Infrastructure Spending Spree Risks More Bridges to Nowhere

Before we get too excited about the prospect of infrastructure projects reviving the flagging US economy, it’s worth taking a look at the current state of affairs. David Leonhardt in the New York Times sounds a cautionary note in a column highlighting the haphazard and inefficient use of taxpayers’ infrastructure dollars. He notes that spending is up 50 percent over the last 10 years, after adjusting for inflation. As a share of the economy, it will be higher this year than in any year since 1981. But:

It’s hard to exaggerate how scattershot the current system is. Government agencies usually don’t even have to do a rigorous analysis of a project or how it would affect traffic and the environment, relative to its cost and to the alternatives — before deciding whether to proceed. In one recent survey of local officials, almost 80 percent said they had based their decisions largely on politics, while fewer than 20 percent cited a project’s potential benefits.

The United States is one of the few countries in the world to make the majority of its transportation investments without first conducting any kind of economic analysis to determine whether those investments will have any practical benefits for commuters or shippers. The results are telling.- Mary Peters, secretary of transportation

The current system is so inefficient that even a minimal amount of change would represent progress. If you want your project moved to the front of the line, you should have to come to Washington bearing hard data — not flimsy boosterism — about its economic and environmental benefits.

"…infrastructure doesn’t have to just mean just bridges and tunnels,” Leonhart writes. “It can also mean schools and homes. One intriguing idea is for the government to subsidize basic renovations to make houses more energy efficient. This would have the added benefit of putting unemployed construction workers and contractors back to work.”

Comments

[Tony Petroski:]

You will soon find that opening up holes and then filling them back in again doesn't produce the stimulus and the wealth you think it will. We're back to the '70's. Take money from job-creating entrepreneurs and pour it into political machines. Is that Obamanomics?

2008 Nov 19 04:45 PM

[canonicalman:]

Clueless, truly clueless. The backlog of needed infrastructure repairs projects alone top $1trillion. These are projects to repair structures classified by civil engineers as in serious jeopardy. The slight risk of some pork is nothing compared to the need to get going and put the needed money into infrastructure, create meaningful jobs (unlike wall st.), and stay the economy against the ravages of the financial shakedown.

2008 Nov 19 04:51 PM

[Philly Jim:]

When you say infrastructure improvement, most American law makers think of paving roads. So, we will have our roads paved over 70 times a year instead of 10 now. Many of the "old timers" in congress don't even know what a maglev is.

The government would do better to try and replicate 1998-99 when companies and the government were spending tons on upgrading their technology to avoid a potential collapse - this capital investment spending spree is what we need.

Also, imaging all the extra spending money American would have with cheaper energy prices! If Obama can sell nuclear to the public, and press for public utility commissions to freeze price hikes and reallocate existing transfer payments in states to infrastructure instead, Obama's vision is feasible. Of course many will scream murder when they read the headlines states cut funds to poor to fund infrastructure improvements.

2008 Nov 19 11:02 PM

[Steven Hansen:]

where oh where is the money going to be coming from??? how can any recovery occur when you have trillions of government debt which will collapse any recovery.

yes, gertrude, we have finally killed the goose. i predict there is no way to stimulate ourselves out of this recession, and that we are going to be faced with an old fashion austrian economics solution to this mess.

2008 Nov 19 11:59 PM

[selene:]

AFAIK there is, in fact, a lot of planning, but it happens at the local and state level, not the federal level. Which is how it should be.

People who are moaning about "pork" would do well to ask themselves how we got an interstate highway system.

2008 Nov 20 10:05 AM

[CLH:]

The gov alawys spends money for the wrong things. Roosevelt sent everyone out to the woods to rake leaves instead of building tanks and battle ships .

400,000 men died for his stupidity.

2008 Nov 20 05:00 PM