Behind every rational decision lies a cost-benefit analysis in which the benefits outweigh the costs. Even a decision such as the Lynnfield rail trail project must be scrutinized as a collective, the same way any individual decision is made. In that sense, one must ask oneself, “How much am I personally willing to spend to pay for this rail trail?” In theory, and all other considerations aside, if the collective is willing to pay for the construction and maintenance fees associated with the rail trail, then it should be constructed solely based on a supply and demand model.
This project, however, must be depicted in a different light since it will potentially receive federal and state funding for the initial construction costs. At face value for the town of Lynnfield, the upfront costs and maintenance costs may be minimal (with a degree of uncertainty), but it is indisputable that the short- and long-term financial benefits are zero since there is no direct or significant increase in economic productivity that results from this rail trail. Most of the potential non-monetary benefits that would result from the trail could be achieved by pre-existing trails in other towns.
To further this situational cost-benefit analysis, the town of Lynnfield must recognize the true opportunity costs that are either being ignored or not understood. Similar to the basic economics broken window fallacy, you must consider all groups affected by this endeavor. In this example, you must consider projects that will go unfunded if the Lynnfield Rail Trail passes; therefore, diverting governmental resources. The funding could be used to build or repair other heavy civil projects that would actually increase economic productivity by making transportation more efficient or less time consuming to go from point A to point B. Instead, some Lynnfield residents believe that a rail trail that will produce zero economic gains is more important than a bridge or roadway that would net a financial gain in the long-run in a location that more desperately needs this funding.
In a country that is politically moving further to the left, the notion of the government giving more to the wealthy does not jibe well with the democratic and democratic socialist ideology. From a conservative standpoint, it is irrational to make an investment without any guaranteed return when the investment could be made elsewhere to produce positive long-term gains. It is the people of Lynnfield’s obligation to understand the cost-benefit analysis and state-wide economic implications of this project.
As a wealthy town, we must put the needs of others above our own desires. We cannot follow the opinions of uninformed trail advocates such as John Ciampa, who stated that “If Lynnfield does not use these funds to construct the trail, the town loses it. No money is saved by not constructing the trail” (Ciampa, John. “Yes on Trail Makes Sense.” Lynnfield Weekly News, March 28, p. 8.).
It is precisely this thought process that demonstrates a lack of basic economic knowledge. Along with thinking outside of your own personal financial contributions for this situation, you must also remember that the governmental funding that he refers to was not created out of thin air. The money saved from not developing this rail trail can be used to enhance transportation elsewhere. We must set a precedent and treat governmental funds as if it were our own money, rather than follow the coattails of the Modern Monetary Theory.
At the end of the day, there is no such thing as a free lunch and costs must be considered for all parties, both in the short-term and long-term.
Derek Owen
