As Congress nears the final hours of a vote on President Biden’s massive infrastructure proposal, a new study is suggesting that the economic value of individual infrastructure projects should be open to question.
If the country is going to embark on an across-the-board infrastructure program, contends the study published by the Aspen Economic Strategy Group, it might be wise to apply “some discipline” to the process of what projects exactly are going to be funded.
The authors of the study, Economic Perspectives on Infrastructure Investment, contend that all infrastructure projects are not equal, with most varying widely in their benefits and costs.
In a press release accompanying the study, the Aspen group suggests the use of “careful cost-benefit analysis, perhaps carried out by a nonpartisan federal agency created for the purpose, which can help identify which projects should be undertaken.”
Noting that infrastructure projects in the U.S. tend to generally be more pricy than the same projects in most other countries, the study also recommends “improving procurement practices and project management” as a means of controlling costs.
And while building anything new is always alluring, the study suggests: “Maintaining existing infrastructure, rather than building new projects, is one of the most cost-effective ways to deploy new infrastructure dollars.”
“Cost-benefit calculations must also consider maintenance spending as an important infrastructure outlay,” the study continues, while noting an existing “bias of the political system toward ribbon-cuttings for new projects.”
By Garry Boulard
