New Geography

Author: admin

  • A Lasting Solution to the Transportation Funding Dilemma

    President Obama’s FY 2014 budget request includes $77 billion for the Department of Transportation and an additional $50 billion  "for immediate transportation investments." His next transportation bill to follow the current MAP-21, calls for a 25 percent increase in funding over current levels and assumes a transfer of $214 billion to the trust fund over six years "to maintain trust fund solvency and pay for increased outlays." To offset this spending, the Administration proposes using the "savings" or "peace dividend" from winding down the war in Afganistan. 

    House T&I Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) was not impressed.  "The President’s budget," he said,  "repeats his call to increase spending without identifying a viable means to pay for it. …. You can’t just keep on spending money that you don’t have."  "A proposal we have seen three times before," observed Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA), House Transportation Appropriation Subcommittee chairman referring to the $50 billion request. With massive stimulus spending politically out of fashion, the Administration is repackaging it as "transportation investment." Bill Graves, president of the American Trucking Association, spoke for many stakeholders when he remarked, "For five years, we’ve waited for President Obama to clearly state how we should pay for these critical needs and, I’m sad to say, we continue to get lip service about the importance of roads and bridges with no real road map to real funding solutions." As for the "peace dividend," the idea has been dismissed as "budgetary gimmickry"  by congressional Democrats and  Republicans alike.

    In sum, a large segment of congressional and public opinion has pronounced the White House proposals variously as "vague", "repetitive," "unrealistic," "implausible" and "politically unachievable." Even the President’s most loyal supporters in the transportation community, the liberal advocacy groups, seemed disappointed and circumspect in their comments.  

    This said, no one disputes President Obama’s and the infrastructure advocates’ claim that some of America’s transportation facilities are reaching the limit of their useful life and need reconstruction. Nor does any one disagree about the need to expand infrastructure to meet the needs of a growing population. But fiscal conservatives among infrastructure advocates (and we count ourselves among them) contend that this does not rise to the level of a national crisis requiring a massive $50 billion federal crash program as proposed in the President’s budget message, or the expenditure of more than $100 billion per year as recommended by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in its latest "Report Card."

    Instead, as we have argued in recent columns, the challenge can be met if each state did its part to progressively bring up its transportation facilities (including its Interstate highway segments) to a "state of good repair," using its own tax revenues and its formula allocation of the Highway Trust fund dollars (which are expected to total $38-41 billion per year over the next decade.)  As numerous news dispatches attest, that’s precisely what is happening (see below). A large number of states are not waiting for the federal government to come to the rescue. They are using their own resources and raising additional revenue to pay for reconstruction and modernization of their aging facilities and to maintain their transportation systems in good working condition. "Governors and state legislatures realize that the level of federal assistance beyond 2014 is highly uncertain and they are acting on a credible assumption that federal funding will remain at current levels or may even be cut back," an association executive who is familiar with the thinking of senior-level state officials, told us.

    What about large-scale reconstruction and system-expansion projects that require billions of dollars—transportation investments that are beyond the states’ fiscal capacity to fund on a pay-as-you-go basis out of annual cash flow? Those investments,  provided they are credit-worthy (i.e. are revenue producing or backed by dedicated tax revenue),  will be mostly financed through long-term credit instruments  and public-private partnerships. The future of capital-intensive infrastructure projects is intimately tied to the financial involvement of the private sector and to a wider use of  tolling, "availability payments,"  and innovative credit instruments such as TIFIA and private activity bonds (PABs), a veteran facilitator of public-private partnerships told us. We list below some of the transportation megaprojects that are being financed (or are planned to be financed) largely with public and private credit rather than with federal dollars out of congressional appropriations.

    ###    

    Lending credibility to the above funding scenario and hastening its adoption are the new realities underlying the federal role in transportation today. Those realities include: (1) a federal program that no longer has a clearly defined mission or purpose and many of whose functions are properly a state and local responsibility;  (2) a  Highway Trust Fund that has lost its capacity to support large-scale transportation investments and that has come to depend for its solvency on periodic injections of  general funds;  (3) a bipartisan absence of political will to raise the federal gas tax and (4) continued inability to identify another credible revenue source  to supplement or replace the gas tax.  

    In sum, having the states assume financial responsibility for fixing their aging transportation facilities and for preserving them in a state of good repair,  while employing public and private financing for major capital-intensive infrastructure investments, offers the best solution to the current  federal funding dilemma.

    NOTE: States that recently have undertaken to raise additional funds for transportation include: Virginia and  Maryland (broad transportation funding overhaul  that includes a dedicated sales tax applied to the wholesale price of gasoline.  A sales tax, it has been argued, is no less a "user fee" than the gas tax since every consumer who pays a sales tax also is served by or "uses"  the highway system for goods delivery );  Arkansas (one-half cent sales tax increase to back a $1.3 billion bond issue to fund highway construction over the next ten years);  Illinois (six-year $12.6 billion statewide construction program to improve roads and bridges);  Massachusetts ($13.7 billion bond-financed transportation plan); Maine ($100 million transportation bond proposal) Michigan ( $1.5 billion road plan funded with vehicle registration fees and a tax on fuel at the wholesale level); Missouri (proposal for a dedicated one-cent sales tax for transportation; the tax is expected to raise $7.9 billion over ten years); New Hampshire (12-cent hike in the gas tax over three years approved by the House; Senate approval uncertain);  Ohio (turnpike toll-backed $1.5 billion bond issue for highway and bridge improvements);  Pennsylvania ($2.5 billion Senate transportation funding plan; House approval uncertain); Texas (statewide tolling);  Wisconsin ($824-million boost to the state transportation fund);  Wyoming (10-cent fuel tax increase, the first in 15 years); and California, Oregon and Washington (exploring new mechanisms for project finance through the cooperative West Coast Infrastructure Exchange). In addition, several states which derive significant revenue from their tollroads have raised toll rates. See also, "State Transportation Funding Proposals,  AASHTO Center for Excellence in Project Finance, April 2013

