Internal Improvements

This Nicholas Kulish piece from last year seems apropos today, and not just because of its unfortunately-prescient title. It's Time$elect, so here's a snippet:

Every four years the American Society of Civil Engineers grades the nation’s infrastructure. The group looks at 15 categories, from aviation to bridges, from waste water to public parks. Last year they handed out a D, down from the D+ in 2001. The report noted different problems in every sector, but a few kept popping up almost across the board: A growing population, and growing demand that is overtaxing aging, inadequate systems.

... Back in 1982 there were 232 million people in the country. Now we’re about to pass 300 million. There’s also increased international trade and movement of goods within the country. That means more and more commercial trucks prowling the interstates at all hours. Whether you’re talking about seaports, airports, railroads, canals, or highways, our transport systems need to expand to keep up with our economic activity.

But we haven’t been keeping up. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that this year the government will spend the equivalent of 0.7% of the nation’s gross domestic product — both through direct spending and through grants — on non-defense physical capital investments. That’s abysmal by historic standards. Between 1960 and 1981, that annual spending dipped below 1% of G.D.P. only once.

If you can, read the whole thing. This ought to be a major issue in the '08 campaign; even if this particular disaster turns out to be a fluke, it's a tragedy that deserves to be exploited. The decay of our infrastructure would be an ideal executive-competence issue for a Giuliani or a Romney, in particular, to seize on, though of course as with every other "vote for change" issue this election season, exploiting it would require more distance from our current "MBA President" than any Republican candidate may be able to achieve. As for the Democrats, maybe they can pin it (not entirely unfairly; as Kulish's piece points out, earmarks are a significant part of the problem) on the sins of GOP majorities past: Their slogan can be "the I-35 Bridge, Not the Bridge to Nowhere."

Update: But maybe they should, you know, wait a day or two.

Photo by Flickr user Diversey used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments

"The decay of our infrastructure would be an ideal executive-competence issue for a Giuliani or a Romney, in particular, to seize on,"

Wouldn't they have to increase taxes in order to do so? Do you honestly think a (gasp) tax-raiser could win a GOP primary these days?

Posted by Dan Miller | August 2, 2007 4:35 PM

Wow, that's an angry post at the Corner. Nothing riles Republicans up like threats of accountability.

Or gay porn, of course.

Posted by Ron Mexico | August 2, 2007 4:57 PM

A little perspective is necessary:

1. The American Society of Civil Engineers is an association of people with a vocational interest in public works spending. They have their biases and their particular expertise is not spot on for determning the optimal balance between public expenditure, private investment, private consumption, &c, or between different departments of public expenditure.

2. You have forgotten, or never knew, that alarums about the state of public works appear at intervals in our political life (as do alarums about expenditure on scientific and medical research - ever abysmal in the opinion of 'I and my colleagues in the profession'). One of John Anderson's more memorable campaign planks was a proposal to distribute a large wad of cash to states and localities for infrastructure repairs ("...and we've told you where the money's going to go...the leaky water mains"). It reappeared near the end of the decade when the father of the current president was pushing a big highway bill.

3. Might there have been changes in the characteristics of the economy since 1970 that also changed the optimal balance between investment in public works and other sorts of investment?

4. Only a modest fraction of roadway mileage is on routes that cross state lines or barrel through national parks or Indian reservations (I think it might be on the order of 11%, but I may have that wrong). It is extensively subvened by federal authorites for a variety of reasons, but it is customarily and resonably a state and local responsibility.

5. To what extent have governments sought to ration the use of public works and finance improvements thereto by placing tolls on that use? (Quite a bit in the provision of water, mass transit, and municipal power, very little elsewise).

Posted by Art Deco | August 2, 2007 6:02 PM

Sure it's an "interstate" highway, but why should the feds be so involved in working on highways anyway? State governments would be much better able to look after bridges. As if the average citizen could influence Washington to fix the bridge across town. And with a federal transportation department so big, things like this are bound to be brushed aside.

Of course, state governments would only be thrilled to let congress appropriate money from across the country to pay for their bridges. It's no surprise that government puts government before people.

Posted by JTN | August 2, 2007 6:21 PM

- The more densely populated the country gets, the harder it is to build infrastructure because of Not In My Backyardism, which increases with the number of backyards. There will never be another freeway built in Southern California, even though the population is expected to climb sharply, because land is so expensive.

- It takes forever to build anything these days, largely because of environmentalism, but also because every activist has his hand out. To finish the Century Freeway to LAX, for example, CalTrans had to give money to hundreds of "community" organizations, including an AIDS organization in West Hollywood, ten miles and two freeways to the north!

