Why aren't we spending more billons on infrastructure? (2 Viewers)

[oso diablo]

how much would it cost to repair/replace all the "below 50" bridges in America?

Probably less than it would take to settle any subsequent wrongful death lawsuits from the failures of said bridges. An ounce of prevention, as it were.

it wasn't a rhetorical question to make a point. i'm really curious.

 

[oso diablo]

ok, it was in that infrastructure report. Currently spending around $12b annually, but report recommends that we spend around $20b annually, for an increase of $8b each year.

$8 billion represents less than 1% of the 2009 Stimulus Package.

 

[renesauz]

Tim is just buying into the liberal "crumbling infrastructure" schtick.

I, for one, am shocked.

I buy into whatever makes sense. Are you saying our infrastructure is in good shape?

Yes I am. I've never seen anything to suggest otherwise.

Wow...just aren't paying attention much are you?

There have been TWO recent bridge collapses....and only one was cause by another accident.

Remember the interstate collapse in Minn? last year?

Our infrastructure is NOT in good shape. A few more years of neglect and it will go from "not good" to plain BAD.

 

[jonessed]

Tim is just buying into the liberal "crumbling infrastructure" schtick. I, for one, am shocked.

I buy into whatever makes sense. Are you saying our infrastructure is in good shape?

Yes I am. I've never seen anything to suggest otherwise.

Wow...just aren't paying attention much are you? There have been TWO recent bridge collapses....and only one was cause by another accident.Remember the interstate collapse in Minn? last year? Our infrastructure is NOT in good shape. A few more years of neglect and it will go from "not good" to plain BAD.

The Minn. collapse was a design flaw.

 

[Politician Spock]

Tim is just buying into the liberal "crumbling infrastructure" schtick.

I, for one, am shocked.

I buy into whatever makes sense. Are you saying our infrastructure is in good shape?

Yes I am. I've never seen anything to suggest otherwise.

Wow...just aren't paying attention much are you?

There have been TWO recent bridge collapses....and only one was cause by another accident.

Remember the interstate collapse in Minn? last year?

Our infrastructure is NOT in good shape. A few more years of neglect and it will go from "not good" to plain BAD.

Last year? Wasn't it like five or six years ago?

 

[Politician Spock]

We should be spending money on everything. There isn't a single need that shouldn't be met.

The Fed knows how to print money. What could possibly go wrong?

Absolutely nothing can go wrong. We should have been printing ad infinitum since 1914. We've been fools to have waited so long to try this.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Tim is just buying into the liberal "crumbling infrastructure" schtick.

I, for one, am shocked.

I buy into whatever makes sense. Are you saying our infrastructure is in good shape?

Yes I am. I've never seen anything to suggest otherwise.

Wow...just aren't paying attention much are you?

There have been TWO recent bridge collapses....and only one was cause by another accident.

Remember the interstate collapse in Minn? last year?

Our infrastructure is NOT in good shape. A few more years of neglect and it will go from "not good" to plain BAD.

Last year? Wasn't it like five or six years ago?

A-HA! So you DO remember it!

 

[Captain Quinoa]

This whole idea that it was just because of a truck is really stupid. The bridge was rated

Facts:

The bridge was standing and functioning fine

Critical support beams were taken out by a big truck

The bridge fell

I'm no structural engineer, but to claim that the bridge fell without the aid of the huge multi ton truck traveling at freeway speed that ran full blast into the support structure of the bridge seems a little silly.

Neo-con

 

[DrJ]

Okay, to answer your question sans hysterics - It's because we don't have the money.

Actually, it's because we don't have the will to spend the money we're already spending in the best ways.

But we're Americans so we should be able to have whatever we want whenever we want it because we're Americans.

It doesn't help that we're incredibly inefficient at doing these things either. Doing anything road related work always takes far longer and costs far more than projected, and by now the guys standing around doing nothing while collecting fat checks and the roads sitting there unworked on for months at a time should have already been calculated in.

It should probably be cheaper and faster now because there's so many people looking for work, but history says that's basically impossible.

 

[DiStefano]

Estimated cost to replace the bridge span: $2.8 million.

Final cost after all is said and done (adjusting for government experience in these things): $14.6 million.

I use government experience in the Big Dig.

"The project was originally scheduled to be completed in 1998 at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion However, the project was completed only in December 2007, at a cost of over $14.6 billion.(The Boston Globe estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including interest, and that it will not be paid off until 2038)."

 

[shader]

There is no excuse for what happened with that bridge in Washington. Our roads and bridges in this country are ####. Why don't we fix them? Whatever it costs, isn't this a worthy expenditure?

It is interesting.

I know that the "Meaningful Use"/electronic medical records portion of Obama's big spending bill led to a boomtown in the IT medical industry, and has helped a ton of people out financially.