    Recent major transportation infrastructure projects largely financed,or to be financed, with long-term credit instruments rather than federal dollars include: the I-495 Beltway HOT lanes project in Northern Virginia; New York’s Tappan Zee Bridge replacement; the San Francisco Bay Bridge Eastern Span replacement; the I-5 Columbia River Crossing;  the Highway 520 floating bridge and the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle, the Midtown tunnel linking Norfolk and Portsmouth, VA; East End Crossing over the Ohio River near Louisville; and the PortMiami Tunnel. Please note that, except for the California High-Speed Rail venture, there are no transportation megaprojects currently being planned whose construction would depend primarily on federal appropriations.

  • Density Boondoggles

    Is it density or migration? Venture capitalist Brad Feld weighs in:

    The cities that have the most movement in and out of them are the most vibrant.

    The densest city in the world won’t be as vibrant as the city with the most talent churn. Yet planners and urbanists tout the former over the latter. We’ve reached the point of density for the sake of density. It is an end instead of a means to an end. The art of the density boondoggle:

    The following is the conversation held at every regional summit on Long Island:

    Advocate: Let’s keep our young people from leaving! There’s a…brain drain!

    Public: How do we stop it?

    Developer: Build denser housing! Let’s make it…affordable! Walkable! Let’s make it…mixed-use sustainable smart growth…with a downtown, pedestrian-friendly feel.

    Municipality: Development approved!

    What’s the question? Greater density is the answer. It will plug the brain drain. I promise. But plugging the brain drain will reduce talent churn. Long Island will be less vibrant.

    There is a name for the Cult of Density. It now has its very own -ism. All hail Vancouverism:

    Vancouverism is, at the root, a movement to go from low density, to higher density, to make Canadian and North American cities about people once again.

    Making cities all about people sounds great. All I hear is the chant of the Underpants Gnomes:

    Phase 1: Create a cool city.
    Phase 2: ?
    Phase 3: Retain talent.

    That will be $500,000. Thank you for your patronage, Memphis. Consulting is fun!

    Development approved. That’s the story line playing out in downtown Las Vegas with Zappos. Density is king. Don’t listen to Brad Feld. Talent churn doesn’t matter.

    If Vancouverism were harmless, then I wouldn’t blog about it. The misplaced emphasis on density has negative impacts. Vancouver is more about people, those who are young, single and college-educated:

    ‘Revitalizing,’ but leaving seniors behind

    Last July, Vancouver city council unanimously approved a three-year Chinatown Neighbourhood Plan and Economic Revitalization Strategy. More than a decade in the making, the plan focused on economic revitalization, after two-thirds of businesses surveyed in Vancouver’s original Chinatown reported declining revenues between 2008 and 2011 — blamed mainly on losses to newer Chinese-language communities in suburbs like Richmond.

    The revitalization plan envisions new residential development, "to connect with younger generations and reach out to people of all backgrounds to ensure Chinatown is increasingly relevant to a more multi-cultural Vancouver." At the same time, it acknowledged that in a neighborhood where 67 per cent of households are low-income — more than twice the City of Vancouver average — such redevelopment "can displace low-income residents." What is good for old Chinatown’s businesses, in short, may be less so for its poor and isolated elderly.

    S.U.C.C.E.S.S., Vancouver’s primary provider of culturally- and linguistically-supportive housing and services for Chinese seniors, is providing a partial answer. It operates a single multi-level care facility in old Chinatown for people with cognitive impairments or who require round-the-clock nursing. But its 103 beds, soon to be 113, are about one-tenth of what the UBC Centre for Urban Economics anticipates will be needed over the next 15 years to house Chinese seniors.

    Meanwhile, the support it offers seem a world away from Rosesari and her neighbours living in privately operated SROs like the May Wah Hotel. Yet the women are spirited and resilient. "I’m happy and I’m healthy," Rosesari told me through Pang’s interpretation. Both she and Lin say they like living in Chinatown. They feel at home here, where the language spoken is the one they know.

    They are also in their 90s. As time goes on, they and others may no longer be able to manage the May Wah’s staircases, its lack of mobility aids, and its communal bathing facilities. The alternatives available to them then are in terribly short supply.

    Welcome to the dark side of the obsession with wants and needs of the Creative Class. Vancouverism is boutique urbanism, catering to a specific demographic at the exclusion of all others. People are either displaced or fall into the cracks. Bike lanes and food trucks trump the needs of seniors.

    Jim Russell is a talent geographer with particular interest in the Rust Belt. Read his blog at Burgh Diaspora, where this piece originally appeared.

