a case for infrastructure and growth

Samuel Serradon wrote in an Oct 2007 article in Washington Post:

Urban affairs expert Joel Kotkin points to the example of Orange County, San Diego, and the Inland Empire, where local leaders made the decision to invest heavily in infrastructure and have accordingly reaped substantial economic benefits. The region added 1.1 million jobs from 1994-2005. In contrast, the San Francisco Bay Area, notorious for having the worst infrastructure in the state, suffered dismal job growth of 93,000 during the same time period -- just one twelfth that of their Southern California neighbors. For cities across America this trend holds true. Those that invest in infrastructure, such as Dallas, Houston, Charleston and Phoenix, have enjoyed strong job growth and equitable economic development. Meanwhile, those that have failed to invest, such as New York, Boston and Baltimore, have experienced dismal job growth and greater inequality.

Everyone remembers the 35W bridge collapse. Tim Pawlenty (Gov-Minn) starts the new legislative session and the immediate challenge is about investments in transportation and infrastructure. The above findings should motivate them to move forward on this for good.

Chris Dodd (D-Conn) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) have a bipartisan bill in the US senate for a national infrastructure bank (pdf file) to promote and finance large scale national infrastructure projects.

Bob Herbert wrote in a recently published article in the Dallas News:

It's impossible to calculate all of the benefits from (to mention just a few) the Erie Canal, which connected the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean and helped make New York America's premier city; the rural electrification program and other capital improvements of the New Deal; the interstate highway program of the Eisenhower administration.