Environment, Coasts, Oceans, & Infrastructure

America’s aging (and crumbling) infrastructure - 2017 Update to ASCE’s 2013 Report Card

Apparently, Americans are not just faced with crumbling highways and collapsing bridges. In 2013, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) provocatively promulgated its quadrennial report card cataloging the widespread crumbling of the full range of American infrastructure.

Assigning 11 Ds, 4 Cs and 1 B, representatives of America’s 140,000 member civil engineering community posited that the nation was, surprisingly, only doing well in managing its solid wastes. Otherwise, our constructed facilities appeared to be approaching ruin. Overall, ASCE awarded America’s infrastructure a barely passing, cumulative D+ grade.

Although showing seven areas of modest improvements, the 2017 report card is still not too flattering. America remains a D+ country. However, its rail system now enjoys ASCE’s top rating. Sadly, our solid waste management efforts are deemed to have fallen and our drinking water supplies remain a potent argument for packaged water merchants.

In the event that you, as an ASCE member, were not already consulted on these evaluations, but yet have had an opportunity to make your own judgments as to the condition of various infrastructure components, I invite you to share your personal observations - and grades - for the benefit and guidance of those who will create ASCE’s next report card.

                         ASCE Report Card

Category               2013    2017

Aviation                    D          D

Bridges                    C+        C+

Dams                       D          D

Drinking Water         D          D

Energy                     D+        D+

Hazardous Waste    D          D+

Inland waterways    D-         D

Levees                     D-         D

Ports                        C          C+

Public Parks            C-         D+

Rail                          C+        B

Roads                      D          D

Schools                   D          D+

Solid Waste             B-         C+

Transit                      D          D-      

Wastewater              D          D+

America’s GPA        D+        D+

------------------------------
John O'Connor D.Eng., P.E., F.ASCE
CEO
H2O'C Engineering
Columbia MO
(573) 234-1012
John@...
------------------------------

I'm fairly confident that if we helped a fair portion of those highways along in their crumbling and didn't replace them, there would be a lot more resources to go around and improve and maintain our remaining infrastructure. I see no reason we should continue spending vast sums of public money to perpetuate harmful auto-centric development. Perhaps that's no more than a daydream. Then again, I don't think there's currently much national appetite for the level of taxation that would be required to maintain the roads we've already got, let alone the constant expansion.

------------------------------
Tel Jensen S.M.ASCE
Woodland WA
------------------------------

Mr. Jensen, you don't make clear why you deem auto-centric development as "harmful."  I presume you are concerned about environmental impacts and/or ongoing costs of maintenance, certainly valid interests surrounding sustainability.  The problem is complicated by the fact that being "auto-centric" is part of the system of modern life.  Our housing, our workplaces, our retail and entertainment facilities are all connected by automotive transportation, so failing to maintain the system of connectedness would lead to a breakdown of life patterns.  Depending on what you view as superior to the current system, any rigorous examination will reveal the major challenges to a wholesale change.  Public transportation is a good system for some, and is both more economical and environmentally sustaining (Per capita) than automobiles, but is not available equally to all citizens and is not flexible enough to fulfill all needs.  At the other end of the spectrum, we could return to river travel as in the 1800's, but the same challenges of availability and flexibility exist.  In the jungles of Nicaragua, it is practiced, but the pace of life is so slow that agriculture is virtually the only sustainable lifestyle, and the consequences of heavy traffic on water quality is at least as detrimental as the challenges of air pollution from autos.  
It is admirable to think about ways to wean society from its auto-centric ways, but depends on a viable alternative that can be implemented incrementally.  I don't believe that allowing highways to crumble will get us where you would like us to go.  There are always better ideas, but lots of details have to be worked through.   

------------------------------
Stuart Moring P.E., F.ASCE
Dir Of Pub Wrks
Roswell GA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 03-18-2017 17:43
From: Tel Jensen
Subject: ASCE Report Card on America's Infrastructure

I'm fairly confident that if we helped a fair portion of those highways along in their crumbling and didn't replace them, there would be a lot more resources to go around and improve and maintain our remaining infrastructure. I see no reason we should continue spending vast sums of public money to perpetuate harmful auto-centric development. Perhaps that's no more than a daydream. Then again, I don't think there's currently much national appetite for the level of taxation that would be required to maintain the roads we've already got, let alone the constant expansion.

------------------------------
Tel Jensen S.M.ASCE
Woodland WA
------------------------------

Tel, thank you for your interesting - and provocative - comment.

Also, thanks to Stuart for articulating the counter-argument.

Together, you may be delineating new boundaries of thought related to future civil engineering design decisions - particularly when the issue of moving toward sustainability (in the true sense of the word) is being considered. Similar discussions appear to be taking place in communities and states throughout our nation as part of regional efforts to secure increased or, even, continued taxpayer funding of utility and highway infrastructure.

As an example, in Columbia, Missouri, a community nominally committed to expanding its investment in distributed, renewable energy, the City utility is embarking on a very costly expansion of its electrical distribution system. At the same time, there is movement toward financing a major capital investment in expanding the capacity of our water treatment facilities. Complicating these decisions, there has been no growth in either electricity or water consumption for the past decade, likely owing to conservation and adoption of improved technology.