    Downtown Vancouver photo by runningclouds

  • States Seek to Become More Self-Reliant for Infrastructure

    During his March 29 visit to the privately built and financed PortMiami tunnel project, President Obama unveiled a new infrastructure plan. His latest proposal—costing $21 billion— includes a renewed call for a National Infrastructure Bank capitalized at $10 billion,  a  $7 billion  "America Fast Forward Bonds" program modeled after the former Build America Bonds;  and a sum of $4 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees. The White House announcement did not make it clear whether  this latest infrastructure initiative — " to encourage private investment in America’s infrastructure" —replaces or is in addition to the $50 billion "fix-it-first" infrastructure plan that the President announced in his State-of-the-Union address less than two months ago (see, "Infrastructure Advocacy and Public Credibility," InnoBrief, Vol. 24, No. 2, February 20).

    Decidedly, infrastructure investment remains on the President’s mind. It also continues to generate headlines. Just a week earlier, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) released its latest  "report card" giving the nation a D for highways and estimating the investment needs in surface transportation to the year 2020 to amount to a staggering $1.723 trillion. With expected funding during the same period amounting only to $877 billion, the funding gap comes out to be an astronomical sum of $846 billion— more than $100 billion per year. As if to reinforce the ASCE conclusions, the Washington Post came out with a front-page story about the deteriorating state of the Capital Beltway, "a politically iconic and locally vital highway… dying beneath your turning wheels"  (Beneath the Surface, the Beltway Crumbles, March 31, 2013)

    What kind of an impact the President’s repeated pleas, combined with the ASCE report card and alarming press stories of "crumbling " infrastructure, will have on public opinion and congressional attitudes remains to be seen. As we have noted earlier, they come at a time of severe budget pressures and intense Republican efforts to curb excessive discretionary spending. To be successful,  pro-infrastructure advocates must explain to the skeptical lawmakers where the money would come from.  "At some point somebody  has to pay the bill," House Speaker John Boehner pointedly remarked in reaction to Obama’s latest infrastructure proposal. The advocates also must persuade fiscally conservative House members that there are urgent and compeling reasons to boost spending on public works that override the imperative to reduce the deficit and get the nation’s fiscal house in order. 

    Second, the nation’s taxpayers must become convinced that spending more on transportation will make a difference in practical terms such as easing congestion and improving the lot of  commuters, and that the money will not be wasted on questionable projects that have little to do with improving mobility. "The Bridge to Nowhere" as a symbol of wasteful spending still lives in the collective public consciousness. 

    Third, infrastructure alarmists must contend with the upbeat conclusions of a Reason Foundation study, "Are Highways Crumbling?" That study has found that  America’s highways and bridges are in a far better condition today than they were 20 years ago. "There are still plenty of problems to fix, but our roads and bridges aren’t crumbling," said David Hartgen, lead author of the Reason study. "The overall condition of the public road system is getting better and you can actually make the case that it has never been in better shape." The study affirms what the traveling public experiences every day —- that  the nation’s highways and bridges not only are not "crumbling" but in most places are holding up pretty well. "Should I believe the pundits or my own eyes," asked Charles Lane, a Washington Post editorial writer, in a much-quoted column after having traveled thousands of miles "without actually seeing any crumbling roads."  (The U.S. Infrastructure Argument that Crumbles Upon Examination, October 31, 2012). 

    Fourth, as one highly knowledgeable reader of ours (a civil engineer) has observed, "we must get an objective, precise and quantifiable assessment of bridge conditions  before launching full bore into repair or replacement actions" costing billions of dollars. "Today," he wrote, " no one, and I mean no one  has an objective, clear and precise understanding of the actual condition of America’s bridges." Before asking taxpayers for billions of dollars to fix a problem based on subjective visual assessments of bridge conditions,  we want to be very sure that we have accurate data to back up our position, our reader concluded. His remarks about bridges could equally well be applied to the condition of the nation’s roads.

    Lastly, infrastructure advocates must overcome a cynical perception, common among the public, that pressures to increase federal funding for transportation are nothing more than special interest pleadings by interest groups that stand to profit from higher levels of public spending (ASCE is one of them, raising questions as to its objectivity, several observers have noted). 

    As one transportation advocate at a recent conference observed, "there is an enormous disconnect between us and the American public" — a disconnect that may not be easy to overcome.

    States Are Acting on their Own

    As we have argued in recent columns, no one disputes the infrastructure advocates’ claim that some of America’s transportation facilities, such as the Capital Beltway, are reaching the limit of their useful life and need reconstruction. Nor does any one disagree about the need to expand infrastructure to meet the needs of a growing population. But fiscal conservatives among infrastructure advocates (and we count ourselves among them) contend that this does not rise to the level of a national crisis requiring a massive $50-70 billion federal crash program as proposed by the President, or the expenditure of more than $100 billion per year as recommended by ASCE.

    Instead, the challenge can be met if each state did its part to incrementally, over a period of years, bring its transportation facilities up to a "state of good repair" using its own gas tax revenues  and its formula allocation of the Highway Trust fund dollars. As numerous news dispatches attest, that is precisely what’s happening (see below). A growing number of states are not waiting for the federal government to come to the rescue. They are using their own resources and raising additional revenue to pay for reconstruction of their aging facilities– "one lane at a time" if necessary—and keep their transportation systems in good working condition. "Governors and state legislatures realize that the level of federal assistance beyond 2014 is highly uncertain and they are acting on a credible assumption that federal funding will remain at current levels or may even be cut back," an association executive who is familiar with the thinking of senior-level state officials, told us.

