ibu/bpk/rekan ysh...
karena kita sering diskusi ttg pembangunan infrastruktur/ regional dlm rangka
menyerap tenaga kerja di masa krisis.. berikut sy share artikel dlm the
economist yg mengulas permasalahan2 yg timbul akibat kebijakan ini di US...
salam,
Eko (mencoba warna warni seperti usul Bu Reny)...
Roads to nowhere
Dec 11th 2008 | LOS ANGELES
>From The Economist print edition
America is in danger of getting the wrong kind of infrastructure
WITH the economy in recession and unemployment quickly rising, America’s
elected leader prepares to put hundreds of thousands of people to work on
infrastructure projects. Visiting the site of a new road, he sums up his agenda
in three words: “Jobs, jobs, jobs”.
Barack Obama in 2008? No, that was George Bush senior in 1991. Politicians have
long seen public works as a solution to economic woes. But few presidents have
been as keen to spend as Mr Obama, or as pressured. America’s mayors have their
wish list of projects, which cost about $73 billion. State governors are
pushing for $136 billion-worth of projects.
document.write('');
The need is undeniable. Many old industrial cities have rich networks of roads
and railways, dating from a time when they were much bigger. These are now
crumbling. Last year a bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, killing 13 people. A
tunnel that brings water to New York sprang a leak in the 1980s and is
currently losing about 20m gallons a day. Philadelphia has been flooded with
sewage. The most recent infrastructure “report card” by the American Society of
Civil Engineers contains nothing but Cs and Ds.
Matters are even worse in the desert West and lowland South, where population
growth has been so rapid that basic infrastructure is often non-existent. Las
Vegas (population 560,000) is linked to Phoenix (1.6m) by a rural road that
trundles over the Hoover Dam. The West struggles with a water system, built by
the federal government in the early 20th century, that serves farmers much
better than city-dwellers. The scarcity of power lines is holding up efforts to
generate electricity from sun and wind.
These problems have two causes, the smaller of which is lack of money. Roads,
for example, are paid for largely by a national 18.4-cent tax on a gallon of
petrol. This levy has not been increased since 1993, and its value has been
eroded by inflation. Road-building is lagging well behind use (see chart). Now
fuel consumption is falling, cutting tax receipts further.
The greater problem is the lack of a strategy. No federal office oversees
spending on infrastructure. Congressmen appropriate money for individual
projects, a few of which are ludicrous (Alaska’s “bridge to nowhere”) and most
of which bear no relation to each other. Cash for roads is given to states with
few strings attached. “It is as close to a blank cheque as the federal
government comes to writing,” says Robert Puentes of the Brookings Institution,
a think-tank.
The federal government’s failure to invest in infrastructure has had one good
effect. It has pushed much of the burden on to states and cities, whose efforts
are scrutinised much more closely by taxpayers and the media. California has
set up a strategic growth council to co-ordinate infrastructure spending.
Voters have responded by approving tens of billions of dollars in
infrastructure bond issues in the past two years. The latest, last month, was
$9 billion towards a high-speed railway between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
The lack of federal cash has also provoked states to think boldly about how to
manage demand and recoup infrastructure investments. There is growing interest
in public-private partnerships, although America still lags well behind Europe.
Oddly, the corruption-tainted state of Illinois has been unusually
forward-looking. In 2005 Chicago became the first city to lease a toll road to
a private company.
So a wiser approach to public works is slowly taking shape. Unfortunately, it
is now in danger of being washed away by a torrent of money. Speed in spending
is prized above all; but this is no way to build something that lasts as long
as infrastructure. Mr Bush’s three priorities should really have been “Value,
value, value”.
