Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Responsible Investment

Bike Shirt by paynehollow
Bike Shirt, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

We have some local news happening in my hometown of Louisville that figures in to the larger political discussion and Obama's recent call to invest in infrastructure. Downtown Louisville has three interstates leading into it: I-64, I-71 and I-65.

I-64 and I-65 both cross the river at Louisville's Ohio waterfront. This week, the I-64 bridge was shut down completely due to cracks in the bridge. As it turns out, we have not invested enough in our infrastructure to keep it safe, and so, now we're closing it down, perhaps for months (it remains to be seen).

There are tens of thousands of vehicles that cross that bridge daily. The resulting traffic consequences are that all those drivers are trying now to get across our one existing bridge that was already over-crowded. We have seen and can expect traffic delays of over an hour to cross the river, at least at rush hours. This will, of course, have a huge economic impact on our city.

All of this led to my writing the following letter to the editor. It's time to change our ways and invest responsibly in our future:


So, the Sherman Minton Bridge is in bad enough shape that we have to close it, causing massive traffic and societal problems at a massive cost. Who could have seen THAT coming?!

We could have.

I have two points to make in regards to our bridge/traffic problems:

1. Since the Reagan years, so-called economic conservatives have derided most government spending and, where possible, made cuts and not invested in our infrastructure. When you don’t invest in infrastructure, roads, sidewalks, bridges, etc, begin to fall apart.

Choosing to "save money" by not investing in infrastructure is like choosing to save money by not paying your bills. Sooner or later, you WILL have to pay them, and it will likely be more than if you had paid them on time.

2. We are at a point now where we can rethink how we want to do transportation in our community. We can choose to maintain the status quo, using last century's answer (the personal auto) to this century's questions, OR we can start right now to invest in encouraging walking, biking and mass transit instead of the personal auto.

Why is there only ONE option to walk or bike from Southern Indiana to Louisville? This should begin to change immediately. Now’s the time to move past the false “conservatism” of pushing off payments to future generations and to begin responsible investment in our community.

18 comments:

John Farrier said...

I defer to your local knowledge, but could it be practically turned into a private, for-profit bridge?

A company could then:
1. borrow money
2. rebuild the bridge
3. pay back the loan with toll revenues

Would this work in your situation?

Dan Trabue said...

1. People don't want to pay tolls.
2. IF it were a toll system where you had to stop and drop money into a box, it would result in massive traffic tie ups.

I'm all for having motorists pay their own way, but I'm unconvinced that a private solutions to public commons sorts of circumstances can work. Wouldn't it ALSO be in the private company's best interests to pay as little in improvements as possible?

I'm not saying private roadways can't work, I'm saying I have a hard time envisioning such an arrangement working well. Do you have any models for such an enterprise?

What I CAN see working (and see models where it works) is choosing to invest in and promote mass transit and better pedestrian/bicyclist solutions (a mile of bike/ped paths comes at a tiny fraction of the cost of a mile of interstate) rather than investing in and promoting the personal auto solution.

Craig said...

Again, not sure of your local circumstances. But many states have taken the federal gas tax monies that are collected for the very purpose you describe and used them to fund other projects that have taken funding from the existing roads and bridges that need to be maintained.

John Farrier said...

1. People don't want to pay tolls.
2. IF it were a toll system where you had to stop and drop money into a box, it would result in massive traffic tie ups.


Not necessarily. The toll roads in my area use an automatic scanner. When you drive through it (even at full speed), it scans your car's electronic tag.

Wouldn't it ALSO be in the private company's best interests to pay as little in improvements as possible?

No, the opposite is true. It's in the company's best interest to improve their product so that more people will buy it. Customers can opt out of using and paying for the bridge if they think that it's inadequate. With a government bridge, people can opt out of using the bridge, but not paying for it.

Dan Trabue said...

I get your point, John, but have my doubts as to the efficacy on a private level. And what if the company goes bankrupt? What if it were corrupt? Here in Louisville, we have TWO bridges and those are the only game in town, so it's sort of a monopoly - it's not like there's a choice to choose another company's bridge.

Beyond that, the interstates (and these are both interstate bridges) are a federal responsibility (and in this case, the federal gov't has agreed to give the state of Indiana responsibility to take care of the bridge) - can a private firm legally acquire a portion of an interstate?? I'm not sure if it could be done and I'm not sure if we'd want to do it if it could.

I just don't have the faith in corporations that you Libertarian types do.

On the private solution side of things, I CAN see water taxis and ferries as being a good partial solution. Or amphibious cars/bikes! YEAH, THAT'd be cool!

Marshall Art said...

I'm more concerned about the use of federal tax dollars for local improvements. Why should I, here in Illinois, where Barry O and people like him have led us into massive economic turmoil, have to pay for a bridge in Kentucky? Pay for it yourselves. If your own elected people and the local public works people aren't keeping up with their own business, get a freakin' dingy and paddle across. You should like that idea, Dan. No pollution!

Dan Trabue said...

I DO like the idea, Marshall. Love it!

But as to this...