    What about  large-scale reconstruction and capacity-expansion projects that require billions of dollars—transportation  investments that are beyond the states’  fiscal capacity to fund on a pay-as-you-go basis? Those investments,  provided they are credit-worthy (i.e. are revenue producing or backed by dedicated tax revenue),  will be mostly financed through long-term credit instruments  and public-private partnerships. The future of infrastructure megaprojects is intimately tied to the financial involvement of the private sector and to a wider use of  tolling, "availability payments,"  and innovative credit instruments such as TIFIA and private activity bonds (PABs), a veteran facilitator of public-private partnerships told us. " President Obama was right to have shined a spotlight on the PortMiami tunnel project and drawn attention to the importance of private investment in major transportation infrastructure. The Highway Trust Fund no longer can serve that purpose."

    The scenario we have suggested above—i.e., having states assume financial responsibility for fixing their aging transportation systems, while relying on debt financing for major facility reconstruction and system expansion—makes practical sense in view of the uncertain future level of  federal transportation funding.  It also may constitute a way to save the Highway Trust Fund from insolvency and provide a lasting solution to the federal transportation funding dilemma.

    NOTE: States that recently have undertaken to raise additional funds for transportation include: Virginia and  Maryland (broad transportation funding overhaul  that includes a dedicated sales tax applied to the wholesale price of gasoline.  A sales tax, it has been argued, is no less a "user fee" than the gas tax since every consumer who pays a sales tax also is served by or "uses"  the highway system for goods delivery );  Arkansas (one-half cent sales tax increase to back a $1.3 billion bond issue to fund highway construction over the next ten years); Massachusetts ($13.7 billion bond-financed transportation plan); Maine ($100 million transportation bond proposal);  Michigan ($1.5 billion road plan funded with vehicle registration fees and a tax on fuel at the wholesale level); Missouri (proposal for a dedicated one-cent sales tax for transportation; the tax is expected to raise $7.9 billion over ten years); New Hampshire (12-cent hike in the gas tax over three years approved by the House; Senate approval uncertain);  Ohio (turnpike toll-backed $1.5 billion bond issue for highway and bridge improvements); Texas (statewide tolling);  Wisconsin ($824-million boost to the state transportation fund);  Wyoming (10-cent fuel tax increase, the first in 15 years); and California, Oregon and Washington (exploring new mechanisms for project finance through the cooperative West Coast Infrastructure Exchange).

    Recent major transportation infrastructure projects largely financed with long-term credit instruments rather than federal dollars include: the I-495 Beltway HOT lanes project in Northern Virginia; New York’s Tappan Zee Bridge replacement; the San Francisco Bay Bridge Eastern Span replacement; the I-5 Columbia River Crossing;  the Highway 520 floating bridge in Seattle, the Midtown tunnel linking Norfolk and Portsmouth, VA, East End Crossing over the Ohio River, and the PortMiami Tunnel.

  • MoneySense Top 10 Best Places to Live in Canada in 2013

    Here we go again! Another ranking of the “best” places to live. I wonder how many of those there are.  They just pop up on your computer screen like unwanted ads. Perhaps there are so many “best” cities rankings that at some point most cities end up winning or being in the top 10. Mayors and chambers of commerce know it, just like car companies. If you don’t win the top prize you will simply pick a category and exploit it to death to sell your product. It could be safety, trunk size, fuel efficiency, resale value. In the case of cities, it can be average house price, commuting time, unemployment rate, safety and the pièce de resistance, the vaguest criteria of all, the one that makes rankings such subjective tool: amenities.

    What does it mean for MoneySense to be the best? A look at the methodology shows that the criteria are quite typical of most rankings: crime, amenities, commuting, heath, housing etc.  Also, the number of points given to each criterion varies from one to another and are totally based on the mood of those who design the ranking. If you think that dry weather is important then you will give it more points. If you dislike bike paths you give it less point. If professional sport teams seem unimportant, you simply don’t use it as a criterion.

    One big mistake that those guys do is to mess up distinctions between metropolitan areas and suburbs. Too often, they only include the boundaries of municipalities and break up larger cities into pieces even though they are really parts of greater metropolitan areas.  For example, The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) has close to 6 million residents. The Municipality (or City) of Toronto has about 2.5 million people. Mississauga, a populous suburb of the GTA, but has its own place  in the very same ranking. How can this be? This is major flaw, a very common one.

    So let’s take look at the ranking. We indicate when a city was part of a Census Metropolitan area):

    1. Calgary, Alberta
    2. St. Albert, Alberta ( a suburb of the Census Metropolitan Area of Edmonton)
    3. Burlington, Ontario (a suburb of the Census Metropolitan Are of Toronto)
    4. Strathcona County, Alberta ( a suburb of the Census Metropolitan Area of Edmonton)
    5. Oakville, Ontario (a suburb of the Census Metropolitan Are of Toronto)
    6. Ottawa, Ontario (Since all suburbs of Ottawa has been amalgamated it couldn’t be broken down like Edmonton or Toronto)
    7. Saanich, British Columbia ( a suburb of the Census Metropolitan Area of Victoria)
    8. Lacombe, Alberta ( a suburb of the Census Metropolitan Area of Edmonton)
    9. Lethbridge, Alberta
    10. Newmarket, Ontario (a suburb of the Census Metropolitan Are of Toronto)

