Infrastructure

Don,

Even without a standard, cannot a review of the spending mechanisms--the fact that politicians get a lot more positive feedback from their constituents from passing funding for building new roads compared to repairing old roads,--coupled with the physical facts that roads, like any long-term capital good, require SOME repair, allow us to deduce, albeit without quantification, that it is highly likely that our infrastructure needs more repair than it is getting? I don't want to sound like Mises, but don't we know that with apodictic certainty? :-)

Don:

We all know that our "infrastructure," whatever it really is, is not in dire need of investment. Politicians are using one collapsed bridge as a ploy to extract more cash from the wallets of American taxpayers. "Infrastructure" will not be defined until after the extraction process is complete.

Interstate highways were originally designed - ostensibly - as evacuation routes for large cities during nuclear war.

But they've evolved into commercial arteries for longhaul commerce, perhaps better handled by freight rail. Unfortunately rail freight moves at less that 20 mph on average.

And I cannot imagine truckers enjoy snaking through the likes of downtown Cincinnati and Dayton on I-75, when a chalkline on the map would provide a beeline bypass for both.

By rights, such a bypass would be build by private enterprise and financed by tolls.

Where can I rent a 'dozer?

To answer this question, you'd need a free market in infrastructure projects, where prices and profits can signal discrepancies in supply and demand. Lacking such markets, it is best to limit infrastructure projects to local governments.

One of the infrastructures is buried pipe, especially water and sewer. At present, the mean age of these pipes is 43 years and the design life for most of them was 50 years. Experience with leaks, sinkholes, and other failures is consistent with the view that a huge amount of installed piping must be replaced. The usual metric for actual quality is leaks and failures. In 2006 there were 40,000 major sewer leaks and 300,000 major water leaks in the US.

One part of the mantra is the chorus from the water and sewer services, who see the steadily increasing failure rate that is associated with aging pipes in need of replacement. Pipes don't suddenly break at replacement age. They just get weaker and weaker, with a steadily increasing number of leaks and failures, until eventually the failure rate forces a large scale replacement.

Capacity needs are another force driving replacement. The eight inch pipe installed in 1960 is not only close to end of design life, it is no longer 8" capacity. Corrosion and other factors have reduced the capacity. It is likely also being loaded beyond original capacity by the population growth in the area.

Dr. Boudreaux,

I believe that there are arbatrage opportunities in infrastructure investments. That said, the current marketing effort by infrastructure providers seems well over blown and self-serving. In almost all you see the multiplier affect of jobs created and the time savings or better non-monetary performance measures of leaky pipes but never in comparison with price.

The convincing measure should be the marginal benefits as compared to the marginal costs. Improving a roadway from 10 mph to 20 mph average speed eliminates over 50% of the delay costs, but the road providers goal is free flow, leading to much spinning on planning that does not value benefits as compared to the costs.

I have heard that water lines cost 3 times as much to repair under emergency conditions as compared to planned work, but what about the savings from having pipes in place for 60 years instead of 50 years. I agree that there could be more leaks but the economic thinking is not being applied.

It is easy for technicrats to emphasize standards and this does work over the short term in many cases, but cost and benefits are rarely fairly compared in making long term commitments.

User fees to pay for infrastructure should be used; however, the tempting use of specific user fees for generalized improvement provide great justification for many potential user fee payers' doubt that they will not be soaked in the long run, and to provide resistence to user fees without specific commitment and limitations.

How could this possilby be true? Every five years the federal government passes an "infrastrucutre" program that is supposed to rebuild roads and bridges. Where is all that money going?

I can't point to the statistics that show that we're currently "underspending" on infrastructure. But, it wouldn't surprise me one bit:

Politicians get a lot positive press when they get the money to build a NEW bridge or road or whatever in their district. When was the last time you ever heard a politician talking about how much money he brought in to keep a road in the same condition it's in now? A road has to be a disaster before a politician gets credit for fixing it.

Given that, if you're a politician and have access to a certain amount of money, which are you going to try to spend it on: new infrastructure or maintenance to old infrastructure?

If, as I suspect, they spend the money on new infrastructure, that means that old infrastructure is neglected and, eventually, ends up in bad shape.

Infrastructure report card. This doesn't even take a study. It's obvious the amount of hours people waste sitting in traffic is a major problem for the economy. The energy grid likewise needs to be modernized and isn't even considered in this study. In vesting a trillion dollars in these over the last seven years instead of the War and Wall Street would have put us on a much different prosperity path then the corporatistic socialistic take over of our government that our currently traveling down.

I'm willing to bet that the way to go is going to be to make infrastructure more "sustainable", especially bridges....

Infrastructure refers to structural elements that are part of and provide a framework for an organization or larger structure. The term is used differently in a variety of fields; perhaps the single most well-known usage is in political economics, where it refers to physical infrastructure such as buildings and roads.

A better definition might be more inclusive. Infrastructures are complex, technology-based, networks that provide the framework for society at a national or larger level.

In no particular order:

- Transportation


- Energy


- Communication


- Commerce


- Security


- Healthcare


- Education


- Waste removal

True liberal: "Interstate highways were originally designed - ostensibly - as evacuation routes for large cities during nuclear war."

