
Choke Point of a Nation: The High Cost of an Aging River Lock - jseliger
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/business/economy/desperately-plugging-holes-in-an-87-year-old-dam.html?_r=0
======
tbihl
It seems to me that the US struggles not with spending levels on
infrastructure, but with correct allocation. There's not enough focus on high
throughput, high value trunks, because we throw far too much money at the
environmental and cultural scourge that is the many-laned, unlimited access 45
mph roads frequently punctuated with stop lights.

It's true that there's that ASCE report from a few years back that decries how
woefully underfunded our infrastructure is. But it also shows absurd things,
like that we need to spend an extra 4.3 trillion on surface roads to save 3
trillion in potentially lost GDP over the next 25 years. The next most
troublesome category of infrastructure from a funding gap perspective seems to
be wastewater (~75% unfunded, but far smaller), which also stems from our
failure to keep people in sufficiently dense development patterns.

Going back to the issue at hand, with the inland waterway: the same report
puts the economic cost of underfunding waterways at half that of underfunding
surface roads. But the underfunding for waterways is 2 orders of magnitude
lower than that for surface roads... American infrastructure policy is akin to
a dog perishing in a house fire because it's too busy chasing its own tail to
step out the open front door.

I highly encourage people to think about page 5 of this ASCE report
([http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-
content/uploads/2...](http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/05/2016-FTA-Report-Close-the-Gap.pdf)) and ponder the
disparities.

~~~
coredog64
ASCE is hardly a disinterested party here. More infrastructure projects means
more money and influence for ASCE.

~~~
tbihl
To some extent I'm sure that's true, but I'm guessing that this report relies
less on that, and more on mindless calculations of "could this be
improved/built up/repaired?" while failing to step back and realize we're
chasing an impossible end. It's what happens when people apply their codes and
manuals, thinking that those things are purely factual, as if such a thing
could ever be free of value judgments that need to be periodically reevaluated
(in this case, the values are probably vehicle speed and throughout.)

------
gwern
"Meanwhile, the old locks and dams are costing the country $640 million a year
in delays and closures, according to the Army corps....Even with a tax credit,
though, companies building roads or locks would want a return on their
investment — most likely in the form of toll collection, said Mike Toohey,
president of the Waterways Council, an advocacy group for the river shipping
industry. His industry is “not in favor of a toll,” he said. Still, he is
optimistic that spending on inland waterways will increase under a new
administration."

What baffles me is the total dismissal of a private infratructure project
which charges tolls. This would seem to be a perfect project for user-pays
funding: the project offers a service with a specific, discrete in time and
place, easily calculated value which is extremely large to the user who are
supposedly suffering severely under the status quo. My only guess is that the
lobbyist affiliation here is the whole story: the industries think they can
get full taxpayer subsidies for the costs without having to pay much or any of
it, and it's worth waiting for a government solution.

~~~
caf
I suspect that if there are multiple river shipping companies but one monopoly
lock operator, all of the economic surplus in the river transport industry
will be captured by that monopoly operator.

Perhaps the solution is for the river shipping industry to form a co-op to
build, own and operate the necessary infrastructure.

~~~
honkhonkpants
Good idea! The more people we get to buy into the cooperative the better it
will be! If we get everybody to participate we can just call it "government".

~~~
pc2g4d
Except that government is universal, whereas a river cooperative would only
affect the parties directly involved. Thus you could scale things up without
getting to government-scale.

------
twblalock
I don't get why the US is so bad at infrastructure.

All other first-world countries have entrenched bureaucracies, and pork-barrel
spending, and environmental reviews, and zoning, and NIMBY lawsuits, just like
the US does. However, those other countries manage to get infrastructure built
and maintained anyway. So, given that they face the same challenges the US
does, why does the US do so much worse, even though the US has so much more
money? Where is the distinction?

~~~
karlshea
Extreme polarization and obstructionism that turns infrastructure spending
into wedge issues (especially around trains)

------
burfog
To compare capacity, this is only about 22 freight trains per day. (assuming
100 cars per train)

Why are we doing this again? Trains are way more versatile. We can switch
trains onto tracks that go all over the place, not just where we have rivers.

Trains can't cross the ocean, but barges don't either. Trains do however carry
containerized freight, which is easily loaded into container ships. This is
another win for trains.

~~~
csours
[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/us/19dam.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/us/19dam.html)

30% less fuel usage than trains.

