Obama’s Jobs Speech Gets the Transportation Wonk Seal of Approval

TIGER specifically has spurred cities and states to submit hundreds of proposals, and rewarded the most effective ones. Second, they can be merit-based. That means cost-effectiveness, and also allows for other criteria such as contributions to energy security (e.g., does the project save oil?). This ensures a good return-on-investment for taxpayers, which may not be the case if the funds are just doled out to state transportation agencies by dumb, simple formula.

Last but not least, in an era of huge fiscal constraints they leverage federal dollars. For every taxpayer dollar invested, they leverage many local, state and most importantly private dollars.

From the perspective of infrastructure investments, the President’s proposal is both ambitious and pragmatic. He called for immediate investments in the kind of transportation projects that create near-term jobs while providing long-term benefits to Americans and the economy.

Not every single one is my favorite stimulative idea (the employer-side payroll tax stuff, in particular, wouldn’t have been in my bill) and the President’s exposition of the concepts aren’t totally up to state of the art New Keynesian theories, but these ideas will help.

Alternatives to Mr. Obama’s plan that would continue to limit transportation funding from the federal government have little credibility — at least if we believe that keeping the nation’s mobility networks in a condition of acceptable repair is an important national goal.

States have limited ability to increase their indebtedness, and the cutbacks that have followed the recession have demonstrated that governors and state legislatures have been almost universally unwilling (or unable) to invest their own funds to shore up their roads and transit lines — in spite of a decline in support from D.C.