Economic Success Of Megaregions Depends On Infrastructure
Raleigh-Durham to Charlotte to Atlanta and on to Birmingham - the southeastern megaregion remains a soup of disconnected cities. Historically speaking, it’s been that way ever since the Civil War obliterated southern infrastructure and the band-aids of reconstruction merely healed wounds to keep essential commodities flowing to major ports - at the time, New Orleans and north to New York City.
Today, as we envision a future of massive cities covering two thirds of the earth by 2050, the race for efficient infrastructure is just as important to the economy now as the space race was for cold war dominance in the 1960s. And speaking of the 1960s, a time when the federal government focused squarely on its impoverished, yet growing cities, Maria Saporta from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution argues that these old urban policies represent fractions of what needs to be considered today and that, as many have also argued, the shift from suburbia to city-based wealth makes mobility and connection the first priority for urban revitalization.
-A lot has changed since then…
For readers of Next American City and other urban-focused publications, these arguments are nothing new. What is new is that this argument is becoming the news. Columnists are starting to peel their eyes off of skyrocketing gas prices, abandoning the wait for the buck-o-five gallon and a smarter President Bush, and accepting that this is life in modern America. To dial down the rhetoric, experts cited in Saporta’s artcle like Catherine Ross, director of Georgia Tech’s Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, have realized that the southeastern United States faces the biggest challenge because for the last seven years, the government has been a little stupid:
“Back in 2001, more than a dozen chambers of commerce in the Southeast formed an alliance to push the development of high-speed rail between the major cities. The Southeastern Economic Alliance was housed at the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce and provided an unusual level of cooperation among cities that often compete against each other when trying to attract companies. In the past couple of years, that effort has been dormant as the federal government has been reluctant to make a major investment in high-speed rail. But that could change after the November elections.” - Maria Saporta, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Ahh, the 2008 presidential elections - when America will want to talk about making money again instead of the moral obligation to assist the United Arab Emirates in handing them the money they need to build their infrastructure and accrue unfathomable debts with China and Japan. Solid red states in the bible belt are now turning purple at the fact that the megaregion is lagging and that the job market is disappearing. But are Democrats proposing anything new themselves?
Sen. Barack Obama, on his website, says he will address the infrastructure challenge by creating a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to expand and enhance, not supplant, existing federal transportation investments: “This independent entity will be directed to invest in our nation’s most challenging transportation infrastructure needs. The Bank will receive an infusion of federal money, $60 billion over 10 years, to provide financing to transportation infrastructure projects across the nation. These projects will create up to two million new direct and indirect jobs per year and stimulate approximately $35 billion per year in new economic activity.”
Sen. John McCain, however, mentions nothing about the issue of connecting cities on his website, focusing on tax cuts for employers in the hopes that the good nature of the American businessman will hire John and Jane Q. Taxpayer and install programs to assist them with their 40 minute commute. In other words, it’s the same old same old for cities like Birmingham, Charlotte and Atlanta - no change or consideration for this dying economic sector.
Perhaps “old” is the key word here. Suburbia is over-the-hill. Suburban-centered economic thinking is old enough to be your grandfather. For the South, new ideas like high-speed rail to connect the megaregion’s major cities could be the perfect answer. The system would maintain the close-knit small town communities essential to Southern culture while giving professionals more options and opportunities for jobs. California has been trying to do this for years, without progress.
Another form of infrastructure that needs to find its way south is communication technology - high speed internet capability in rural areas. The telephone communication infrastructure in places like Northern Florida is over 25 years old. Some areas in the deep south are lucky to have dial-up access. With poverty in the extreme and the rise of the telecommute due to gas prices, you’re sure to see communication companies battling it out for contracts.
Contrary to the belief of the news media, southerners aren’t stupid to the issues of connectivity. They love railroads and communication just as much as any American. Tell them that we’re being outrun by countries like India, China and France and watch them fire up their 56k modems and gas-guzzling F150s to find a way to catch up.
Jeffrey Hill is News Editor for Access Intelligence, a business and technology information firm, web editor for Next American City and a freelance writer based in Washington D.C.
