Amid Growing Debate, a New Approach to Infrastructure

President Clinton is wisely holding fast to the commitment that candidate Clinton made to shore up America’s wobbly infrastructure--a vague bureaucratic term for roads, sewage treatment plants and other essentials--and, at the same time, jump-start the flagging economy.

He has made job creation an “immediate priority” by proposing an “investment plan” including $48 billion in new spending over four years. That money would be used to rebuild highways, bridges and airports, to build new transit systems and high-tech information systems and to create environmental cleanup programs in partnership with state and local government, among other things.

WILL SPENDING HELP?: The President’s proposal has revived spirited debate about the wisdom of investing heavily in public works projects at a time when the federal government is already strapped for funds.

Clinton’s proposal has also generated a good deal of jostling among agencies and interest groups competing for the proposed federal funds. Each has a wish list of long-deferred projects.

But amid the growing clamor, several things should be clear to Californians: First, Southern California sorely needs more assistance in pulling itself out of the lingering, deep recession. Spending on worthy--and we emphasize that word--projects could provide a short-term and, we believe, a long-term economic boost to the state. Second, there are a number of obvious regional infrastructure “gaps” or needs. And third, the new prospect for a large influx of federal funds should not exclusively determine choices about infrastructure spending in Southern California. Decisions about which projects to undertake should instead rest mainly on a careful assessment of the region’s most pressing needs and the most promising sources of funds for those projects.

As the rest of the nation appears to have begun, however hesitantly, to pull out of the recession, California’s unemployment remains high, with the decline in defense outlays continuing to undermine the state’s recovery. With the possibility of more defense cuts to come, few expect the state to regain its former economic vitality soon.

But is infrastructure spending the answer? Many economists believe that it is--or at least that it is one answer. In the short term, building schools or water storage facilities creates jobs for those involved in those projects. That itself is positive. In the long run, carefully chosen improvements to the local economy can significantly improve productivity and output. Express rail and commuter lanes, for example, can speed the movement of goods and people through crowded cities.

Although there are those who believe that any money spent on infrastructure will benefit the region’s economy, we favor choosing projects carefully so as to maximize long-term economic return and not just provide a short-term boost. Infrastructure spending makes sense if it improves Southern California’s quality of life or economic productivity or competitive advantage.

WHO SHOULD PAY?: The President’s proposals have generated much debate about not just whether but also how much federal money should go toward public works and jobs projects. But focusing exclusively on federal funds needlessly constrains the debate over infrastructure. While Clinton is talking about large sums in the aggregate--such as his $48-billion “investment plan”--only a fraction of that will end up in Southern California.

Just as important, the federal government has historically been only one source for public works funds. Much of this nation’s “technological sinew,” as historians Joel Tarr and Gabriel Dupuy have termed infrastructure, has been built with state, local and private funds. For that reason, California’s leaders must think broadly and creatively not just about which projects to promote but also about how to fund them as well.

WHAT IS THE U.S. ROLE?: Debate about the “proper” role for the federal government in the construction of “internal improvements” is as old as the Republic itself. Well into the 19th Century, leaders challenged the authority of Congress and the President to undertake large-scale federal improvement projects.

As a result, state governments actively supported construction of roads and canals--the interstate highway systems of their day--often through mixed public/private enterprises. State governments played a more limited but still significant role in the development of railroads, especially in California.

Large-scale federal public works spending and technical assistance date back as far as the federal road-building programs of the early 20th Century but took off during the New Deal. The Public Works Administration alone sprinkled 35,000 projects across the country.

While there has been broad public support for infrastructure development over the last two centuries, Americans have been unable to define a coherent infrastructure policy. The U.S. infrastructure has been “cobbled together,” according to Michigan historian Bruce Seeley, with little understanding of how one system affects the others and is affected by them.

It is certain that some projects make more sense than others for this region at this particular moment. In editorials to come The Times will focus on some of them as we present a strategy for investing in California.