The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — the Mormons — are building an enormous new downtown development of high end shops, condos, and offices. But this is not being done with stimulus money, or even one cent of local taxpayers’ money. This project, known as City Creek Center, is funded entirely by the Mormons and their development partners. Is that emphasis on wealth and consumerism compatible with Mormon values of modesty and thrift? Does it leave any room for the poor, or for the variety that helps make up vibrant city life?

Religion & Ethics Correspondent Lucky Severson  reports from Salt Lake City. Read the transcript of this report at the Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly website.

CORRECTION: This report originally stated that the Mormon Church “develop[ed] two downtown malls on land across from Temple Square.” In fact, while the Church did develop the ZCMI Center, Crossroads Plaza was developed by Crossroads Plaza Associates, an investor group not affiliated with the Church. The Church acquired Crossroads Plaza in 2003.

After all, there is a lot of ground to cover between New York City and Portland, Oregon.

MontanaPBS — as a part of Blueprint America — and the local Gallatin County Planning Board have begun a study to develop a non-motorized trail system throughout Gallatin County, Montana.

Already, a week-long interconnect challenge through the back country of Gallatin County by mountain bike, dirt bike, kayak, canoe, and, even, horse took place July 20-25 this past summer.

Take a look at the website created to document the beginnings of the trail system.

[check back soon for updates on the project]

___________________________________________________________
MontanaPBS is a partner station of Blueprint America

UNC-TV — as a part of Blueprint America — looks at North Carolina’s most pressing concerns around transportation infrastructure and creative solutions for the future.

(View full post to see video)
___________________________________________________________
UNC-TV is a partner station of Blueprint America

The idea is to gather a diverse set of community leaders and help them identify areas — like education, job creation and health care — where they can work together for improvement.

WITF public television in Pennsylvania — as a part of Blueprint America — plays host to the first conversation on revitalizing the center region of the state.

Panelists include Harrisburg University President Dr. Mel Schiavelli, Jacksonville Florida’s Blueprint for Prosperity original manager Dr. Jarik Conrad, and CEOs for Cities President Carol Coletta.

[part one]
(View full post to see video)

[part two]
(View full post to see video)

[part three]
(View full post to see video)

[part four]
(View full post to see video)

[part five]
(View full post to see video)

_______________________________________________________________
WITF in Pennsylvania is a partner station of Blueprint America

The Bay Bridge in the San Francisco-Oakland area was closed last night after a crossbar and two steel tie rods fell from a section repaired last month, damaging three vehicles and causing minor injuries to one driver. Structural engineers and inspectors are working to determine how long repairs will take.

NOW on PBS host — and Blueprint America collaborator — David Brancaccio will be a guest on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show to discuss the incident and the overall state of America’s infrastructure (Live: Wednesday, October 28 at 9:25 pm EST).

* * *
In a report from The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, political wrangling can often get in the way of critical infrastructure improvements Case in point: The rebuilding of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.

Originally aired: September 29, 2009

We work for an engineering consulting company specializing in infrastructure. Everywhere we go people are asking us about how much of a boon the stimulus plan (formally the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, (ARRA)) has been for us. They seem surprised when we respond it has had little or no impact on our business. For us it conjures up the image of the famed Wendy’s commercial from the 1980’s used to blast the size of its competitors’ hamburgers with the question, “Where’s the beef?” Walter Mondale, on his way to the 1984 Democratic presidential nomination attacked opponent Senator Gary Hart with the same query.

In searching for the beef, one finds that although ARRA is a $787 billion program only about $130 billion or 17% is for infrastructure. Because construction takes more time to “rev up” compared to social programs, the 2009 share for public works is even less. The Government Accountability Office’s (GAO’s) latest bi-monthly report on the Recovery Act estimates that by the end of the 2009 fiscal year, 6% of recovery spending would be given to Highways Infrastructure Investment. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) reallocated $61-million (1.2% of 2009 fiscal year spending) to the Federal Transit Authority for transit projects. The bulk (76%) of the spending is going towards Medicaid and the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund.

ARRA has clearly created a windfall for paving contractors. Almost half the highway funds go towards pavement improvement, and 23% to pavement widening and new pavement. Another 12.5% goes toward bridge construction, replacement and improvement. The amount outlaid to highways this early in the game is not a surprise given the “shovel ready” requirement of the Recovery Act. The GAO points this out and observes that most of these pavement projects can be planned, engineered and executed within three years. Repaving the country clearly puts people to work (The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee attributed 48,000 jobs to ARAA by June 30th) but does it improve our country and help the economy in the long run?

