Hardly a day goes by without an op-ed, editorial, or television commentary calling for additional infrastructure spending in the United States, citing “crumbling infrastructure”, “frayed infrastructure”, “decayed (or decaying) infrastructure”, etc. How would you go about measuring the objective truth of the claim?
For doing this I think that absolute measurements of infrastructure quantity are useless. Measurements of quality don’t help much, either. Does it really matter how many bridges or how many miles of road we have and what their condition are? If so, the requirement can be satisfied just by building more without regard to where it’s placed or whether it’s useful or not. That would mean that concerns about building the “Bridge to Nowhere”, a bridge to be built at a cost of $400 million that would serve 50 residents of an island in Alaska, were completely misplaced.
Does it matter how many bridge, etc. we have per U. S. resident? Same thing: utility and suitability to task are more important than coarse measurements like road miles per 100,000 population.
In my view what’s more important is whether we can get from Point A to Point B at reasonable time and expense. That would need to be weighted by traffic and intensity, tricky since time and expense influence both. I think it’s more important whether you can ship freight from Omaha to Toledo than it is whether the morning commute from Hinsdale downtown can be done in less than 40 minutes but I suppose that’s where value judgments enter into the calculation.
Criticisms of U. S. infrastructure are occasionally (particularly those by New York Times columnist Tom Friedman) made in disparaging comparison with China. In my view the comparison is patently absurd. I would be willing to bet a shiny new dime that you can ship a new iPad from the factory in which it is produced in China anywhere in the continental United States faster than you can ship an iPad from that same factory to a destination in some places in China. That’s how you compare infrastructure capabilities.
China has great needs; it’s been building new infrastructure at a furious pace to meet those needs. Some of that construction has been effective, other has not as can be gauged in part by the entire cities without inhabitants, the collapse of newly-built schools in the earthquake of a few years ago, the now-empty Olympic stadiums for the last Summer Olympics, the accidents involving highspeed passenger rail that are a cause célèbre in China, and China’s still overburdened rail freight system.
I’ve given my opinion on this subject from time to time: I think we’d be better off putting intensive effort and investment into improving our energy infrastructure, e.g. oil and gas pipelines, the power grid, power distribution, power generation, than we would be in investing more in our transportation infrastructure.
Dave,
Well said. I agree with electrical infrastructure particularly. One might use resiliency and efficiency as two potential metrics.
I see capacity, resiliency, efficiency, and adaptivization as objectives of upgrading the electrical infrastructure. And here are key points: resiliency in the electrical grid is something that private operators won’t pay for and I believe it meets the definition of a public good.
Is it that infrastructure dealing with roads and bridges are like advertisements for the government that “they are working on your behalf?” There are a number of such road signs here in CA highlighting government’s hand in making roadways better. However, working on an antiquated electrical grid would be less obvious to post, and consequently more under the radar of praising government.
Heh. I think Jan just hit a nail on the head.
Ignoring icepicks admonition that I “get back to work.”. This is a really complicated subject. I cringe a bit at the notion that the Hinsdale commuters time should be subordinated to commerce.
That said, as an aside, I always chuckle at the usual more govt less govt arguments that the roads are a prime example for the pro govt advocates. What else happened in the 1950s, extinction of t he dinosaurs? And how are those roads today? (snicker). In a prior life I was running a retail welding and industrial gas concern. We had trucks delivering gas cylinders all over Chicagoland……….that is, after they sat in traffic in a horrifically unproductive fashion. Same with the Los Angeles district. To Dave’s point, it’s more important to ask how do you get from point a to b.
My point is, those citing these noble goals are citing an illusion. Government has morphed into a redistribution machine. To banks, to the large corporate connected, to the parasites and on it goes. Build an infrastructure to administer it, and badda boom-badda bing, you have inefficiency, but reliable voting blocs. Roads my ass.
I don’t know how to differentiate or prioritize transport vs power. Both are very important to commerce. I do know from personal experience that we spend an awful lot of time on freight costs at our companies. On a percentage basis, it’s a huge problem. Of course, a component of that is fuel costs for trucks. power and transport are inter-related.
But I must tell you, I’m rather sanguine. What with the burgeoning production of solar energy through companies like Solyndra, all our energy issues will melt away, manufacturing costs will come down, a renaissance will occur, and we will all sleep in rose petals……… Or maybe not.
Ignoring icepicks admonition that I “get back to work.â€
I just think it would be a better use of your time if you’re going to be so serious.
To Dave’s point, it’s more important to ask how do you get from point a to b.
Pneumatic tubes.
I just want to know why cars don’t come with small solar panels to power fans to keep the air circulating so the car isn’t 135 degrees when I get in it in the afternoon. When they can solve THAT solar energy problem they can move on to powering my house.
and we will all sleep in rose petals….
Poor Pontius Pilate.
Good thing for him he’s dead, I suppose, before the nights of rose petals afflict us all.
Thanks Drew. I actually posted that with some trepidation, as it brought up government intent, versus contributing something economically esoteric to the thread.
Somewhere I remember learning that this country doesn’t even manufacture transformers anymore, leaving it to China. I have no link for that, just a memory of hearing this somewhere. In essence, IMO, we are woefully unprepared in this country for any disruption of the power grid. It’s like a million bureaucratic ostriches hiding their heads in the sand, refusing to think about the inevitability of power grid problems either through terrorism (EMPs), solar flare or something else.
In the meantime, social progressives are enthusiastically pushing green energy solutions, to the detriment of keeping our other cheaper energy sources (natural gas, oil) viable and cost-effective through the proper channels of encouraging R&D in these areas. I really don’t see why we can’t have concurrent support for various energy sources. Like I’ve said before, we’ve had solar panels on our home for years. But, we are a minority in this consumer area, and so I pragmatically see no benefit creating EPA government obstacles towards making readily available energy sources that fuel the majority of this country’s cars, industries, manufacturing of products, homes and so on.
