Stimulus Two-Step: Implementation in the Real-World

From: Taking Note

by Anthony Shorris

When it comes to jump-starting the US economy, there are a few things everyone seems to agree on: we need to invest in projects that can get started right now and which will have a long-term benefit to the nation’s economic vitality. The only problem is that these two ends are increasingly contradictory: the kinds of transformative infrastructure projects we need for our future are not the kinds of the projects we can start quickly enough to benefit the economy today.

Great public works take longer to build today than ever. Just look around the New York region: we built the George Washington Bridge in two years, the Empire State Building in eighteen months, and even the Erie Canal in eight years, and today we can’t build a new subway line in under a decade and, if all goes well, a new tunnel under the Hudson River will be completed a mere 25 years after it was first proposed.

Some of the reasons are good ones: we build more safely than we used to, think harder about the environment that we once did, have a fairer process for choosing contractors, and allow many more voices to be heard in the debate about how to plan and execute projects. But the costs are clear too – project budgets skyrockets as delays drive up prices, public frustration grows and confidence erodes, technologies change between the start of design and construction leaving some work outdated even before it has even begun. It’s these realities that forced some of the nation’s governors to admit to the President-elect that choosing projects for the stimulus is more complicated than they had thought.

And then there is the even bigger problem with transformational public works: bigger projects are harder because they often affect many jurisdictions, requiring political coordination and even consensus among cities, counties, and sometimes states that is harder than ever to achieve in the world of instant polls and 24-hour news cycles. Yet the bigger the project, the more likely it will have a significant effect on the future of the nation’s economic health.

Given these challenges, it’s tempting to simply fund projects already in the pipeline as part of a “stimulus” program – freeing up some money for states and localities to use for other things and perhaps making ourselves feel a bit better, but accomplishing little for either our long-term or short-term goals. But do we have to surrender the notion of creating work on projects now that will benefit the country in the future? No, but we have to think about it differently. We need to be clear about our goals and create an approach that is realistic in the face of these hurdles.

Go over to Taking Note and read the whole post...........