rockefeller
in 1968?
Why was a parks commissioner building super highways?
You don’t need any formal education to be a “planner”, you just need to be in a position of political power.
Isn’t that why you have been involved with Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments?
Hip hip hooray for government waste.
If government is doing bad things, it’s only the waste that prevents the harm from being greater.
Should earmarks be eliminated & each state be responsible for their own taxing & spending?
The source of money is basically the same, but spent with much less discretion when handed to you.
There are 4 ways to spend money:
1. One’s own money on yourself. You really watch out, and you try to get the most for your money.
2. Own money on somebody else. For example, a present, not so careful about the content, but careful about the cost.
3. Somebody else’s money on myself, then it’s lavish.
4. Somebody else’s money on somebody else. Not concerned about how much & what. Just buying voters, who might only be 10% of the population.
That’s government (40%+ of GDP), having little concern for taking others’ money & wasting it to get votes.
Can anybody name the source? Hint: he’s a Nobel Laureate.
You immoral leftists want to take money from the many (or mostly the entrepreneurs) to pay for <4% who ride transit, which is usually not even by choice, because some cannot afford a car or because roads have been neglected.
People seem to get current big government waste mixed up w/the past & other things.
For example, the interstates of decades past dividing hoods (usually poor). So what?
Better infrastructure was provided (via gas tax) for those who wanted more mobility & freedom than small streets & transit allowed.
Moses built things for NY, maybe too much.
Sure some things were questionable. Relevance to now?
What’s this about safety? Why is that in question?
Who’s advocating less safe stuff?
As for the other 2 main items of police powers–public health & welfare–municipalities have been going way overboard into money spent & laws made.
People, please try to understand, there is not a free-marketeers stance against public goods, but there are many issues on the value.
Who pays?
How many use?
What’s the cost-benefit analysis?
And so forth…
It’s true that road users don’t pay the full cost, but it’s about only 1/4 short.
Gas taxes could easily be raised (~$0.50/gallon) to cover all.
Don’t forget that prop taxes pay for some roads too.
Keep in mind that over 80% of adults drive
(& 100% benefit, ie deliveries, product transport),
while <4% use transit.
It would be great if transit was more often & more prevalent, but that comes at a huge cost; there would still be a lot less convenience, compared to cars.
BTW, I’m not sure that Randal is concerned much about CO2 emissions.
Have I missed some of his posts?
We all agree that lower pollution is good, but that has higher cost.
However, many do falsely subscribe to the doom-&-gloom AGW.
Try some research; don’t be like naive lemmings believing the mass hysteria/media.
http://carbon-sense.com/
http://www.globalwarming.org/
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
BTW, the energy consumption & emission for transit, is not significantly less than autos, actually sometimes more.
If there were more routes, like many of you seem top prefer, it would even be worse, because of even lower low ridership (per vehicle).
Scott said: People, please try to understand, there is not a free-marketeers stance against public goods, but there are many issues on the value.
THWM: Then that isn’t a “free market” stance!
Are you splitting hairs?
Every economy is “mixed.”
Capitalism does not mean “anarchy”
Please try to understand.
Should government do everything?
Would you like to wait in line at the DMV to be allowed certain purchases?
Look up “public goods” & “laissez-faire”.
Gov is necessary.
For one thing, we need to be protected from people like you, trying to force others.
Are you just a kid?
Please leave this discussion to adults.
Even then, many don’t comprehend.
Scott said: Every economy is “mixed.â€Â
Capitalism does not mean “anarchyâ€Â
THWM: So why do do you want to deny others of their needed resources.
Scott:Please try to understand.
Should government do everything?
Would you like to wait in line at the DMV to be allowed certain purchases?
THWM: I don’t think the government should do every thing.
Scott: Look up “public goods†& “laissez-faireâ€Â.
Gov is necessary.
For one thing, we need to be protected from people like you, trying to force others.
THWM: I’m not trying to force any thing on to any body.
What I’m interested in is inclusion, not exclusion.
Scott: Are you just a kid?
Please leave this discussion to adults.
Even then, many don’t comprehend.
THWM: Why must things always involve some sort of absurd political agenda.
I guess it must be that libertarian magic dust.
H-man: It seems that want others to pay for your public transit.
What is “absurd political agenda”?
You leftists have many agendas.
There you go again, trying to discredit liberty by claiming something that is nonsense (ie “magic dust”).
Classical-liberalists want less gov & more freedom
(as long as one does not harm others).
Don’t get mixed up with PC & nonchalantly offending someone with actual harm.
Scott, you don’t give a shit.
Scott said: Every economy is “mixed.â€Â
Capitalism does not mean “anarchyâ€Â
THWM: This is an other interesting vulgar libertrian irony.
You’re not against a mixed economy, but you are against a mixed transport policy.
A.K.A. All modes are equal though some are more equal than others.
highwayman: You have again said nothing.
For example ~”transport modes being equal, but not.” Please stop talking jibberish.
Most people (85%) choose cars & <4% choose transit.
Public transit is inferior & is costly & takes a high density to be fairly effective.
Though that is after the fact of having a transport policy that has been hostile to railroads & mass transit for over the past 90 years.
You just can’t gut some thing and then expect it to be ok.
Don’t complain about table scraps given railroads & mass transit when you benefit vastly from sacrosanct socialism as it is with roads & streets.