Destination Nomination: the Obama “Change-Train” Stops in Milwaukee
Thinking About The Digital Divide
Michael Handelman on Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 9:46am
The reason why there has been antipathy towards high-speed rail connecting cities in the Charlotte-Atlanta-Birmingham corridor is that there is no real demand for this type of infrastructure. Until the recent surge in gas prices, the (yes, subsidized) highway system was more than adequate for economic connectivity. Compared to the North, many areas in the South simply do not have the population/housing density to make inter-city rail transportation feasible.
You make various arguments that this lack of connectivity has had negative economic consequences for the South. However, your arguments contain quite a few factual errors and exaggerations:
“Historically speaking, it’s been that way ever since the Civil War obliterated southern infrastructure and the band-aids of reconstruction merely healed wounds to keep essential commodities flowing to major ports - at the time, New Orleans and north to New York City.”
Prior to (and during) the Civil War, the South did not even have a significant manufacturing base, as most of its economic was driven by the agrarian sector. So, there wasn’t much of an infrastructure to destroy. In the late 19th and early 20th century, the South engaged in a drive to manufacture relatively complex products (textiles, apparel, furniture) —not basic commodities. This, in turn, sparked the construction of an extensive freight rail infrastructure that transported these goods across the South, to major ports, and to the North. It was this infrastructure that actually sparked an economic boom across the entire region.
“In other words, it’s the same old same old for cities like Birmingham, Charlotte and Atlanta - no change or consideration for this dying economic sector. “
Huh? Birmingham, Charlotte, and Atlanta are part of a dying economic sector? Last time I checked, these cities had some of the most robust economies in the nation, compared to the real dying economic sectors in the Midwest/Rust Belt, where they have been spectacularly unsuccessful at finding replacements for the now vanished manufacturing sector.
“Solid red states in the bible belt are now turning purple at the fact that the megaregion is lagging and that the job market is disappearing”
The past 30 years have shown that voters in the South vote more with their religious or ideological convictions, than with their pocketbooks. Although, I do agree that economic issues may overtake these historic trends…nevertheless, your economic analysis is puzzling.
Yes, national employment has been lagging. However, compared to other regions of the county, unemployment rates in the South are comparatively lower, and growth in year-over-year employment level has been more robust in the South, compared to other regions of the country.
“With poverty in the extreme and the rise of the telecommute due to gas prices, you’re sure to see communication companies battling it out for contracts.”
Huh? Poverty in the extreme in the entire South? Or just in North Florida? Telecommuting is the answer for these communities? I thought that a lack of rail connectivity was the cause of economic turmoil in the South.
“Tell them that we’re being outrun by countries like India, China and France and watch them fire up their 56k modems and gas-guzzling F150s to find a way to catch up.”
Ouch. It’s easy to invoke stereotypes of the South to support intellectually weak arguments, isn’t it? I’m sure you’d be a little peeved if someone wrote similarly ridiculously statements about Philadelphia…
Michael Handelman
Atlanta, GA
Jeffrey Hill in Washington, D.C. on Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:27pm
I wish I could come up with a better rebuttal than this - but you don’t have any research to back up any of these arguments. And you’re going against me on Civil War 101 facts - the war was won by destroying southern infrastructure. There’s no robust economy in the southeast. You can compare any economy to one of the slowest sectors (the rust belt) and say it looks good.
Michael Handelman on Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:07pm
Yes, the end of the war was accelerated by the destruction of southern infrastructure. However, your article implies that the South never recovered its infrastructure after the Civil War, which is just wrong. As I stated in my initial comment, an extensive freight infrastructure was developed—furthermore, many cities in the South, including Atlanta had a very extensive passenger rail transportation infrastructure (streetcars, mostly), prior to the national trends that converted most of these services to bus transportation.
There’s no robust economy in the southeast?” Okay, the southeast is never going to be on the level of Silicon Valley, Route 128, or other relatively advanced centers of innovation, but it is a stretch to say that the South is lagging behind.
