Why Trump’s Plan Won’t Fix Crumbling Infrastructure

[EasyAce]

By Randal O'Toole
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-trumps-plan-wont-fix-crumbling-infrastructure

For the past decade or so, Americans have been inundated with propaganda about our crumbling infrastructure. According to this narrative, our roads and bridges are falling apart and the only solution is more federal spending.

Earlier this month, the White House released President Donald Trump’s long-awaited infrastructure program, which promises to spend $1.5 trillion — $200 billion from the federal government — on several new infrastructure programs on top of what governments already spend.

So how much of this money is dedicated to maintaining and restoring crumbling infrastructure? Zero; nada; not one red, white, and blue cent.

The White House says that, unlike some federal programs that are solely dedicated to new construction, the Trump plan allows state and local politicians to decide to spend their share of the funds on either new projects or maintenance. But the plan doesn’t guarantee that any of the money will be spent on maintenance.

Where infrastructure is in bad shape, it is because politicians are allowed to decide how to spend infrastructure funds. And, as I have argued elsewhere, some decide to build highly visible new projects rather than maintain existing ones . . .

. . . Although the Trump plan would allow states to spend their share of new infrastructure funds on maintenance, it leaves the decision in the hands of local politicians. They will almost always go for the glitz rather than the routine . . .

. . . To its credit, the Trump infrastructure plan does allow for some additional user fees . . . But the plan leaves the decision to state politicians, who are unlikely to ask voters to pay tolls when they can pretend to give them something for nothing.

In general, however, not one of the new programs proposed by the Trump infrastructure plan is dedicated solely to maintenance and rehabilitation of crumbling infrastructure. As a result, it is likely that the bulk of this proposed new federal spending will go toward new infrastructure that we may not really need and can’t afford to maintain.

[driftdiver]

So the only answer is more federal control.   

Thats how I read the article.

[EasyAce]

So the only answer is more federal control.   

Thats how I read the article.

@driftdiver
Then you have misread both a) the article, and b) the mission of the Cato Institute, which is against the further metastasis and for the remission
(preferably, permanent) of the federal government.

(The author of the article didn't mention it, but I'm not sure it takes an economist to remind you, too, that this infrastructure plan is ripe for pork barreling
as well as other abuses by those local politicians who, yes, much prefer the Big Glitz to the genuine need . . . )

[corbe]

   I see a lot more bicycle paths in America's future, not unlike the money diverted in New Orleans from levee maintenance prior to Katrina.

*Disclaimer:  Nice trails, I use to ride them when I lived there but at the sacrifice of flooding the city that was to high a price.

[EasyAce]

   I see a lot more bicycle paths in America's future, not unlike the money diverted in New Orleans from levee maintenance prior to Katrina.

*Disclaimer:  Nice trails, I use to ride them when I lived there but at the sacrifice of flooding the city that was to high a price.

@corbe
Don't be shocked over at least a few new superfluous office buildings in honour of a few superfluous local political legends, either.