The TIGER sleeps tonight (in Staples)

The second round of Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants are landing just as a tumultuous election season is coming to an end. In "normal" times, the grants -- nearly $600 million worth -- would allow politicians to claim they are doing something to, as the name implies, invest in transportation and thus generate an economic recovery. This time around that claim seems to have much less traction.

There was a pair of fascinating blog posts last week talking about the lack of support for infrastructure spending outside of the small group of wonkish advocates and special interests. The posts were based on a report from the Pew Center on the States that showed, contrary to political myth, that the public does not place a high priority on transportation spending and people are not enthusiastic about funding programs that resemble TIGER II.

Eric Jaffe, of The Infrastructurist, wrote a piece called New Report Shows States Want to Cut Infrastructure Spending. In it he writes about the study saying,

...few respondents preferred to protect infrastructure spending over health care or education. They were also opposed to funding infrastructure through tax hikes...

Jaffe points out that there is public misperception about how much money is actually spent on infrastructure. He also laments the lack of understanding on behalf of the public.

Nothing against health care and education spending, of course. But why are people so quick to dismiss the importance of infrastructure improvements? Part of the problem is that people not only see the stimulus as a failure, they also mistake is for an infrastructure plan.

Jaffe quotes another good commentary by Ken Orski at Infrastructure USA titled Living in Denial. Orski probes deeper into the American psyche, giving some examples of politicians that have benefited from opposing infrastructure spending. One example he cites is that of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who have received overwhelming support from his constituents for canceling spending on a $9-$14 billion rail tunnel under the Hudson River. I think Orski nails the prevailing sentiment of Americans (even though he ascribes it to "congressional lawmakers") in this statement:

But rightly or wrongly, congressional lawmakers often discount cries about “crumbling infrastructure” as self-serving demands for more government money, often for projects that yield small economic return.

The fifth finding of the Pew report summarizes this quite well.

Finding #5: Lack of Trust and Desire for Reform

Residents are widely distrustful of state government and believe it can operate more effectively. They want fiscal reforms - and a better return on their tax dollars - now.

This is not an irrational sentiment on behalf of the public. As we've pointed out on this site many, many times, we're getting a tremendously low rate of return on our infrastructure dollar. We're stuck in an Old Economy infrastructure model, developed post-WW II, that has had diminishing returns for at least the last thirty years. The recent stimulus package and TIGER programs have simply been extensions of this mindset.

As another example of why people are ready to be done with this approach to infrastructure, I turn to a recently-announced TIGER II grant project here in the Central Minnesota town of Staples. The city, one of two award recipients in Minnesota, was given $7.65 million to construct an overpass. I'll excerpt from the news report:

A $7.65 million federal grant has been awarded to Staples to construct an overpass above Highway 10 and the BNSF Railway tracks on the west side of the city.

The $9,850,000 project will require no tax dollars from the city of Staples. Along with the federal grant, $1.2 million in other federal funding and $1 million in state funding has been committed to the project.

The overpass will end the north-south disconnect caused by Highway 10 and the BNSF Railway tracks. Currently, traffic was delayed three hours per day by slowing and switching trains, according to conservative estimates from Minnesota Department of Transpiration.

The project includes a dedicated 10-foot wide bike path and pedestrian lane. There will be no direct access to and from Highway 10 to the overpass. The project will extend from about 550 feet north of Warner Road on the north to Wisconsin Avenue on the south, a distance of about 1.2 miles.

Specifically, the overpass will connect Todd County Road 21 to the south to Wadena County Road 30 to the north. Mathews said currently driving from the north side to the south side of the city requires several turns onto various streets.

"It's a bit of a mouse maze to get from one side to the other," Mathews said. "It's been that way for years. The city has been working on this specific project for 10 years but trying to get a road over the tracks has been talked about for decades."

We are building an overpass to improve traffic flow in a small town of 3,000 people. The expenditure is $6,900 per Staples household. In the reaction / counter-reaction to the grant awards, Transportation for American actually singled out the Staples project as one that should be lauded.

The people in Staples, Minnesota stuck in traffic downtown for hours each day while an average of 52 long trains pass through town could probably vouch for the benefits and reduced congestion that will come from a brand new bridge and crossing.

Here's where I think infrastructure advocates lose the broad population. Yes, there is no question that the people of Staples will like this, but is that worth $9.85 million of everyone else's dollars? Can we really look at all of the priorities we have in this nation and pick this one?