I'm more concerned about the use of federal tax dollars for local improvements. Why should I, here in Illinois, where Barry O and people like him have led us into massive economic turmoil, have to pay for a bridge in Kentucky?

Because of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution...

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The term commerce as used in the Constitution means business or commercial exchanges in any and all of its forms between citizens of different states, including purely social communications between citizens of different states by telegraph, telephone, or radio, and the mere passage of persons from one state to another for either business or pleasure.

Info on Commerce Clause and highways
Because you people in Illinois travel to Kentucky/Indiana and because you trade here, it has become at least partially the responsibility of the Federal Gov't to oversee and be involved in that.

That's why.

John Farrier said...

Dan wrote:

Or amphibious cars/bikes! YEAH, THAT'd be cool!

Here you go.

Because you people in Illinois travel to Kentucky/Indiana and because you trade here, it has become at least partially the responsibility of the Federal Gov't to oversee and be involved in that.

How you arrive at the power to build highways from "regulate commerce"? That is, how does the Congressional power to regulate commerce necessitate the creation or maintenance of the Interstate Highway System?

John Farrier said...

Or better.

Doug said...

I would echo Craig's question: Do we know for sure that funding for infrastructure has indeed dropped, and did so specifically in the 80s? Or, as he wonders, was the funding there but the states misappropriated it.

Because, just as corporations can be corrupt, so can governments. The difference is this; when a corporation is corrupt, you can almost always choose to do business with a different one. When your government is corrupt, you can only move.

Dan Trabue said...

Actually, when a gov't is corrupt, you can always vote them out. If a corporation has a monopoly on something and is corrupt, you're stuck at least until a new corporation can come out.

Also, gov't has at least some bit more expectations/rules about transparency that would not necessarily apply to corporations.

Which is not to say that I trust gov't folk any more (or less) than corporations, just stating that Libertarians tend to have more trust in corporations than I do.

Doug said...

However, not many corporations have a monopoly, so that's not a general problem with corp. Government, by definition, is a monopoly, and one that, while it can be voted out, can only be voted out periodically.

Tomorrow, I can change my phone company.

Dan Trabue said...

But we're speaking specifically about roadways/bridges here on this topic. Would you have Company A's road to Lexington, vs Company B's and Company C's, in order to have competition? Three different bridges where one used to exist?

I just can't see a practical workable solution for private enterprise in running/managing infrastructure. Certainly private firms can (and do) do the work in building this infrastructure, but managing it? I can't see how that would work well.

Do you know of any examples where this is done in a manageable fashion?

I just don't think every common need can be privatized.

John Farrier said...

What Doug said.

You can't always vote government out of office. Dan, didn't you vote against Bush in 2004? And didn't he stick around for a second term anyway?

You may be without a bridge if you decide not to use the privately-owned bridge, but you aren't paying for it either. Moreover, you can stop paying for it immediately. If you decide not to use the government-owned bridge, you still have to pay for it, possibly indefinitely.

Dan Trabue said...

I suppose the presumption is that, for free flow of travel, we DO have to use bridges.

Again, my points:

1. I can't see privatized roads/bridges being practical or workable
2. Are there any examples of this anywhere where it is a good thing?
3. I don't trust corporations all that much (nor do I trust gov't, but gov't I can have the chance to vote out)

Thanks for the thoughts, though.

Marshall Art said...

I have been reading up on the commerce clause and it is this kind of thinking that has made the commerce clause a bottomless pit from which politicians can claim a right to interfere. It was originally intended to prevent one state from being a burden on another, such as with states denying use of waterways running through their states (a very basic example). But a bridge on an interstate highway within Kentucky's borders is Kentucky's responsibility. Not Illinois'. You'll notice that all work done on the interstates within Kentucky borders are Kentucky DOT workers and Kentucky State Police. No federal workers at all. The interstates aren't the only roads by which commerce MUST travel, simply the easiest. Maintaining Kentucky bridges is the responsibility of Kentucky DOT and it should not be Illinois' problem if Kentucky waits until the bridge is falling down before they do anything about its condition.

Edwin Drood said...

Federal Gas tax is there for a reason, use that money to pay for interstate. When Bush was President Harry Reid was pressing for emergency infrastructure after a bridge collapsed. Bush admin agreed so long as Congress supplied an explanation for the spending of federal gas tax dollars. The whole issue just went away.

Gas tax is one of our more "fair" taxes, their are people who choose not own cars and pollute, why should they pay for roads so others can pollute?

John Farrier said...

One reason why I don't like the Interstate Highway System is that the federal government uses it to extort policy changes from states. Example: requiring states to raise their drinking ages to 21 or lose highway funds.

Mind you, the citizens of a state refusing to comply would still have to pay into the IHS. But they wouldn't get anything out of it.

Thus the federal government was able to seize a power not delegated to it under the Constitution.

3. I don't trust corporations all that much (nor do I trust gov't, but gov't I can have the chance to vote out)

So as long as governments have SWAT teams and nukes and corporations don't, then I'll fear governments more.

Remember: governments killed more people in the past century than any other human institution.