A Differentiated View of Infrastructure

Every time the word "infrastructure" is mentioned as a priority for the next Administration, it is usually followed by two words:  roads and bridges.  And that should be a big concern for anyone who wants to see America finally build a next generation economy. 

We seem to be accepting an undifferentiated view of infrastructure that assumes all infrastructure is good.  In this view all infrastructure is good because it rebuilds America and mostly because it produces jobs.

But all infrastructure is not good, and certainly not all infrastructure moves us toward a next generation economy.  If by infrastructure, we mean building more roads and bigger bridges that require us  to drive more, consume more foreign oil and use more land, it is a tragedy.

If, on the other hand, we mean road and bridge repairs in more densely settled parts of our nation, far more and better transit, high speed rail, the airport runways we need to gain efficiency, and an electrical grid that will carry newly-generated power, then it makes sense.

The best organized lobbyists for infrastructure support more pavement.  And so you get 15 percent more asphalt in Connecticut, even while the state's population drops.  That's the kind of stupid spending that has plagued this nation.  Spend more for less results.

Keep this statistic in mind:  If we could reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled just one mile per day in each of the top 51 metro areas with a million or more people, the nation would realize a $29 billion annual dividend. 

We spend less, consume less, gain more... have more money left over.  We call it the Green Dividend.  That's the kind of formula we need for America today.

Can't we please get it right this time?

  

There are no comments for this entry.

Post a Comment

Name:* E-mail Address: URL:

Comment*

Please type the word below*

Please leave the following field blank:

*Required fields (your email address will not be published)