Why wouldn't it work for infrastructure? I don't know. Of course some people yell that hyper-inflation would occur. Anymore, I just don't think anyone knows whats going to happen.

But infrastructure is aging and needs to be updated.

Are the changes to electronic medical records good for hospitals, doctors, nurses, and patients? I don't think it should be judged for it's benefit to the medical IT field. The Common Core Curriculum is going to make a killing for book makers and educational software, but I'm not sure many teachers, students, parents, or administrators are sold on the idea. We have schools falling apart and districts going broke, while are about to invest billions in a new curriculum and new tests.

Probably not.

But in theory, it should be good in the future. Still, it's been a benefit to the economy.

Which is why investing in infrastructure makes sense. It's great for the economy and even better for the average person drinking water from pipes, travelling down the road, and living in areas that would be wiped out if dams broke.

 

[shader]

Estimated cost to replace the bridge span: $2.8 million.

Final cost after all is said and done (adjusting for government experience in these things): $14.6 million.

I use government experience in the Big Dig.

"The project was originally scheduled to be completed in 1998 at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion However, the project was completed only in December 2007, at a cost of over $14.6 billion.(The Boston Globe estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including interest, and that it will not be paid off until 2038)."

Clearly the gov't has no idea how to manage money. But this isn't news to anyone. Infrastructure still needs to be repaired.

At some point, the US gov't will pay for their ridiculous mismanagement of money. But that is another topic entirely.

 

[tommyGunZ]

There is no deficit problem. There is a demand problem. Jobs to fix our bridges and roads would be a step in the right direction.

BTW I would have much rather the Democrats and Obama focused on this over healthcare the first 4 years. But I am no fan of the ACA anyway so I may be biased.

That was going to be my next question...why didn't we have a stimulus package focused on infrastructure?

Oh, wait...

It was too small and it didn't really focus on the right stuff. If it had been me I would have made it pretty simple. Fix bridges and roads. Fix our electrical transmission infrastructure. Get high speed internet out into the hinterlands. Put a lot more into research into building Thorium nuke plants and then decommission the elderly plants we are running. There's more but I don't want to bore anyone. We could have had a far better ROI and put millions to work.

That was my point. The (D) team had their chance and blew it by focusing on political payback.

This is great example of why our political system is so bogged down. Even intelligent, fairly well informed folks like Andy repeat stupid stuff like "they blew it" b/c the same clowns who have been wrong about every major issue over the past 20 years told him so, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

If well intentioned folks like Andy are so gullible to believe such nonsense, we might as well write off the jon_mx's of the country.

 

[Kev4029]

Okay, to answer your question sans hysterics - It's because we don't have the money.

Actually, it's because we don't have the will to spend the money we're already spending in the best ways.

But we're Americans so we should be able to have whatever we want whenever we want it because we're Americans.

It doesn't help that we're incredibly inefficient at doing these things either. Doing anything road related work always takes far longer and costs far more than projected, and by now the guys standing around doing nothing while collecting fat checks and the roads sitting there unworked on for months at a time should have already been calculated in.

It should probably be cheaper and faster now because there's so many people looking for work, but history says that's basically impossible.

That's not really true at all. If a contractor is late delivering a project they basically get fined for everyday after what was set forth in their contract. And I would also guess that a large majority of projects come in under budget as they set aside money for unforeseen conditions in construction contracts and rarely is that money used up in change orders.

 

[jon_mx]

If our infrastructure is a "D" then most of the rest of the world is a solid "F".

 

[Ilov80s]

There is no excuse for what happened with that bridge in Washington. Our roads and bridges in this country are ####. Why don't we fix them? Whatever it costs, isn't this a worthy expenditure?

It is interesting. I know that the "Meaningful Use"/electronic medical records portion of Obama's big spending bill led to a boomtown in the IT medical industry, and has helped a ton of people out financially. Why wouldn't it work for infrastructure? I don't know. Of course some people yell that hyper-inflation would occur. Anymore, I just don't think anyone knows whats going to happen. But infrastructure is aging and needs to be updated.

Are the changes to electronic medical records good for hospitals, doctors, nurses, and patients? I don't think it should be judged for it's benefit to the medical IT field. The Common Core Curriculum is going to make a killing for book makers and educational software, but I'm not sure many teachers, students, parents, or administrators are sold on the idea. We have schools falling apart and districts going broke, while are about to invest billions in a new curriculum and new tests.

Probably not. But in theory, it should be good in the future. Still, it's been a benefit to the economy. Which is why investing in infrastructure makes sense. It's great for the economy and even better for the average person drinking water from pipes, travelling down the road, and living in areas that would be wiped out if dams broke.

So at this point, it's potentially just a giant bone thrown to the medical software industry at the expense of hospitals, doctors, patients and insurance companies? That's not what government is for. I guess time will tell.

