Friday, January 16, 2009

Dems Already Blowing it

So all this stimulus plan, $30b for highways, and $10b for public transit. Way to go Obama, and what about Amtrak Biden? Carbon emission? Maybe Obama wants to promote tire gauges. Take a look at Spain to see how it's actually done.

7 comments:

Mark said...

If we're spending a trillion dollars that we don't actually have in order to jump-start the economy, then the criterion for funding a project should be how well and how quickly the project stimulates the economy; Congress shouldn't be using this as an opportunity to throw a bone to favored businesses and favored sectors of the economy, nor to favored environmental causes, nor to "social justice" issues.

Even putting aside the issue economic stimulus, there are plenty of projects that wave the green flag but which make little sense. For example, Boulder, CO is requesting six million dollars to convert 60 cars (in the city, county, and University of Colorado fleets) from ordinary hybrids to plug-in hybrids. That's a hundred thousand dollars per car. Does that make sense? Are there not more effective uses to which the stimulus funds can be put?

Even rail doesn't always make sense. You have to account for population density, the kinds of trips people are making, etc.

According to this study, "The average
light-rail line consumes more energy per passenger mile than passenger cars. While some commuter- and heavyrail transit operations use a little less energy per passenger mile than cars, the energy consumed to construct rail lines can more than make up for this savings." See also here with respect to light rail.

Sometimes the numbers justify the project, and sometimes they only seem to.

True, one needs to account for externalities like pollution and the effects of global warming (which is difficult to do).

I'm not against rail, or other potentially green projects (e.g., rebuilding the national grid to move energy around more effectively). I just don't think that any particular category of project is a slam-dunk because it seems to be green.

Dyutiman Das said...

The economy is headed towards a deflation, i.e. decreasing productivity, prices and wages. The impact of such an economic contraction is amplified by high debt and rising unemployment. Increasing employment is imperative to arrest this downward spiral, and the government is the "employer of last resort" (even if temporary). Infrastructure projects are ideally suited in this environment simply because these are large projects which employs a large number of people, stimulates peripheral industries, increases much needed efficiency (better roads/bridges less accidents etc.) and not something the free market can address during a credit crisis. The goal I think is not as reason.org states to create sustained economic growth, but to arrest the downward spiral so that the economy can unfreeze itself over time and grow by itself. The stimulus is the cost of braking the slide to avoid a collision.

Given global warming, pollution and energy issues this is also an opportunity to rethink replacing the government subsidized oil infrastructure by a government subsidized clean zero emission infrastructure. This will not only create jobs, but also promote expertise in technologies of the future. And the free market is frozen and incapable of making those investments. America's highways were also built by the Eisenhower administration and not the "free" market.

Repairing roads is a start, but improved roads do not necessarily reduce dependence on oil or carbon emissions. However building railroads employs lot of people, and is a sustainable industry as the project in Spain indicates. It can actually compete with the airlines and produces one sixth the carbon emissions (assuming electricity productions by conventional means, with solar, wind etc. this would be even better).

The reason.org talks about an inefficient system which I am arguing the stimulus to be used to improve, the article is already very old, from 2004. In 2008 light rail saw a huge increase in commuters all over California. This was primarily due to the increased gas prices, but as unemployment soars the commuter numbers are not coming down as fast even when the oil prices crash. The example in Spain shows how it can be done rather than the "can't be done" attitude so prevalent (especially in health-care).

The emphasis on roads has additional problems. As the housing crisis worsens people find themselves stranded in suburbs miles of cities where they work, with the only transportation being freeways with increasing fuel costs, but unable to move because of disappearing home equity they are screwed from both ends.

Here is Krugman addresses essentially the points that Mark raises. The point I am raising is that the railways and commuter infrastructure would be far better than just roadways. Krugman responds "the prefect is the enemy of the good", I don't agree completely. Actually, in the end Krugman argues for, ..., yes, "RAIL"!!! wow! I am impressed with myself.

Unknown said...

That reason article was quite interesting.

It does not address the cost of all the cars, vs the cost of
trains and bus's. True, the cost of cars is private, but surely is a
factor that should be considered when looking at the total social
cost. It does look at the cost of buses, (which it advocates) so that
factor has not been totally ignored.

What I get from this study is that almost all American light rail
systems have a much lower thruput than an equivalent highway. It
may just be that American cities are too dispersed for rail to be a
good option for most commuters. (if the stations are too far from
your endpoints, its just not going to work).

Some numbers from japan would be interesting, demonstrating the
achievable thruput on rail.

I also thought the points on how the way budgets are made quite interesting. (large initial cost making it more attractive to local govt)

Dyutiman Das said...

Now mass transit has been REMOVED from the bill.

Dyutiman Das said...

More on the rail, now the number is up to 30billion, this just seems oscillating.

Dyutiman Das said...

German High Speed lines discussed here

Mark said...

Contiguous physical transport is so yesterday. And then you have to deal with Zeno. Why invest in old technology? Get with it.
;^)