Government might not be a sensible way to build infrastructure

We have the news that the American infrastructure bill has passed, passed the Senate at least:

The package will direct $550 billion in new spending towards infrastructure projects including $110 billion for roads and bridges; $66 billion for rail projects; $25 billion for airports and $65 billion to expand high-speed internet access.

We’ve never quite believed those estimates of how many trillions need to be spent on the infrastructure. For the number comes from the American Society of Civil Engineers, the very people who would have lovely jobs spending all the money allocated to infrastructure. That sounds much too much like asking your barber if you need a haircut to us.

It’s possible to note that only about half of the infrastructure bill is actually being spent upon infrastructure. Which does seem more than a little wasteful.

We’d also point out that if there really is a $4 trillion backlog in maintenance then clearly politics isn’t the right way to be managing the maintenance of infrastructure.

We’d add two more little critiques. That money being sent to Amtrack for rail projects:

In remote wilderness expanses along the Canadian border like northern Montana, Amtrak is the only way for non-drivers to get to somewhere else. Southern Montana wants restoration of the route that used to connect its major cities, Billings, Bozeman, Helena, and Missoula, please and thank you. No private rail operator would ever serve the tiny towns of Libby (population 2703) or Browning (population about 1,000), the tribal headquarters of the Blackfeet Nation. Amtrak does.

Running trains between places with 1k and 2k populations simply isn’t sensible whoever is paying for it. What portion of either population wishes to be in the other place 120 miles away on any particular day? Given that this one bill alone is offering $2,000 per annual passenger movement to Amtrack it’s almost certainly cheaper to hire the occasional taxi. Even, just to buy a car and leave it on the edge of town - one or the other - with the keys in.

Allocating this much money to such rail routes simply isn’t sensible - but then that’s politics as an allocation mechanism.

$65 billion to expand internet access also appears ludicrous. That’s $200 per head of population - man woman and child - and the vast majority already have that access. We really are sure that a single contract with just the one LEO supplier - just as an example you understand - could be had at a fraction of that price. Especially since having just the one billing point would remove much of the operating cost of such a system.

Our point is not that no government should ever be involved in any building of infrastructure. Nor that all infrastructure can or should always be built by private economic actors. Rather, we do all need to face up to the truth that government is a really lousy way of building infrastructure. Thus it should only be used to do so when it’s really, really, essential that it be so.