The Upshot

WEAR AND TEAR

Amtrak Crash and America’s Declining Construction Spending

MAY 13, 2015

Government spending on construction, after rising following the 2007–8 financial crisis, has fallen to its lowest level in at least 22 years.

Investigators into the Amtrak crash in Philadelphia are focusing on excess speed, but there is a related issue: the overall condition of Amtrak and the nation’s infrastructure. One of the reasons that American trains should not travel 100 miles an hour in many places is that the state of our rail system — like the state of our bridges, highways and airports — is not good.

Many airports here look dilapidated relative to those in Asia and Europe. Roads are choked with traffic. The fastest train from Boston to Washingtontakes about six and a half hours. The fastest train from Paris to Marseille — a slightly longer distance — takes just over three hours.

The train that derailed on Tuesday was thought to be traveling at least 100 miles an hour — twice the speed limit on that section of track. That is about half the French train’s average speed on the trip from Paris to Marseille. (Reuters has also reported that the section of the track where the crash occurred lacked advanced braking technology designed to prevent derailments.)

Emergency workers at the site of the deadly Amtrak derailment in Philadelphia.CreditMel Evans/Associated Press

Much of the problem of crumbling infrastructure has existed for years. There is, however, a new development that has made things worse. The combined money that federal, state and local governments spend on construction has dropped significantly, relative to the size of the economy, in the last five years. And only part of the decline stems from the end of the stimulus program, which temporarily lifted infrastructure spending.

Such spending now represents about 1.5 percent of total economic activity, down from about 1.8 percent on average from 1993 through 2008. It’s at its lowest level in at least 22 years. (A hat-tip to Joe Weisenthal, of Business Insider, who calculated this statistic in 2013, after the collapse of a bridge near Seattle.)

Lawrence Summers, the former Treasury secretary and Harvard president, sent an email to us today making an argument similar to Mr. Weisenthal’s: More infrastructure spending would both make accidents less likely and bring economic benefits.

“Projections for the first half of this year now almost universally suggest the U.S. economy will have grown at an annual rate of well under 1 percent,” Mr. Summers wrote. “If this isn’t stagnation, I wonder what would be.”

He added: “A major infrastructure investment program would reduce long-run deferred maintenance liabilities, raise demand and G.D.P., put construction workers back to work and raise investment. Interest rates may not always be as low as they are now, so it’s high time to get started.”

Other Democrats have begun making similar arguments today. Many congressional Republicans have historically supported infrastructure spending as well, but have been more reluctant recently.