In addition, today’s newspaper announces a prospective ballot issue to extend or guarantee taxes for local street maintenance. Therein lies yet another reckoning. Finally, our problems with storing tens of thousands of vehicles during the day in the inner City is thought to be going into cascade.

Seemingly, in the last analysis, voters will decide which elements of growth will be accommodated - and which will be restrained.

------------------------------
John O'Connor D.Eng., P.E., F.ASCE
CEO
H2O'C Engineering
Columbia MO
(573) 234-1012
John@...
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 03-19-2017 19:36
From: Stuart Moring
Subject: ASCE Report Card on America's Infrastructure

Mr. Jensen, you don't make clear why you deem auto-centric development as "harmful."  I presume you are concerned about environmental impacts and/or ongoing costs of maintenance, certainly valid interests surrounding sustainability.  The problem is complicated by the fact that being "auto-centric" is part of the system of modern life.  Our housing, our workplaces, our retail and entertainment facilities are all connected by automotive transportation, so failing to maintain the system of connectedness would lead to a breakdown of life patterns.  Depending on what you view as superior to the current system, any rigorous examination will reveal the major challenges to a wholesale change.  Public transportation is a good system for some, and is both more economical and environmentally sustaining (Per capita) than automobiles, but is not available equally to all citizens and is not flexible enough to fulfill all needs.  At the other end of the spectrum, we could return to river travel as in the 1800's, but the same challenges of availability and flexibility exist.  In the jungles of Nicaragua, it is practiced, but the pace of life is so slow that agriculture is virtually the only sustainable lifestyle, and the consequences of heavy traffic on water quality is at least as detrimental as the challenges of air pollution from autos.  
It is admirable to think about ways to wean society from its auto-centric ways, but depends on a viable alternative that can be implemented incrementally.  I don't believe that allowing highways to crumble will get us where you would like us to go.  There are always better ideas, but lots of details have to be worked through.   

------------------------------
Stuart Moring P.E., F.ASCE
Dir Of Pub Wrks
Roswell GA
------------------------------

Stuart,

You're right, I didn't make clear my objections to auto-centric development. I erred in favor of brevity, figuring that the harmful consequences are well known. Maybe they are not. This probably isn't the appropriate venue for an exhaustive discussion, but I can make some brief remarks. I would place most negative consequences in one or more of these broad categories. Many could be in all of them.

Public health and safety
Economy
Equity
Social structures and culture
Aesthetics
Ecology/environment
Liberty/choice/quality-of-life

I won't bore anyone with a list, but I'm sure you could come up with several to fit each category.

I don't mean to be a pedant, but I didn't suggest that we let all highways crumble. Rather, I believe that we should be reducing capacity rather than increasing it, thereby decreasing our collective burden, both economic and otherwise. There are many constructive ways that discretionary or elective trips on highways could be discouraged to allow the remaining capacity to better serve freight and more necessary highway travel.

And, though I certainly wouldn't mind if three quarters of our country's highways disappeared overnight, removing them will be a gradual process. We didn't build the highway system overnight, and we won't tear it down that way. At any rate, removing highways to reduce future costs &c seems like a much better use of limited resources than building new highways and increasing future costs. I believe that, by and large, we're a clever lot. I'm sure we can come up with a better model than what we've been building since private cars were established as the default travel mode. That's a rather low bar, after all.

I certainly don't believe public transportation and travel exclusively by river frame the limits of alternatives to the current model.

At any rate, I appreciate your engagement with me. Thank you.


John:

Transportation is only the most obvious case of our previous development model showing its age. I'm intrigued by the example you cited in Columbia.

I'm not sure the decision will really be up to voters in the end, but maybe you're right.

------------------------------
Tel Jensen S.M.ASCE
Woodland WA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 03-19-2017 19:36
From: Stuart Moring
Subject: ASCE Report Card on America's Infrastructure

Mr. Jensen, you don't make clear why you deem auto-centric development as "harmful."  I presume you are concerned about environmental impacts and/or ongoing costs of maintenance, certainly valid interests surrounding sustainability.  The problem is complicated by the fact that being "auto-centric" is part of the system of modern life.  Our housing, our workplaces, our retail and entertainment facilities are all connected by automotive transportation, so failing to maintain the system of connectedness would lead to a breakdown of life patterns.  Depending on what you view as superior to the current system, any rigorous examination will reveal the major challenges to a wholesale change.  Public transportation is a good system for some, and is both more economical and environmentally sustaining (Per capita) than automobiles, but is not available equally to all citizens and is not flexible enough to fulfill all needs.  At the other end of the spectrum, we could return to river travel as in the 1800's, but the same challenges of availability and flexibility exist.  In the jungles of Nicaragua, it is practiced, but the pace of life is so slow that agriculture is virtually the only sustainable lifestyle, and the consequences of heavy traffic on water quality is at least as detrimental as the challenges of air pollution from autos.  
It is admirable to think about ways to wean society from its auto-centric ways, but depends on a viable alternative that can be implemented incrementally.  I don't believe that allowing highways to crumble will get us where you would like us to go.  There are always better ideas, but lots of details have to be worked through.   

------------------------------
Stuart Moring P.E., F.ASCE
Dir Of Pub Wrks
Roswell GA
------------------------------