How Would You Respond To The Argument That It Is Impossible ✓ Solved

How would you respond to the argument that it is impossible

1. How would you respond to the argument that it is impossible to judge how successful a project like this one would have been unless you actually do it?

2. Take a position, either pro or con, on Christie’s decision to kill the ARC. Develop arguments to support your point of view.

3. In your opinion, how clearly must a large infrastructure project like ARC have determined its need, costs, and so forth before being approved? If the criteria are too stringent, what is the implication for future projects of this type? Would any ever be built?

Paper For Above Instructions

Infrastructure projects play a pivotal role in shaping the economic and social landscape of a community or region. However, such projects are often met with skepticism and debate over their projected success and necessity. One case that has sparked significant discourse is the Access to the Region's Core (ARC) tunnel project in New Jersey, which was proposed to alleviate congestion and enhance public transportation. In this paper, I will explore the argument regarding the assessment of potential success for such projects, discuss the implications of Governor Chris Christie's decision to terminate the ARC, and examine how infrastructure projects should determine their requirements, costs, and viability before gaining approval.

The Question of Judging Project Success

The argument positing that it is impossible to judge the success of a project without actually executing it is rooted in a valid concern: the unpredictability of large-scale infrastructure endeavors. Critics contend that projections for traffic, economic benefits, and other metrics are often based on assumptions and modeling that cannot account for unforeseen variables. For instance, during the planning stages of the ARC, estimates of ridership and costs were calculated based on existing data, but those numbers could change dramatically based on external factors such as economic shifts or changes in commuting habits.

Nonetheless, it is crucial to engage in rigorous planning and analysis to establish frameworks for understanding potential success. While predicting outcomes is challenging, a well-conducted feasibility study can provide valuable insights. For example, the initially projected ridership for the ARC was estimated to be around 45,000 daily passengers, reflecting a substantial demand for additional trans-Hudson capacity (New Jersey Transit, 2011). By integrating diverse methodologies such as traffic modeling, stakeholder engagement, and financial analysis, planners can create a more comprehensive picture of a project's potential success, guiding decision-making processes without necessitating the completion of the project itself.

Evaluating Christie's Decision to Terminate the ARC

In 2010, Governor Chris Christie announced the cancellation of the ARC project, citing escalating costs and examining the feasibility of the state’s financial obligations. Choosing to prioritize the state budget over the complexities of transit development aligns with fiscal conservatism, a perspective that can receive justification. Supporters of Christie's decision argued that New Jersey could not afford the burdensome costs estimated to exceed $8.7 billion, especially in a time of economic uncertainty (Davis, 2015).

However, opposing views argue that this decision undermined long-term strategic planning for New Jersey's transportation infrastructure. The cancellation of the ARC project has significant implications for congestion and environmental concerns, as more vehicles remain on the road, leading to increased traffic and pollution. Moreover, some analysts feel that investing in infrastructure is crucial for long-term economic growth, as efficient transit systems stimulate economic development and job creation (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 2016). Therefore, while Christie's decision prioritizes budgetary concerns, it neglects essential attention to future infrastructure needs.

Determining Viability Before Approval

Determining the viability of large infrastructure projects like ARC hinges upon an acute understanding of the project’s necessity, cost, and benefit analyses. Projects should ideally be examined for potential risks and should include contingency plans for unexpected delays or overruns. This foundational step ensures that decision-makers appreciate the full scope of the impact. A clear determination of needs and costs reduces the likelihood of community pushback and improves public trust in government planning.

However, if criteria for project approval are excessively stringent, there is a risk that vital infrastructure projects may never progress. An overly cautious approach could lead to stagnation, where urgent improvements fall victim to a bureaucratic process that prioritizes risk avoidance rather than innovation (Altshuler & Luberoff, 2003). The successful infrastructure projects of the past often emerged from risk-taking decisions, and an environment that fosters innovation without ignoring fiscal responsibility must be cultivated.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while predicting the success of large infrastructure projects like the ARC may present challenges, thorough planning and analysis can furnish valuable insights. Christie’s decision to terminate the ARC raises important considerations regarding fiscal responsibility versus long-term infrastructure needs. Lastly, the criteria for approving such large-scale projects require a balanced approach that evaluates necessity and costs, remaining cognizant of the importance of future infrastructure development. Only through recognizing these factors can society navigate the complexities of infrastructure planning effectively.

References

  • Altshuler, A. & Luberoff, D. (2003). Mega-Projects: The Changes Ahead. Brookings Institution Press.
  • Davis, L. (2015). Christie Ends ARC Tunnel Project, Citing High Cost. The New York Times.
  • Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. (2016). The Economic Effects of High-Speed Rail Investments.
  • New Jersey Transit. (2011). Access to the Region’s Core: Project Summary Overview.
  • Gordon, P., & Goodstein, R. (2009). The Politics and Economics of Public Infrastructure. Public Administration Review.
  • Honeycutt, J. B. (2013). Infrastructure Investment and Economic Growth: An Empirical Investigation. Transportation Journal.
  • Klein, M. (2004). America’s Infrastructure: An Economic Crisis. The Urban Institute.
  • Litman, T. (2015). Evaluation of the Performance of Transportation Systems. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
  • Staley, S., & Graham, J. (2005). The Impact of Infrastructure on Transportation Choices. Reason Foundation.
  • Weisbrod, G. & T. Bhat, C. (2009). Economic Impacts of Public Transportation Investment. Economic Development Journal.

Related Assignments