    It would be hard to end up with a more flawed ranking. There is a mix of small cities (Lethbridge), the mid-size city of Ottawa, with suburbs that have been amalgamated into one unified City of Ottawa, without taking account that the Census Metropolitan Area includes the City of Gatineau, across the Ottawa River, in the Province of Québec. It is simply impossible to judge a suburb or a city that is part of a metropolitan area and ignore the fact that its amenities, transportation system, jobs, highways etc. are all linked. How would Mississauga’s economy perform if it wasn’t of Toronto, or its airport, (located in Mississauga!)? How would Ottawa do if they didn’t have its pool Gatineau and its pool of 75,000 civil servants living in its more affordable houses, commuting by across the Ottawa River by one of its 5 bridges?

    I am not pro-gentrification nor a big fan of downtown living, at least not until my kids will live at home. I myself live in an Ontario suburb of Ottawa, while commuting by train to Montreal a few times a month. However, I am fully aware that my suburb would not exist if not for downtown Ottawa. When 75% of the labour force living in my suburb commutes to downtown Ottawa each day to go to work, if the city had not been amalgamated in 2000, I would have laughed at any ranking that would have considered my suburb as a stand- alone city.

    Please guys, you do not rank cities like you rank sports teams.

  • Wanted: A Reasoned Approach to Dealing with America’s Infrastructure Needs

    It seems like not a week goes by without fresh warnings about the nation’s”crumbling infrastructure" and renewed appeals to rebuild our aging highways and bridges.  President Obama reinvigorated the campaign with his State-of-the-Union proposal for a $50 billion program of infrastructure investments, $40 billion of which would be devoted to a "fix-it-first" program targeted at urgent improvements such as "structurally deficient" bridges. The following day, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing on "The Federal Role in America’s Infrastructure," focusing on the importance of infrastructure for the U.S. economy and the federal role in its preservation and expansion. The same day, the U.S. Chamber held a "Transportation Infrastructure Summit," a day-long gathering to explore "transportation infrastructure challenges and promising solutions" with prominent industry representatives. Yet another meeting, this one convened by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-NY), a longtime proponent of a National Infrastructure Bank, will explore innovative strategies for financing infrastructure in a March 18 forum on Capitol Hill.

    Two recent reports have added to a sense of urgency about America’s deteriorating infrastructure. The Building America’s Future coalition has published a report, Falling Apart and Falling Behind, urging development of a long-term national infrastructure strategy, establishing a National Infrastructure Bank and lifting restrictions on tolling. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has released a report, Failure to Act: The Impact of Current Infrastructure Investment on America’s Future, warning that if the investment gap is not addressed, the economy is likely to suffer $1 trillion in lost business and a loss of 3.5 million jobs.  ASCE’s 2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, a detailed analysis of the performance and condition of America’s infrastructure  to be  released on March 19, may be expected to reinforce this gloomy forecast (a previous  "report card," issued in 2009, gave the U.S. infrastructure an unflattering grade of D.)     

    What kind of impact this flood of warnings and advocacy efforts will have on public opinion and on congressional attitudes and fiscal decisions remains to be seen. They come at a time of severe budget pressures and intense Republican efforts to curb excessive discretionary spending. To be successful, the pro-infrastructure campaign must persuade fiscally conservative lawmakers that there are urgent reasons for a boost in spending on public works that override the imperative to reduce the deficit and get the nation’s fiscal house in order. 

    Further, infrastructure advocates must convince the nation’s  taxpayers— who see no visible signs of  "crumbling infrastructure"— that spending more  on transportation will not be wasted but will result in concrete benefits in the form of reduced congestion or shorter commutes. Infrastructure alarmists also must contend with a public that lately has grown skeptical about warnings of catastrophic consequences of minor cuts in spending.  

    Lastly, the advocacy campaign must overcome a cynical perception that pressures to increase funding for transportation are nothing more than special interest pleadings of interest groups that stand to profit from higher levels of public spending.  As one transportation advocate at a recent conference observed, "there is an enormous disconnect between us and the American public" — a disconnect that may not be easy to overcome.

    Significantly, improving the nation’s infrastructure was not a topic of discussion at the President’s meeting with Senate Republicans, according to Sens. Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT), as reported in POLITICO.  The President must have come to a conclusion that his $50 billion infrastructure plan stands no chance of winning a favorable Senate vote —not to mention being an anathema with the House Republicans.

    A Reasoned Approach

    No one disputes the infrastructure advocates’ claim that some of America’s transportation facilities are reaching the limit of their useful life and need replacing. Nor does anyone disagree about the need to expand infrastructure to meet the needs of a growing population. But fiscal conservatives among these advocates (and we count ourselves among them) contend that this does not rise to the level of a national crisis requiring a $50 billion crash program as proposed by the President, or a two trillion dollar infrastructure investment program over fifteen years as recommended  by ASCE . 

