This Washington Post article is just chock-full of beautiful maps of U. S. infrastructure—airports, bridges, railway, waterway, power grid. One of the maps, the map of the power grid, is reproduced above.
There are two things I find missing from most discussions of infrastructure needs and spending. The first is value. Yes, I know that the civil engineers’ professional organization has found that 10% of the 600,000 bridges in the United States are structurally deficient. I’ve read the report. There’s not a word in it of which of those 60,000 bridges are worth fixing or cost-benefit analysis of any kind.
The second is life expectancy. I’ve got an anecodate that illuminates this. Some years back when she was in her early 80s my mom had to buy a new water heater. The plumber tried to sell her a warranty, giving her a choice between a 10 year warranty, a 20 year warranty, and a lifetime warranty, at rising cost. She asked him “How long do you think I’m going to live?” She got the 10 year warranty. It was the right choice.
Is it really worthwhile for us to refurbish the rail lines that carry coal from Wyoming to Kansas City and from there to the power plants of the Midwest? Let’s say the refurbishment is expected to be good for 50 years and that we expect it to be useful for 20 years. Proponents want us to amortize the expense of the refurbishment over 50 years. Shouldn’t we be amortizing it over its useful life instead?
Will air travel be more or less practical twenty years from now than it is today? That’s the kind of assessment we should be using to prioritize infrastructure programs. Not whether the Admirals Clubs in Beijing are nicer than ours.
All the points you make are correct. Just keep in mind that there is no question that there is a general need. Our infrastructure company is already receiving inquiries. It’s just not the wild eyed need you see in the popular culture.
The Admirals Club stuff is just a communications tactic.
In my view these maps dramatize something. Look at them. Do you really believe that systems like our electrical grid, railway system, or system of airports can be managed from Washington, DC? They grew incrementally and were emergent phenomena. Is it possible to manage them centrally now? I don’t think so.
If you are asking me, I, for one, think precious little can be managed effectively from Washington. With respect to infrastructure, even our company is really a national affiliation of small, local operations adapted to the needs of their local economies.
As an example, I’m all for solar energy if economical, and………in Arizona or Southern California. Look out the window. In Chicago not so much. I have never, ever understood the fascination with central decision making by supposed experts, experts who by and large are more interested in expanding power and budgets and by ideology than they are local needs and realities. I’m all for mass transit, if we are talking Chicago, Washington, New York etc. Los Angeles, not so much.
And so it goes.
Nice dig at Tom Friedman at the end.
I’m surprised that more people didn’t recognize it.
On NPR this week I heard some “experts” talking about infrastructure and it was the usual fixing our “deteriorating roads and bridges” and that spending on this was such a no-brainer and would also provide a significant boost to the economy and employment. The other “no brainer” idea on the show was straightening the rails corridors on the east coast so that trains and commuters to travel faster.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Here are some things off the top of my head that I think the federal government should focus on but you don’t hear much about from “experts:”
– Modern air traffic control system
– Create and implement standards for a modern electrical grid, provide money to states to implement.
– Reform nuclear regulations and fund research into alternative nuclear technologies like thorium.
– Reform rail regulations, assist states with improving cargo rail projects.
– Fund additional research into energy storage technologies.
One other thing I forgot is frequency spectrum management. There is a lot of room in this area to greatly improve wireless technology.
The greatest contribution that governments at all levels could make to that is to get the heck out of the way.
Except spectrum has to be managed to avoid interference and the Feds are really the only ones who can do that. But, like so much else, the Feds are trying to claw past mid-20th century policy and entrenched, legacy interests.