Many members of Congress are eager to pass an infrastructure “stimulus” bill early in the Obama administration. There are many reasons to think that this is a bad idea. Such a bill is likely to do little to stimulate the economy. But it probably will do much to prolong the recovery period.
Over at Marginal Revolution, economist Tyler Cowan worries that the added debt required by an infrastructure bill will “ruin my country and cause its economy to crumble or explode.” Even if that is not true, he says, then an infrastructure project makes sense only if either the “project worth doing in its own right” or “53 percent or more of the expenditures [will] come on-line in the next nine months.”
The Antiplanner would argue that both of those should be true. If the project is not worth doing in its own right, it won’t provide much of a secondary stimulus — it will just provide a few jobs during actual construction. If the project is worth doing but not “shovel-ready,” then funding it will increase the nation’s debt but not provide any immediate stimulus.
The truth is that various special interests were beating the infrastructure drum long before the current economic problems. Now they have jumped on the bailout bandwagon hoping to get their share of the hundreds of billions Congress is handing out.
The United States Conference of Mayors, for example, has listed more than 400 pages of projects they would like to do with someone else’s money. Reason Magazine describes this as “infrastructure flim-flam,” pointing out that many of the projects cost a lot yet provide few jobs (and therefore little stimulus).
Anchorage, Alaska, for example, wants an $8.75 million subsidy for its transit system that it promises will create 12 jobs — that’s $729,000 per job. The Antiplanner didn’t know that Gadsden, Alabama, had a trolley, but apparently few people ride it because they propose to replace their current “large trolleys” with “smaller, environmentally friendly trolleys” for $800,000. That creates 5 jobs at $160,000 per job.
Phoenix wants $110 million for park-and-ride stations for its still-under-construction light-rail system. No jobs promised. Tucson wants $110 million for a “modern streetcar” which it says will create 3,133 jobs. They must be drinking Charley Hales’ Kool-Aid. Miami wants a streetcar costing $280 million but creating only 560 jobs — that’s $500,000 per job. Miami also wants to replace doors on its peoplemover — $1 million for 1 job. But think of the secondary benefits.
Generally, the purchase generic cialis click content medication is shown in erectile dysfunctions and untimely ejaculation. So by choosing tadalafil 20mg price pharma-bi.com over cialis you can save more money, and enjoy your sexual life to it’s fullest.Why to Buy cialis properien from shoppharmarx.comShoppharmarx.com is the best one. This condition can trigger shortness of breath, dizziness, painful or prolonged erection, and/or changes in vision. order levitra It improves your immune system and allows males to last longer in bed generic cialis online for over 5 minutes and mesmerize her with enhanced sexual pleasure.
I am sure there are some dumb street and road ideas on the list as well. Feel free to point them out in the comments.
The Antiplanner never really believed America has an infrastructure crisis. As Alex Tabarrok says (also at Marginal Revolution), we are already spending plenty of money on, for example, transportation; we just aren’t spending it very effectively. A new infrastructure bill is not likely to do any better.
Instead of an infrastructure crisis, what we really have is an institutional problem in which everyone wants someone else to pay for their infrastructure rather than pay for it themselves. Very little infrastructure is a true public good, that is, something that you can’t keep people from using. As non-public goods, we should be able to pay for infrastructure entirely out of user fees.
User-fee-funded infrastructure has the added virtue of providing a test of whether a project is worthwhile. If the project can be funded out of user fees, there is no doubt that it is worthwhile. If not, then it remains open to question: is it infrastructure or is it just pork?
Most of what we call “infrastructure” was once handled by private parties but, for one reason or another, taken over by government. In the nineteenth century, most roads, water supplies, sewage systems, and other infrastructure were private. Now most are public. Public ownership was supposed to save money by being more efficient, fair to users, and eliminating diversion of revenues to profits. Instead, it turned into an excuse to tax some groups of people and subsidize others. It also created wonderful opportunities for government corruption.
