June 08, 2010 09:11 PM UTC

Carpe Diem 2: "I've Been Workin' on the Railroad"

• 0 Comments
• by: JO

Memories: Time was when I had occasion to travel between Colorado and Massachusetts frequently. The usual mode was by car, with three or four passengers. At the time, I-70 was being built across Kansas, roughly parallel to US 40. Bliss was traveling for an hour or so on the newly opened stretch of I-70; hell was having to exit where the new road ended and go back to the two lanes of US-40 (aka Colfax Avenue, at least to the eastern edge of Aurora). Maybe because a Republican had suggested emulating the autobahns, no one seemed to wonder whether it was the right thing for the federal government to finance the interstate system.

Fast Forward: One of Wal-Mart’s proclaimed secrets of success is inventory control: just enough inventory delivered in time for a roll-back. Wal-Mart’s fleet of trucks are the company’s rolling warehouses, minimizing the time goods spend sitting on shelves, effectively costing the company (and customers) money. It’s a system that wouldn’t be possible without the American Autobahn, which effectively subsidizes Wal-Mart (and, arguably, Chinese imports, but that’s a story for another day).

The national transportation infrastructure has long been a partnership between the federal government and private entrepreneurs, starting with transcontinental trains in the 19th century and “advancing” to “truck tracks” in the 20th.

Now we have a golden opportunity to advance to the third phase, which I would argue means going back to the first one: trains. It’s an opportunity that is made all the more compelling because it represents a junction between three powerful forces:

–the aging of the existing infrastructure;

–a compelling need to wean ourselves from petroleum;

–and an immediate need to create a large number of jobs.

These days, descending from 5,280 ft. to sea level, eastbound, means getting onto an airplane. For passengers of the future–defined as tomorrow and thereafter–I’ve argued here, it ought to mean a video conference–yes, even to go to school–and I have no doubt that day is coming without government intervention (although a pep talk from Obama would be helpful). But we seem to be a long way from the day when we can sit on Chinese lawn chairs brought to our backyards via video conference. We still need a long-distance transportation network.

The one we have now is about half a century old. It was build in an era when “peak oil” was just a paper by a petroleum geologist with a slide rule. We can now easily foresee a time when the cost of shipping lawn chairs from Guangzhou to Grand Junction will exceed the cost of manufacturing them. This part of the national economic infrastructure needs renewal, and facilitating interstate commerce has always been a key function of the federal government.

Second, there is widespread agreement (although by no means unanimous) that we need to burn less petroleum–to protect the environment from further degradation, to deprive certain middle eastern kingdoms of funds that will be channeled to Wahhabi jihadists, to maintain our freedom to write the foreign policies we choose, and to avoid foreseeable day of skyrocketing prices due to “peak oil.”

Third, given the rapid restructuring of the U.S. economy away from manufacturing–a separate issue–the prospect of generating enough jobs in the short run to make a serious dent in long-term unemployment seems dubious at best.

Proposal: A hurry-up federal program to construct two new pieces of infrastructure: a network of windmills linked by a new national “smart grid;” and a new network of high-speed rails to carry freight long distances and to carry commuters relatively short distances to work (although not more often than four times a week, or even less when telecommuting takes hold, with help from The Honorable preaching from his bully pulpit in the Oval Office).

Ah, but the deficit, the deficit. There seems to be a certain–compelling, really–logic that the past generation finances the future, that the old infrastructure finances the new one. That means serious taxes on petroleum at every level, revenues to be used to capitalize a new national smart grid + windmills, and to rebuild the railroad infrastructure to accommodate the changes in population patterns since the original network was build in the latter half of the 19th century.

By “serious taxes at every level” I mean (a) megataxes on petroleum company profits; (b) an end to tax breaks for future drilling; (c) downstream taxes on refined products (mostly gasoline) to discourage its use. Since the latter implies a change in behavior, it’s bound to take awhile. One can reasonably hope that the new infrastructure of efficient mass transit + adoption of alternative behaviors will start biting into the much bigger tax on retail gasoline just about the time when the new infrastructure/behavior patterns have been financed. Of course, some/many/most of these projects can be financed with bonds to be paid back either by petrotaxes or user fees. In neither case need they add to the operating deficit.

If this is a good idea, how come we aren’t doing it? For one thing, narrow interests (petroleum industry) fiercely resist seeing their profits taxed and their future limited. For another, there is no powerful spokesman for an abstract issue like “renewing the national infrastructure.” Although everyone benefits, no one benefits enough to march in the streets, or even vote at the polls.

What’s missing is the Professor in Chief, the most articulate and persuasive president since … well, since awhile ago … to step up, explain the program, and then repeat it over and over and over and over until something happens.

Mr. Obama, the floor is yours. Other speakers are also welcome. Mr. Udall? Mr. Polis? Ms. DeGette? Messrs. Salazar? Mr. Perlmutter? Ms. Markey? Mr. Hickenlooper? Sorry, can’t quite hear you….