No Infrastructure Investment for Concrete!
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto 
on 12.30.08
This is what you get for your infrastructure investment dollars. Texas A&M
Making cement creates 5% of the world's greenhouse gases. Putting it into roads promotes consumption of fossil fuels. And where is the infrastructure investment going? States are lining up at the trough to invest in- highways. According to Heidi Przybyla at Bloomberg,
Missouri’s plan to spend $750 million in federal money on highways and nothing on mass transit in St. Louis doesn’t square with President-elect Barack Obama’s vision for a revolutionary re-engineering of the nation’s infrastructure. Utah would pour 87 percent of the funds it may receive in a new economic stimulus bill into new road capacity. Arizona would spend $869 million of its $1.2 billion wish list on highways.
Supporters say, with a straight face, that this will be good for the environment because it will reduce congestion. “If you can eliminate the congestion, you can dramatically reduce greenhouse-gas emissions,” said Jeff Solsby, a spokesman for the Washington-based American Road and Transportation Builders Association.
Fuel Types for making Cement San Francisco Sentinel
And how long will it take to overcome the greenhouse gas emissions from all that concrete? 5% of the world's CO2 comes from making cement. You carry a lot more people per ton of cement poured by putting it into railbeds.
From its very start, pulling limestone out of the ground, then heating it at 2,700 degrees to turn it into lime, then mixing it with aggregate (also dug out of the ground) and moving it around in cement mixers, concrete is a greenhouse gas extravaganza, producing a ton of CO2 for every ton of concrete.
Road building uses more of it per person carried than any other form of transportation. The cars that drive on it use more fossil fuels per person than any other form of transportation. We want to stop producing greenhouse gases and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. So why is a dime of federal infrastructure money going to pour concrete into roads?
Digging up limestone. San Francisco Sentinel
Because the States love roads and have been planning roads for a long time, and Obama wants to get people working quickly.
Przybyla writes:
The Missouri plan reflects the current needs of the state, where 90 percent of travel is by cars on highways and roads, said Sally Oxenhandler, a spokeswoman for the Missouri Department of Transportation.“We had to take a look at the needs and strike a balance, and also look at projects that we had ready to go in 180 days,” she said.
So a good proportion of the trillion dollars of infrastructure investment is going to go into dumb concrete, gray collar jobs instead of green collar.
In Europe and Southeast Asia, governments are investing tens of billions of dollars in high-speed rail projects that include systems designed for the rapid transport of merchandise. Proponents of a new approach to transportation in the U.S. are pushing for the stimulus package to fund similar projects.
But here? Pour concrete. Build roads. Drive big cars down them. We may have change we can believe in coming to Washington, but In Minnesota and Arizona it is the same old thing. More in Bloomberg and Grist.
Another Quote: David Brooks on Infrastructure Investment : TreeHugger
At Least Some American Infrastructure Investment Doesn't Involve Cars
Time for a Radical Infrastructure Overhaul
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Take it from a Beatle: Cut Your Carbon Footprint by Making Mondays Meat-Free
- Green Glossary: Carbon Sink
- Teaching Kids the Sustainable Lessons of Bamboo
- Trust Stella McCartney: Meat-Free Mondays are Hip, not Hippie!
- Does Recycling Really Make a Difference?
- Build a Greenhouse without Going Broke
Personally, I would be happy if we could require states and cities to spend 15% of their stimulus package on public trans and efficiency. I thought Utah's numbers looked like a step in the right direction.
Wouldn't an even better way to reduce greenhouse gasses be to reduce the number of vehicles traveling on the same amount of roadway?
The reason that the feds ever started building roads was so that the military could move about easily. What was originally an issue of national defense has become an issue of interstate commerce, and a part of our culture. Roads are still important for military use, but much of that can also be done by rail. An increased investment in rail would still be benificial to interstate commerce, and it could help alter our culture to be less dependent on highways.
shouldnt we fix our "crumbling infrastructure" before we build more that will also fall into disrepair? oh no, that would make sense! i knew this was going to happen. obama isnt going to change jack shit.
also, hasnt every study ever done on building roads reached the conclusion that more roads doesnt lessen congestion at all, but actually increases it?
As someone from Missouri, I can tell you that building and repairing roads is very necessary despite the environmental ramifications. As difficult that is to believe, you have to go to Missouri. There are 2 major cities in Missouri that are more than 8 hours apart from each other and the rest is VERY rural. Public transportation in these sparsely populated areas in the Midwest would never be able to maintain themselves financially because vehicles are used in these areas for things like farming. Obama is not even in office yet so let's hold off on how this means he is going to do anything yet. What's he going to tell my brother in Missouri? Sorry, but we can't fix the road from your house to work, but we'll build you a train in 10 years that you'll still have to drive to. Let's think this through people!