We maintain that the shovel-ready paving jobs most likely were the easy ones to do (i.e. the road surfaces were a little cracked and uneven); really “bad” roads (having subsurface problems, safety hazards, going over bridges) would have required time-consuming engineering and are probably left to rounds 2 and 3 of ARRA. We offer reservations on the long-term economic impact of current ARRA spending on infrastructure for two main reasons. The current transportation bill just expired on September 30th and it could take months or even a year or longer for a new bill to be passed. Simultaneously, in a penny-wise pound foolish approach, half the states are cutting their transportation programs due to dire finances. This double-whammy could cause a drop in overall spending.

The good news for our quality of life is that nearly half the states are looking to improve and add rail transit. In July, states had submitted “pre-applications” for $102.5 billion to the Federal Railroad Administration for ARRA dollars. In August, about 20 states had submitted applications totaling around $7 billion. The ‘winners’ will be announced in October. But still rail spending appears to be a pittance compared to highway expenditures.

This is a shame, because the rail apportionment is the most forward-looking of the programs, and allows for work to continue for a decade. As opposed to the “shovel-ready” requirement of the FHWA dollars, it provides money for advanced planning, but only 50 cents on the dollar compared to 100% federal funding for construction. We think this is a mistake. It is the advanced planning and engineering that unleashes the progressive ‘big bucks.’

The ‘sexiest’ projects to come out of ARRA will be the high-speed rail corridors. Texas, surprisingly, has taken the lead in this race with the $1.7 billion “Texas T-Bone” plan connecting Dallas, San Antonio and Houston. California, New Jersey, Maryland and Pennsylvania are among the states in the “hunt” for high-speed rail.

Not all ARRA funding is going towards hot-shot transit projects through the rail grant. We call for a leveling of the playing field when it comes to funding bus rapid transit (BRT) versus light rail. Until now buses were less efficient and more polluting than rail. But, the 2010 BRT vehicles match light rail for speed (when dedicated right-of-way is provided), pollution and energy use. They can be built at about a third the cost of light rail, and it is possible to take these projects from concept to completion in a short amount of time. Nonetheless, light rail can be a better choice for very heavy used corridors on city streets, like Manhattan’s 42nd Street, for the fact that on-street rail is less likely to be blocked by cars than bus lanes.

Highway projects can also have some pizzazz if they are thoughtful and reflect the need for our country to become more energy efficient and to lower our carbon footprint. We urge a “complete streets” approach to highway construction in which transit, pedestrians and bike riders are seriously considered in the design. Complete streets are also a smart investment (i.e. American Reinvestment and Recovery Act), as economic returns from transportation investments which are multi-modal and connect people to regional cores can have returns up to 100 more than other investments. Had Robert Moses, New York’s legendary bridge builder in the mid-twentieth century, thought in complete streets terms he would never have built the Verrazano Bridge in 1964 with no rail, bike access or sidewalks. As a sidebar, every major New York City bridge built prior to 1910 had rail; no bridges built in the past century have had rail! New streets design should also address other 21st century threats to quality of life, by being built completely from the sub-ground up, with trees to improve air quality and porous pavements or water capturing systems to prevent flooding and water pollution.

Speaking of bridges, we have a hefty bill just to get our bridges out of the “structurally deficient” categorically (12% of the nation’s bridges or more than 72,000 structures are rated as such). The federal program has historically supported the very expensive rehab of bridges but not the very efficient low-cost maintenance programs. We urge the feds to reinforce good maintenance for federal dollars.

ARRA has reached the six month milestone with mixed results for the public works of our country. The beef may be thin but we are guardedly optimistic that thicker burgers are on their way. And in our opinion we will have lots of toppings offered for rail passengers, bus riders, pedestrians, bikers and bridge builders. This may just be the best burger ever!

President Barack Obama with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood || photo: White House / streetsblog.org

UPDATE

Late Wednesday, the Senate, in conjunction with a House vote last week, passed a one-month extension of the 2005 transportation law, which would have expired at midnight.

*  *  *

At midnight Wednesday, the federal transportation law funding national highway and transit programs will expire. Amid a lack of consensus in Congress on what to do—as the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has been at odds with both the Senate and the Obama Administration—the current law will almost certainly be extended for one-month. However, it is a short-term fix — an even shorter-term fix than the three-month extension passed in the House last week or the proposed 18-month extension in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

The federal transportation law is supposed to be re-authorized every six years, although extensions have become commonplace in this process.

