Infrastructure planning: not always a rational process

In run-ups to elections politicians often promise high investments in infrastructure. They are willing to spend millions and billions of dollars in new road and railway projects whether it is necessary or not if only the project is prestigious.
In this blog-entry I want to point out some big projects where public oppositions have been massive. One of the biggest projects ever planned in Germany is called Stuttgart 21, an urban development and infrastructure project that got its name from the city Stuttgart, located in Southern Germany and better known for producing cars like Audi, Mercedes Benz and Porsche. On its official website the project is called “Once in a century project”. The rail project includes restructuring the Stuttgart rail node, creating a link to the airport, and constructing a new-build line between two local cities near Stuttgart. Restructuring means in this case building several new underground stations, all located in the underground. Also roughly half of the 117-kilometre new railway line will run through tunnels. As a geotechnical engineer I should be glad when reading this -but there is a catch in it: the investments for restructuring amount to a total of EUR 4.1 billion so far! A poll conducted by a local newspaper in 2008 showed that 64% of Stuttgart`s inhabitants were against the project. Since fall 2009 weekly demonstrations were held with growing resistance and violence. The last word is not spoken here.
From Germany to the USA. When the Democrats passed a 787 billion dollar stimulus bill last year they promised an historic investment in roads, bridges and rail. Unfortunately only a small share was actually devoted to infrastructure (150 billion dollars) and just 64 billion dollars were spent on roads, public transport, rail, bridges and wastewater systems. A little share of the money will be spent on building a new high-speed rail in Wisconsin. Is the money spent well, yet? Let me quote Scott Walker, Milwaukee Country executive in an open letter to President Obama according building of a new high-speed train in Wisconsin: “It’s outrageous for (Transportation) Secretary La Hood to suggest that your administration can force Wisconsin to continue building a train it doesn’t want and cannot afford. Almost as outrageous as the fact that the decision to saddle Wisconsin taxpayers with untold millions in operating and maintenance costs, forever, was never debated or voted on by the Wisconsin legislature.”
I agree. What are the benefits for taxpayers? Obviously there seems to be no urgent need for huge railway projects where trains whizzing across tunnels or the heartland. The reduction in travelling time doesn`t justify the high investment costs and the deconstruction of the landscape or the cultural heritage or the technical risks. Initiatives taken on grassroots level show that people have their doubts about projects that only fulfill politician`s narrow-minded visions of a brighter future.