I've researched the formation of the interstate highway system, True Liberal, but I've never read this claim before. Can you provide any support for this argument?

From the very beginning stages of planning and funding, the interstate highway system included thousands of miles acros rural areas of the country in states such as Wyoming, Arkansas, Kansas, South Dakota, and New Mexico. I'm not sure there are any large cities to be evacuated in those states.

The original premise for an interstate highway system was formulated in 1939, about six years before the first atomic weapon was even created. I don't see how evacuation of cities during nuclear war could have been a consideration of The Bureau of Public Roads special report:

"The report recommended a 43,000-mile non-toll highway network in its "Master Plan for Free Highway Development." This proposal called for highways to follow existing roads whenever possible, have more than two lanes of traffic available if traffic required it, and be limited-access in high-traffic areas. In the large cities, the proposal allowed for above- or below-grade intersections and limited-access belt lines surrounding the central business district to permit traffic to bypass the inner city and to link intercity expressways."

I have no doubt that politicians in the 1950's used the Red Scare in order to gain support for funding the Interstate Highway System. But evacuation of cities was hardly the primary reason for its development.

Don,

As a professional land developer, I deal with infrastructure issues daily. Much of the press about the allegedly poor state of America's infrastructure comes from those with a direct interest in more federal funding of infrastructure. Overall, local governments do a good job with the regular maintenance of their infrastructure. Publicly-controlled infrastructure is an important source of revenue to local municipalities. This revenue comes from a variety of sources including direct charges to users (e.g. water and sanitary sewer services) and taxes for infrastructure inventory (e.g. city’s receive $X per mile of road in their road inventory.) The value of a city’s infrastructure is also important for the city’s bonding ability. And for simplicity in this post, I will pass on commenting on how much money is paid in impact fees by developers to contribute to future improvements in public infrastructure. For these reasons, most infrastructure is in good condition.

Local governments also have an incentive to take federal money for local infrastructure maintenance. Why pay for routine maintenance with local money when the feds are willing to pay? Every dollar paid by the feds allows the local government to spend those freed up local dollars on other projects. The high-profile collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis serves as a convenient poster child to advance the call for federal funding of local infrastructure maintenance. The calls of the dire condition of infrastructure using the I-35 bridge collapse carry the not-so-subtle implication to residents that you need to support this or you may not make it home one day. Ironically, the NTSB’s own reports are showing that the I-35 bridge collapse was NOT due to a lack of maintenance. (http://www.designnews.com/channel/Minneapolis_I...>

Aiding in the drive for federal funding is the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). They would be glad to assist in attracting more money for infrastructure projects that benefit their members. The ASCE publishes their “Report Card on America’s Infrastructure” and even has an action plan for the 110th Congress. Like many school districts in know, they seem to base the grades on the funding rather than performance. I find it interesting that the webpage with the Report Card on America’s Infrastructure uses pictures of the I-35 bridge collapse, but I’m sure that’s just a coincidence. (http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/index.cfm).</p>

True liberal: "But they've evolved into commercial arteries for longhaul commerce, perhaps better handled by freight rail."

Why would freight rail be better for longhaul commerce? I can understand why commodities such as coal, grain, and petroleum products might be shipped more economically by rail. But why would any time-sensitive good be better handled by rail?

Intermodal transport - the movement of truck-ready containers by rail across long distances - has grown significantly the past 25 years. But the economics between the two - intermodal vs pure trucking - are very close. The control provided by pure trucking - with single carrier responsibility - remains an advantage for trucking companies in servicing time-sensitive critical freight movements.

How about using the American Society of Civil Engineers, and their series of infrastructure report cards, as a baseline for evidence. They maintain their independence from politicians and assess roads, bridges, sewer systems, etc based on structural and functional integrity. Seems like a good place to start...And does make a case for declining infrastructure.

I think our energy infrastructure could need updating. We haven't built nuclear plants for decades and we are going to be retiring them. What are we going to do to replace them? Will we have to be more dependent on foreign oil?

I think we also need to invest in drilling for oil infrastructure and refinery infrastructure.

I don't have a good way of measuring any of this or quantifying anything. Years ago we stopped making the nuclear plants, we stopped building refineries and we placed many oil rich US lands out of bounds for the oil industry. I think we are paying the price today.

"How about using the American Society of Civil Engineers ... They maintain their independence from politicians and assess roads, bridges, sewer systems, etc based on structural and functional integrity."

Don't most civil engineers depend on public works funding for their livelihood? I'm not sure how they could be independent.

Actually, the American Society of Civil Engineers is an organization composed of volunteers. The individuals who contribute almost all have day jobs at private engineering/consulting firms and devote time to the ASCE because of concern for the public good.

Any funding for infrastructure would largely be spent on repair, and so target construction companies rather than engineers (though they may in some instances be consulted where drastic revision of a system is necessary...rather than simple upkeep).

One could also commission some independent study to evaluate their approach and standards.