~~~
ansonhoyt
I missed where the article mentions the efficiency figure. Can you point me to
it? I read it and looked for "30", "rail", "train", "fuel", "efficiency", etc.

------
stretchwithme
Companies that use this infrastructure should be paying the costs of
maintaining it. If this system were privately owned, not maintaining it would
mean lost revenue. With the government doing it, there isn't such a clear and
direct incentive to spend the money.

Well, I don't think the river is going to be privatized any time soon, so
government should change how it obtains revenues for this maintenance. It
should be charging fees sufficient to do the required maintenance.

In fact, it should be charging fees that raise the most revenue. That also
means keeping fees low enough to keep the traffic it has.

It seems like this is too much to expect from legislative bodies to fine tune.
Perhaps the states involved should create an entity that they own to manage
these issues, just as New York and New Jersey have down with the Port
Authority. Each state would own a percentage based on how much of the Ohio
River runs through their state and other relevant considerations. And get a
corresponding share of proceeds, if any.

~~~
nickff
The problem is that any 'fee' is subject to political economy. The government
may begin by charging the monopoly rent, but will soon grant exceptions to
favored groups. After that, the government will raise fees on disfavored
groups, and redirect revenue to 'where it is most urgently needed'. The locks
will then fall into disrepair, users will find other alternatives, and by the
time the government goes on another infrastructure-repairing frenzy, it will
be much too late.

~~~
stretchwithme
Yes, its still going to be government.

I'd rather resources be managed privately but I just don't river traffic being
managed privately in this country. Even if a private company managed it by
contract, there would be the inevitable kickbacks to the pols making the
decision.

Which is why I also advocate reducing the concentration of power our system
has created. Specifically, I'd like to see proportional representation replace
winner-take-all elections, even in the executive branch.

~~~
nickff
The issue with proportional representation is that it may reduce the
concentration of power amongst the parties, but it will make political parties
more important than individual representatives, and promote a hyper-partisan
attitude. When turning out 'your side' is more important than convincing the
median voter, the parties will focus on their bases, and the candidates will
be dependent on the party, which means there will be less room for compromise.
This is not so important in multi-party parliamentary democracies such as
Italy which have a history of 'minority governments', but will make the
executive branch of the USA even more partisan.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The issue with proportional representation is that it may reduce the
> concentration of power amongst the parties, but it will make political
> parties more important than individual representatives, and promote a hyper-
> partisan attitude.

What you say is arguably a valid concern for one particular method of
achieving proportional representation (the Party List Proportional method),
but there is no clear reason it would be for other methods of promoting
proportionality (such as multimember districts with candidate-centered
elections using Single Transferrable Vote.)

> When turning out 'your side' is more important than convincing the median
> voter, the parties will focus on their bases,

That's already exactly the case with the US system, where elections are won
more by turnout and less by conversions. The duopoly naturally produced by
FPTP makes efforts to depress turnout of the other sides likely voters
(whether by targeted propaganda or actual suppression) a strong tactic.

------
dandare
Can someone ELI5 please how can infrastructure project exceed budget 4x and
plan by 20 years? Was the plan a deliberate fraud or are the estimation
methods in terestrial engineering even more imature than in software
engineering?

~~~
csours
They used an experimental technique, for one thing.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/us/19dam.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/us/19dam.html)

[http://www.circleofblue.org/2014/world/despite-delays-
billio...](http://www.circleofblue.org/2014/world/despite-delays-billions-
overruns-olmsted-locks-dam-project-rolls/)

------
tomohawk
I wonder if this was one of those "shovel ready" projects.

[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/obama-
lesson-s...](http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/obama-lesson-
shovel-ready-not-so-ready/)

~~~
CalChris
The replacements locks, Olmsted Locks and Dam, began construction in December
1995. They're due to come online in 2018.

[http://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-
Works/Navigatio...](http://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-
Works/Navigation/Locks-and-Dams/Olmsted-Locks-and-Dam/)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmsted_Locks_and_Dam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmsted_Locks_and_Dam)

At $3B and 20 years in the making, maybe they're just a little more complex
than a shovel.

~~~
duskwuff
And it seems a little difficult to blame Obama for the slow progress of a
project that began about the same time he was filing papers for his candidacy
as an Illinois senator.

~~~
mtanski
Hasn't stopped people in the past so I guess why stop now.