House and Senate appropriations committees agreed to the one-month reprieve as a legislative failsafe in order to keep federal transportation funding mechanisms going at 2009 levels, including the Highway Trust Fund, until lawmakers can complete the new budget. The House approved the resolution on Sept. 25. The Senate is expected to pass it sometime before the Wednesday deadline.

That said, there is nothing to suggest that the Congressional impasse that led to the one-month extension will be solved in just a month’s time. The current transportation law, which was finally passed in 2005, had a dozen similar extensions. Simply, Oct. 31 could look a lot like Sept. 30.

Still, more important than Congress and the Administration agreeing on a three-month or 18-month extension is a consensus on a new transportation law. Already, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D., Minn.) has introduced a $450 billion dollar bill that not only increases current federal transportation funding but also restructures some funding practices and reorganizes the Department of Transportation. But, as Congress remains in similar gridlock over healthcare, the Administration has opposed any action on Rep. Oberstar’s legislation. As a result, the majority of the Senate, led by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has sided with the President. Moreover, neither the Senate nor the Administration has put forth their own bills to reauthorize federal transportation funding. Though Rep. Oberstar’s bill was introduced in June, nothing guarantees it will be the legislation that passes one-month, three-months or 18-months from now.

More to lose down the road

Even if the one-month extension is approved in the Senate Wednesday, a measure to dissolve $8.7 billion in un-obligated federal highway assistance will be triggered Thursday unless lawmakers act to correct the matter. But, as the one-month resolution is a conference report, both houses must pass it without amendments.

The 18-month extension proposed by Sen. Boxer would repeal the measure, but action on her bill is unlikely to happen before the deadline. There is no companion language in the House extension.

The loss of the $8.7 billion could lead to project cancellations nationwide. Some states can draw on their own reserves to continue work. Overall, states could lose some $3 billion.

Rep. James Oberstar, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

Every six years the law authorizing national transportation policy and funding needs renewal. The current law expires Sept. 30 — in nine days.

Without some kind of action, legislation to extend the current transportation law by 18 months — already in place in the Senate and endorsed by the Obama administration — would almost certainly have to pass in order ensure transportation funding past the end of the month.

Rep. James Oberstar (D., Minn.), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is staunchly against an 18-month delay. As a result, it is likely he will propose a three-month extension later this week.

This comes after months of pushing for his own plan, to not only reauthorize the transportation bill, but also increase federal funding (from $286 billion in 2005 to a proposed $450 billion) and restructure the practices of the Department of Transportation.

Still, with time running out to pass this new legislation, supporters of Rep. Oberstar’s bill are beginning to accept the idea of an extension of the existing law.

After months of opposing a delay, for example, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D., Ore.), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, recently said a three-month extension would be “reasonable”.

That said, three months may not be enough time to move a spending bill of this size through a Congress already in gridlock over the health care debate. The House Ways and Means Committee, which must determine the legislation’s funding, has yet to set a date to hear the bill. Moreover, the bill has not been marked up in Rep. Oberstar’s own committee.

With Congress back after a summer recess, President Barack Obama, in an address before both the House and Senate on Wednesday, again made clear that the government’s business at this moment is health care reform.

As a result, major climate legislation has been delayed twice in the Senate by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. At the same time, similar legislation in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee — a $450 billion bill to overhaul transportation funding and policy nationally — has not been put off, at least by Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D., Minn.).

But the Senate, led by Sen. Boxer, has legislation in place — and much farther along than the House transportation bill — to authorize just under $30 billion to extend the current transportation law by another 18 months. This would effectively delay Rep. Oberstar’s legislation with or without his support.

One way or another, action on federal transportation policy needs to come by the end of the month as the current law, which funds transportation projects and programs from mass transit upgrades to road and bridge repair to high speed rail development, expires Sept. 30.

Last month, while on the steps of the Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul, Rep. Oberstar said:

It is disappointing that after eight years of a Bush administration that said no to robust investment in transportation now the Democratic administration says ‘well not now … 18 months’. The nation doesn’t have 18 months… People need jobs now.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman continued:

We’ve reported our six-year bill out of subcommittee and the week when we come back after Labor Day we’ll report it from full committee… I expect to have it on the floor by the third week of September; $450 billion over the next six years and the administration’s either going to come along or we’re going to roll them over.

Still, a report Thursday by The Wall Street Journal suggests that Rep. Oberstar sees passage of his bill unlikely this fall and that an extension of the current transportation law is likely.