infrastructure projects

“Livability” versus Mobility: TIGER II

by Marc Scribner on October 18, 2010

in Mobility, Politics as Usual

Since the early 1990s when advocates of so-called Smart Growth took control of federal transportation infrastructure policy, we have increasingly heard transportation projects described as “livability” enhancements. Livability sounds great: I mean, who doesn’t want their community to be more livable? The problem is that for Smart Growth advocates, “livability” is not about improving the lives of residents and offering them more opportunities — it is about restricting the movement of individuals.

Livability projects are generally those that make auto travel more difficult: converting highways to boulevards, closing city streets to cars, opening one-way urban streets to bidirectional traffic, narrowing roads, zoning out parking, and installing speed humps, to name just a few. Congestion is by far the most serious issue facing our transportation system. Livability measures not only fail to address congestion, they make it worse. And more congestion means more time stuck in traffic, which means people are able to do fewer of the things that they would like to do.

Smart Growthers claim they just want to level the playing field for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders. The problem with their bumbling central planning, though, is that Americans, well, prefer to drive. In essence, they are attacking a problem that is greatly overstated (a lack of pedestrian-friendly infrastructure and access) and making the far more serious problem (congestion) significantly worse.

On Wednesday, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is scheduled to unveil the list of TIGER II grant recipients. Thanks to our ethically challenged Congress — always eager to show that they’re bringing home the bacon to their local interest groups — leaked program details began appearing in the press late last week.

Much of the $600 million TIGER II funds will go to bread-and-butter infrastructure projects such as bridge repair in rural counties. Wasteful as many of these projects are, they’re hardly social engineering mechanisms. Unfortunately, a fair amount of TIGER II grants will invariably be doled out to livability projects that harm mobility. So far, we know that New Haven, Connecticut, has secured $16 million to convert an urban portion of a limited-access highway to a boulevard; Peoria, Illinois, is receiving $10 million to narrow a street in its Warehouse District; and Atlanta is getting $47 million for its proposed streetcar system.

As the Census Bureau’s recently released 2009 American Community Survey reveals (see “Commuting to Work” summary), transit’s share as a mode of commuter transportation fell during our current recession (excluding a handful of large, dense cities on the coasts). Cycling and walking both saw increases to their meager shares, but congestion is not decreasing. As Americans everywhere are forced to make due with less, perhaps the Obama administration should consider spending tax dollars on transportation programs that actually benefit the vast majority of Americans.

The Smart Way to Provide Power

by Iain Murray on February 3, 2009 · 1 comment

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Energy, Environment, Regulation

It’s not often I disagree with Ron Bailey, but his article about the “Smart Grid” today glosses over the main reason why electric companies aren’t investing in it now.

It’s not because they’ll be selling less electricity and that means reduced profits. One of the main points about a smart grid means that you can charge more when there is a strain on the system caused by peaking and less when there isn’t. So your income stream takes on a different character. Yes, people tend to use less electricity on the whole, but this is made up for by the fact that you don’t have to generate extra electricity to supply the concentrated demand, and you are getting more revenue for electricity you generated that would otherwise be wasted. Most companies would prefer this, but there’s a lot of regulation out there, aimed at keeping prices “fair,” that prevents it. Why build a grid if regulation prevents you from utilizing its main benefit?

Moreover, there are massive regulatory barriers to construction. The presence of NEPA requirements, for example, which provide a pretext for environmental organizations to bog new infrastructure projects down in court action as well as red tape. That is one reason why three former California governors just complained about environmental regulations stymieing infrastructure projects.

There are two ways for government to incentivize investment in a smart grid. One way is to pony up taxpayer cash, to cover the costs of the regulations it has imposed. The other is to suspend or get rid of those regulations – and then they won’t have to take money out of our pockets (and our children’s pockets). Liberate is the best way to stimulate.

Alex Tabarrok has more on the reasons why grid upgrades just aren’t happening. See also here (this is not an endorsement of all those policies).

Stimulating Who, Exactly?

by Iain Murray on January 13, 2009

in Environment, Stimulus to Nowhere

Great point by Carter Wood over at the excellent Shopfloor blog of the National Association of Manufacturers. Building on my point at NRO about the tension between infrastructure projects and existing regulation, Carter says:

There is good reason to fear that any significant project that promotes both quick economic investment and long-term competitiveness — say, modernizing and expanding the nation’s electrical grid — will immediately be hit by litigation lasting years and years and years. In which case the only thing being stimulated is the fundraising drives of alarmist, anti-growth environmental groups.

The plain fact is that any so-called stimulus that relies on infrastructure projects has to contain a significant deregulatory element. Of course, environmental groups will be able to raise money whatever happens, whether because “polluting” projects are given the go-ahead or because regulations they have fought tooth-and-nail for are lifted. It should be apparent, therefore, that if the President-elect wants to avoid conflict with environmental groups that he has so far rewarded with at least 5 major appointments, he should choose another route for the stimulus than the Keynesian infrastructure route, such as individual and corporate tax cuts. In the end, however, if he wants infrastructure improvement – whether initiated by government or the private sector – deregulation is almost a necessary price to pay.

Or he could attempt to live with government funding and regulatory delay, and hope the taxpayer will be willing – and able – to bear the cost…