BCT Editorial – 6/4/08

This page was last updated on June 4, 2008.

Future shock; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 4, 2008.

The editorial subtitle is “Railroads are the latest part of America’s infrastructure that’s heading toward a crisis.” Have you noticed everything seems to be a “crisis,” except, of course, for the fact our overall taxation is near its all-time high?

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The crisis in America’s infrastructure has reached the point that even its relatively decent areas are in bad shape.

“The Associated Press reports the 140,000-mile rail freight network in the United States already is groaning under the strain of congestion, with trains forced to stand aside for hours because of one-track rail lines.

“And it’s probably going to get worse over the next two decades, according to an analysis of government and industry projections by The AP and interviews with experts on rail freight. By 2035, traffic jams could be so severe that trains would grind to a halt for days with nowhere to go.

“That would have an enormous impact on the U.S. economy. One analyst told the news service the rail crunch could add thousands of dollars to the price of a car.

“The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says expanding capacity on the more than 150-year-old U.S. rail system would cost $148 billion over 30 years. Private rail companies would have to pay most of it, with federal and state tax dollars covering much of the rest.”

[RWC] Why would we need to spend “federal and state tax dollars” on our rail system?

“Some say railroad and government officials are being alarmist. They say larger, high-tech train cars and computers systems will ease the traffic crunch.

“No one would accuse the American Society of Civil Engineers of being nervous Nellies. In its 2005 Report Card on America’s Infrastructure, it gave the nation’s rail system of C-minus. Here’s what it had to say:”

[RWC] The ASCE may not be “nervous Nellies,” but it’s also not an independent observer. I’m not saying the ASCE assessment is incorrect, but we need to keep in mind low grades help the ASCE because low grades mean more civil engineering projects and this benefits ASCE membership. Over the last three+ years, the Times has used the ASCE at least 21 times as a source for its infrastructure-related editorials, yet I believe you’ll find the Times never mentioned the possibility of a conflict of interest.

Given its editorial history, consider what the Times would say about the Society of Automotive Engineers and the Society of Petroleum Engineers in the following fictional circumstances.

Imagine an editorial response to an SAE study citing technical data to oppose stiffer emission, fuel efficiency, and safety standards for cars and trucks that would hurt the U.S. auto industry.

Imagine an editorial response to an SPE study saying we need to remove all regulations that keep so much domestic oil and gas off limits.

“‘For the first time since World War II, limited rail capacity has created significant chokepoints and delays. This problem will increase as freight rail tonnage is expected to increase at least 50 percent by 2020. … The freight railroad industry needs to spend $175-$195 billion over the next 20 years to maintain existing infrastructure and expand for freight growth. Expansion of the railroad network to develop intercity corridor passenger rail service is estimated to cost approximately $60 billion over 20 years. All told, investment needs are $12-13 billion per year.’

[RWC] Hmm, how can this be? Haven’t we constantly heard over the last seven+ years how we’re suffering under the worst economy since the Great Depression? We should have gobs of excess capacity due to underutilization. <g>

“Expansion of the railroad network to develop intercity corridor passenger rail service is estimated to cost approximately $60 billion over 20 years?” Why? Amtrak – the federal government-run and owned passenger railroad – provides most if not all U.S. intercity passenger service and operates at a loss ($1 billion in 2007). Why on Earth would we continue to throw money down this money loser? According to Wikipedia, about 2/3’s of passenger rail service occurs in the New York metro area.

“What’s scary about ASCE’s C-minus for railroads is that it was one of four Cs it handed out. Of the other 11 categories of infrastructure ASCE rated, 10 got Ds and one got an incomplete. The group gave the nation’s infrastructure an overall grade of D.

“From roads and bridges to dams, from drinking water to sewage, from airports to the national power grid, America’s infrastructure can’t keep up with the demands being place on it, in large part because we don’t want to spend the money to expand and upgrade them.”

[RWC] With overall tax rates near their all-time high, maybe it’s not “because we don’t want to spend the money to expand and upgrade them.” Perhaps it’s because we’re spending so much of our tax dollars on income/wealth redistribution programs like public schools, government-run bus systems, PACE, Medicaid, Medicare, welfare, et cetera. Remember, when we originally built much of our infrastructure, we didn’t have many (most?) of these programs, and thus they weren’t consuming our tax dollars.

“In doing so, we’re making a huge mistake. Infrastructure represents an investment in the future. What we do or don’t do today will have a direct impact on the future of our children and our grandchildren.”

[RWC] Ah, the tried and true do it for “our children and our grandchildren.” In trying to sell your position, this is one of the refuges of scoundrels.

“The window of opportunity to address these problems is closing rapidly. Let’s do the right thing and invest in our infrastructure.”

[RWC] Don’t hold your breath waiting for an editorial proposing spending cuts in other areas to fund the increased infrastructure spending.

“The future will be here sooner than we think.”

[RWC] Duh.