    The condition of infrastructure varies widely from state to state as studies by the transportation research group TRIP and by the Reason Foundation have shown. Most states maintain their transportation assets in a state of good repair and only a few need extensive modernization. "There are still plenty of problems to fix, but our roads and bridges aren’t cumbling," said David Hartgen, lead author of the Reason study. "The overall condition of the public road system is getting better and you can actually make the case that it has never been in better shape." Hartgen’s conclusion is backed by a detailed study of the condition of America’s roads and bridges. The study is based on a variety of sources, primarily from the states themselves as reported to the federal government from 1989 through 2008. ( "Are Highways Crumbling? State and U.S. Highway Performance Trends, 1989-2008, Reason Policy Study 407, February 2013).

    The generally acceptable condition of the nation’s transportation infrastructure in most places, argues for a more selective approach. Rather than launching a new massive national public works program in the name of "fix-it-first," state-level efforts should be targeted specifically at aging facilities that are in a demonstrable need of replacement or modernization.  "The nation simply cannot afford blindly to throw money at the problem," in the words of one senior congressional Republican. "We have learned from the Administration’s $8 billion high-speed rail fiasco that scattering resources in an unfocused manner in order to satisfy demands for geographic equity, leads to imprudent, irresponsible and often downright wasteful spending."     

    To the extent that large-scale multi-year megaprojects demanding billions of dollars still figure on the drawing boards of state DOTs,  they can—indeed, they will —be financed through public-private partnerships, tolling and credit instruments such as TIFIA and state infrastructure banks. They include the I-495 Beltway Hot lanes project in Virginia, New York’s Tappan Zee Bridge replacement, the San Francisco Bay Bridge Eastern Span replacement, the I-5 Columbia River Crossing, the Highway 520 floating bridge in Seattle, the Miami Port Tunnel, the Midtown Tunnel linking Norfolk and Portsmouth VA, and two Ohio River bridges in Louisville, a joint undertaking of the Indiana and Kentucky DOTs. All of the above projects will be financed with long-term obligations rather than funded on a pay-as-you-go basis through annual congressional appropriations.

    A transition from funding to financing of major transportation infrastructure projects was also the preferred approach of the financial practitioners and analysts assembled at the October 2012 conference on Public-Private Partnerships convened by the American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA). The most practical way to build future transportation megaprojects, these experts concluded, will be through project financing and public-private partnerships.

    In sum, the Highway Trust Fund no longer can serve as a source of capital for new infrastructure, and funding large capital-intensive projects with current user fee revenues on a pay-as-you-go basis is no longer feasible. Instead, look for the states to assume responsibility for remedial "fix-it-first" activities, and for a shift from funding to financing for multi-year construction megaprojects. This may turn out to be the only practical long-term solution to our transportation funding dilemma.

  • Is Hawaii the Bellwether for California?

    California used to consider itself the leading state and the bellwether for the entire country. Now that the entrepreneurial initiative has mostly switched to Texas and other such places, and Texas’s infrastructure has pulled ahead of California’s in its quality (I lived in Texas in the 1970s, and it was not so then!), California is, at the very least, still thought of as a bellwether for the whole country, if perhaps a dystopian one. But there is a state that even Californians look to for popular cultural leadership, visit frequently, and admire. And, while it is often said that California became the first “majority-minority” state, it is not true. This other state, which lies far to the southwest of California, has always been “majority-minority.” It is, of course, Hawai’i. (The apostrophe is a letter in Hawaiian, and it is pronounced.) It has wrestled with “multicultural” issues for longer than it has been part of the United States. And one born in Hawai’i is now President of the United States.

    The majority of the residents of Hawaii are Asian, the largest number being of Japanese descent with some Chinese and Filipinos and a few Koreans, though Koreans have mostly preferred California. President Obama is exceptional; people of African descent have never been numerous in Hawai’i. Five to ten percent of the people have some percentage of native Hawaiian blood, though there are almost no pure-blood Hawaiians.

    On the mainland, whites and blacks are moving out of areas flooded by immigration; in Hawaii, whites (including retirees) and even a few minimum-wage Mexicans, are moving in on a net basis. It is important to note, however, that Hawaii’s Asians are not mostly recent immigrants; they are descended from people who came over in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Today’s immigrants have generally preferred California, which had a more vibrant entrepreneurial economy, and on some fronts still does. (The maker of computer chips is probably itching to move to Texas; less so the programmer.) The reason for all this is that Hawaii was so long dominated by the “Big Five” corporations.

    The historical reasons for the Big Five, and for Hawaii’s other oddities, are interesting. In the 19th century, a large percentage of Hawaii’s land and economy fell into the hands of a few white (haole) families, like Bishop, Dillingham, Baldwin, and Parker, who sometimes did marry into the local noble (ali’i) caste. The corporations they founded were eventually known as the Big Five. (Some of this heritage is chronicled in the recent film The Descendants.) They brought large numbers of Asians in as contract labor to work the vast fields of pineapple and sugar cane. California had its counterparts, the Irvines, O’Neills, Bixbys, Millers, Hearsts, and more, but they only controlled part of the land and exercised little control of the commercial economy. The rest of the Mexican grants were broken up into smaller farms and ranches soon after the American conquest. (It is where the grants remained intact until recently, such as south Orange County, that you have the notorious “planned communities.”)

    Japan was the first main source of Asian labor, but the Japanese came largely from the Ryukyus, Kyushu, and the less developed south of Japan, and were often part of the Eta undercaste that in Japan had butchered animals and cleaned toilets. China, the Azores, and later the Philippines were also sources of labor, but the majority of Hawaiian Asians are of Japanese descent.