"Any funding for infrastructure would largely be spent on repair, and so target construction companies rather than engineers"

It's hard to imagine that any refurbishment or replacement of bridges, roadways, dams, levees, sewer/drainage systems, etc. would not require the services of civil engineers.

The American Society of Civil Engineers openly lobbies Congress to get funding for infrastructure, and even offers training in lobbying:

"Nearly 150 ASCE members participated in the 2008 Program. After a morning educational session to learn about civil engineering and infrastructure issues being considered by congress, attendees visited over 225 congressional offices to lobby lawmakers in support of these issues."

I think it would be naive to assume that these engineers travel to Washington and lobby Congress solely out of their "concern for the public good". Most may truly believe that our infrastructure has been under-funded, but they have an economic interest nonetheless.

It's obvious the amount of hours people waste sitting in traffic is a major problem for the economy.

True. So why do so many metro areas embrace policies that increase congestion as a means to push the boondoggle of light rail?

I won't deny its possible. But everyone has an economic interest, so its only a problem if they have actually distorted facts. So why not use it as a starting point by showing the study and the methodology used to produce it to some non-affiliated engineering professors and let them give us as independent a perspective as one could hope to get.

Beyond that, I don't know where you could go for facts. Everyone has bias, objectivity is beyond elusive, its a fallacy.

Alex,

I'm not arguing that an analysis by the American Society of Civil Engineers is worthless. I'm just pointing out that the organization is severely biased toward additional spending. That they lobby aggressively for infrastructure funding indicates they have a strong economic interest in government-funded infrastructure projects.

Want to ensure that a bridge is sound? Sell it to a large private corporation and allow them to charge a toll. Either their self-interest or their insurer will make it unlikely the thing will fall into the river.

Not sure that allowing a public good to operate entirely on profit motive is sound policy, particularly because infrastructure can be conducive to natural monopoly.

After all efficiency can be lost in this process. Under normal circumstances I'd provide an example, but I have to run. So generally speaking, I'm concerned about areas when the impact of pitfalls is diffused throughout a population such that the individual impact is too minimal for them to try an alternate route. Efficiency might here be lost (think congestion or money spent on repairs after hitting a pothole) but the profit motive doesn't necessarily drive the private company to reinvest, particularly because competition in infrastructure can be hard to grow, since outlays for new construction are enormous.

Still I do see your point. In many cases the market is an effective check. Public goods introduce rare complications.

Will check your response tomorrow, have a good one.

There was a government commission a few years ago (maybe 10) to study US infrastructure needs. The results were alarming, too alarming to me to be real. I travel quite a bit and find that US infrastructure (roads, trains(freight), ports, structures) is generally in much better condition than other places. While those are just my observations, my experience as an engineer is that many assets we thought had a life of x years actually have a life much longer. Railroad bridges are a great example. Freight railroads use much heavier equipment, run longer trains, more locomotives, and have much higher axle loading than was ever envisioned when many of the 75 to 100 year old viaducts and bridges were built. Constant maintenance, some repair, and strengthening has allowed the increases and most bridges look to last longer.

John Dewey: "I have no doubt that politicians in the 1950's used the Red Scare in order to gain support for funding the Interstate Highway System. But evacuation of cities was hardly the primary reason for its development."

I won't quarrel with your view, and indeed you may be exactly right.

But if the I-35W bridge collapse wasn't a maintenance issue, nor the Pennsylvania I-80 bridge nor the I-95 Connecticut bridge a few decades ago, ASCE members could reasonably have "blown the whistle" before lives were lost, don't you think?

I am a recovering structural engineer who has designed repairs for and inspected many bridges and a former member of ASCE. A few notes:

ASCE's PAC spends tons of money on Lobbying and spends a lot of time and money publishing their "report card".

ASCE's members do have every incentive to drive government spending towards infrastructure repairs. Agency engineers and consultants play a huge roll in evaluation and repairs of infrastructure billions in salaries and fees are at stake.

However, I would concur with the sorry state of existing infrastructure. I have designed repairs for large bridges that were completely neglected for 30+ years. This means they weren't even painted in their lifetime. I was able to put my entire body through rusted-out holes in steel plate-girders. This could have been avoided with a coat of paint every few years. Instead, the city needed to spend HUNDREDS of MILLIONS to do a major overhaul of this bridge a few years ago.

I have inspected a sizable percentage of all the state bridges in Illinois. Some are fine, but many badly needed repairs are not within budget. Cost-benefit plays absolutely no roll in determining what repairs get done, its all about budgets and urgency.

The root of the problem is that politicians have little incentive to maintain or repair infrastructure. The next administration will deal with the crisis from the current administration's neglects. Meanwhile, the current administration pushes for new highways to win political support. Repair and maintenance of those new facilities will be left to later generations, so life-cycle cost analysis is barely even considered for new roads like it is for say, office buildings.

I argue in favor of privatization, because private owners have the incentive to do cost-effective maintenance and repairs. At the same time, tolling has the ability to solve most congestion problems and allows road users to carry the costs of roads as opposed to taxpayers footing the bill.

The private "monopoly" situation, where owners have moderate incentive to maintain and repair, doesn't concern me as much as the current public monopoly with almost NO incentive to maintain and repair.