12:21 PM Something to remember when people call for a blue-ribbon panel to investigate the state of the nation’s bridges: it’s been done. Nine years ago. The article says we’ll need billions to fix problem bridges; the question is where the money will come from. According to this article from the Mercury News, money for the Federal Highway Trust Fund – 45 percent of which is paid for by the Federal gas tax – will start falling short of planned spending in 2009. On one hand, that suggests there’s been sufficient funding for Federal projects thus far, but the article makes it apparent that states have invented creative ways to pay for projects because there’s not enough money.
So. Do we raise the Federal Gas Tax? You could squeeze more money out of the existing tax by eliminating the mass-transit subsidy, which will happen when people saddle pigs and fly to work. We could issue massive special appropriations to fix the most troublesome spots, but that doesn’t address the underfunding of the ongoing funding mechanism. (Indiana tried to lease its toll roads to “an Australian-Spanish consortium” for $3.85 billion, for example.) Money quote, literally:
“By the middle of the next decade, the highway trust fund will be providing $100 billion to $150 billion below real needs for building highways and bridges, predicted Rep. Peter DeFazio, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee on highways and transit.”
If the bridge fell for reasons unrelated to maintenance, that doesn’t mean we still can’t have a conversation about funding the projects that do need repair. “More money” isn’t always the answer. But sometimes it is. Again from the Mercury News:
“What is clear to (DeFazio) is that raising taxes of any kind for the highway trust fund is possible only if people are convinced that more spending will mean less congestion, safer roads and a cleaner environment."
"'The public will not support new taxes 'just to throw money in the maw of the federal government," DeFazio said."
Exactly. I don’t think it’s the tax-and-spending aspect that bothers many; it’s the Federal role, which means an elephantine response, pork, and an emphasis on panels and press conferences. But a Federal role is what we’ll get. I think this week we saw the birth of an entirely unexpected issue in the 08 Presidential race. Someone’s probably focus-testing the phrase “Marshall Plan for the Nation’s Road” this very moment.
11:47 AM Laura Bush has arrived. Between the First Lady heading over to the U and the Twins game tonight and the absence of a critical bridge, this might be a good day not to expect to whisk through the Minneapolis core with the usual speed.
10: 49 AM This story: wow. "As she swam for the river bank, Manning spotted her daughter's blanket floating on the surface of the water and grabbed it. UPDATE: link has gone dead, and the story's no longer on the site. Odd. Here's the story on another site.
10:22 AM Headline over at KSTP:
“Hear the screams from inside the bus.”
You know what? I don’t want to hear the screams from inside the bus. I don’t want to hear someone’s kid shrieking in panic, begging her mom to come save her. Why would I?
This is the point in the story where we start to debate what’s news, and what’s just disaster-pr0n. I’m not making the comparison here, because they’re different events in every way. But nothing about 9/11 hit me as hard as the memorial wall on Grand Central Station, a collection of all the fliers and MISSING posters people had stuck up at the site after the Twin Towers were destroyed. They were mute, handmade pleas, and believe it or not, they didn’t need a voice over that said “for now the family sits and waits, wondering what the news will be” or whatever generic tag gets slapped at the end of the grieving-survivor boilerplate story.
I understand why they do those stories, but I have a hard time watchng them. I don’t want to wonder if the cameraman’s wondering how close he should go on the face to get the tears, because on one hand this person is experiencing great private grief, but on the other hand the light is hitting that teardrop just perfectly. Mostly I want them to leave the people alone. I don’t need to be told what they’re feeing. I can guess.
10:00 AM Today’s paper is just remarkable, and I’m not saying that because they pay me. I’m still chewing through all the stories. This line stood out:
“There was enough money in the agency’s budget to pay for construction work on the underside of the bridge.”
It’s from an interesting piece about the internal debate at MnDOT over the status of the bridge. Give it a read; we're going to hear much more about this.
Disaster porn
I'm totally tired of disaster porn too. In every news clip or press conference about the bridge collapse, I keep hear about how this was a "horrible tragedy" and a "disaster" and all this. We now have five deaths. Five. One two three four five. And this is a "horrible tragedy". Yes, there are still a few missing, but "disaster"?
You know what makes it a "horrible tragedy" and a "disaster"? The fact that there were so many pictures and video so soon after, and that it LOOKED like a disaster. The bridge was under construction at the time, at least two lanes were closed to traffic. It could have been much worse, of course. And it's still not a good thing as is. But that this is being compared to Hurricane Katrina (or even Rita) is just beyond absurd.
Mourn the handful of deaths, rebuild the bridge, inspect the national infrastructure, and move on with your life.