The Long-Gone Glory Days of American Investment in Infrastructure

[FayeforCure]

Total public spending on transport and water infrastructure has fallen steadily since the 1960s and now stands at 2.4% of GDP. Europe, by contrast, invests 5% of GDP in its infrastructure, while China is racing into the future at 9%. America’s spending as a share of GDP has not come close to European levels for over 50 years.

And we wonder why we have overcrowded airports, and roadways..........it's because we have no alternatives.



Why are we falling behind?

The federal government is responsible for only a quarter of total transport spending, but the way it allocates funding shapes the way things are done at the state and local levels. Unfortunately, it tends not to reward the prudent, thanks to formulas that govern over 70% of federal investment. Petrol-tax revenues, for instance, are returned to the states according to the miles of highway they contain, the distances their residents drive, and the fuel they burn. The system is awash with perverse incentives.

Besides, our gas tax revenues have been steadily dropping due to more fuel efficient cars, less driving due to high gas prices, and the fact that the gas tax is a fixed amount per gallon ( 18 cents), rather than a percentage of the price per gallon (18%, as it used to be when gas was $1 per gallon).

So this is what our funding source in terms of tax revenue looks like compared to Europe:



What does all this mean as to making a bad situation even worse?

Without new funding, some Democratic leaders have warned, a new, six-year transport bill will have to trim annual highway spending by about a third to keep up with falling petrol-tax revenues. But Republicans are increasingly sceptical of any new infrastructure spending. Party leaders have taken to using inverted commas around the word “investment” when Democrats apply it to infrastructure.

A nation that mocks investment in infrastructure and thus economic development has dangerously lost its sense of direction.

It's so much easier to cut bike lanes and services to the kids, the sick, and the elderly than it is to be serious about increasing our tax revenues.

Nobody wants to stick their neck out on that one!

http://www.economist.com/node/18620944

[wsansewjs]

China is going to get so BIG that we will have to start making condoms for them in our last hope of keeping our GDP high.

It's an inside joke, but this is a serious and good analysis of why America is sucking in technological advancement of supporting our own infrastructures and transportation.

-Josh

[Captain Zissou]

I wrote this in an email yesterday in response to someone lamenting the cost of road construction and maintenance, but at the same time denouncing trains. I think it is applicable here.

Trains cost a tenth of what roads do per mile and create dense, sustainable development patterns that increase QOE and lower the financial burden on the taxpayer.  Our main problem is that we have done the wrong thing in terms of development patterns for so long that the cost now seems extremely daunting and not worth it to develop a rail network for our country.  That may be true, but we at one time had this network and we never should have abandoned streetcars and railroads in the first place.  While most of our tax dollars go to road building, utilities, and an oversupplied police force due to the sprawled out nature of our city/state/country, that money could go to fund more important things.  So yes, at this point due to America's development patterns and decades of poor planning, roads do need to be built, but they never should have been built in the first place.  Especially not at the expense of our pre-existing rail network.

The American way of life has a much higher cost per capita to our government and therefore the tax payer.  Until we reduce this to comparable levels to the rest of the world, we're sailing a sinking ship.

[Ajax]

My guess is that if you look at a graph of defense spending (USA vs. Europe) it will show a relatively inverse relationship.  The irony is that part of our 'defense' spending is allowing these other countries to spend less of their GDP on their own security and more on high-speed trains, health care and other goodies. 

[wsansewjs]

My guess is that if you look at a graph of defense spending (USA vs. Europe) it will show a relatively inverse relationship.  The irony is that part of our 'defense' spending is allowing these other countries to spend less of their GDP on their own security and more on high-speed trains, health care and other goodies. 

EUREKA! DING DING DONG! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

-Josh

[FayeforCure]

My guess is that if you look at a graph of defense spending (USA vs. Europe) it will show a relatively inverse relationship.  The irony is that part of our 'defense' spending is allowing these other countries to spend less of their GDP on their own security and more on high-speed trains, health care and other goodies. 

The question is: do we need to wage multiple wars of choice?

Answer: NO!

It is a question of priorities. And the defense budget of the EU is quite sizable anyway!!

The combined defence budgets of the 27 EU member states in 2008 amounted to â,¬284.9 billion ($406,7 billion). This represents 1.63% of European Union GDP[2], second only to the US military's â,¬477.4 billion ($620.5 billion) 2008 defence budget, which represents 4.5% of United States GDP.

France and the United Kingdom account for more than 45% of EU military expenditure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union

Wow, France can do all that and still provide excellent train service as well as excellent universal healthcare!?!?

Wow, just wow!!

[Ajax]

The question is: do we need to wage multiple wars of choice?

Answer: NO!

It is a question of priorities. And the defense budget of the EU is quite sizable anyway!!

The combined defence budgets of the 27 EU member states in 2008 amounted to â,¬284.9 billion ($406,7 billion). This represents 1.63% of European Union GDP[2], second only to the US military's â,¬477.4 billion ($620.5 billion) 2008 defence budget, which represents 4.5% of United States GDP.

France and the United Kingdom account for more than 45% of EU military expenditure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union

Wow, France can do all that and still provide excellent train service as well as excellent universal healthcare!?!?

Wow, just wow!!

No, we certainly don't need to be in multiple wars of choice - I agree with you there.  But I don't think France would have all of their trains and healthcare if they really had to plan to defend themselves.  They can look down their noses at us all they want, but when the shit hits the fan they'll be calling on Uncle Sam to bail them out. 

I found it amusing that Sarkozy plunged full speed ahead into Libya waving his tricolore over his head and vowing to get rid of Ghadaffi - then he had to turn around and ask the US what to do next when he realized that France didn't have enough planes to get the job done. 

[FayeforCure]

The question is: do we need to wage multiple wars of choice?

Answer: NO!

It is a question of priorities. And the defense budget of the EU is quite sizable anyway!!

The combined defence budgets of the 27 EU member states in 2008 amounted to â,¬284.9 billion ($406,7 billion). This represents 1.63% of European Union GDP[2], second only to the US military's â,¬477.4 billion ($620.5 billion) 2008 defence budget, which represents 4.5% of United States GDP.

France and the United Kingdom account for more than 45% of EU military expenditure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union

Wow, France can do all that and still provide excellent train service as well as excellent universal healthcare!?!?

Wow, just wow!!

No, we certainly don't need to be in multiple wars of choice - I agree with you there.  But I don't think France would have all of their trains and healthcare if they really had to plan to defend themselves.  They can look down their noses at us all they want, but when the shit hits the fan they'll be calling on Uncle Sam to bail them out. 

I found it amusing that Sarkozy plunged full speed ahead into Libya waving his tricolore over his head and vowing to get rid of Ghadaffi - then he had to turn around and ask the US what to do next when he realized that France didn't have enough planes to get the job done. 

Even with all the planes we are at an impasse in Libya. Military power at the expense of our own domestic needs is misguided AND an outdated notion