Economists Susan Woodward and Robert Hall make another point. Most infrastructure proposals call for such things as fixing crumbling roads or upgrading the energy efficiency of existing public buildings. Yet such projects will have very low multiplier effects. Building a new road into a fast-growing area will stimulate development in that area; replacing the pavement on an existing road will have few similar secondary effects.
One of the many reasons why our economic got so bad is because Congress and the administration let deficits go out of control. Making that problem worse is not likely to fix the economy, especially if there are low multiplier effects. If an infrastructure bill can be funded out of user fees, go for it. Otherwise, concentrate on other ways of helping the economy that may actually do some good.
ROT: I am sure there are some dumb street and road ideas on the list as well. Feel free to point them out in the comments.
THWM: Or more to the point why didn’t you point out any to begin with?
ROT: Most of what we call “infrastructure†was once handled by private parties but, for one reason or another, taken over by government. In the nineteenth century, most roads, water supplies, sewage systems, and other infrastructure were private. Now most are public. Instead, it turned into an excuse to tax some groups of people and subsidize others.
THWM: ROT, this is where things are coming back to haunt you, when you attack rail lines just for being rail lines.
Even a disgruntled foamer should see the flies in the ointment here.
Just as with the hypocrisy of Wendell Cox.
“What government does for one it should do for all;
What government does not do for all, it should do for none.”
You guys can’t cheat the system for ever!
Highwayman:“What government does for one it should do for all;
What government does not do for all, it should do for none.â€Â
JK: Good!
Roads are for all, transit is not for all.
Conclusion:
government should do roads (as the constitution demands)
Government should NOT do transit.
Thanks for the tip.
Thanks
JK
Infrastructure investment is likely to do little to stimulate the economy: agreed.
As I’m a civil engineer who gets half my work from road projects, though, it’ll sure stimulate the hell out of MY economy.
Karlock, AP, and others of the liberatarian fold: I was libertarian for a long time. Read Reason religiously. But I don’t recall ever seeing a reasonable proposal for a citizen opt-out movement. Surely the more radical of you libertarians have dreamt of foregoing all (most) government benefits (public roads, voting, etc) in order to be unburdened by the yoke of (unrepresentative?) taxation. Are there any serious proponents for a dual system? For it seems that the taxation for these projects is the bigger issue. Is there a possible system (and is anyone seriosuly advocating for it) where I can ignorantly pay my taxes and suffer the consequences of my conservative neighbors’ voting habits (here in AZ we are about to be yoked by J. Brewer as guv) and you and other freedom lovers can…pay as you go?
Continuing from comment #4:
It just seems that strategically speaking, attacking every little government intervention is a sisyphustic fate.
t g –> I’m not sure what you’re getting at. There’s a big difference between government building and running roads or an airport and things like law enforcement or fire protection. There’s no compelling reason why government needs to build, manage and own roads. There are plenty of privately built and run roads, just like airports and other such things, to show that it’s not something the government needs to do (in fact, as many other commentators here have pointed out, having gov’t. in the road/highway business gives it a lot of incentive to push certain policies). Given that, I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at with your questions.
Antiplanner wrote:
> User-fee-funded infrastructure has the added virtue of providing
> a test of whether a project is worthwhile. If the project can be
> funded out of user fees, there is no doubt that it is worthwhile.
> If not, then it remains open to question: is it infrastructure
> or is it just pork?
I tend to agree with the above. Which is why rail transit projects
should not be funded out of these dollars, but new toll highway
capacity can (and should be).
Consider that the original (1940) Pennsylvania Turnpike was
built in large part with loans from the federal government (details
here) – loans that had to be paid back – and were.
Compare and contrast with the one of the largest infrastructure projects
of the 1970’s through 1990’s – the Washington Metrorail system.
Not a dime of the billions of federal taxpayer dollars spent
to built this system has ever been paid back to the federal treasury.
the highwayman wrote:
> Even a disgruntled foamer should see the flies in the ointment here.
>
> Just as with the hypocrisy of Wendell Cox.
Please elaborate, and provide some details to back-up your
assertions above.
JK: Good!
Roads are for all, transit is not for all.
THWM: That’s still a double standard. Just any body can use transit, not every can drive(for your perspective).
