What’s Wrong With America’s Ambivalence About Crumbling Infrastructure?

In today’s New York Times, Bob Herbert celebrates the cause of
infrastructure maintenance — a less exciting proposition for
politicians than cutting the ribbon at new transportation projects, but
in many ways more vital to economic growth.

structurally_deficient_bridges_co_2.jpgA crumbling bridge support in Colorado. (Photo: Pure Thinking)

After talking to Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D), an avowed booster of the National Infrastructure Bank concept, Herbert asks, "What’s wrong with us?" and continues:

We’re so far behind in some
areas that … Rendell has said that getting our infrastructure
act together can feel like “sledding uphill.”

“When I took over
as governor,” he said, “I was told that Pennsylvania led the nation in
the number of structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges.
We had more than 5,600 of them. So I put a ton of money into bridge
repair. We more than tripled the amount in the capital budget, from
$200 million a year to $700 million a year. And I got a special
appropriation from the Legislature to do $200 million a year extra for
the next four years.”

One might be tempted to respond that what’s wrong with American
infrastructure policy has much to do with pundits such as Randal
O’Toole of the Cato Institute, who converts new acolytes in Washington
by arguing that the biggest defect in national infrastructure policy is
insufficient road spending. To O’Toole, the fact that one in four of
U.S. bridges is rated obsolete or deficient is no big deal:

“Functionally obsolete” bridges are not in any danger of falling down;
they merely have narrow lanes, inadequate overhead clearances, overly
sharp on- and off-ramps, or other outdated design features. These
bridges pose no risk to auto drivers unless the drivers themselves
drive recklessly.

… "[S]tructurally deficient” bridges have
suffered enough deterioration or damage that their load-carrying
abilities are lower than when they were built. But that still doesn’t
mean they are about to fall down; though they may be closed to heavy
loads, the most serious problem is that they cost more to maintain than
other bridges.

When the debate stumbles on the mere question of whether deficiency is worth fixing — incidentally, the National Bridge Inventory states that
deficient and obsolete bridges often contribute to congestion — it’s
difficult to see a broad consensus emerging in favor of government
spending to bring our built environment into good order. What Herbert
didn’t address in his column, unfortunately, was how to carve out that
consensus by talking in new and different ways about the importance of
infrastructure investment.

Transportation reformers have talked up "fix-it-first"
rules for roads, bridges, and transit, but that ideal often shares
space with messages emphasizing the environmental, job creation, and
efficiency created by more merit-based transportation spending.

Meanwhile, during the crafting of last year’s $787 billion stimulus law, no senator would offer an amendment to add "fix-it-first"
to the bill. Lawmakers saw more to gain by passing the stimulus quickly
than by creating a transportation section that could bring American
infrastructure into a state of good repair. And until Washington senses
a greater political imperative to create a safer, more modern transport
system, what’s wrong with the nation in Herbert’s eyes is likely to
stay wrong.

  • It kind of exemplifies America’s attitude towards consumption in general. When your stuff breaks, you don’t repair it, you just go out and buy a new one. When your cities break down, throw them away and build new suburbs. Repeat as needed.

    It could be a difficult political chore to round up more federal support for infrastructure repair. It may not even be so much about left and right as about “the infrastructure in my district is new so what do I care about fixing up the old cities?”

    E pluribus unum indeed.

  • The need to replace bridges and infrastructure always seems to get reported on when a new study is published by the Society for Employing People Who Rebuild Bridges for a Living, i.e. a civil engineering professional society, or a confederation of concrete construction companies, or something similar.

    It sometimes looks like the claims of henny penny the bridges are falling reports are a little dubious given their origin.

  • To hopefully broaden the perspective on this, when this country does indeed end up investing in repairing inadequate bridges, they have to hire firms from abroad to do so because we no longer have the domestic capability.

  • According to a report card released in 2005 by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 160,570 bridges, or just over one-quarter of the nation’s 590,750-bridge inventory, were rated structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.

  • How assiduously is that long list of bridges assembled?

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Transportation for America Launches Legislative Campaign

|
Today marks the start of Transportation for America‘s "Build for America" campaign, which will work to influence the transportation funding legislation that goes before the next Congress in 2009. (You’ll be hearing a lot more about it here in the coming months; we have received a grant from the T4America campaign to kick-start the development […]
STREETSBLOG USA

Angela Glover Blackwell on Equity, Infrastructure, and the President

|
On Monday, President Obama talked infrastructure with two governors, eight mayors, four former transportation secretaries (and the current one), two labor leaders – and one public interest advocate. That advocate was Angela Glover Blackwell, founder of the think tank PolicyLink and chair of the Transportation for America Equity Caucus, which launched last week. The roundtable […]