Wall Street Journal - September 5, 2007

How to Keep Our Cities Up and Running

 

oel Kotkin's Aug. 28 editorial-page commentary "Road Work" sends another wakeup call to governors and mayors. Well-maintained infrastructure in urban areas is a great public benefit, yet officials historically cut road and bridge maintenance to support new ribbon-cutting stadiums construction of the type Mr. Kotkin discusses. Potholes and tottering bridges become ubiquitous.

Powerful political and financial incentives are at work.

Today's new convention center generates great TV coverage for politicians on opening day. And it costs taxpayers only five cents for every dollar spent. The other 95 cents, plus interest, is transferred to future taxpayers via long-term bonds. Yet if a bridge is fully maintained, say by regular scraping and painting, TV crews do not show up and the taxpayer is immediately hit for the full dollar.

Glowing media reports, not high taxes, elect public officials. Once I asked a member of Congress to lead the way — to require mayors and governors to implement a program of "scheduled maintenance" for every project Congress funds. Not surprisingly, the idea was rejected.

Ned Regan
Professor
Baruch College
Former New York City Comptroller
New York

Joel Kotkin, as usual, seems to start with a thesis and then ignore evidence that would tend to disprove it, or he dances around the evidence to suit his needs. He comes down hard on municipalities in places that he doesn't like very much — New York, Minneapolis, Cleveland — which is anyplace that doesn't fit with his vision of "utopia" — Charlotte, Phoenix, Houston. The costs of maintaining infrastructure have ballooned due to the sprawl that Mr. Kotkin embraces, even in the more compact cities that he loathes, due to the high price of maintaining a massive commuter infrastructure for single-car commuters. To condemn the Minneapolis light rail as a failure due to "only" 30,000 boardings on a system that is not yet finished is disingenuous as well.

The sort of infrastructure investments that need to be made — to reduce wear on roads and stop spending exorbitant sums to expand highway networks that will be at peak capacity as soon as they are put into service — are derided by Mr. Kotkin for their "minuscule" ridership, even though they are not complete systems. Cities that you would not think are light-rail candidates — Salt Lake City, Denver, Dallas — are expanding their light-rail networks in order to grow more sensibly and deal with the demand that has grown from riders in the past few years. The ridership numbers are there; the compact and sensible development around the rail is there; the demand for greater service is there; the only thing missing is Mr. Kotkin's grudging acknowledgement that this is a positive investment in infrastructure that is more than a "feel good but often low performing" project.

Joseph E. Bornstein, AICP
Chicago

 

* * *