@Kari
KC and St. Louis are less than 4 hours apart by car and about 6 on Amtrak. The main difference between the two is that Amtrak trains routinely sit on side rails waiting for longer freight trains to pass.
A possible solution to this is to enforce existing laws that require freight to provide passenger trains the right of way.
If everyone were to drive a hybrid or electric car, then congestion shouldn't make a difference to mileage as the engine or motor shuts off when the car is not moving...
We all know that interchange improvements will lead to the highest constituent satisfaction numbers, and many are desirable owing to irreversible settlement patterns, but don't scoff at mass transit. It's one of the reasons big urban areas seem to have suffered less of a housing price drop. Subway to the sea in LA, and a second-avenue subway in NY, as well as other projects, will also make constituents smile.
Both this post and the associated Bloomberg article are misleading. Only the State can request funds for higways and interstates, this is because they are under the control of the states - In this case MODOT.
According to the United States Conference of Mayors - Mainstreet Economic Recovery, "Ready to Go" Jobs and Infrastructure Projects: St. Louis City will be requesting over 1billion in funds for transit (expansion, improvements, and operating costs), generating in excess of 30,000 jobs. This was the largest amount of funds requested; almost double the total of the rest of the city's requests.
Request Categories:
Transit: 1.07 BILLION
Airport: 163 million
Water: 109 million
Streets/roads: 203 million
Schools: 164.2 million
Housing: 70.5 million
Public Safety: 2.4 million
Community Dev. Block Grants: 450 million
Energy: 70 million
So although, the state's department of transportation may not have requested much in transit funding it may be because this was covered in a different entity's request.
As someone who lives in Kansas City, I would love to see high speed passenger rail service run from KC to St. Louis. I make this trip about six times a year and would gladly work while I ride instead of sit behind the wheel on Missouri's lousy roads.
Visiting my family in the Ozarks I was amazed to see the expensive, multi-lane highways that connected small towns of 500 or 1000 people with other small towns. The state had a bunch of highway construction money and had to find somewhere to use it even if the roads were completely unnecessary. But I suppose the pricey home development on an old pig farm needed quick access for those SUVs. Funny joke though, you have the most expensive home in the county and people will say you live on a pig farm.
I have to agree a bit with both Kari AND Michael here - I grew up in Missouri, and while KC and STL are only approx. 4 hours apart (unless you're stuck in traffic in Columbia), I DO think Kari has a point - it's not feasible for rail in the MAJORITY of the state, as there's mostly farmland. Add to that the fact that Missouri has built their KC and STL infrastructure to where driving is a given (and their busses/metro are HORRENDOUS!), and it seems as if it's a nightmare that dwarfs even those who WOULD like to take it on, much less a President who doesn't have direct experience with it.
Would I love to see a fast-rail be built along the existing I70 (from KC to STL), even if it's only alongside in the beginning? Of course! But tell me how that would help all the farmers that I know - the majority of whom live more than a mile away from a major highway, much less anywhere convenient for rail? These people depend on their vehicles for their livelihood! Many of these towns BARELY have a Wal-Mart (if they're lucky enough for that!), much less a grocery store, yet they pass along food to each other that they've grown, and do their best (with what little they make) to make their lives work.
Now, I LOVE many of the ideas I read on here - but how do you get the AVERAGE Joe (or, if we don't like that name, Bob, then *grin*) to get it to work? I'm not saying it CAN'T, but like I've said before with the small cars - Americans got themselves into the habit of waste, and no habit is cured overnight (or, in the case of said small cars, selling ONLY 2 seaters when the majority of families are 2+kids with 2 adults). Give people a SAFE way to get to their jobs, and THEN work on adding new ones (because as anyone who has lived in MO OUTSIDE of KC/STL can tell you, they sure need them!).
Well, I think these are all really good points. EXISTING infrastructure should be repaired. Having never been to KC or St. Lou, but having lived in many other US cities, and growing up in a rural state. I think strengthening the urban core would be a great place to start. The first dollars should go into hiring urban designers and engineering firms and analysts to look at how zoning and institutions are preventing development of land adjacent to existing rail infrastructure and bus terminals. Look for ways of removing parking within the city, and expanding access to the business districts. Create more housing WITHIN an urban growth boundary, and preserve the agricultural "way of life".
There are real concerns for people who live in rural areas, however, more roads will likely encourage suburbanization and more hardship.