Getting back to infrastructure, though…. one of the last big east coast storms should have been a jolt to the government powers in DC dealing with consequences of a power grid failure, of some magnitude. But, no, it’s all about roads and bridges and self-congratulatory signs reminding the populace that they direly need a big centralized government as the wind behind their backs.
I must be one of the few people who has a negative association with a politician whose name is on a road construction delay. Something wrong about my wiring I suppose.
PD
I like your wry comments. There’s nothing wrong with your wiring, too.
Jan
Some thoughts.
I don’t remember the blatant advertising for the government on signage wrt road work until Obama took office. I could be wrong. But I don’t think I’m that unobservant. I think you are correct about intent.
As for the grid as a general proposition, I think it is well established that we have neglected things. But after all, it’s a regulated industry.
As for solar. We came within an inch of buying a home in Scottsdale AZ, and probably still will, but we noted in looking at homes……in what should be the mother of all solar sites…..that almost nobody had solar panels. We asked the RE broker about it. He snickered. Yeah, it’s still so expensive that no one will buy t hem. Maybe in the future. Shorter: it’s still a pipe dream.
We are still a fossil fuel economy. There is nothing wrong with t hat. If we chose to do so we could tell the Middle East to stick it…….at tremendous benefit to t he country. But……………the crazy greenies have a significant voting block.
They think they are moral. If they really looked at the knock on effects, and if everyone did, the only conclusion is that their Wiccan-like religion is immoral.
Hello Dave, do you have an e-mail? I’d like to ask you a few questions regarding a post you made a while ago. Thanks.
Rod Blagojevitz put his name on all of the open road toll stations, but I think that was after the work was finished.
Dave- How do you then tell when roads and bridges need to be upgraded and fixed? Your peanut gallery here seems to think they last forever. I am all for the grid fix, but while I understand skepticism about large scale infrastructure ala Japan, I cant help but notince that some of the bridges I still drive on are WPA era works.
Steve
Off topic, but I strongly recommend picking up Barofsky’s book. My opinion of Tiny Tim Geithner was already so low I could never have imagined something could make me feel worse about the guy. Obama boosters are predictably up in arms that anyone would criticize The Most Transparent, Ethical and Progressive Administration Ever.
Drew
I don’t recall the signage either, until the last few years. And, to be honest, it kind of creeps me out too, reminding me of advertising a ‘Big Brother’ project. The same goes for the ‘Smart Train,’ or high speed rail (which also sports signage) that CA can ill afford, no one wants, but Jerry Brown and the dems are pushing for because they know what is best for the peons in this state.
As for solar, yes it is an expensive alternative. We opted for it because we could afford it, wanted to support a start-up solar company in the area, and are a proponent of green energy when an application conducive for solar, and other circumstances surrounding an installation, are present. We’ve been happy with our system here in southern CA. As for N. CA, it didn’t work out because of being on a ridge, and shaded by so many trees. But, I am all for other modes of energy, wind, solar, passive solar, when it meets the pocketbook and climate perimeters of individuals. However, to only push these, while punishing other more conventional, more cost effective modes of energy, IMO, is the opposite of wise thinking. I’m actually surprised you found little interest in Scottsdale, as I would have thought that would have been the ‘perfect’ place to push solar.
Some roads and bridges should be fixed but not all. One good rule of thumb is if the people who use them are willing to pay for their repair.
I don’t know that there is a pat answer to your question. I think it’s something that needs to be worked out in the political process but the political process shouldn’t just assume that everything that was ever built or used should be maintained.
I cant help but notince that some of the bridges I still drive on are WPA era works.
And the Brooklyn Bridge is several decades older than that. I believe there’s a span across the Mississippi still in operation that US Grant stood upon while he was still President. (The bridge was still in use a few years ago, in any event.) As long as they’re in decent repair and sufficient to the task what difference does it make how old they are?
Whether or not they need repair is something that can be determined by inspectors and citizens that use the items. It may well be that some stuff isn’t worth the upkeep, or perhaps should even be removed.
Sure, Eads Bridge. Until the Arch was constructed it was the iconic image of the city of St. Louis. It’s still in use.
The street that I live on is a WPA street. It gets resurfaced every few years but the roadbed is nearly 80 years old.
Eads Bridge.
That’s the one! Thank you!
Eads is only light rail and foot traffic now I believe, but its a handsome structure.
One of the bridges close to where I live that ends up on the consulting engineer’s list of worst bridges was taken out of service about a decade ago and replaced by a brand new bridge right next to it. The old bridge is being kept for historic purposes, its the last of some kind of bridge structure in Illinois, and for fishing. In any event, you can’t drive across it, that’s a design plan.
And yet Chris Mathews will mock the local Congressman based upon these views from on-high, but I can see we’re talking about these kinds of problems:
* bridges in municipal parks that are more like streets across five foot drainage culverts,
* rural roads that have been repeatedly slated to be closed several times, but one farmer likes to use it during harvest time,
*a bridge across the Illinois river that connects a town of 38 with a town of 83, and all those who don’t want to drive five miles further to take the brand new interstate bridge. (Florence, IL)
That’s the specific example I always think of when people talk about the need for more infrastructure. Does anyone seriously contend that the difference between more economic growth and less is whether we have 221, 222, or 220 bridges across the Mississippi?
I would like to see more specifics from people who tout infrastructure spending as part of the solution of our economic problems. To my eye the idea founders on specifics.
That’s not to say that more infrastructure spending would not solve the economic problems of the mostly large and established companies that get the contracts for doing it.
Plus the bridge at Florence is a lift bridge, so it has to be manned 24/7 for barge traffic.