 

[sporthenry]

More than 200 N.J. bridges are structurally deficient, report finds

Each of the bridges were assigned a sufficiency rating, with 18 of New Jersey's bridges ranking under 25 percent for sufficiency. The bridges with the lowest sufficiency rating — 2 percent — are the Pulaski Skyway, Jersey City; Route 1&9, Newark; Middlesex Avenue, Metuchen; and Route 36, Highlands.

And

Deadline ticking for nearly bankrupt N.J. Transportation Trust Fund

State Transportation Commissioner Jim Simpson likens the situation over the state’s beleaguered Transportation Trust Fund to a homeowner who for years spent too much on credit cards and now is living paycheck to paycheck.

Next month, the Transportation Trust Fund Authority plans to refinance $300 million to $400 million in existing bonds to take advantage of lower rates and also issue $800 million to $900 million in bonds to get the fund through March, it was announced today.

"We are now going to be completely tapped out and borrowed out for the trust fund," authority Treasurer Steve Petrecca said after a board meeting in Trenton

The problem is, you still have your Factors of Safety which make these bridges structurally deficient but still serviceable for the time being. And structurally deficient doesn't necessarily mean it will fail but there is no way to know when or if the bridges will fail. And the problem with some of these older bridges as shown in Washington is that they don't have any structural redundancy so hitting one critical support makes it collapse. Bridges now are also designed to fail in a ductile manner so you don't have these instantaneous failures and people have plenty of time to get out of harms way.

You just have people here who think that b/c a collapse hasn't happened yet or that b/c they have had other contributing factors that there isn't a problem with the bridges. And as you mention, most projects are scaled back now just to fix the critical elements which is like using duct tape to mask the problem than actually fix it which probably cost more money in the long run.

 

[Amused to Death]

Okay, to answer your question sans hysterics - It's because we don't have the money.

Actually, it's because we don't have the will to spend the money we're already spending in the best ways.

But we're Americans so we should be able to have whatever we want whenever we want it because we're Americans.

It doesn't help that we're incredibly inefficient at doing these things either. Doing anything road related work always takes far longer and costs far more than projected, and by now the guys standing around doing nothing while collecting fat checks and the roads sitting there unworked on for months at a time should have already been calculated in.

It should probably be cheaper and faster now because there's so many people looking for work, but history says that's basically impossible.

That's not really true at all. If a contractor is late delivering a project they basically get fined for everyday after what was set forth in their contract. And I would also guess that a large majority of projects come in under budget as they set aside money for unforeseen conditions in construction contracts and rarely is that money used up in change orders.

Correct. The design engineer provides a final construction cost. The contractors by the job for a price and face heavy daily fines for being late. Thousands of dollars per day. Small maintenance projects or local mill-and-pave jobs may be impacted by what appears to be people doing nothing, but the large bridge replacement/repair jobs aren't impacted in the least.

What really drives a price up for large projects is acquiring the Right-Of-Way and easements (lawyers involved), the endless environmental permits, and utility relocations. Time and money.

 

[Amused to Death]

More than 200 N.J. bridges are structurally deficient, report finds

Each of the bridges were assigned a sufficiency rating, with 18 of New Jersey's bridges ranking under 25 percent for sufficiency. The bridges with the lowest sufficiency rating — 2 percent — are the Pulaski Skyway, Jersey City; Route 1&9, Newark; Middlesex Avenue, Metuchen; and Route 36, Highlands.

And

Deadline ticking for nearly bankrupt N.J. Transportation Trust Fund

State Transportation Commissioner Jim Simpson likens the situation over the state’s beleaguered Transportation Trust Fund to a homeowner who for years spent too much on credit cards and now is living paycheck to paycheck.

Next month, the Transportation Trust Fund Authority plans to refinance $300 million to $400 million in existing bonds to take advantage of lower rates and also issue $800 million to $900 million in bonds to get the fund through March, it was announced today.

"We are now going to be completely tapped out and borrowed out for the trust fund," authority Treasurer Steve Petrecca said after a board meeting in Trenton

The problem is, you still have your Factors of Safety which make these bridges structurally deficient but still serviceable for the time being. And structurally deficient doesn't necessarily mean it will fail but there is no way to know when or if the bridges will fail. And the problem with some of these older bridges as shown in Washington is that they don't have any structural redundancy so hitting one critical support makes it collapse. Bridges now are also designed to fail in a ductile manner so you don't have these instantaneous failures and people have plenty of time to get out of harms way.

You just have people here who think that b/c a collapse hasn't happened yet or that b/c they have had other contributing factors that there isn't a problem with the bridges. And as you mention, most projects are scaled back now just to fix the critical elements which is like using duct tape to mask the problem than actually fix it which probably cost more money in the long run.

