« Surprise, Surprise NYC2012 Under Scrutiny | Main | The G-Word »
April 20, 2005
Battery Park City Bonds & Federal Highway Funds
"The city will use $130 million in money from the Battery Park City
Authority to create a trust fund to provide more affordable housing in the city...build or preserve 4,500 affordable homes for approximately 11,000 largely low-income New Yorkers...latest development in a long-standing dispute over money from the authority...its surplus was supposed to be used to create affordable housing, it has gone to the city's general operating funds and, more recently, was earmarked by Bloomberg to help expand the Jacob Javits Center." -Gotham Gazzette
"Imagine that the urban, or metropolitan, portion of the interstate highway system was built according to the same procedures as those used or proposed to build major transit systems. The result would be:
Only 50 percent of the capital costs for major highways would be paid from federal sources rather than 80 or 90 percent. Cities would have to aggressively compete among one another for their highway funds based on the quality and justification of the proposed project. The rules for the competition would be subject to change without any input. Some states, cities, and metropolitan areas would never be able to build any highways even if there was a pervasive desire by the public and the local officials to do so. Only a few highway segments could begin construction in any year.
If major highways projects were built by the same rules as transit, highways would need a congressional "sponsor" who would secure an earmark by competing with other members for scarce funds. Cities unable to get an earmark would have fewer freeways. Local governments would have to demonstrate that they have sufficient funds to pay for their share of the costs of building the highways. They would also have to demonstrate that they would be able to operate and maintain these highways, as well as their existing highways, into the future.
A substantial portion of highway funding would likely have to come from local property taxes, local sales taxes, or local income taxes. Often there would be limited state contribution to the costs. In many instances, public referenda would have to be approved to get local authorization for project funding.
Also, highway projects would have to compete with police, fire, education, and other programs for funding. In times of budget shortages, highways could be closed completely or eliminated.
The highway would need to be justified on an explicit measure of cost effectiveness. Agencies would have to specifically state how they would manage the land use impacts of their highways. Finally, intensive mandated studies would have to precede the project and would be subject to an independent review by the federal government and an open comparison to other projects." -Brookings Institute full report.
Posted by jmarston at April 20, 2005 10:00 AM