Akst: Spend for infrastructure -- honestly

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo wants to spend $15 billion in public and private funds to rebuild roads, bridges and other infrastructure. He wants to get a new Tappan Zee Bridge up at last. And he wants to bring coherence to the state's fragmented public works spending.

But before he does any of this, he ought to ask himself three questions. First, how can we stop deceiving ourselves about the costs of large capital projects? Second, why do such projects cost so much, especially in New York? And third, is there some large category of spending that could be slashed to provide much-needed funds for rebuilding infrastructure?

The comptroller has estimated New York should spend $250 billion over the next 20 years on this, of which $80 billion is unfunded. Unfortunately, answering the three big questions is easier than acting on those answers, all of which fall under the heading, "why democracy sometimes hurts."

First things first. All over the world, democracies underestimate the cost of large capital projects through a combination of deception and delusion. Everyone wants a new highway or subway line, but acknowledging to ourselves (or anyone else) the true cost would make it hard to get things done.

Bent Flyvbjerg, a researcher at Oxford University, has compiled a database of projects in many countries and reports that cost overruns aren't just common, they're the norm. Overruns are particularly huge on rail projects. He proposes several steps toward more accurate cost projection, including making sure that local governments and private sector partners have more skin in the game, and rewarding planners for more realistic estimates.

While strategic underestimation may be useful in winning support for costly projects, ultimately it undermines public trust and future capital spending. And it leads to misallocation of scarce public funds. It really needs to stop.

Second, why do these projects cost so much? The answer is that people have rights, and in crowded, litigious places like Long Island, they exercise them, making everything difficult and time-consuming. No longer can government simply slam a new rail line through a recalcitrant neighborhood. In addition, funds are always short, which drags things out, which in turn adds costs. State laws all but require expensive union labor. And they make it nearly impossible to have a single firm design and build an entire project. The high cost, endless delays and day-to-day disruptions associated with capital projects further undermine public support for them. If we changed some laws, estimated costs honestly and funded projects fully, things would get built cheaper and faster.

Third, is there a pot of money somewhere that we could harvest for roads, railways and other improvements? Sure. My best estimate is that we as a nation spend $1 trillion more than we should annually on health care versus comparable countries, a sum nearly triple current national infrastructure spending. New York exemplifies the problem because our Medicaid spending is off the charts compared to any other state. Cutting state and local Medicaid spending just 10 percent would free $2.6 billion for infrastructure annually -- and yield dividends in economic growth and quality of life.

New York's infrastructure troubles aren't unique; the entire country is falling apart while medical and military spending bleed the nation dry. National politics, meanwhile, makes intelligent infrastructure investment nearly impossible. Cuomo seems to know that in New York, we've got to do things differently. But unless we address the three big questions, we condemn ourselves to indebtedness, inaction and inadequate economic growth.

Daniel Akst is a member of the Newsday editorial board.