tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4840511756286055487.post2725248016969499794..comments2024-03-29T04:22:07.879-06:00Comments on Illinois Transportation Issues: National Infrastructure Bank?Tom Bamontehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08257129333713108323noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4840511756286055487.post-5999083201380707382007-10-25T07:07:00.000-06:002007-10-25T07:07:00.000-06:006:40 may be ultimately correct, but that isn't wha...6:40 may be ultimately correct, but that isn't what Goldhagen was advocating:<BR/><BR/>"Goldhagen admires examples where private initiative has produced public benefits, as in the creation of the new Millennium Park in Chicago. But she thinks privatizing can't be a solution. She cites the classic economist Adam Smith, who wrote that since public works aren't usually profitable, they have to be funded by "the sovereign or commonwealth" - that is to say, by central government. But federal spending on infrastructure has been dropping for years."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4840511756286055487.post-32943538471811842792007-10-24T18:40:00.000-06:002007-10-24T18:40:00.000-06:00Well, it would surely make some bank happy...just ...Well, it would surely make some bank happy...just as happy as the organizations who get to sell the bonds now. The "banks" we're looking at now are orgs like "The Carslyle Group" and Macquarie, etc...public private partnerships who will buy private infrastructure for profit, or build it for profit. Sell the tollway, sell midway, sell the parking meters. That's what the feds are advocating -- getting the "public" out of the business of financing such things with taxes and privatizing public infrastructure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4840511756286055487.post-72124131322493300202007-10-24T14:12:00.000-06:002007-10-24T14:12:00.000-06:00Europe does a lot of things well, such as transpor...Europe does a lot of things well, such as transportation, public media, health care, communications infrastructure, and sprawl control through regional, national, and infranational government activity. The US apparently lacks the ability to achieve such successes. It's hard to see an Infrastructure Bank making any difference in our basic inability to accomplish anything without sidetracking it with pork, politics, and massive corruption.<BR/><BR/>How would the money be allocated geographically and by mode, for example? It would have to be a political decision, which means it would be essentially corrupt and political.<BR/><BR/>I don't see how a bank would change the fact that despite being in an environmental and climate change catastrophic situation, the US has done nothing to move us away from the petroleum economy.<BR/><BR/>The first step is for politicians to recognize that our transportation status quo has to drastically change. The role of the federal government, perhaps, should be to allocate infrastructure funding to states/counties based on population and let them be responsible for how it is used and for matching the funds. They could also make a difference by providing clear reports on how much was released to each entity, what it could buy, and how it was, in fact spent.Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08708947882159925551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4840511756286055487.post-24158641044837969192007-10-24T08:45:00.000-06:002007-10-24T08:45:00.000-06:00Alex, the problem is that the bank would be depend...Alex, the problem is that the bank would be dependent on Congress for funding, and thus to the political whims of porksters like Byrd. We already have regional planning commissions and oversight agencies like the RTA, the latter of which exercises no oversight. In the meantime, we have politicians writing such projects as the Ogden Streetcar into transportation bills, for the purpose of letting local agencies hire consultants to write proposals to compete for limited funding. I don't see how a bank changes that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4840511756286055487.post-16441945484860661462007-10-24T05:21:00.000-06:002007-10-24T05:21:00.000-06:00Rick, I think the difference is that an infrastruc...Rick, <BR/><BR/>I think the difference is that an infrastructure bank would take a 'big tent' approach to infrastructure, looking at various needs and applying the best mode or funding scheme to that problem. In short, rather than funding too much money to highways and not enough to rail, or electric transmission lines, or so on, the bank would be a better entity to divy up the funds.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4840511756286055487.post-63011280932523127212007-10-23T20:57:00.000-06:002007-10-23T20:57:00.000-06:00How is this bank any different from the "banks" we...How is this bank any different from the "banks" we have now? Highway Trust Fund, Airport Trust Fund, Motor Fuel Tax Fund, Federal Transit Administration grants, etc.<BR/><BR/>Each have administrators that control the purse strings and authorize and/or deny funding on the basis of need and eligibility, and have auditors whose job it is to make sure the funding was appropriately used and projects constructed to the applicable standards.<BR/><BR/>One of my family's friends worked at the World Bank, and he flew all over Asia and Oceania auditing projects funded by the bank. Same principle, only international in scope. <BR/><BR/>It sounds like we're reinventing the wheel here, and at the end of the day, it's still a wheel, only bigger.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06539712482513172195noreply@blogger.com