Yes there are safety factors and the bridge may not collapse for a long time. But do you have any idea how long it takes to replace/repair a bridge from feasibility assessment to completion? It could take 10 years or more from concept to being open to traffic.

 

[DiStefano]

More than 200 N.J. bridges are structurally deficient, report finds

Each of the bridges were assigned a sufficiency rating, with 18 of New Jersey's bridges ranking under 25 percent for sufficiency. The bridges with the lowest sufficiency rating — 2 percent — are the Pulaski Skyway, Jersey City; Route 1&9, Newark; Middlesex Avenue, Metuchen; and Route 36, Highlands.

And

Deadline ticking for nearly bankrupt N.J. Transportation Trust Fund

State Transportation Commissioner Jim Simpson likens the situation over the state’s beleaguered Transportation Trust Fund to a homeowner who for years spent too much on credit cards and now is living paycheck to paycheck.

Next month, the Transportation Trust Fund Authority plans to refinance $300 million to $400 million in existing bonds to take advantage of lower rates and also issue $800 million to $900 million in bonds to get the fund through March, it was announced today.

"We are now going to be completely tapped out and borrowed out for the trust fund," authority Treasurer Steve Petrecca said after a board meeting in Trenton

The problem is, you still have your Factors of Safety which make these bridges structurally deficient but still serviceable for the time being. And structurally deficient doesn't necessarily mean it will fail but there is no way to know when or if the bridges will fail. And the problem with some of these older bridges as shown in Washington is that they don't have any structural redundancy so hitting one critical support makes it collapse. Bridges now are also designed to fail in a ductile manner so you don't have these instantaneous failures and people have plenty of time to get out of harms way.

You just have people here who think that b/c a collapse hasn't happened yet or that b/c they have had other contributing factors that there isn't a problem with the bridges. And as you mention, most projects are scaled back now just to fix the critical elements which is like using duct tape to mask the problem than actually fix it which probably cost more money in the long run.

Yes there are safety factors and the bridge may not collapse for a long time. But do you have any idea how long it takes to replace/repair a bridge from feasibility assessment to completion? It could take 10 years or more from concept to being open to traffic.

It might take even longer than that if they find out a snail wants to cross the river there.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I-35 bridge collapse was due to a design flaw.

Sorry it doesn't fit the meme.

 

[Amused to Death]

More than 200 N.J. bridges are structurally deficient, report finds

Each of the bridges were assigned a sufficiency rating, with 18 of New Jersey's bridges ranking under 25 percent for sufficiency. The bridges with the lowest sufficiency rating — 2 percent — are the Pulaski Skyway, Jersey City; Route 1&9, Newark; Middlesex Avenue, Metuchen; and Route 36, Highlands.

And

Deadline ticking for nearly bankrupt N.J. Transportation Trust Fund

State Transportation Commissioner Jim Simpson likens the situation over the state’s beleaguered Transportation Trust Fund to a homeowner who for years spent too much on credit cards and now is living paycheck to paycheck.

Next month, the Transportation Trust Fund Authority plans to refinance $300 million to $400 million in existing bonds to take advantage of lower rates and also issue $800 million to $900 million in bonds to get the fund through March, it was announced today.

"We are now going to be completely tapped out and borrowed out for the trust fund," authority Treasurer Steve Petrecca said after a board meeting in Trenton

The problem is, you still have your Factors of Safety which make these bridges structurally deficient but still serviceable for the time being. And structurally deficient doesn't necessarily mean it will fail but there is no way to know when or if the bridges will fail. And the problem with some of these older bridges as shown in Washington is that they don't have any structural redundancy so hitting one critical support makes it collapse. Bridges now are also designed to fail in a ductile manner so you don't have these instantaneous failures and people have plenty of time to get out of harms way.

You just have people here who think that b/c a collapse hasn't happened yet or that b/c they have had other contributing factors that there isn't a problem with the bridges. And as you mention, most projects are scaled back now just to fix the critical elements which is like using duct tape to mask the problem than actually fix it which probably cost more money in the long run.

Yes there are safety factors and the bridge may not collapse for a long time. But do you have any idea how long it takes to replace/repair a bridge from feasibility assessment to completion? It could take 10 years or more from concept to being open to traffic.

It might take even longer than that if they find out a snail wants to cross the river there.

LOL exactly. God forbid the contractor encounters a wood turtle on some of the projects I've worked on. And its in the specs that they have to actively search the project area each morning prior to commencing work. Some projects require special "snake fences" to keep certain species away from construction. I'm all for the environment but some regulations are insane. Not that you can't disturb the animals, but you have to pay the right price (obtain a permit) first.

 

[Rich Conway]

I can't stop laughing that someone posted we are "paying down our debt."

">

That was me, and my point is that we're not, and that this whole sequester business (which you're in favor of) is a huge joke.