- Road-building is a national disgrace. It's corrupt -- Mayor Daley's closest buddies in Chicago are the road-builders who finance his campaigns in return for enormous contracts -- and thus the quality of our roads intentionally stink, wearing down our cars and lowering our gas mileage. They're supposed to fall apart because that puts more money in campaign donors' pockets. Roads in Belgium are made to last 40 years, in Chicago 12 years.

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 2, 2007 9:11 PM

Roads are our "national disgrace?" Wow. Hyperbole, thy name is Steve Sailer.

Posted by Aaron | August 2, 2007 9:39 PM

Re: Roads in Belgium are made to last 40 years, in Chicago 12 years.

There is a difference in the climate between the two places. Chicago endures repeated cycles of deep freeze and thaw that are not found in Western Europe (except in Scandinavia and the Alps). This is, simply, hell on highways.

Posted by Jon | August 2, 2007 9:48 PM

I can only wonder if someone who compares "roads in Belgium" to those in Chicago has either never been to either place or has no interest in making a fair comparison. It's like comparing the physical demands of playing badminton to those of playing running back in the NFL.

If modern-day tax-phobic me-first Republicans had been in charge in the 1950s Eisenhower's highway system would never have gotten off the ground. Sooner or later all of these selfish cheapskates will be presented with a bill.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 2, 2007 9:51 PM

For better or worse, Tim Pawlenty is going to be the test case for how the politics of infrastructure play out. Last year, he opposed the Democratic legislature on a proposed $.05 gas tax increase that would have paid for transit improvements (new roads, repaired roads, transit, etc). His 'No New Taxes' pledge was the reason, period.

Though people around here (I'm in Minneapolis now) are restraining themselves for the time being, the undercurrent in regard to that opposition is beginning to break to the surface (blogs, talk radio, and even the conservative-leaning local news - "Pawlenty opposed a gas tax increase to fund infrastructure improvements"). We'll see how this plays out, but to my eyes, the gov looked rather on the defensive today.

Posted by AdamM | August 2, 2007 10:01 PM

I've excerpted below a 1991 Washington Post article on topic. Since then some but not all states have started requiring construction warranties. Sailer is right, government contracting can be a path to great wealth, highway contractors are both patron and benefactor to many a politician.

"The reason for the continental difference is no mystery. First, European nations invest directly in road surface research to a much greater extent than we do. And, more importantly, they've managed to get the private sector to carry the weight. In Great Britain, for instance, a 40-year-life-cycle cost analysis is required for all pavement designs.

In France and Italy, the government's contract specifications explicitly encourage contractors to make use of new, more durable materials -and the contract-award scheme freely permits an initial increase in costs for long-term gain. And third, contractors in virtually all European countries must guarantee their work for up to five years after completion. When they screw it up, they fix it up-a concept positively foreign to the builders of American roads."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n11_v23/ai_11540477/pg_2

Posted by beowulf | August 2, 2007 10:14 PM

Sorry for the typo, I meant "both patron and beneficiary..."

Posted by beowulf | August 2, 2007 10:17 PM

The climate is vastly different in Belgium and Chicago? Right, that's why the WWI soldiers in the trenches on the Western Front wrote home every winter asking their loved ones to send flip-flops and suntan lotion.

And, right, they all ride bicycles in Belgium, so there's no stress on the roads.

Obviously, I was completely wrong: Mayor Daley is the second coming of Mother Theresa and would never countenance crummy road-building by his donors.

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 2, 2007 10:29 PM

If modern-day tax-phobic me-first Republicans had been in charge in the 1950s Eisenhower's highway system would never have gotten off the ground. Sooner or later all of these selfish cheapskates will be presented with a bill.

In between bouts of selfish cheapskatery, I cannot help noticing that limited-access highways (in conjunction with wretched town planning) have had a gruesome effect on urban morphology in this country. The progenitors of this mess might at least have imposed the tolls, excises, and registration fees that would have made the social cost of individual motoring more transparent to the consumer; and established and maintained aesthetic standards in the construction of bridges, barriers, and landscaping features. Mass transit was allowed to rot, inter-city rail was allowed to rot, downtowns were allowed to rot, and suburban commercial districts rendered purgatory for pedestrians.

Posted by Art Deco | August 2, 2007 10:31 PM

The GDP argument I've always found to be a nonstarter. If infrastructure is to get a fixed amount of GDP, what doesn't? And why should we think that infrastructure costs are somehow linked to changes in GDP?