Here are the criteria required for being selected for a grant:

In terms of selection criteria for TIGER II grants, submissions required: contributing to the long-term economic competitiveness of the nation; improving the condition of existing transportation facilities and systems; improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions; improving the safety of U.S. transportation facilities and improving the quality of living and working environments of communities through increased transportation choices and connections.

Consider how the Staples project stacks up with the program's own criteria:

• Contribute to the long-term economic competitiveness of the nation. Apparently somebody argued that we are going to be a more competitive country if people are able to get from one side of Staples (population 3,000) to the other a few seconds quicker? How is $10 million of additional debt to China and a long-term maintenance obligation that nobody can afford improving our competitiveness? What could they do with that money at the Staples school to make us more competitive? Staples is a nice town and I respect the proactive vision that many in their government have, but the town is not economically important to the region -- let alone the state or the country -- in any significant way.

• Improve the condition of existing transportation facilities and systems. This is a fairly low and nonsensical standard since filling a pothole will "improve the condition" of an existing facility or system.

• Improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This standard applied to the Staples project is a joke. We build them an overpass and people will theoretically get to where they are going more quickly and will thus spend less time driving. Of course, now that things are easier to get to, history has shown us that people will drive more, offsetting any benefit from the less-time-in-traffic argument. What this improvement does is to take a place that is marginally walkable and make it even less so. Sure, a trail is thrown in to make the street "complete" and fit the funding criteria. Why don't we just construct the trail? (Answer: Because then people would really think we were wasting money since very few will actually use the trail. Don't kid yourself - this is an auto enhancement project wrapped in a multi-modal veneer.) This project reinforces a drive-everywhere mentality.

• Improving the safety of U.S. transportation facilities. In the Old Economy paradigm, anything that allows any car to move more freely from one place to another is deemed to "improve public safety." This is true even when studies have shown that it is not true. I've been stuck at trains in Staples and there is no question that, in an emergency, waiting for a train would present a major problem. (There is also no question that the three-hour wait sited in the story is a cumulative figure, surely counting lots of overnight work. I've driven through Staples many times and, while I've had to wait for trains at times, excessive waits are not a routine occurrence). Again though, if we walked into City Hall with a briefcase holding $9.8 million and asked them to spend it to improve public safety, there are a thousand things they would do before they would undertake this project. Train a paramedic on each block and put a defibrillator in every home and you'd more dramatically improve emergency response and be money ahead.

• Improve the quality of living and working environments of communities through increased transportation choices and connections. I suppose one could argue that getting people from one side of town to the other more quickly improves their lives. It will certainly keep their cars happy. By reinforcing an auto-primacy mentality, it will not strengthen the neighborhoods of Staples or make them more livable. And even if it did.....is this the best we can do? As a nation, is an overpass of a low-volume railroad track and a low-volume highway a priority? If you gave me or anyone in Staples $9.8 million and said, "improve the quality of life for residents of Staples," this would be about the last project that anyone would choose.

As insiders and wonks in this debate over infrastructure, we can wring our hands over the lack of funding and hurl insults down from the towers at the masses who don't support our prescriptions. I find that counterproductive.

Instead, we need to understand that there is a logical reason why people won't get behind initiatives to fund essential infrastructure. If our system really considers the Staples overpass project a priority in an era when we are borrowing unfathomable amounts of money from overseas, systematically debasing our currency by printing even more, all the while squeezing funding from other parts of the public budget including unemployment and medical assistance, can we blame people for opposing more spending on infrastructure?

I think we'd be crazy as a people if we did not oppose this insanity.

I'm sure the shock of the city officials in Staples was more than genuine. They never anticipated getting the money because this project is, for the cost, a ridiculous expenditure of public dollars. If the city of Staples were asked to simply pay 10% of the cost -- just $985,000  for their "share" -- this project would not be happening. It is simply not a priority any rational group of people would spend their own money on. There literally is no return on this investment.

Ultimately, building Strong Towns cannot be done by relying solely on someone else's dime.

Note: This post raises a topic I have put off writing about, that being the insidious downside of the "Complete Streets" movement. Complete Streets is a concept I generally support, but one which has been misapplied by the establishment for reasons I consider quite nefarious. I feel compelled to write about this more, and so you will see that in an upcoming post.

What are you doing to build a Strong Town? You can join Strong Towns on Facebook and Twitter, or sign up for a Curbside Chat and bring the Strong Towns message to your community.