You argued against the sequester. You argue against ANY reduced spending. Now you want to jack up spending on infrastructure?

If I remember correctly, didn't we just spend a few hundred billion on a stimulus that was supposed to go towards rebuilding our infrastructure?

 

[DiStefano]

I can't stop laughing that someone posted we are "paying down our debt."

">

That was me, and my point is that we're not, and that this whole sequester business (which you're in favor of) is a huge joke.

You argued against the sequester. You argue against ANY reduced spending. Now you want to jack up spending on infrastructure?

If I remember correctly, didn't we just spend a few hundred billion on a stimulus that was supposed to go towards rebuilding our infrastructure?

Well, Obama wanted shovel ready projects so he could shovel the #### on to us.

 

[Rich Conway]

There is no deficit problem. There is a demand problem. Jobs to fix our bridges and roads would be a step in the right direction.

BTW I would have much rather the Democrats and Obama focused on this over healthcare the first 4 years. But I am no fan of the ACA anyway so I may be biased.

That was going to be my next question...why didn't we have a stimulus package focused on infrastructure?

Oh, wait...

It was too small and it didn't really focus on the right stuff. If it had been me I would have made it pretty simple. Fix bridges and roads. Fix our electrical transmission infrastructure. Get high speed internet out into the hinterlands. Put a lot more into research into building Thorium nuke plants and then decommission the elderly plants we are running. There's more but I don't want to bore anyone. We could have had a far better ROI and put millions to work.

Someone cynical might wonder why we should trust the federal government to do a good job replacing the crumbling infrastructure this time when it did such a poor job last time?

Perhaps we should push much of the current federal highway funding and decisions down to the state level?

 

[timschochet]

If our infrastructure is a "D" then most of the rest of the world is a solid "F".

Well this gives me great comfort.

Besides, I'm betting it's not true of much of western Europe.

 

[timschochet]

I can't stop laughing that someone posted we are "paying down our debt."

">

That was me, and my point is that we're not, and that this whole sequester business (which you're in favor of) is a huge joke.

You argued against the sequester. You argue against ANY reduced spending. Now you want to jack up spending on infrastructure?

If I remember correctly, didn't we just spend a few hundred billion on a stimulus that was supposed to go towards rebuilding our infrastructure?

If someone proposes serious reductions to spending that makes sense, I will be all in favor. If you want to raise the age for Social Security or tie Medicare to means testing or make serious, long term THOUGHTFUL reductions to defense spending or slash corporate welfare, I'm in favor of all that. But I'm not going to get behind senseless cuts that hurt people while making no impact whatsoever to our deficit or debt, and that's what the sequester is.

But whatever. As to your second point, absolutely Obama blew it on the stimulus. He didn't ask for enough, and he didn't spend it in the right place. That doesn't change the issue. We still have to spend this money. What choice do we have?

 

[timschochet]

Estimated cost to replace the bridge span: $2.8 million.

Final cost after all is said and done (adjusting for government experience in these things): $14.6 million.

I use government experience in the Big Dig.

"The project was originally scheduled to be completed in 1998 at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion However, the project was completed only in December 2007, at a cost of over $14.6 billion.(The Boston Globe estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including interest, and that it will not be paid off until 2038)."

Let's suppose your numbers are absolutely accurate and there's nothing we can do about it. What would the cost be if we do nothing and then there's an accident? 20 million? 30? And THEN we'll have to go back and replace the bridge span anyhow. Might as well do it now.

 

[Sand]

787 billion. Take it from that.

On a side note, how the #### does a bridge with gaping holes in support members not make the "shovel ready" list?

 

[Amused to Death]

787 billion. Take it from that.

On a side note, how the #### does a bridge with gaping holes in support members not make the "shovel ready" list?

You mean the Pulaski Skyway? There are 10 repair contracts in design now. Scheduled for completion in 2020.

 

[NCCommish]

There is no deficit problem. There is a demand problem. Jobs to fix our bridges and roads would be a step in the right direction.

BTW I would have much rather the Democrats and Obama focused on this over healthcare the first 4 years. But I am no fan of the ACA anyway so I may be biased.

That was going to be my next question...why didn't we have a stimulus package focused on infrastructure?

Oh, wait...

It was too small and it didn't really focus on the right stuff. If it had been me I would have made it pretty simple. Fix bridges and roads. Fix our electrical transmission infrastructure. Get high speed internet out into the hinterlands. Put a lot more into research into building Thorium nuke plants and then decommission the elderly plants we are running. There's more but I don't want to bore anyone. We could have had a far better ROI and put millions to work.

Someone cynical might wonder why we should trust the federal government to do a good job replacing the crumbling infrastructure this time when it did such a poor job last time?

Perhaps we should push much of the current federal highway funding and decisions down to the state level?