Moreover, when I went to OMB's website to see whether spending in this area was down, flat, or up during the Bush years. My reading is that spending is up, and is up substantially from the spending levels of the mid-1990s.

There is a common element to this bridge failure and the failure of the levees in New Orleans: both were used to make a political point about the Bush administration, and both were more relevant to a discussion about the competency of government engineers.

Adam's point is an interesting one. If Pawlenty had favored a gas tax increase last year, would the bridge have fallen? Yes. Absolutely. But, still, there's a connection.

Posted by Thomas | August 3, 2007 12:08 AM

Actually Steve, as mayors go, Daley is unusually competent. Much of what's great about Chicago is Daley's doing and much of what stinks about it is outside his control. Beyond that, while surface streets are in his fiefdom, highway funds are controlled by the state. Illinois is crooked top to bottom (the last governor is in prison on corruption charges), so I wouldn't expect the state contractors to be any more diligent.

That whole lake effect thing does make Chicago absurdly cold, but I was surprised to see that Belgium is so far north of Chicago. Antwerp is at 51 degrees North latitude, Chicago is at 42 degrees.

Posted by beowulf | August 3, 2007 12:30 AM

I love Daley, I voted for him -- early and often. He might be the best mayor in the country. But that doesn't mean he's honest.

The lake effect isn't what makes Chicago cold, it's the continental effect. The strip along the lake is noticeably milder than the inland regions.

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 3, 2007 1:53 AM

"The more densely populated the country gets, the harder it is to build infrastructure because of Not In My Backyardism..."

That's the issue right there. The public bitches and moans about our decaying infrastructure (all of it--not just roads and bridges), and their politicians introduce bills to endlessly study the problem and bleat about how it's vital that "we must build a safe, modern transportation system for the 21st Century," blah, blah, blah.

But then something funny happens. When someone tries to raise taxes to pay for the work, much of the public pitches a hissy fit, and the politicians suddenly lose their resolve. When the state tries to replace an aging bridge or rebuild a crumbling road, transportation officials find themselves beseiged by public opposition groups complaining about the noise, the environmental damage, the expense, the inconvenience. Endless rounds of public meetings are held. Just getting projects like that done takes years. And if you try to widen an existing road, or build a new bridge? That's at least five years, minimum, and likely much longer.

The truth is, people say they want safe and efficient roads and bridges, and are fed up with the congestion and increasing safety risks posed by the aging system. But then many of these same people "express outrage" with the costs and inconvenience necessary to solve the problem. Another example of how the American public seems to think it can have its way all the time, without trade-offs.

If want a modern, safe, efficient infrastructure, you have to...gasp...pay for it and build it.

Posted by Claudius | August 3, 2007 9:11 AM

Sailer:

So, you aren't willing to concede that Chicago has vastly more severe weather that Belgium? You should check out this site called Google. It actually allows you to fact check BS assertions realtively quickly. In other words, you're wrong.

Posted by Aaron | August 3, 2007 9:44 AM

Aaron, isn't it a big surprise when right-wingers ignore easily accessed factual material? I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

I guess they're just not willing to join the reality-based community as long as their Great Leader is still in office.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 3, 2007 11:07 AM

I'm shocked, shocked that a group representing people whose jobs are paid for by highway spending is advocating... more highway spending. It's really unbelievable.

Next thing you know, the teacher's union is going to be advocating spending more on education. And Ross will be saying, gee, if the teachers are saying we should spend more on education, we really should be spending more on education!

Posted by Al | August 3, 2007 11:21 AM

Yeah, sure, Al - what the bridge collapse proves is that we need LESS highway spending. Let's just all PRAY for the roads and bridges to improve. That will work.

After all, we all know the wingnut position is that problems "don't get better by throwing money at them" - unless we're talking about Iraq, in which case there is simply no objection to throwing away endless billions.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 3, 2007 11:48 AM

Re: The climate is vastly different in Belgium and Chicago?

Yes, they are. That doesn't mean Belgium has the climate of Florida. But it does have fairly mild winters with rather little snow fall, and the ground does not often freeze hard there. I suggest traveling a bit in the US: states that have similarly mild winters also have better highways as a result. Likewise states that have a single hard freeze and stay that way until the thaw in spring.

Posted by JoNf | August 3, 2007 1:59 PM

I've spent substantial time in both Belgium and Chicago. The winters are harsh in Chicago (though less so recently) and comparatively mild in Belgium -- not pleasant, but a lot less freezing.

