Times letters reject Brooks' highway focus

Traffic

by David Alpert • November 1, 2008 1:16 pm

In yesterday's column, David Brooks argued we should stimulate the economy not through tax credits or automaker bailots, but by investing in infrastructure. We should repair our failing bridges and explore new technology.

Former railroad trestle, Charleston. Photo by Reellady on Flickr.

Unfortunately, Brooks runs off the road when his prescription turns to building large numbers of new highways. We should indeed fix our crumbling existing infrastructure. But new transportation investment should focus on transit corridors that can spur significant new walkable, mixed-use development instead of more exurban sprawl. Sadly, Brooks still thinks about transportation in a 1950s framework.

Fortunately, a lot of Americans are ready for 21st Century solutions. Today's Times letters page features three letters responding to Brooks which recommend investing in transit rather than roads. Transportation For America's David Goldberg writes,

Building new highways was the project for an earlier era, the 1950s, when gas was cheap and President Dwight D. Eisenhower created the Interstate System. Today we urgently need to build the infrastructure for a clean-energy economy and reduced dependency on oil.
Soaring gas prices made our vulnerability clear: Americans flocked to public transportation or took to their bicycles only to find the transit systems underfinanced and the roads dangerous and inhospitable. Half of our urban-dwelling citizens found they had no transit at all.
If we're going to go into debt to build for the future, we must do so to complete our transportation network with high-speed rail, modern public transit, streets that support safe biking and walking, and, yes, well-maintained highways.

Roads are no longer always the default and only solution to every problem. I'm here in Charleston, South Carolina, where the County Council just rejected a new road. Local officials tout the city's recently-created bus system and want to bring intercity rail back to downtown (the spur downtown off the main line was shut down years ago but still exists). Our political system is still biased toward road construction and many politicians and voters continue to believe in highways and more highways, but we're ready to have a real national debate.

10 comments — Share	— tags: Charleston, freeways, TEA

Planners propose regional BRT system (Apr 15, 2009)
Over four times the people and no traffic (Jan 23, 2009)
Stimulus draft released; $30B for highways vs. $10B for transit (Jan 15, 2009)
Change? (Dec 10, 2008)
Stepping it up for America (Oct 16, 2008)

Comments

Investing in public infrastructure should be evaluated on its own merits only. Using investment as an economic stimulus is folly: by the time the investment spending starts in earnest, the economy will have resumed growth anyway. Public infrastructure investment can potentially increase long-term economic growth, but not short-term, as in these proposals.

by Chuck Coleman on Nov 1, 2008 1:31 pm

I don't necessarily agree, Chuck. There are scores of transportation projects out there that have had environmental studies completed, or in the process of wrapping up, that could be underway within a year if funding were available.

by Froggie on Nov 1, 2008 8:06 pm

A new national passenger rail system of TGV standards should be the goal. Beyond just giving jobs to highway builders we need to build an alternative to something that is dependent on the price of oil. Regardless of what oil drops to, it will go up again.

by NikolasM on Nov 2, 2008 1:03 am

Chuck,

There are about $18 to $25 billion dollars worth of infrastructure projects that could be started within 90 days of receiving funds. They have already completed all of the EIS processes, etc and are ready to go.

This is being considered by Congress right now as part of any new stimulus packages that may be created soon.

by Allan on Nov 2, 2008 8:26 am

Although there should be a greater emphasis on rail in David Brooks' proposal, this proposal seems remarkably similar to Senator Obama's plan for a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank: http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/urban_policy/. Wouldn't it be great if we invested in intercity rail, transit, ports, and air traffic control modernization instead of spending $10 billion every two weeks instead?

by Ben on Nov 2, 2008 9:02 am

"instead of spending $10 billion in Iraq every two weeks instead?

by Ben on Nov 2, 2008 9:04 am

Ok this doesn't relate to the post exactly, but to bus riders "in the know":

Ext-nay Us-bay es-ay orking-way gain-ay.

by Reid on Nov 2, 2008 10:33 am

I think I have been misunderstood. I did not say not to build infrastructure. I'm just saying that these projects cannot be used for short-term stimulus, as their spending will kick in too late. Most of these project have their spending spread out over many years, meaning that most of their spending will occur after the economy resumes growth.

Moreover, the root of the financial crisis is that the global economy is overleveraged: there is simply too much debt. The only remedy is to deleverage, that is, to pay off the debt. This increases savings and reduces consumption. The Paradox of Thrift kicks in to reduce consumption even more via the multiplier effect. When this process is complete, spending on investment and consumption will increase, leading to recovery. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cycle. I think the Austrian theory comes closest to explaining what is going on now.

Suggested reading: Milton Friedman, "The Lag in Effect of Monetary Policy," Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 69, No. 5 (Oct., 1961), pp. 447-466. His arguments are also relevant to fiscal policy.

by Chuck Coleman on Nov 2, 2008 10:57 am

Depends on what you define as "short-term". If you're saying 90 days or less, you're more or less correct. However, if you go out 12 months, then you'll start getting some ROI with getting funding to those projects that are EIS-completed and just waiting for money, as both Allan and I mentioned.

by Froggie on Nov 2, 2008 8:02 pm

Yes, the short-term is on the order of 12-24 months, depending on the (unknown as of now) length of the recession. The legislative process will inevitably result in delays. That being done, the infrastructure investments will take longer to complete, so "stimulus" money will be spent when no longer needed. Again, these projects should only be undertaken if they can stand on their own.

One question: What is the value of the ready-to-go projects? If too small, their short-term effect will be minimal. Remember, the Federal government is effectively committed to spending $1 trillion to restart the financial system. Additional spending will be hard to make. As for the near-final projects, don't hold your breath: the legislative process will only produce them if Congressmen find it in their interest to produce them. Powerful congressmen will inevitably create earmarks, which will reduce the net present value of the infrastructure investments, even making them negative.

I've also been waiving my hands about private sector involvement. How many of these projects would be better undertaken by the private sector? Having the government do them would be wasteful, given the government's lack of a profit motive.

Finally, how many of these are really the prerogative of states and localities. I believe the federal government is too large and has infringed on the constitutional rights of states and localities. BTW, don't get me started on the direct election of U.S. Senators!

by Chuck Coleman on Nov 2, 2008 8:34 pm