Infrastructure Investment: A Point of Political Consensus

In these fiscally challenging times, there is very little consensus between liberals and conservatives and between various policy organizations as to which areas of the federal budget to make sacrifices and which to protect. But there is a surprising amount of common ground on one concern: the need to increase investment in the nation’s infrastructure. To demonstrate this, one need only review this list of ideologically diverse groups that believe infrastructure is one area where Congress should not make cuts, but instead devote greater resources:

(Each group’s name links to a statement it has made in favor of increased infrastructure investment)

• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: The main business lobby, which generally supports spending cuts, lower corporate taxes, and fewer regulations.
• The AFL-CIO: One of the country’s biggest coalitions of labor unions
• The U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Governors Association, both respected bodies of leading public officials, Democratic and Republican
• The American Society of Civil Engineers has been giving U.S. infrastructure a letter grade since the 1970s. Its first report gave the country a B+. Its latest review gives it a D.
• The Comeback America Initiative, a conservative organization that seeks cuts in every area of the federal budget—except infrastructure investment
• The Economist, a generally conservative British magazine, editorializes: “America, despite its wealth and strength, often seems to be falling apart.”
• USA, Inc., a report by a venture capital firm that looks at the US government as if it were a corporation. It concludes that the country can grow its way out of its fiscal problems if it rebuilds its infrastructure
• The World Bank, which directs loans to infrastructure projects around the globe, says that high-speed rail, in particular, is a tried and true technology that delivers many measurable benefits.
• The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Simpson-Bowles Commission) in its December 2010 report that recommended cuts to every other area of the federal budget, but the bipartisan body said “We must invest in infrastructure to help our economy grow, keep us globally competitive, and make it easier for businesses to create jobs.”

So next time you feel discouraged about the amount of opposition there is to developing America’s passenger train system, remember that, as an infrastructure advocate, you are in good company. The country’s expanding population, travelers’ growing frustration with the lack of choices, the rising cost of fuel, and increased concern for the effect of our transportation choices on the planet will help make the case for modern passenger trains to be a part of the infrastructure revival America needs to remain economically healthy.