CORRECTED- COLUMN-Not all stimulus dollars are born equal:Christopher Swann (Corrects paragraph 6 to make clear study was carried out by University of Massachusetts Amherst, not Amherst College)
– Christopher Swann is a Reuters columnist. The views expressed are his own –

NEW YORK, July 9 (Reuters) - Of all the elements of Obama’s economic stimulus program, none is more redolent of the 1930s than the massive investments in roads and bridges. The plan harkens back to a “get American working” mentality — evoking pictures of happy workers sweating in the summer sun.
The question is, which summer will that be? Much of the money may be spent in 2011 or after. Indeed, estimates by the Congressional Budget Office suggest that three-quarters of the funds destined for highway construction will be spent between 2012 and 2019. Whether on broadband or energy efficiency, much of the infrastructure spending has to wait until after 2013.
The mounting calls for a second stimulus suggest that many Americans are already losing patience with the first. This puts the White House in a tricky situation. There may be little it can do to speed up the rate of spending without seriously compromising the quality of projects, risking charges of waste. Also the size of the budget deficit makes another round of tax cuts hard to justify.
While the Federal government is running out of options, Americans can at least look to the states to spend infrastructure dollars faster and more effectively. A new study by Smart Growth America, a coalition of groups that advocate policies that avoid urban sprawl, suggests that part of the problem may be poor decision-making by the states.
For not all stimulus dollars are created equal.
Road repair has two advantages over road building. First it is faster-acting because it involves considerably less red tape. It also has the advantage that it creates 16 percent more jobs than road building, according to a 2009 study by University of Massachusetts Amherst. Investments in public transport are even better at creating jobs, 31 percent more than road building.
From this perspective, the spending pledged by the states has been far from optimal. The states were given a pot of $26.6 billion to spend as they chose on any transport project. A disturbingly high proportion — about a third — is already going to building new roads, the least efficient form of transport stimulus. Some states, like Arkansas, Kansas and Kentucky, are devoting more than 85 percent of their discretionary funds to road building.
This is especially hard to understand since they do not appear to have had the resources to maintain their existing roads. In Arkansas, for example, 62 percent of roads are in “bad condition”, according to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Rough roads add $335 a year on average to the cost of owning a car in America, owing to more damaged tires, suspension and lower fuel efficiency.
More disappointing is the amount spent on public transit, the most effective job creator. Of the discretionary pot, just 0.9 percent has been allocated here. True, states have a separate $8.4 billion that they are forced to spend on public transport. Even so it would have been sensible to allocate more of their flexible funds to this area.
Not only would this be better short-term stimulus, it promises long term economic advantages as well. In a study in San Antonio each one percent of regional travel shifted from automobile to public transit increased regional income by about $2.9 billion, resulting in 226 additional regional jobs. The use of public transportation has increased by 38 percent since 1995 — nearly triple the rate of population growth.
Politicians have always enjoyed cutting ribbons on new infrastructure projects. But the case for new road building is very weak. States still have time to change course. Before we start thinking about a second stimulus plan, we need to start spending the money from the first one more wisely.
(Editing by Martin Langfield)