They did a great job. Our highway system was the envy of the world and a major contributor to our economic growth for decades. But like anything else it must be maintained.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Someone cynical might wonder why we should trust the federal government to do a good job replacing the crumbling infrastructure this time when it did such a poor job last time?

Perhaps we should push much of the current federal highway funding and decisions down to the state level?

They did a great job. Our highway system was the envy of the world and a major contributor to our economic growth for decades. But like anything else it must be maintained.

That's not the "last time" he was talking about. He was referring to 5 years ago.

 

[NCCommish]

Someone cynical might wonder why we should trust the federal government to do a good job replacing the crumbling infrastructure this time when it did such a poor job last time?

Perhaps we should push much of the current federal highway funding and decisions down to the state level?

They did a great job. Our highway system was the envy of the world and a major contributor to our economic growth for decades. But like anything else it must be maintained.

That's not the "last time" he was talking about. He was referring to 5 years ago.

Maybe we need to review our talking points:

Consider ASCE Report Card in Light of Stimulus Repairs and Reduced DrivingStatement by Phineas Baxandall, U.S. PIRG Senior Analyst, explaining how reactions to today’s American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) report card for America’s infrastructure should be interpreted in light of two trends: (1) the short-term federal assistance from stimulus funds that have since expired; and (2) a persistent trend by Americans toward driving less. The ASCE report card is released every four years and is seen as a major indicator of the state of the nation’s infrastructure. The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“The Stimulus”) injected one-time funds totaling $68 billion for infrastructure that were almost entirely spent during the years covered by the latest study. Of that total, $48 billion went to transportation, with most devoted to highways.

“Whatever the ASCE looks for in grading America’s infrastructure, our standing must be interpreted in light of changed driving trends and the federal stimulus funds that were markedly focused on repair, but have since expired.

“If grades for infrastructure show some improvement, credit must first be given to the stimulus. The time period between the last Civil Engineers report in 2009 and the present one brackets the American Reconstruction and Recovery Act (ARRA), which injected tens of billions of dollars into infrastructure. Without those funds, the condition of America’s infrastructure would undeniably be worse off.

“In addition to its one-time use-it-or-lose-it funds, the stimulus was exceptionally targeted toward repairing existing infrastructure. In keeping with the goal of stimulating rapid job creation, states focused their flexible transportation funds on labor-intensive projects that could be initiated quickly. Highway spending was particularly focused on repair and maintenance. Analysis in 2011, showed that almost 60 percent (58.9%) of flexible transportation funds were spent on road repair, compared to only a third (33.5%) spent on building new and wider highways. Eight states — Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia — focused every dollar of their flexible road funds on maintaining existing capacity. These flexible (STP) funds were the largest source of transportation funding in the stimulus act.

“The stimulus’ focus on repair and maintenance didn’t win political points at the time. The benefits of preventing infrastructure from crumbling are largely invisible and rarely commemorated by political ribbon cutting events. A 2010 report by U.S. PIRG titled “Road Work Ahead,” described the economic benefits of focusing highway funding on repair, as well as the political obstacles that traditionally steer funding instead toward shiny new highway projects.

“Since the stimulus funds have expired, states are struggling to keep up with infrastructure repair. In some states, such as Wisconsin, governors are even opting to steer money away from repair and public transit, and toward building new and wider roads. Unless the funding situation improves or policies further encourage repair, we can expect that the next infrastructure report card in 2017 will show lower grades.

“Whether or not the condition of transportation infrastructure can improve in coming years will depend on whether policy makers can give up the habit of prioritizing construction of new highways and focus more funding on repair and maintenance, as the stimulus did.

Not everyone is focused to new roads; in fact, recent consumer driving trends point us in the other direction. On a per-capita-basis Americans have been driving less each year, for eight years running. Since 2005, there has been a major reduction in the growth of American driving. In fact, Americans drive seven percent fewer total miles than they did eight years ago, and the trend is led by younger Americans who will set the habits for the coming generation.

“The ongoing reduction in the volume of driving suggests one reason why roads could be in better condition than we might expect. More significantly, it reminds us that in the face of difficult budget decisions ahead, we should not be blinded by the traditional political appeal of highway expansion at a time when consumers are not even calling for it. We can improve future road conditions by deprioritizing construction of new and wider highways and focusing on fixing our current infrastructure first.”

It wasn't nearly enough but what was there was used and our transportation infrastructure certainly benefited from it.

 

[Politician Spock]

Estimated cost to replace the bridge span: $2.8 million.

Final cost after all is said and done (adjusting for government experience in these things): $14.6 million.

I use government experience in the Big Dig.

"The project was originally scheduled to be completed in 1998 at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion However, the project was completed only in December 2007, at a cost of over $14.6 billion.(The Boston Globe estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including interest, and that it will not be paid off until 2038)."