Comments

[Cheryal Lee Hills]

Good God Chuck, Doesn’t ANYONE care about you enough to tell you to shut the heck up if you don’t know what you’re talking about? I do. The Staples overpass project DOES have regional impacts and is a solid project and good use of our infrastructure funds. This is NOT about getting 3,000 people across the street “a few seconds quicker”. Don’t you dare give lip service to how you respect these people and then slam them the way you have in this blog.

You talk a lot about “Strong Towns” yet you cannot identify even ONE Minnesota town that has meet your “strong town” criteria…..thus they don’t exist and you’re talking to hear yourself talk, which is typically fine until you step over the line….and you have.

The Staples project has been in consideration for over 40 years….and this community is in your back yard. If this was such a horrible project, where was you good advice at the numerous City meetings this was discussed prior to Tiger II? Despite what your lovely ego tells you…..posting a blog doesn’t mean your opinion has been heard. SHOW UP! Seriously, you are not an “insider in this debate, what you are....... is an after the fact uneducated opinion that thankfully means nothing to the people of this community, region or state/federal funding agencies.

When a project doesn’t fit your mold you deem it unimportant or a waste of money or even worse “crazy not to oppose”. This project was not “handed down from towers to the masses”….it was a project supported by the community and region. Yes Chuck….this project WOULD have happened if the community was asked to pay a “share” and there IS return on this investment. Business expansion can be supported by the necessary infrastructure….which means JOBS Chuck.

It is true that we do need federal funding to support infrastructure improvements in rural areas of our nation, and it is true that towns should try to save for this infrastructure as an active partner in this effort……so I challenge you Chuck…..run for a City Council seat…..I’d even help you get elected…..just to put you in the chair of the people you criticize.

It will be good to witness your participation in developing a “Strong Town” rather than reading how poorly everyone else is doing. I recommend that you find the courage to visit the Staples City Council face-to-face and learn something about this project before you speak about it again.

Yes….you got a rise out of me……you also gained my momentary disrespect …..and I am not alone.
I KNOW you in your heart that you really want to help people……but this is not the way Chuck.
Best wishes on your journey.
Cheryal Lee Hills, Executive Director of Region 5 Development Commission, resident of Crow Wing County, working in Staples MN.

[Mulad]

Here's the city's page on the project. Staples is pretty neatly divided in two by the highway and rail line -- two lines meet in the city, actually, and a rail yard to the west makes building crossings difficult. Right now, there are only two roads that connect the northern half of the city to the southern half. This project would add a third route. (I fail to see how either of the existing routes qualified as a "mouse maze", though).

I can find things that bug me about the design, but I'm of the mind that adding connections is generally good. If this was built a half-mile outside of town, that would really be a problem. It's a bit strange that the road doesn't go straight south of the tracks, but can see some reasons why it would be best to do that. They really ought to include a straight connection south for bikes and pedestrians, though -- They're going to go that way anyway (unless someone puts up a fence), so they may as well pave it now... My gut feeling is that it would have been better to build the crossing a block farther east, but if it's been discussed for decades, I'm sure there are reasons behind that.

[Chris]

Here's the question I have regarding the Staples overpass project: Does the community have an overpass NOW? If so, how many?
I grew up in a community also divided in two by a railroad. The town only had two overpasses when I lived there (a 3rd was built a few years ago). But we were also a community of more than 20,000 people. The 8 a.m. "rush hour" was the only time it was ever an issue and people knew to avoid the regular railroad crossing just in case there happened to be a train.

[Charles Marohn]

I think the Staples project is an interesting look into the broader issue of public support for infrastructure spending. Politicians and advocates support such spending, but the public does not, preferring to cut infrastructure before other spending priorities. This is true even at a time when the life cycle of many of our infrastructure investments is ending. We have huge funding gaps in just maintaining what we have, let alone expanding our systems.

Even if the Staples project were essential to the city, and even if it created "JOBS", and even if all 3,000 residents of Staples were the most wonderful, kind, industrious people in the world, it still does not change the fact that the project does not meet the TIGER funding criteria. More importantly, at a time when we literally have a $2.5 trillion shortfall nationwide in just maintaining what we have built already, spending $9.5 million on an overpass of a low volume railroad and a low volume highway in a town of 3,000 can't possibly be a nationwide priority. That is less of a comment on Staples and more a comment on the huge liabilities we have created for ourselves.

