
Photos: Gregory Levine. Location: Google Earth
Placemark.
Wealth Consumption Investment in Transport Infrastructure: Repaving
a Sidewalk
Transport investments tend to be depicted as wealth producing, providing
employment and improving accessibility. Such an assertion must however
be nuanced by the type of infrastructure and the setting in which the
investment takes place. Over this point the above example of a sidewalk
repaving project (City of Claremont, California, June 2010) is illustrative
of a wealth consumption investment that provides little if any real
return. Its marginal utility is essentially zero, or even negative:
- In a car dependent city, sidewalks contribute little
to urban mobility, except in central areas where pedestrian
traffic is more frequent. Still, sidewalks have limited impact on
economic productivity. They cannot be considered as wealth producing
investments, but as tools to improve convenience and aesthetic.
- The above project does not improve in any visible way
the utility of the sidewalk since the prior sidewalk did
not appear to be defective in a way that would impair its use. The
project was thus simply done in an opportunistic (American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act) and discretionary manner.
- Two wheelchair ramps were laid on each side of the disabled
parking spot. Therefore, this projects comes at the expense of an
additional parking slot, implying reduced car accessibility
for local businesses, as well as a small amount of green space lost
to make place for a ramp.
- During the construction phase, local businesses were disrupted
by reduced accessibility, resulting in a loss of revenue.
Therefore, outside the labor and the materials that were used for
construction, the capital invested in this project can be considered
as wasted. It is a perverse example of the "broken
window fallacy" principle, particularly since at start the "window
was not broken".