    In the 1940s and 1950s, culminating in 1954, there was a labor and political movement by which the predominantly Asian workers took control of the territory from the Big Five. They could regulate the Big Five, they could unionize the Big Five, but they did not have legal authority to break up the Big Five (only the federal government could have done that); so both right and left in Hawai’i retained a corporatist rather than an entrepreneurial mentality. The establishment had been Republican, so the workers were Democrats, and Hawai’i entered a long era of Democratic dominance, which continues to this day. The plantation experience is one major reason why most of Hawai’i’s Asians, unlike Asian Californians until recently, have been Democrats.

    An interesting fact about Hawai’i is that there are only four functioning local governments, the counties.  There had been a fifth, the Hansen’s Disease (Leper) colony on Kalaupapa Peninsula, which was the lifework of Saint Damien, canonized in 2009. While the counties are divided into “judicial districts” that are marked on some maps, the judicial districts do not have governments. Each county has a “mayor,” but there are no incorporated cities as they are known in other states.

    Another force influencing the Hawaiian culture and worldview is the Native Hawaiians. There are almost no pure blooded Native Hawaiians (other than on Ni’ihau), but up to ten percent of the population has some Hawaiian blood. The old pre-Christian culture had some brutal elements. While on the one hand there was premarital sexual freedom, on the other a woman could be killed instantly for eating a banana or a coconut, and a commoner could be killed instantly for letting his shadow fall on a chief. Infanticide was employed in population control and human sacrifices were offered to Madame Pele, the volcano goddess. They had no system of writing. In the days before it became unfashionable to distinguish between “civilized” and “uncivilized,” they were therefore considered “uncivilized.” However they did build permanent stone structures as temples and as “cities of refuge,” places where people who had broken, or were accused of breaking, a kapu (taboo) could go to save their lives. Also there was a vast lore of herbal healing, which survives.

    Between 1790 and 1810, Kamehameha the Great united the islands into a single kingdom, and established a monarchy that lasted until 1893, long after Hawai’i had been modernized, Westernized, and largely Christianized, and had already received large numbers of immigrants. It was not any crowned head of Europe that was the first monarch to have his voice recorded, and to travel around the world, but King David Kalaka’ua of Hawai’i. All this is far different from how it was for American Indians of the mainland! Another uniqueness is that the Hawaiian language, spoken daily by hardly a thousand people, a tiny fraction of those who speak, say, Navajo, has nonetheless become part of the culture; a language which has left a long list of words in Hawaiian English, a language in which much locally popular music is recorded, and a tourist attraction in its own right. Its status is in some way similar to that of Irish Gaelic in Ireland. (By comparison, in Palm Springs I have never heard music sung in Cahuilla.)

    What, then, of Hawai’i today? There is an active Christian minority, but Pele, the goddess who supposedly lives at Kilauea Crater, regularly gets offerings of flowers and gin. “Haoles” are wary of getting into fights with “locals.” The culture values the ohana, or extended family, but it is hardly Confucian. One might mention at this point Will Durant on later ancient Rome:

    “But most of the inflowing peoples had literally been de-moralized by uprootage from their native surroundings, cultures, and codes; … and daily friction with groups of different customs had worn away still more of their custom-made morality.” (Caesar and Christ, p. 366.)

    This sort of multiculturalism, however, had nothing to do with the fact that Hawai’i was the first state where same-sex marriage was seriously proposed? No, it was, I believe, a case of imperial judiciary, and same-sex marriage was voted down two to one in November of 1998. If democratic processes continue and are not overridden by judicial fiat, Hawai’i will be one of the last states outside the South to adopt same-sex marriage. And in California, it was the votes of people of color, who would never think of becoming Republicans, that won Proposition 8 and delayed same-sex marriage for some years. It makes me think that the Republican party should be replaced by two new ones; one socially conservative, pro-voucher, fiscally moderate to liberal, and led by people of color; the other, a more semi-libertarian party. Neither, preferably, should bear the name Republican Party.

    Howard Ahmanson of Fieldstead and Company, a private management firm, has been interested in these issues for many years.

  • California’s Blue Utopia

    The Progressive wing of the Democrat Party sits at the left end of their spectrum. JFK’s liberal positions would be regarded as moderate today. Progressives have a unique vision of what a blue state utopia would look like that begins with clean air, clean water, and green energy. Over the last twenty years, with the backing of the public employee unions that control the political process in California, the Progressives have managed to neuter the Republican Party and turn California Blue, owning every elective office in the state. They did not need much help according to Dan Walters, who stated, “Even the most anti-immigrant, anti-gay marriage, anti-tax, anti-abortion Republican activist must now recognize that with the party’s wipeout in last month’s elections, continuing down its recent path is a plunge into complete irrelevance”.

    In 2012, the progressive Democrats captured a super majority in both houses so that with their Progressive governor, they no longer require a single Republican vote to pass any form of legislation, leaving conservatives an “irrelevant” minority.  As an independent businessman, I have created many jobs and opportunities. But despite my contributions to society, and the taxes I have paid over the last thirty plus years, the Progressives believe I need to pay more so that I pay “my fair share.” Only when I pay my fair share can their blue vision of utopia be fulfilled.