Conclusion:
government should do roads (as the constitution demands)
Government should NOT do transit.
THWM: Speciba komrad Karlock!
Interesting recent analysis of life-cycle costs of various transpo infra:
DS
* Mikhail V. Chester, “Life-cycle Environmental Inventory of Passenger Transportation in the United States” (August 1, 2008). Institute of Transportation Studies. Dissertations. Paper UCB-ITS-DS-2008-1.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/its/ds/UCB-ITS-DS-2008-1
C. P. Zilliacus wrote:
> User-fee-funded infrastructure has the added virtue of providing
> a test of whether a project is worthwhile. If the project can be
> funded out of user fees, there is no doubt that it is worthwhile.
> If not, then it remains open to question: is it infrastructure
> or is it just pork?
I tend to agree with the above. Which is why rail transit projects
should not be funded out of these dollars, but new toll highway
capacity can (and should be).
THWM: Then why would you need public funds in your toll road case?
t g Says: Karlock, AP, and others of the liberatarian fold: I was libertarian for a long time. Read Reason religiously. But I don’t recall ever seeing a reasonable proposal for a citizen opt-out movement. Surely the more radical of you libertarians have dreamt of foregoing all (most) government benefits (public roads, voting, etc) in order to be unburdened by the yoke of (unrepresentative?) taxation. Are there any serious proponents for a dual system? For it seems that the taxation for these projects is the bigger issue. Is there a possible system (and is anyone seriosuly advocating for it) where I can ignorantly pay my taxes and suffer the consequences of my conservative neighbors’ voting habits (here in AZ we are about to be yoked by J. Brewer as guv) and you and other freedom lovers can…pay as you go?
Well even the Reason Foundation isn’t about being reasonable.
They want their cut of pork spending too.
It’s not just a matter of the low marginal gains from “upgrading” these projects, it’s a matter if they should be done at all. Much of this road system was built at a time when rural areas had much more political power and many more people living there. The first thing is to question if all of these roads are actually needed. There’s a good chance that many of these state highways, or at least sparsely used sections of them, should be downgraded to state-assisted county roads. And some state-assisted country roads should lose their state help. And some county roads should be dropped and maintained by the townships. And the townships, well, it sucks to be at the bottom but if you help them too much they won’t make the tough decisions to downgrade or even all out drop some roads. Not a very politically sexy message for the voters, though.
prk, I see your point but that’ll never fly. Rural areas feed us, after all, and you need to get food to market. It’s not about sheer numbers of humans, its about food/feed.
A major issue is that these subsidized highways are nearing the end of their designed lifespans. We haven’t been maintaining them to standard, so what to do? One wonders where all the wealth went that was invested in the deferred maintenance…
DS
A chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link.
JK, The constitution only demands that government should do post roads, roads for postal purposes, there is no reference to roads for other purposes.
In a 1907 case, Wilson v. Shaw, Justice David Brewer wrote that Congress had the power “to construct interstate highways” under the constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce.
Thus the constitution “allows” government to do roads but it only “demands” that government do post roads. There is a sector in a chapter in US law that authorises the US Postal Service to determine which roads are post roads and which are not.
A good article on the reluctance of Congress to become involved in the provision of roads can be found here:
http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/summer96/p96su2.htm
Thanks Mr.Miller for that great link.
It’s interesting to see how far roads and big government go back.
Though the same could be said about the Roman Empire too.
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/England-History/RomanRoads.htm
Athens had roads going out to resources – forests, fields, quarries.
The road leading to a key quarry was paved with limestone blocks and people back then complained about it’s disrepair and poor drainage.
DS
Well Dan, the good roads movement was started by bicyclists, it was only later on that it was hijacked motorists.
Good roads are an important thing for city along with good public transit, such as trams and suburban trains.
The big problem with people like O’Toole, Cox & Karlock is that they don’t want people to have other viable options of mobility.
When automobiles are the only choice, that isn’t really a choice.
Sounds so very Orwellian, doesn’t it.
Pingback: CBO: User Fees for Infrastructure » The Antiplanner