Let's suppose your numbers are absolutely accurate and there's nothing we can do about it. What would the cost be if we do nothing and then there's an accident? 20 million? 30? And THEN we'll have to go back and replace the bridge span anyhow. Might as well do it now.

Replacing anything before it has reached its useful lifespan is more expensive than getting its useful lifespan before replacing it. If you put a new roof on your house, which should have a useful lifespan of 20 years, and decide to replace it after 12 years because "might as well do it now", you'll spend a lot more on maintaining the roof of your house.

Fear is always a great way to get tax payers to want the government to spend more than it needs to. Over 40,000 people per year die in automobile accidents, yet people don't think twice about the risk they take putting their kids in the car every single day. But OH MY GOSH, OH MY GOSH, OH MY GOSH, someone might be killed by a bridge unless we spend hundreds of billions of dollars right now to avoid it!!!

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Someone cynical might wonder why we should trust the federal government to do a good job replacing the crumbling infrastructure this time when it did such a poor job last time?

Perhaps we should push much of the current federal highway funding and decisions down to the state level?

They did a great job. Our highway system was the envy of the world and a major contributor to our economic growth for decades. But like anything else it must be maintained.

That's not the "last time" he was talking about. He was referring to 5 years ago.

Maybe we need to review our talking points:

You should focus on your own. First you said they didn't spend it on the right stuff and then you did. It's hard for us to keep up when you're playing both sides of the argument.

 

[timschochet]

Estimated cost to replace the bridge span: $2.8 million.

Final cost after all is said and done (adjusting for government experience in these things): $14.6 million.

I use government experience in the Big Dig.

"The project was originally scheduled to be completed in 1998 at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion However, the project was completed only in December 2007, at a cost of over $14.6 billion.(The Boston Globe estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including interest, and that it will not be paid off until 2038)."

Let's suppose your numbers are absolutely accurate and there's nothing we can do about it. What would the cost be if we do nothing and then there's an accident? 20 million? 30? And THEN we'll have to go back and replace the bridge span anyhow. Might as well do it now.

Replacing anything before it has reached its useful lifespan is more expensive than getting its useful lifespan before replacing it. If you put a new roof on your house, which should have a useful lifespan of 20 years, and decide to replace it after 12 years because "might as well do it now", you'll spend a lot more on maintaining the roof of your house.

Fear is always a great way to get tax payers to want the government to spend more than it needs to. Over 40,000 people per year die in automobile accidents, yet people don't think twice about the risk they take putting their kids in the car every single day. But OH MY GOSH, OH MY GOSH, OH MY GOSH, someone might be killed by a bridge unless we spend hundreds of billions of dollars right now to avoid it!!!

Did you bother to read the report I posted earlier? We're at the end of useful lifespan here.

 

[NCCommish]

Someone cynical might wonder why we should trust the federal government to do a good job replacing the crumbling infrastructure this time when it did such a poor job last time?

Perhaps we should push much of the current federal highway funding and decisions down to the state level?

They did a great job. Our highway system was the envy of the world and a major contributor to our economic growth for decades. But like anything else it must be maintained.

That's not the "last time" he was talking about. He was referring to 5 years ago.

Maybe we need to review our talking points:

You should focus on your own. First you said they didn't spend it on the right stuff and then you did. It's hard for us to keep up when you're playing both sides of the argument.

No I said they didn't spend enough on infrastructure and then I added I would have kept it more aimed at certain types of infrastructure instead of some of the other tangential spending they did. Like on direct company loans for instance. Although to be fair there have been some successes there. And for the record I was wrong on the auto bailout. I didn't want it, thought it was doomed for failure and they managed to pull it off. But I digress.

My point here was to refute that the spending that was done 5 years ago(your timeline) on roads, as small as it was, wasn't ineffective or a failure as it was construed. That is simply not true and I never implied that it was.

 

[Politician Spock]

Estimated cost to replace the bridge span: $2.8 million.

Final cost after all is said and done (adjusting for government experience in these things): $14.6 million.

I use government experience in the Big Dig.

"The project was originally scheduled to be completed in 1998 at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion However, the project was completed only in December 2007, at a cost of over $14.6 billion.(The Boston Globe estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including interest, and that it will not be paid off until 2038)."

Let's suppose your numbers are absolutely accurate and there's nothing we can do about it. What would the cost be if we do nothing and then there's an accident? 20 million? 30? And THEN we'll have to go back and replace the bridge span anyhow. Might as well do it now.

Replacing anything before it has reached its useful lifespan is more expensive than getting its useful lifespan before replacing it. If you put a new roof on your house, which should have a useful lifespan of 20 years, and decide to replace it after 12 years because "might as well do it now", you'll spend a lot more on maintaining the roof of your house.

