Building a case for our infrastructure

The 2016 presidential campaign season is under way, which means the usual flurry of talking points, quips, and out of context one liners. Amid all the interviews and press conferences, you will hear candidates discuss their positions on the usual issues ranging from the economy and U.S. foreign policy, to more recent developments in police accountability, privacy, and climate change. It’s great to see presidential hopefuls finally adapting to the issues that reflect changes in technology and the U.S. demographical composition.

Although some of the issues may be new, voters may be irked by the presence of very old faces. The potential face off between another Bush and Clinton in the general election leaves many to wonder whether we are really getting new, philosophically different perspectives, or just repackaged versions of the bygone Bush and Clinton years. Whatever the case, one thing that is noticeably absent from this next election cycle is any discussion about our infrastructure. And if this sounds bad to you, it should.

On May 12, 2015, an Amtrak train departing a Philadelphia station headed for New York City derailed and injured over 200 people, killing 8. News of the incident brought about some of the most recent conversations on the U.S.’s failing infrastructure to date; the problem: it took a tragedy just for anyone to talk about it. If the U.S. had a major weakness, our infrastructure would be our Achilles heel. For years now, roads have been neglected, our levees and dams have nearly reached capacity, and our energy grid has been in shambles. One of the cornerstones of any leading economy is the means by which commerce is conducted. Without the proper resources to facilitate business and economic activity, nations simply cannot prosper.

When you take a look at the candidates in the 2016 election, pay close attention to how they define their economic platforms. Many politicians like to emphasize their efforts to create jobs or to promise fair wages that will protect the middle class. Almost no one will talk about investments in infrastructure. The issues that define our political economy often differ starkly when compared to the issues that define other nations. In Singapore, infrastructure, along with urban planning and the impacts of globalization, are some of the biggest political issues that permeate every sector of its local economy. As a result, the Singaporean government has made a commitment to preserving its superior network of mass transit systems, aviation agreements, and harbors to facilitate economic activity. Last year, Singapore was ranked as the top place in the world to invest in infrastructure. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Singapore is also one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

The U.S. could top that list too, if it really wanted to. However, with the shortsightedness of many of the politicians that we as voters elect, such an accomplishment may only be a fairy tale dream. Unlike many of the other standing social programs that Congress has enacted, such as Social Security and Obamacare, no real policy exists to govern our current infrastructure. Most improvements are paid for as they develop using state and municipal funds, with very minimal federal money available to cover pork barrel spending projects. Some economists estimate that inaction on infrastructure may be costing the U.S. $129 billion annually — a figure that does not even factor in the costs to human life or other safety hazards and risks that emerge once the lifespans of our roads and bridges finally expire. Still, you won’t hear anyone talking about it. If the US continues to ignore its crumbling infrastructure needs, the costs to our economy could one day be catastrophic. It is often said that some of the biggest threats are also the most silent. For our own sake, I think it’s about time we start making a bunch of noise.