You might think that one's a no-brainer, what with 13 motorists killed by the Interstate 35W bridge collapse over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, and the attendant media furor. But infrastructure improvements are about as politically sexy as woolen tights on a sumo wrestler. Actually, a minefield is a more apt analogy, as the hugely expensive improvements to bridges, roads, levees, school buildings and the like threaten the budgets of a federal government stretched thin by existing pork barrel projects. But it's a nettle that must be grasped. Unfortunately, New York Times Op Ed columnist Bob Herbert does so so gingerly he renders his rant meaningless. In other words, money is never mentioned. But jobs sure are. "Senator Dodd told me: 'At a time when we’re worried about rising unemployment rates and declining confidence in this country, infrastructure projects have the dual effect of putting people to work — and usually at pretty good salaries and wages — while also creating a sense of optimism, of investing in the future… In terms of stimulating the economy, there is nothing better than a job.”" And in terms of sucking money from the taxpayer? Look for this one to lie low until after the election– unless another tragedy occurs.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Robert Farago writes: “In other words, money is never mentioned.”
I don’t think that’s accurate.
For instance, about halfway through the piece, Herbert mentions this little factoid: “According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, in a study that should have gotten much more attention when it was released in 2005, it would take more than a trillion and a half dollars over a five-year period to bring the U.S. infrastructure into reasonably decent shape.”
See, he mentiones money — the figure of $1,500,000,000,000 to be exact. What he doesn’t state with any specificity is where all that dough should come from, or even if that is a truly accurate figure (i.e. not inflated — civil engineers could always use more business). Which is fair enough, because no matter how you slice it and dice it, it is a huge problem beyond the scope of a mere editorial column.
The figure of $150,000,000,000 is well recognized today — it is the size of the proposed economic stimulus plan — and there is the implicit argument that all or a portion of that should go into public works projects instead of simple tax rebates. That’s 10% of the whole. Herbert also reported on the idea of a nationally chartered infrastructure bank, which could funnel private investment money into projects that seem to hold the promise of profit (toll roads, power infrastructure, waterworks).
I think Herbert’s point was a general, which befits the size and scope of his essay: In all our talk of economic stimulus and government rescue of the economy, we have good reason to spend on infrastructure projects, instead of or in addition to the proposed spending on tax rebates and social programs.
The problem with infrastructure improvements is that they have become prohibitively expensive due to environmental regulations. It takes years and billions of dollars to get roads designed and through the myriad of red tape that get environmental approval. Not to mention the cost of construction skyrocketing.
Even in road-friendly states like Texas, it is becoming more and more difficult to get roads built and/or improved. The Environmentalists fight every road project tooth and nail, in the fantasy belief that rail will somehow replace 150M cars on the road.
While I am for rail, I am not for rail to the exclusion of building new and improved roads and bridges. As Brock Yates stated in his op-ed the other day, cars are here to stay. Get over it. And if cars are here to stay, then just build the damn roads already.
IF, and it’s a damn big IF, the government had a surplus rather than a deficit, then the idea that fast forwarding some infrastructure projects would help the economy would likely be a good one.
OTOH, since we have to borrow the money, and the people in charge will be the same people who couldn’t run the government on budget in the first place, I can’t believe the effects would really be positive. Instead, money that would have helped the overall economy will get siphoned off in taxes and some politicians will say they created jobs like there was no cost to it. For every job they create, some greater number were likely destroyed or aborted.
Let me see…having my tax dollars spent on improving infrastructure, or having a bridge crumble beneath me as I drive over it. These days, I don’t think it’s as tough a sell to taxpayers as conventional wisdom has it. I think most people would prefer to see their dollars spent on infrastructure in their communities than going down the rabbit hole in Iraq.
In Minnesota, the MNDoT had the money in hand to replace the I35W bridge two or three times over. Preliminary NTSB reports place the blame in the design review. Using contemporaneous, ie 1960s, methods they identified 3 gusset plates that were drastically under-designed (actually 12 as they only looked at one quarter of the symmetric bridge). Its a tribute to the generally high required margins of safety that it lasted as long as it did. Its disturbing that even in a state – MN – with very high inspection standards this still happened. Maybe its not always a great idea to go with the lowest bid and its definitely true that inspection and maintenance activities need to be taken more seriously. Just building some more damn roads without locking in a maintenance/inspection budget isn’t a great idea – the conniving weasels we all send to the various state leges tend to have other plans for those dollars.
The infrastructure ain’t crumbling where I live. Half the roads I regularly drive on are younger than my cat, and a good chunk of it is less than 2 years old. Maybe everyone should just relocate to our dynamic, energetic red states.
Nah, stay where you are.
Alex Rodriguez :
Even in road-friendly states like Texas, it is becoming more and more difficult to get roads built and/or improved. The Environmentalists fight every road project tooth and nail, in the fantasy belief that rail will somehow replace 150M cars on the road.
Don’t leave out the trivial part that Texas/Gov Rick “Good Hair” Perry wants to sell all of those new roads, ie, make them toll roads. That tends to get the rest of the population geared up to fight new road construction.
chuckR :
In Minnesota, the MNDoT had the money in hand to replace the I35W bridge two or three times over. Preliminary NTSB reports place the blame in the design review. Using contemporaneous, ie 1960s, methods they identified 3 gusset plates that were drastically under-designed (actually 12 as they only looked at one quarter of the symmetric bridge).
I also understand that the bridge was designed so that a single point of failure (in this case, the gussets) would cause the bridge to fail.
I am not going to fault the bridge designers for that one, nor for the undersized gussets – these things happen. And computer modeling was not common when the bridge was designed.
A bigger problem is not bothering to put pilings in front of support structures because “traffic never comes up here” – yet that is exactly what happened in Oklahoma (barge hit bridge support) and Lousiana(?) when the Amtrak train derailed on a misaligned swing bridge that had been hit by a barge. Not to mention the Sunshine ??? bridge in Tampa that was hit by a freighter, and had to be replaced…
Bruce
If only half the money wasted in Iraq had been used to build infrastructure, and the pointless high income tax breaks had never taken place; the country would be have a solid foundation and vastly improved long term economic health. Sadly, shortsighted self indulgent decisions and delusional ideology have ruled in Washington and much of the country for a decade, leaving us crumbling nation and a sputtering economy.
I feel compelled to reply, but you can have the last word.
Half the money “wasted” in Iraq? You can make a good argument that the invasion was mistaken, and certainly it did not go as planned. However, the jury will be deliberating on Iraq for many more years. Wait for it.
The tax cuts had the intended effect of helping the economy, and INCREASED government revenues. There would have been less government money for infrastructure projects had the tax cuts not been passed. The current fears of their demise will soon have a ruinous effect on our economy, and government coffers. I suppose you will blame that on the rich as well?
Go ahead, have the last word, use it wisely.