Fear is always a great way to get tax payers to want the government to spend more than it needs to. Over 40,000 people per year die in automobile accidents, yet people don't think twice about the risk they take putting their kids in the car every single day. But OH MY GOSH, OH MY GOSH, OH MY GOSH, someone might be killed by a bridge unless we spend hundreds of billions of dollars right now to avoid it!!!

Did you bother to read the report I posted earlier? We're at the end of useful lifespan here.

You mean the report put together by a group of people who would get billions in new business in their industry if tax payers are convinced to let government spend billions more than we are already spending in the industry. Yes, I read it.

 

[Christo]

Okay, to answer your question sans hysterics - It's because we don't have the money.

Actually, it's because we don't have the will to spend the money we're already spending in the best ways.

But we're Americans so we should be able to have whatever we want whenever we want it because we're Americans.

We have enough money to bomb the #### out of anyone we want though. we have enough money to give billions to farm subsidies. We have enough money to give billions in corporate welfare. We have plenty of money and it will only cost more to fix it later.

Hey crabby pants. I already said we need to spend more on it.

Where would you like to take it from first?

DEFENSE

 

[FlapJacks]

Okay, to answer your question sans hysterics - It's because we don't have the money.

Actually, it's because we don't have the will to spend the money we're already spending in the best ways.

But we're Americans so we should be able to have whatever we want whenever we want it because we're Americans.

America! #### Yeah!

 

[Christo]

If our infrastructure is a "D" then most of the rest of the world is a solid "F".

Yea, we're doing better than Mozambique!

 

[FlapJacks]

After having just committed a trillion dollars to a stimulus package and "shovel ready" jobs a few short years ago, this is disgraceful.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

We spend more on infrastructure than the E.U.

 

[pantagrapher]

After having just committed a trillion dollars to a stimulus package and "shovel ready" jobs a few short years ago, this is disgraceful.

Yeah, economy has really tanked since then.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

After having just committed a trillion dollars to a stimulus package and "shovel ready" jobs a few short years ago, this is disgraceful.

Yeah, economy has really tanked since then.

It wasn't an argument about economics.

What is it with you guys?

 

[Politician Spock]

We spend more on infrastructure than the E.U.

Well yeah. We drive trucks while they ride scooters.

 

[timschochet]

After having just committed a trillion dollars to a stimulus package and "shovel ready" jobs a few short years ago, this is disgraceful.

Why does everything always have to be an attack on Obama? It's so tiresome and has nothing to do with the issue I raised.

 

[Kev4029]

Estimated cost to replace the bridge span: $2.8 million.

Final cost after all is said and done (adjusting for government experience in these things): $14.6 million.

I use government experience in the Big Dig.

"The project was originally scheduled to be completed in 1998 at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion However, the project was completed only in December 2007, at a cost of over $14.6 billion.(The Boston Globe estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including interest, and that it will not be paid off until 2038)."

Let's suppose your numbers are absolutely accurate and there's nothing we can do about it. What would the cost be if we do nothing and then there's an accident? 20 million? 30? And THEN we'll have to go back and replace the bridge span anyhow. Might as well do it now.

Replacing anything before it has reached its useful lifespan is more expensive than getting its useful lifespan before replacing it. If you put a new roof on your house, which should have a useful lifespan of 20 years, and decide to replace it after 12 years because "might as well do it now", you'll spend a lot more on maintaining the roof of your house.

Fear is always a great way to get tax payers to want the government to spend more than it needs to. Over 40,000 people per year die in automobile accidents, yet people don't think twice about the risk they take putting their kids in the car every single day. But OH MY GOSH, OH MY GOSH, OH MY GOSH, someone might be killed by a bridge unless we spend hundreds of billions of dollars right now to avoid it!!!

Did you bother to read the report I posted earlier? We're at the end of useful lifespan here.

You mean the report put together by a group of people who would get billions in new business in their industry if tax payers are convinced to let government spend billions more than we are already spending in the industry. Yes, I read it.

Here in Colorado our state DOT puts together a list of all the structurally deficient bridges, I don't think the state stands to make any money doing by pushing the bridges in poor condition into construction.

 

[FlapJacks]

After having just committed a trillion dollars to a stimulus package and "shovel ready" jobs a few short years ago, this is disgraceful.

Why does everything always have to be an attack on Obama? It's so tiresome and has nothing to do with the issue I raised.

You asked why we aren't spending billions, and I pointed out that we've spent that and more. Whether the problem is Obama, or systemic, you've apparently already drawn your conclusion.

 

[Kev4029]

We spend more on infrastructure than the E.U.

We are significantly less densely populated than most of Europe. Building and maintaining infrastructure across a large country like ours is much more expensive than somewhere like the Netherlands where their population density is 10x what ours is.