I think people inherently understand that this type of development approach can't continue, which explains American's resistance to supporting more spending and their willingness in the Pew study to sacrifice infrastructure spending before other priorities. It is important that policy makers understand this. Instead of simply criticizing people they believe are uninformed or uneducated, people with influence over transportation decisions should, to regain the public's support, acknowledge that our current approach has run its course, is no longer generating prosperity and needs dramatic reform.

And adding even more liabilities to our insurmountable maintenance deficit is going to hurt the communities we are trying to help in the long run.

Finally, as our post on Tuesday talked about, we have created a system that is homogeneous in its composition, with our development pattern largely standardized across most of the country for reasons of efficiency. This has made nearly every city vulnerable to the same things at the same time. When everyone is going the wrong direction, it is easy to criticize the one that turns around for being different. However, criticism doesn't suddenly make everyone else right.

[Chris Wilson]

And of course there are those who complain when projects that effect them directly are pushed back because the funding isn't there.
There's a community in Southwest Missouri who just pushed back a project to redo some sidewalks because, surprise surprise, they don't have the money right now. A few residents have complained, but what do they want the city to cut so that they can pay for it?

[Mulad]

Charles, this is absolutely not a "low-volume railroad" -- it is BNSF's main line between Chicago and Seattle. While there are spots in the state that see more trains per day, it is basically the busiest route through the state. Amtrak's Empire Builder runs on that line, and stops in Staples. 52 trains per day translates into one train every 27 minutes, but that's only an average. I live next to a segment of track in Saint Paul that sees the same level of traffic, and there are times of day when it is absolutely constant -- trains backed up one right behind another. Freight trains are usually thousands of feet long, so it takes around a minute for a 50-mph train to go through a crossing. Considering that they have a yard in Staples just west of existing crossings, I'm certain there are many times when trains go very slow and take several minutes to move through.

People can and do live with that level of traffic, but grade crossings always come with liabilities attached. I don't know if anyone has ever been hit in Staples, but I do know that even Amtrak trains with their limited schedules crash into cars, trucks, and pedestrians on a regular basis around the country. If people want to get to the goal of having a high-speed rail network in the U.S., or simply improve existing passenger services, many grade crossings need to go away. Travel is quite safe for train passengers in the U.S., but these massive objects still kill people outside of the train surprisingly often. In comparison, Japan and France have worked hard to have zero or nearly zero grade crossings on their respective Shinkansen and TGV networks, which translates into a fatality rate that is also zero or very close. If you look at the cost of this project in terms of liability and whether it will prevent someone from being hit by a train, I think it looks a lot better.

I will agree that it would have been preferable for the local community to have funded this project itself, or with assistance from the railroad. From what I can tell, the city of Staples seems fairly compact. The main part of the city uses a nice grid system for its roads, so the northern and southern halves each have good connectivity. That said, it does appear that Staples has a fairly low overall density -- probably due to official borders that extend out well beyond the main town. It also appears to be a "vulnerable city" according to the report from your group (and I'm a bit surprised you didn't mention that directly). They should restrain future outward growth and encourage people to redevelop within the city and make use of existing infrastructure.

Given Staples' layout, I think a bridge over the tracks was inevitable. While they haven't been able to afford it themselves until now, they should certainly work toward rebuilding their community so that they can afford the operational and maintenance costs of the new bridge, and also plan for the time 50-75 years down the line so they can pay for rebuilding it when this one becomes too old.

[Charles Marohn]

Point well made, Mulad, on the volume of the rail track. It is funny because the entire Staples aspect of this was a local angle I added after-the-fact to the post - it was originally just about how there is a big disconnect between policy makers and the general population over the value of infrastructure spending. The Staples part has obviously generated a lot of interest and we're going to look into that specific project more deeply next week.

As part of a national policy for high-speed rail, this project takes on an entirely different meaning. But that is not where we are at, and I doubt that you'll be able to get from Staples to Seattle by rail in less than 24 hours any time soon. That is very unfortunate.

An investment in high speed rail through this corridor would require many more of this type of overpass, and in towns with even less population and less density than Staples. If this is a national priority - and we would definitely be open to that idea - then we need to change the model that these towns are being built on, because it currently undermines that goal.

Check back next week - I'm planning to go over some of the population, density, vulnerability, etc.. criteria that you bring up. I'll keep your input in mind as we go through the data. Great feedback!