The Political Psychology of Road Construction

The Minneapolis bridge collapse, while certainly tragic, could have been a lot worse and for that we must be thankful while mourning those we lost. Predictable, the handwringing has begun as we look for answers. One common meme that is making the rounds is the lack of funds spent on repair and maintenance of roads and bridges. The New York Times takes up the idea, leading with the story that Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty twice vetoed legislation that would increase gas taxes to pay for roads. The Times carries this paragraph:

Even as the cause of the bridge disaster here remains under investigation, the collapse is changing a lot of minds about spending priorities. It has focused national attention on the crumbling condition of America’s roadways and bridges — and on the financial and political neglect they have received in Washington and many state capitals.

Despite historic highs in transportation spending, the political muscle of lawmakers, rather than dire need, has typically driven where much of the money goes. That has often meant construction of new, politically popular roads and transit projects rather than the mundane work of maintaining the worn-out ones.

For once, though the Times gets it right, the politically popular projects get funding and the mundane maintenance gets the short shrift.

Of course, some people will want to hold the current Congress and prior Congresses, for the Times, particularly the GOP lead Congress, accoutable for the poor attention paid to maintenance. Thomas Sowell, however, points out that the incentive structure for infrastructure construction is skewed toward the new, regardless of need, and not to the maintenance.

If this were just a matter of poor political leadership at various levels of government, we could at least hope for better leaders in the future. But the problem goes deeper than that.

It is not just the people but the incentives that are responsible for the neglect of infrastructure, while tax money is lavished on all sorts of less urgent projects.

In other words, when there is a complete turnover in political leaders over time, the same problem will remain because the same incentives will remain when new leaders take over.

Some people claim that the problem is how much money it would take to properly maintain bridges, highways, dams and other infrastructure. But money is found for other things, including things far less urgent and some things that are even counterproductive.

The real problem is that the political incentives are to spend the taxpayers' money on things that will enhance politicians' chances of getting re-elected.

There may be enough money available to maintain bridges and other infrastructure but that same money can have a bigger political pay-off if spent building something new instead of maintaining and repairing existing structures.

When money is spent building a new community center, a golf course, or anything that will be newsworthy, there will be ribbon-cutting ceremonies and the politicians who cut the ribbons can expect to see their pictures in the newspapers and on TV.

All that keeps their name before the public in a positive role and therefore enhances their prospects of being re-elected.

But there are no ribbon-cutting ceremonies when bridges are being repaired or pot-holes are being filled in. These latter activities may be more valuable than a community center or a golf course, but they are not nearly as photogenic.

In a sense, this whole highway funding mess is simply an extension of the earmarks matter. Earmarks for new transportation projects get publicity for the member, but earmarks for maintenance are just normal, not particularly newsworthy and probably wouldn't even generate more than a couple of paragraphs buried on page 10 of the local newspaper. Such things don't get members re-elected.

Still, changes to highway spending may result, but the correction will be short-term at best. But the blame for the political decisionmaking regarding roads cannot be placed solely at the feet of Congress or the state legislatures. We the average American must shoulder some of the blame and not just for failing to hold our leaders accountable.

Despite the need to maintain roads and bridges, America is in love with the new, we always have been. Whether it is the new plasma TV, the iPhone, the new rail commuter line, fascination with the new demands our attention and drives our decision making. We buy new cars every three to five years, even if the old one is not only running well, but would outperform the new car over time. We buy the latest cell phone with all kinds of features on it that we won't use enough to justify the cost. If we as individuals buy goods new rather than maintain the goods we have that serve us well, why should we think that it will be any different when it comes to infrastructure. I don't necessarily want to call it human nature, but focusing on what is new and happening does occupy a great deal of our attention.

While Sowell is talking about restructuring the political incentives regarding transportation funding and the Times talks about spending more tax money for maintenance, the reality is that a long term solution will have to be within ourselves and our thinking. We must remember that new does not always equal better and sometimes that clunky old grocery-getting mini-van (or bridge), with unappealing lines is far superior to the new, aesthetically pleasing SUV (or bridge a few miles downriver), and far cheaper to maintain.