Posted by belg | August 3, 2007 2:51 PM

Of course, belg. And it's not just the weather - it's the amount of traffic and the size of the vehicles involved. To try to equate the two for the sake of an argument is either dishonest or inept - perhaps both.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 3, 2007 6:26 PM

Well, the argument that Daley rigs city business and infrastructure contracts for his buddies and donors in general is certainly not hard to swallow.

But the specific claim that the roads aren't built to last -- I dunno, seems like Daley wouldn't have to go out of his way to see to it that they fall apart, because the weather and traffic already take care of that (as noted). Seems unnecessary to postulate a conspiracy in that particular area.

And yeah, if they last longer in Belgium, it's not because Daley isn't hiring the guys who build the roads there.

Posted by belg | August 3, 2007 7:35 PM

For crissake, Germany has even better roads than Belgium and it has colder weather.

I guess all those three ton S-class Mercedes going 130 mph don't put any stress on the roads. And I guess the reason the roads were so much more bumpy in Indiana than in Michigan when I lived in Chicago has to do with some fluke weather pattern that makes Indiana vastly colder than Michigan.

I guess I must be some kind of America-hater for pointing out that -- if we want to -- we can learn from Europe how to build better roads (or, if that's too unpatriotic, then try Michigan).

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 4, 2007 12:10 AM

I really wish people who make inane arguments would stop squealing once those arguments are revealed as such. Germany's winters aren't as severe as Chicago's are, either - and I doubt you find many double-rigs hauling freight there, either. Let me know what your extensive research reveals about that, Steverino Sailor.

I must admit I'm surprised that a conservative would admit we could learn anything from Europe, though, so perhaps I was wrong about you, just as you were (laughably) wrong to compare Belgium to Chicago.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 4, 2007 2:30 AM

Re: For crissake, Germany has even better roads than Belgium and it has colder weather.

Alpine Germany has colder weather. Wheret he North sea and the Baltic dominate the weather, Germany too has a winter climate similar to, say, Virginia's. Good grief, dude, tune into the Weather Channel in January some time. They give occasional European updates so you can check out the temperatures in Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne, etc.

Re: or, if that's too unpatriotic, then try Michigan

Michigan roads suck. No, let me rephrase that: Michigan roads SUCK! Grew up there, lived there till l was 32. I fly back occasionally and I'm hardly out of the rental car lot before I am crashing into potholes like lunar craters and thinking, "Yep, home sweet home."

Posted by Jonf | August 4, 2007 2:42 AM

Mass transit was allowed to rot, inter-city rail was allowed to rot, downtowns were allowed to rot, and suburban commercial districts rendered purgatory for pedestrians.

And those were all allowed to rot because crime control was allowed to rot, because fiscal sanity was allowed to rot, and because socialism was allowed to fester. City dwellers saw misbehaving kids from dysfunctional families bused into their children's schools.

What causes sprawl? Crime causes sprawl. Overtaxation causes sprawl. Forced integration causes sprawl.

People want a safe, affordable place with good schools to raise their kids in. So sue 'em. If it's extremely boring and excessively auto dependent then that's the trade-off they'll gladly accept.

Yeah, sure, Al - what the bridge collapse proves is that we need LESS highway spending. Let's just all PRAY for the roads and bridges to improve. That will work. - MLJ

You mean like the way all the lefties pray to "Free Tibet" and "Save Darfur?" How are those two going for ya?

After all, we all know the wingnut position is that problems "don't get better by throwing money at them" - MLJ

Well oftentimes it doesn't solve problems. It hasn't improved schools in the Distict of Columbia or Kansas City.

The public bitches and moans about our decaying infrastructure...and their politicians introduce bills to endlessly study the problem and bleat about how it's vital that "we must build a safe, modern transportation system for the 21st Century,"

Politicians introduce all sorts of bills to "study" all sorts of problems, from teen pregnancy to diaper rash, but transportation infrastructure is not one of them. That's because transportation is one area where constituents will hold them accountable. Taxpayers will spend to their heart's content on road improvements. Usually politicians don't even have to raise taxes to do anything - in many or most places bond issues are put to a public vote, and they seem to win more often than not.

But then something funny happens. When someone tries to raise taxes to pay for the work, much of the public pitches a hissy fit, and the politicians suddenly lose their resolve.

See above.

When the state tries to replace an aging bridge or rebuild a crumbling road, transportation officials find themselves beseiged by public opposition groups complaining about the noise, the environmental damage, the expense, the inconvenience.