    What is my fair share? Under existing Federal and State income tax rates, I will pay 50% of my income in taxes. In California alone, my “fair share” on a million dollars of income is $133,000 each year. In exchange for my taxes, I receive little from the state. In addition, I pay gasoline taxes that pay for the upkeep of the highways. I pay airline taxes that maintain the airports I use. I pay among the highest in the nation sales tax on what I consume. I pay property taxes for the schools my grown children no longer use (they have already left California). I pay utility taxes for the upgrade of infrastructure. I pay higher health insurance rates. I already pay more than my own way.

    I used to develop new homes in California and paid development fees, school fees, park fees, bridge & thoroughfare fees, endangered species fees, utility hook up fees, and processing fees to employ the city workers who reviewed my plans. Such fees totaled $40,000 to $75,000 for each new home built in California. I more than paid my own way. Such new homes are no longer feasible in California considering that home prices have fallen between 20-40% since 2008. And with the new regulations to be imposed in 2013 with the passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, housing and energy will cost even more making new houses even less attractive than they are now.

    A problem in Blue Utopia

    The number 1 topic of conversation amongst the despised 1% in California today is when you are leaving California or whether you can leave. Property owners who cannot move their apartment building or office complexes can move their homes and change their residency. On a flight from Austin, Texas to Orange County last week, I sat next to the owner of a substantial manufacturing business whose plant is in the inland southern California community of Ontario. He lives in Austin, flies in on Monday and home on Thursday. He spends less than 180 days a year in California. His savings in state income taxes more than pays for his airfare, hotel and rental car expenses. His home and gas and energy all cost less in Texas. More significantly, he will not expand his plant in California and intends to move his plant and people to Texas over the next five years.

    What do the progressives have to say about a successful businessman wanting to move out of the state? Some like Paul McCloskey who recently attempted to pass a ballot measure for a Wealth Tax imposed on those leaving the state, would like to follow the French. France imposed a 75% tax rate on anyone making more than one million Euros per year. France’s Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said about people leaving France for lower rates, “We cannot fight poverty if those with the most, and sometimes with a lot, do not show solidarity and a bit of generosity," McCloskey’s proposal would impose an additional 17.5% tax on those with incomes exceeding $150,000 ($250,000 joint) and 35% on incomes exceeding $350,000/year. He would use the extra income to purchase shares of California public companies to “influence their environmental policies and practices”. While his ballot measure did not succeed, it is sobering to think the Democrats do not need a single Republican vote to pass legislation such as this.

    So many of the 1% are quietly leaving. The exodus has already begun. Spectrum Location Solutions reported that 254 companies left California in 2011. Despite claims of an upturn, a press release by the State Controller’s office last week revealed tax revenues from both personal income taxes and corporate taxes fell during the month of this November. Revenue from personal income dropped 19 percent below projections while corporate tax revenue was down a whopping 213.4 percent. Such declines will continue unabated for years to come as the California brain drain proceeds.

    When a government becomes a one-party state, nothing can stop the utopians and zealots of either party. In California, there’s no brake on progressives imposing its vision of Blue Utopia on its people.   California may have clean water, clean air and green energy but at the expense of its people, prosperity and fiscal health.

    The problems in Blue Utopian society will be similar to the unintended consequence of protecting the Delta Smelt in the Central Valley. The Blues labeled this tiny fish, previously known as “bait,” as an endangered species. The Endangered Species Act was created to protect the American Bald Eagle but now extends protection for the Delta Smelt, forcing water to be diverted from the farms of the Central Valley to the Pacific Ocean. The Delta Stewardship Council shows the water cutoffs had no effect on the smelt population. But it did a devastating effect on another endangered species: the California family. When 300,000 acres went fallow, 37,000 jobs were lost. Unemployment has reached 40% in some areas of the Central Valley. Food lines have appeared in the world’s most fertile agricultural valley. Farmworkers were forced to accept bags of carrots grown in China. Orchards that existed for decades died without water. The Central Valley now needs food stamps to feed its residents.  

    The Blues are excited to impose their vision of Utopia on California. I, for one, will not be here to see it. My home goes on the market next month. My company has already re-located to another state. My children have already moved away seeking a future more promising than anticipated here in California. It is ironic because that is why I left my parents in Cleveland, Ohio to come to California four decades ago. I will be sad to leave my home and friendships acquired over decades. But I realize our leaders will neither notice, and if they did, they would not care. 

    As the tax revenues continue to fall (as they always do when rates increase), the Blues will rail against the remaining 1%, claiming that if only “they” would pay their fair share, things would be perfect. They will raise rates, fees, costs, and penalties again on the business class, and will do so as long as they hold power.

    But there is a problem in Blue Utopia. Short term, the state may be supported by the occasional Internet or Housing Bubble, but the money will finally run out.  When it does, maybe they will ask us to come back to the Golden State. They will promise to lower rates and turn the water back on. But it is already too late for the dead orchards of the Central Valley. And it will soon be too late for all but a handful of entrepreneurs of California.

    ¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨

    Robert J Cristiano PhD is the Real Estate Professional in Residence at Chapman University in Orange, CA, a Senior Fellow at the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco, CA and President of the international investment firm, L88 Companies LLC in Washington DC – Newport Beach – Denver – Prague. He has been a successful real estate developer in California for more than thirty years and now makes his home in Austin, Texas.

    California coast photo by BigStockPhoto.com.

  • Compare Fast Cash Loans Decision

  • Compare Short Term Loans Solution

  • Small Same Day Loans Decision