HEHurst
Civil/Environmental
- Oct 1, 2008
- 24
The New York Times has a couple of recent opinion columns by Bob Herbert on U.S. infrastructure deficiences and lack of funding. (My thoughts are U.S. focused but feel free to chime in with observations from other countries)
Here's a few selections:
"Schools, highways, the electric grid, water systems, ports, dams, levees — the list can seem endless — have to be maintained, upgraded, rebuilt or replaced if the U.S. is to remain a first-class nation with a first-class economy over the next several decades. And some entirely new infrastructure systems will have to be developed.
"But these systems have to be paid for, and right now there are not enough people at the higher echelons of government trying to figure out the best ways to raise the enormous amounts of money that will be required, and the most responsible ways of spending that money. And there are not enough leaders explaining to the public how heavy this lift will be, and why it is so necessary, and what sacrifices will be required to get the job properly done.
"In an era of historically high budget deficits, the case has to be made that this is not wasteful spending but essential investments that will yield powerful returns. “If you’re not willing to invest,” said Governor Rendell, “you have to be willing to accept an inferior product. That’s the danger we’re facing.” "
"The great danger right now is that we will do exactly the wrong thing, that we’ll turn away from our screaming infrastructure needs and let the deterioration continue. With infrastructure costs so high (the needs are enormous and enormously expensive) and with the eyes in Washington increasingly focused on deficit reduction, the absolutely essential modernizing of the American infrastructure may not take place. That would be worse than foolish. It would be tragic."
(end of article quotes)
This is old news to many engineers involved in public infrastructure. The ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) has for years published a "report card" on the nation's infrastructure, giving it poor grades, calling attention to deficiencies and calling for more funding. Events like the I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis and the New Orleans levee failures bring out many news stories on this issue.
As a civil engineer, a massive increase in infrastructure investment would be good news for me and for the profession. (The stimulus funding helped address some needs, but it really addressed the tip of the iceberg, and a lot of stimulus funding went to construction projects that were already about to roll anyway, allowing state/local governments to shift funds elsewhere).
But the seeming need for a huge investment in infrastructure is up against a budget crisis for many, many state and local governments. In my state and local area, government budgets are said to be the tightest in decades. So there is seemingly no money at the state/local level to increase infrastructure funding - and much infrastructure is funded and built at the state and local level. For example, I live a long way from California - but how in the world is California going to make any increases to infrastructure funding, given its current budget and economic crisis?
I have been thinking about what the outcome will be of this impasse - an apparent need for big increases in infrastructure funding, but very little money to do so. Here are some possibilities:
1. There will be a massive revenue increase through new taxes, shift from other government programs, privatization, or the federal government running big deficits and making a huge federal commitment to funding.
2. Infrastructure funding will not substantially increase because of lack of money and political will, and therefore our infrastructure will fall apart over the next decade or two, harming public safety and quality of life in the U.S. until our infrastructure crumbles to dust.
3. Infrastructure funding will not substantially increase, but that will be okay becausethe "infrastructure crisis" is overhyped. The current rate of investment is sufficient. (This goes against my ASCE's party line, but I'm willing to listen to arguments that the "infrastructure crisis" is a way to drum up more money for engineers and construction companies - I'm a taxpayer too).
4. We'll figure out smarter, more efficient, cost-effective ways to use new methods, materials and technologies to fix our infrastructure without the projected huge costs. For example, can concepts like BIM and 4D construction modeling bring down project costs when applied to infrastructure projects? Outcome #4 would be great, but realistically what can we do much differently from what we do now?
Thoughts?
Here's a few selections:
"Schools, highways, the electric grid, water systems, ports, dams, levees — the list can seem endless — have to be maintained, upgraded, rebuilt or replaced if the U.S. is to remain a first-class nation with a first-class economy over the next several decades. And some entirely new infrastructure systems will have to be developed.
"But these systems have to be paid for, and right now there are not enough people at the higher echelons of government trying to figure out the best ways to raise the enormous amounts of money that will be required, and the most responsible ways of spending that money. And there are not enough leaders explaining to the public how heavy this lift will be, and why it is so necessary, and what sacrifices will be required to get the job properly done.
"In an era of historically high budget deficits, the case has to be made that this is not wasteful spending but essential investments that will yield powerful returns. “If you’re not willing to invest,” said Governor Rendell, “you have to be willing to accept an inferior product. That’s the danger we’re facing.” "
"The great danger right now is that we will do exactly the wrong thing, that we’ll turn away from our screaming infrastructure needs and let the deterioration continue. With infrastructure costs so high (the needs are enormous and enormously expensive) and with the eyes in Washington increasingly focused on deficit reduction, the absolutely essential modernizing of the American infrastructure may not take place. That would be worse than foolish. It would be tragic."
(end of article quotes)
This is old news to many engineers involved in public infrastructure. The ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) has for years published a "report card" on the nation's infrastructure, giving it poor grades, calling attention to deficiencies and calling for more funding. Events like the I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis and the New Orleans levee failures bring out many news stories on this issue.
As a civil engineer, a massive increase in infrastructure investment would be good news for me and for the profession. (The stimulus funding helped address some needs, but it really addressed the tip of the iceberg, and a lot of stimulus funding went to construction projects that were already about to roll anyway, allowing state/local governments to shift funds elsewhere).
But the seeming need for a huge investment in infrastructure is up against a budget crisis for many, many state and local governments. In my state and local area, government budgets are said to be the tightest in decades. So there is seemingly no money at the state/local level to increase infrastructure funding - and much infrastructure is funded and built at the state and local level. For example, I live a long way from California - but how in the world is California going to make any increases to infrastructure funding, given its current budget and economic crisis?
I have been thinking about what the outcome will be of this impasse - an apparent need for big increases in infrastructure funding, but very little money to do so. Here are some possibilities:
1. There will be a massive revenue increase through new taxes, shift from other government programs, privatization, or the federal government running big deficits and making a huge federal commitment to funding.
2. Infrastructure funding will not substantially increase because of lack of money and political will, and therefore our infrastructure will fall apart over the next decade or two, harming public safety and quality of life in the U.S. until our infrastructure crumbles to dust.
3. Infrastructure funding will not substantially increase, but that will be okay becausethe "infrastructure crisis" is overhyped. The current rate of investment is sufficient. (This goes against my ASCE's party line, but I'm willing to listen to arguments that the "infrastructure crisis" is a way to drum up more money for engineers and construction companies - I'm a taxpayer too).
4. We'll figure out smarter, more efficient, cost-effective ways to use new methods, materials and technologies to fix our infrastructure without the projected huge costs. For example, can concepts like BIM and 4D construction modeling bring down project costs when applied to infrastructure projects? Outcome #4 would be great, but realistically what can we do much differently from what we do now?
Thoughts?
![[pipe]](/data/assets/smilies/pipe.gif "[pipe] [pipe]")