Ditch politically-motivated infrastructure schemes
America's road infrastructure funding needs a radical re-think
With attention focused on the ongoing sagas of the Highway Trust Fund, it’s clear that Obama advisor’s advisors (keenly aware of the old adage, “Cargo does not vote”) are not looking carefully at maritime issues.
Often, politically motivated programs for transportation funding result in poor allocations which work against holistic solutions. The Marine Highway Program from the US Department of Transportation is a case in point. The Congressional Research Office, in reviewing Marine Highways, raises quite a few red flags.
More than one commentator has suggested, America’s load center ports might be better located in the Caribbean or Central America.
Some Washingtonian, with a big wall map and some thick magic-markers, ought to diagram out a set of routes that make national sense, and then concentrate funding on those.
I would like to see an independent prescriptive non-political view of the whole system, which might include Marine Highways. Yes, I am talking about transpo-nerds sitting in a map-filled room, with all emails and calls from politicians lobbyists (including from ports) blocked.
Fresh thinking is needed before vast expenditures become “sunk costs”, and bad projects are suddenly justifiable.
The good news is that US DoT’s allotments are too paltry to be in the “serious investment” category. Port deepening - or bridge lifting - is another matter; where do all these projects fit into the grander scheme? What if 7,000 teu, and not 12,000 teu, is the magic size? Who remembers 550,000 dwt ULCCs?
In the private sector, American Feeder Lines, the brainchild of a German ship operator/financier and a US based real estate investment mogul, is beginning to get a lot of attention. The group supports the Jones Act, as I usually do. In this case, however, I am wondering if capabilities to build a medium speed small sized feeder, as AFL hopes to build, is critical to US national interests (in contrast to a littoral combat type vessel, for example)?
If the answer is no, for AFL or for others hoping to build, then what’s the harm in building abroad and lowering the cost, provided that it fits in the nerd's eye view of our transport system? Hard core Jones Act proponents might disagree, but if Obama is serious about fixing America’s infrastructure mess, he knows what he needs to do on this one.
Images for this article - click to enlarge
Unless otherwise stated, all images copyright © Mercator Media 2012. This does not exclude the owner's assertion of copyright over the material.