Repairing existing roads is cake. It's the new roads that attracts all the obstructionists. And it's - ahum - (using all caps, bold, italics and exclamation point to emphasize my point here) - LEFT WING FANATICS! who are responsible for that, mostly through extensive use of litigation. The Sierra Club and others fought the Legacy Highway in Utah for 10 years before the lawsuit was settled. The suit was largely about running it through wetlands. Given the problems involved - it has to run through the narrow neck of land between the Great Salt Lake on the west and the Rocky Mountains on the east - they didn't have much choice about where to place it.

So we have Democrats who don't want to change the legal climate for building new roads - it makes the lawyer groups happy, it makes the environmentalists happy; and we have Republicans who don't want to raise taxes and refuse to consider acceptable mass transit projects and refuse to consider limits on how new projects are built. And both party's are deep in hock to the open borders loons* who want endless hundreds of millions of people to come here to work as slaves on their fast food plantations and create more demand for things like - well, like roads.

So if certain people (well represented on this blog) would get their collective asses out of their tinfoil covered heads, stop babbling partisan drivel, and start actually speaking to each other maybe we could solve some problems, ya think? Nah.

* Why does the left refuse to acknowledge how much open borders touches on everything else they profess to hold dear: the environment, suburban sprawl, income inequality, affordable housing, health care, lousy overcrowded public schools, ad infinitum?

Posted by Craig | August 5, 2007 8:45 PM

Re: People want a safe, affordable place with good schools to raise their kids in. So sue 'em. If it's extremely boring and excessively auto dependent then that's the trade-off they'll gladly accept.

Cities have always had high crime rates and lots of corruption and dysfucntion (see: Tammany Hall, Lower East Side slums, Al Capone, NYC Draft Riots, Cholera epidemics, Plug-Uglies, etc, etc.). The difference was that people, for the most part, had to stay put regardless since they lacked the technological means and infrastructure to commute long distances. So they stayed and fought the forces of entropy. And because they stayed and fought and occasionally won worthwhile victories, the cities survived. The downward spiral you cite happened after people gained the means to flee instead of fight so that entropy took over as fewer and fewer people stayed behind to do battle.

Re: Why does the left refuse to acknowledge how much open borders touches on everything else they profess to hold dear: the environment, suburban sprawl, income inequality, affordable housing, health care, lousy overcrowded public schools, ad infinitum?

So the I-35 bridge collapse because there are too many Mexican north of the Rio Grande? Why, who'd have thunk it?

Posted by JonF | August 5, 2007 10:23 PM

The difference was that people, for the most part, had to stay put regardless since they lacked the technological means and infrastructure to commute long distances.

So, what, we should force everybody to stay put? The automobile gave average people with no power over political and economic elites, and who would never have such power, a way of escaping that power.

So the I-35 bridge collapse because there are too many Mexican north of the Rio Grande? Why, who'd have thunk it?

Actually, as a person of the left might say, the bridge victims did indeed "look like America," with Somalis and a Guatemalan among the victims.

But no, I doubt the collapse itself had anything to do with Guatemalans or Somalis. I'm talking about the rapidly increasing need for more and more roads because of a burgeoning population. My own state, with less than 3 million people, has determined that it needs about $25 billion in new roads over the next 30 years. Remember, the need for new roads is a function of GROWTH, not of POPULATION, since the existing population already more or less has the roads it needs.

Lots more immigration equals lots more roads. If you can't understand that math then there's no way I can explain it to you.

Posted by Craig | August 6, 2007 12:49 AM

mn inspects its bridges much, much more than the rest of the nation. since 92/93, its yearly. mn's services are amazing.

sometimes bad things just happen.

Posted by good lord. | August 6, 2007 4:36 PM

Re: So, what, we should force everybody to stay put?

I did not say that. I was pointing out that cities started to go downhill when the Middle Class started leaving instead of fighting for them. And no, it wasn't immigrants that caused people to leave the cities in the 50s and 60s and 70s. It was another group of native-born American citizens, those with rather dark skins, who could no longer be relegated to the backs of buses and crappy separate and very unequal schools.

Re: I'm talking about the rapidly increasing need for more and more roads because of a burgeoning population.

Some areas of the country are seeing burgeoning population, others are hollowing out. What's the net migration into North Dakota-- or even Michigan? I live in a high growth area (S Florida) though even here we are starting to see people packing up and leaving, mainly retirees who can't afford it here any more.

Re: Lots more immigration equals lots more roads

Only to the extent that immigration increases the population itself. If birth rates continue falling in this country we may well simply hold even.

Posted by JonF | August 7, 2007 9:54 PM

xcsqremv erpgx wngxseyvk jyidlbf nlctkasx wpuhqxs pvxyiqkr

Posted by gqwtau qudkil | August 8, 2007 2:49 PM