America’s infrastructure is in desperate need of attention and if there is indeed one area where government serves the people – all the people – it’s in the responsibility of providing safe, reliable and environmentally sound infrastructure. Unfortunately, it has almost failed in that duty. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, our infrastructure recieved an overall grade of D.
The good news is that the majority of Americans realize the problems we face – even if the politicians don’t. A recent survey indicated that 68 percent of Americans would be willing to pay more taxes to upgrade the nation’s infrastructure. A full 81 percent say that spending on infrastructure will define whether the next generation of Americans will define whether we do or do not prosper as a nation.
Think about that for a minute – nearly 7 in 10 Americans are willing to pay more taxes to address our country’s infrastructure. That speaks volumes – particularly in today’s economic environment. The fact that 4 in 5 American’s realize the importance of our infrastructure should really give you an optimistic view of the priorities we are setting for our children. It is long past time that those in control of the purse strings pay attention to this critical issue.
Much was made of the infrastructure portion of the economic stimulus package passed last month. Unfortunately, only about $98 billion of the $787 billion (or a little better than 12%) has been programmed for infrastructure improvements. Now, $98 billion is nothing to turn your nose up at. But consider that repairing the I-35 bridge that collapsed in Minnesota cost nearly $200 million to rebuild. Since Minnesota is getting just $500 million in stimulus funds, that bridge alone would have consumed nearly 40% of the state’s infrastructure stimulus funds.
As Matt Barcus at CivilEngineeringCentral.com wonders, will our infrastructure every make honor roll? He chronicles ASCE’s grades on the nation’s infrastructure over the past 20 plus years. Mr. Barcus also asks some interesting questions in regards to the findings.
- What would happen to the civil engineering industry if all these categories were given A’s & B’s?
- Would funding for infrastructure projects disappear until lower grades were given?
- And if that was the case, would ASCE be doing their members and the industry a dis-service, by reporting anything other than a crumbling infrastructure?
- Would ASCE really mislead the government and the U.S citizens by being over-dramatic with their evaluation of the infrastructure in order to spend tax-payer money on civil engineering and infrastructure projects?
The ASCE could easily be accused of scaremongering and being self serving – after all, its members (of which I am not one) would be the direct beneficiaries of perhaps trillions in additional government spending. In his blog, structural engineer Graeme Sharpe, PE points out that the way ASCE determined the grades was, ironically, not set in engineering principles. That is, an engineer uses facts and reasoning to come up with an solution to a complex problem. Now, Mr. Sharpe’s blog was written in January – before the full report from ASCE came out. Since then, the specifics of the report card have come out. He has posted a more recent blog on the subject in which he continues to criticize ASCE, although it’s not clear if he has read the full report.
Because they have no official right to set policy in this matter, ASCE is acting as a lobbyist group. And what are they lobbying for? More money. They want the US public to spend more money on civil engineering projects. Who will this benefit? Well, that’s a complicated issue. If it results in “bridges to nowhere” then additional spending won’t benefit anyone but builders and engineers. Then 20 years down the road those unneeded bridges and roads will be “crumbling” and used to justify more spending. The ability for this report to be pushed in front of the public to proclaim how much we need more bridges and superhighways is another reason I hate it.
The final reason I just wish ASCE would quit this is because it makes an implicit appeal (sometimes explicit) that spending more on infrastructure projects will provide more safety for the public. This is downright dangerous. If the last report card from 2005 had somehow convinced lawmakers to invest USD$2Trillion into all these projects, could we have averted the most famous disasters since that time? Would Minnesota’s I-35W bridge still be up? Would the city of New Orleans have been spared? The answer is no. But I have still seen these issues used to justify additional infrastructure spending.
That’s fairly strong rhetoric – and his insistence that if the money had been spent as ASCE suggested that some of the more infamous disasters still would not have been avoided. I’m not sure what Mr. Sharpe based this conclusion on. From the 2005 report card, ASCE advocates the very policies that may (of course it’s impossible to say it for sure would have been avoided) have prevented the bridge collapse in Minnesota or the failed levees in New Orleans. Mr. Sharpe is also vague on details of why he “hates it”. If he is suggesting that we don’t need more capacity on our roadways, then I don’t think his hate is based in reality.
ASCE’s report card is a rather comprehensive document – certainly they advocate more bridges and increasing capacity on our roadways. Because we need them. But they just as strongly advocate repairs, improvements and alternative modes of transportation outside of the car including mass transit, rail and aviation.
We can’t pretend that utopia can be achieved by simply ignoring the realities of today.
On our way there, we, unfortunately, have to take baby steps. Ignoring our capacity problem because it may encourage the use of the personal vehicle is folly. The personal vehicle is going to be part of our culture for at least the next several decades because that is how our nation has developed. For better or worse, that is what it is and we can’t simply pretend ignoring the problem is the answer to it.
As an engineer that lives in a fast growing city with numerous infrastructure problems, I will say the substance of ASCE’s report on the nation’s infrastructure appears to based in fact and sound reasoning. Certainly the grading system may seem a bit hokey and alarmist – but it appeals to those for which the report was written. In order for the non-engineer to gain an understanding of where an engineer places the current condition of our infrastructure you must be able communicate in a manner that the intended audience can digest and react to. After all, we’ve seen how a 1,100 page report is accepted. Just imagine an 1,100 page report filled with engineer speak.
In the next blog, I’ll focus on the infrastructure of metro-Atlanta and, by extension, its impact across much of the southeast.
