Cutting highway and bridge work in the US state of Pennsylvania by 25% in any given year, and then sustaining it in future years, would cost the state US$1.25 billion in lost economic activity over a five-year period and put as many as 9,600 jobs permanently at risk, according to the American Road & Transportation Builders Association’s (ARTBA) chief economist. Dr. Alison Premo Black’s assessment of the impact of the potential impact of state-wide transport works cuts was part of her testimony to the Pennsy
Cutting highway and bridge work in the US state of Pennsylvania by 25% in any given year, and then sustaining it in future years, would cost the state US$1.25 billion in lost economic activity over a five-year period and put as many as 9,600 jobs permanently at risk, according to the American Road & Transportation Builders Association’s (ARTBA) chief economist.
Dr. Alison Premo Black’s assessment of the impact of the potential impact of state-wide transport works cuts was part of her testimony to the Pennsylvania Senate Transportation committee, based on a report she authored on behalf the Associated Pennsylvania Constructors. The report looked at the potential impact of a decrease in the state’s highway and bridge investment from the current $4.3 billion market to $3.8 billion in 2017.
“In this scenario, Pennsylvania contractors will demand fewer materials, equipment and supplies as the overall market opportunities decline and they have fewer projects backlogged,” Black explained.
Black said that any cuts may come at a time when investing in Pennsylvania’s infrastructure and economy is “extremely important.” She noted that of the Commonwealth’s 45,061 kilometres of roadway eligible for federal aid, 25% are rated not acceptable and need major repairs or replacement. Over 40% of the bridges in Pennsylvania are rated structurally deficient or functionally obsolete—well above the national average of 23%.
ARTBA’s chief economist stressed that her analysis did not take into account the important long-term benefits of infrastructure investment, or the foregone opportunities the Pennsylvania economy would lose.
“A cut in Penn DOT funding could mean that the Commonwealth’s highway and bridge network would be less efficient in the future. This would increase transportation costs, both time and money, for everyone that uses the system,” Black said. “Businesses looking to relocate to Pennsylvania may look at the decline in investment as a disincentive and consider moving elsewhere.”
Dr. Alison Premo Black’s assessment of the impact of the potential impact of state-wide transport works cuts was part of her testimony to the Pennsylvania Senate Transportation committee, based on a report she authored on behalf the Associated Pennsylvania Constructors. The report looked at the potential impact of a decrease in the state’s highway and bridge investment from the current $4.3 billion market to $3.8 billion in 2017.
“In this scenario, Pennsylvania contractors will demand fewer materials, equipment and supplies as the overall market opportunities decline and they have fewer projects backlogged,” Black explained.
Black said that any cuts may come at a time when investing in Pennsylvania’s infrastructure and economy is “extremely important.” She noted that of the Commonwealth’s 45,061 kilometres of roadway eligible for federal aid, 25% are rated not acceptable and need major repairs or replacement. Over 40% of the bridges in Pennsylvania are rated structurally deficient or functionally obsolete—well above the national average of 23%.
ARTBA’s chief economist stressed that her analysis did not take into account the important long-term benefits of infrastructure investment, or the foregone opportunities the Pennsylvania economy would lose.
“A cut in Penn DOT funding could mean that the Commonwealth’s highway and bridge network would be less efficient in the future. This would increase transportation costs, both time and money, for everyone that uses the system,” Black said. “Businesses looking to relocate to Pennsylvania may look at the decline in investment as a disincentive and consider moving elsewhere.”