So, let’s bring in some research:
Unemployment: in May 2008, the US unemployment rate was 5.5%; the South (as defined by the Census) was 5.1%. Since the beginning of 2007, unemployment rates in the South have remained lower than that of the US, which indicates that the South is actually more resilient than the national economy. If you look at the Rust Belt (Census’ East North Central region), unemployment rates in May 2008 were at 6.4%. Moreover, since the 2001 recession, Rust Belt cities have had a higher unemployment rate than national unemployment rates.
Okay, so you are thinking that unemployment rates don’t cut it. Let’s look at overall non-farm employment levels (year-over-year % change from the establishment survey). Since the 2001 recession, the South (again, as defined from the Census), has seen better performance than the nation, and the Rust Belt has seen worse performance, compared to the nation. I would be happy to provide you with the raw statistics on this.
Yes, median household incomes in the South are lower than other regions of the nation. This is mainly due to a lower cost of living, and a subsequent lower average wage for most professions. Nevertheless, I think it would be a difficult argument to make that the quality of life in the South is lower than Philadelphia and surrounding areas.
And yes, there are pockets of the South that are experiencing extreme poverty. There are pockets of extreme poverty in multiple areas of this country, and this should be of national concern. However, on a purely empirical basis, I think you have a very hard case proving that the Southern economy is less robust. I would welcome any economic data that would prove your case.
Lastly, I am not making a political argument, or trying to pretend that the South or the rest of the nation does not have the same extraordinary economic challenges. Personally, I believe that much of the economic difficulty that our nation (and the south) is currently facing is due to flawed and overtly-ideological economic policies that exacerbated the current downturn.
The purpose of my response is to correct factual errors, and try to highlight some of the successes of economies in the South. I’m not trying to paper over all the “bad news” - certainly, every side and every story needs to be told regarding how our economy ended up in such rotten shape. Nevertheless, in states like Ohio and Michigan, whose economies are completely falling apart (and are experiencing stagnant to negative population growth), they could certainly learn quite a bit from the economic successes in the South.
Patrick Sullivan in Atlanta on Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:50pm
Jeffery, I just wanted to throw my two cents in and agree with Michael - the destruction of Southern economic infrastructure in both Richmond and Atlanta was more akin to the final nail in the coffin rather than the overriding reason for the success of the Federal Government during the Civil War. You could make a stronger argument that the naval blockade of the southeast, the occupation of New Orleans in 1862, North-South population disparities and the clear superiority of the Northern industrial manufacturing (which allowed for Grant’s and Sherman’s kitchen sink approaches to military engagements against smaller, inferiorly equipped Confederate forces) were the primary reasons for why the war was eventually won.
Mike in Houston on Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:46pm
I would caution against thinking too much at the regional level, and then assuming that Atlanta and Charlotte somehow go together, whereas Atlanta and Nashville, St. Louis, Dallas, New Orleans, Jacksonville, or Miami somehow don’t go together. Even if that may be true today, it might not be true tomorrow. To be sure, even if we invested in several high-speed rail routes capable of speeds of 200 mph, some of these destinations would be 4 or 5 hours away and would require transfers. But we did not undertake the Interstate Highway System with each region building a small chunk of highway connecting 2 cities - it was a national project that connects cities as far from each other as LA and Jacksonville (on I-10). High speed rail deserves a similar national plan and construction effort. Hopefully if Obama is elected and serves as president for the next 8 years he will be able to set rail on its proper course.
>>In other words, it’s the same old same old for cities like Birmingham, Charlotte and Atlanta - no change or consideration for this dying economic sector.
As for this comment, I believe the author meant that transportation is a dying economic sector - read the previous 2 paragraphs for the context - Infrastructure is crumbling and not enough is being invested in mass transit, and only one candidate is even talking about this. Of course, this could have been worded better so as to avoid some confusion.
>>Contrary to the belief of the news media, southerners aren’t stupid to the issues of connectivity. They love railroads and communication just as much as any American.
Again, don’t rely on individual regions of the country to build railroad systems for themselves. The south has opposed mass transit and dense living for the past couple of centuries. Gas prices and population densities are slowly changing that, but if we want to build an infrastructure that will support us for the next 100+ years it needs to be done at the national level.