Jump to content

America's aging infrastructure...


Neo

Recommended Posts

With the steam pipe explosion in New York City and the terrible tragedy of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, it is evident that the infrastructure in America is aging. Considering America is trillions of dollars in debt and no end to the increasing debt problem is in sight, how will we as a country pay for replacements or repairs to critical pieces of our infrastructure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

-start rant (my apologies)-

I'm certainly no budget expert, but government at all levels might consider these needs the next time someone in the administration gets the grand idea to GO TO WAR WITHOUT PRETEXT or add another lame useless office or position on the government payroll. We're a country with our priorities way out of whack. If we spent a quarter of what we spent on Defense this year on education we would more than double the education budget ( the defense budget is more than 10 times the education budget).

I don't want to argue the point of having a well funded military - I do think that it's important - but we can't seem to get around being extremists on the matter... after all, look what's NOT getting paid for as a result. It's hypocritical for fiscal conservatives to fight funding for aging urban infrastructure while championing brand new infrastructure in suburban areas and all the while maintaining a budget in the red because they like blowing things up abroad. If they want to drop the "we can't have everything we want line, they need start living it themselves" and realize that educating and preparing our children in the classroom against religious extremism and terrorism is a much better use of money than waiting 15 years to send them to die without a clear cause.

-end of rant-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that the bridge that collapsed was not old at all and was in fact four years old and was in the middle of some upgrade construction. If you will look at most major disasters to infrastructure you will find that it was due to either poor engineering, poor maintenance, or natural disasters, not age itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A year or so ago Congress passed a major transportation bill. It's a start, but it will take time to see that new and improved infrastructure. Money has to be allocated from the federal government, which means states with more political power will get an enormous share of the pie and they'll get it before anyone else.

Don't hold your breath. It's not all the federal government's fault, and it's not all because of terrorism or the war on terrorism. I just knew that there would be those types that will blame the collapse of a 40 year old bridge on George Bush. I don't like the guy either, but blaming this and everything else on the federal government is a stretch. The same types blamed the Levee collapse in New Orleans on the White House when engineers have been warning the state for 40 years that New Orleans is in danger. The city that care forgot never worried about the levees until Katrina.

There was a massive infrastructure building boom in the 1920s and 1930s that is reaching or exceeding it's useful life. Our generation is going to have to take responsibility to rebuild.

The people to blame is ourselves. We use bridges, sewer systems, highways, and everything else on a daily basis and we never care about how they are funded until something goes wrong.

Most of those structures that need attention right now are state funded highways and bridges. As a country, we are all too shortsighted to see the need for new dams, bridges, highways, cleaner sewer systems etc. until they fail or break. We also can't understand that adding capcity or rebuilding a superstructure takes years to plan and years to build.

We all need to be more open to paying for our infrastructure and making sure those taxdollars go where it's needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That just seems completely counterintuitive. It hinges entirely on the assumption that people will seek great distances from the city no matter what the cost, which I severely doubt you can demonstrate.

What currently happens is there is no negative feedback resulting from moving out of the city. You live in the city, you pay for the roads. You live out of the city, you pay for the roads. With tolls, you stop paying for the roads inside the city. Suddenly roads become a scarce resource, that is subject to the supply/demand curve. The more people live and work outside the city, the more they have to pay for roads, so there's an incentive to cut down on driving. There's an incentive to ride mass transit. Instead of paying for the roads AND the mass transit if you use it, you're just paying for whichever you use.

Moving way out to the boondocks would not be a good move for businesses, since it would make them even more dependent on the highways for transportation, where there are no alternatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same types blamed the Levee collapse in New Orleans on the White House when engineers have been warning the state for 40 years that New Orleans is in danger. The city that care forgot never worried about the levees until Katrina.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moonshield you failed to mention that last November Minnesotans voted yes on an amendment to the state constitution that's expected to add an extra $300 million a year into transportation projects. The amendment will be phased in over the next five years until 2011. It will direct around $300 million in new money toward improving roads and public transit - 40 percent of the money would be used for mass transit, with no more than 60 percent for roads and bridges.

You also failed to mention that the public is paying for the Hiawatha light rail line, the new Guthrie Theater, the new downtown library, the new addition to the Walker Art Center, etc... They will also be paying for projects like the North Star commuter line, the Central Corridor light rail line, the new MN Planetarium & Space Discovery Center, and yes, they will be paying for the majority of the new Twins stadium. All these amenities are what's keeping the Twin Cities area far ahead of most cities throughout the country. In other words, I think most Minnesotans have their priorities straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would we be having this discussion if the bridge hand't collapsed. Things like this happen all the time and we can't always be there to stop disasters before they happen. One of the reasons some infrastucture is outdated is because people want to build huge mass transit systems instead of repairing, widening, and building new roads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NC has ordered an immediate report of all substandard bridges. But alas, unless the media keeps this in everyone's mind I doubt much will come of it. Of the 20 'top' substandard bridges in NC, 5 are in the county I live in carrying between 250-500K cars per week. All but one is scheduled for complete replacement by 2013.

It's a shame though that politicians gamble with their constituents lives by trying to save money and 'eek' more time out of obsolete and deficient infrastructure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of spending so much money on new roads and widening existing ones, I would much rather see the money spent on rapid intracity and intercity transit. Why do we continue to encourage suburban sprawl by building new roads instead of promoting public transportation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of spending so much money on new roads and widening existing ones, I would much rather see the money spent on rapid intracity and intercity transit. Why do we continue to encourage suburban sprawl by building new roads instead of promoting public transportation?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Matt was talking about buses, more than likely some type of rail transit. People are much more willing to take a train of some sort (LRT, HRT, etc.) than a bus.

And people wouldn't prefer their cars over public transit if the government hadn't so heavily and disproportionately subsidized roads all these years. Pass the true costs of driving down to the drivers themselves, and we'll see people reconsider their mode of transportation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. The government makes it so "easy" to use a car, with any alternatives absolutely laughable (suburban bus service, give me a break). If transit was a viable alternative, I think you would see a different pattern, but it's not so everything revolves around the car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone should be required to pay to play if they choose to use their heavy SUV's and similar automobiles on roads. Perhaps there should be a tax instituted according to several factors including weight, passenger capacity, fuel type, gas mileage, etc. A point system could be made out of the variables and according to the score you're given you get a certain tax rate that goes to fund maintenance of the road system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.