mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
Infrastructure didn’t do so well this year. It’s been falling asleep in class, hanging out with the wrong crowd and not studying at all — and its report card reflects it. But seriously: ever since the tragic Minnesota bridge collapse and the NYC steam pipe explosion, we’ve been asking questions about our national infrastructure, trying in vain to predict the next spectacular structural failure. Turns out the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Infrastructure Report Card is a fascinating little document, as well as a frightening one: our nation’s bridges got one of the best grades on the card, a C. Heck, bridges get a lollipop compared to some of its lower-scoring brethren, such as:
Dams: D
There are 3,500 “unsafe” dams in America, most of them state-owned. It’ll cost $10 billion over the next 12 years to fix those which “pose a direct risk to human life should they fail.”
Drinking water: D-
Across the nation, enough clean, treated drinking water to serve the population of the state of California – six billion gallons – is lost every day, mostly due to old, leaky pipes and mains. What’s more, combined sewer overflows, which are discharges from sewers that carry both sanitary sewage and runoff from streets, parking lots, and rooftops, discharge 850 billion gallons of raw sewage annually into rivers, streams, lakes and oceans. Ewwww … and worse still, federal funding for wastewater management was cut by 33% last year.
Roads: D
All you have to do is look at rush hour traffic in Los Angeles to know that things aren’t going so well in this department. Every year, Americans — not just Angelenos — spend 3.5 billion hours a year stuck in traffic, at a cost of $63.2 billion a year to the economy.
Navigable Waterways: D-
This isn’t one we think about too much (who wanted to be a barge captain when they grew up?), but check this out: “A single barge traveling the nation’s waterways can move the same amount of cargo as 58 semi-trucks at one-tenth the cost–reducing highway congestion and saving money. Of the 257 locks on the more than 12,000 miles of inland waterways operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, nearly 50% are functionally obsolete. By 2020, that number will increase to 80%. The cost to replace the present system of locks is more than $125 billion.” Since most people don’t even know what a waterway lock does, rallying up $125 billion to fix them probably isn’t much of an election-winning campaign promise.
Comments (13)
Comment
- Follow mental_floss
Interesting observations on California. Can assure you things aren’t much better throughout New York State. The Times-Herald Record took a look at inspection records for the 5,000 bridges located throughout the Hudson Valley area. They put online a great free searchable database.
posted by yonigre on 8-7-2007 at 10:51 am
Wow what a fascinating discovery. It is saddening to see our national infrastructure falling apart. The tragedies in New York and Minnesota are prime examples of current problems. If we stay on the same pace then it is evident the U.S. will face even worse disasters in the near future.
To be honest this does not invoke fear in me, instead it sparks faith. These roads, bridges, dams, pipe systems, and waterways were all built before. We have the technology and the means to complete these projects. In addition, by focusing on these domestic problems the U.S. could create thousands of jobs for Americans that would offer stability and a sense of pride after on the job. It almost reminds me of Franklin Roosevelt’s vision of the New Deal.
However I do realize that our economy is not in a state of depression similar to the 1930s. Bush tried his hardest to get us there though haha. We are currently spending over 2 billion dollars a day in Iraq. Shifting our priority away from foreign policy and more on domestic policy could give us the money we need to fund these projects.
posted by Michael on 8-7-2007 at 11:49 am
I’m afraid I have to take issue with the commercial navigation numbers. You have to ship stuff to the boat, load it, unload it, ship stuff from the boat to the consumer, and maintain a massive system of locks and dams as well as dredging operations to enable the barge companies to make a profit.
The figures you cite may reflect primary fuel costs, but omit many other costs involved, including wildlife impact and competing uses for the water.
posted by Tom on 8-7-2007 at 1:09 pm
What I find fascinating about this story is the fact that to many people, our lovely politicians included, are acting as if this is entirely new. The other fascinating detail is that there is a Democratic candidate for President who actually has domestic infrastructure as a top campaign issue. Dennis Kucinich ran in 2004 and 2008 promoting the idea of an FDR-like program for rebuilding infrastructure. Of course, getting the moola is the tough part. Talk is easy.
posted by Adam on 8-7-2007 at 2:12 pm
I sent the editorial below to Discover magazine regarding an article in the September issue on homeland security which failed to mention the electrical grid:
The easiest and most effective terrorist target continues to be the electrical grid. Power lines travel hundreds of miles in remote areas on simple trusses that are extremely simple and easy to bring down.
Imagine a five hundred mile long extension cord powering your city being cut into a hundred pieces. There simply aren’t enough trained personnel, trucks or wire to prevent a month long blackout. It’s cheap, simple, effective and devastating.
Instead of wasting two thousand million dollars a week in Iraq, we could’ve been killing several birds with one stone by vastly upgrading our national power grid: decentralization by solar and wind local power generation (because clean energy independence is Homeland Security), putting folks to work (because a strong middle class is Homeland Security), technological innovation which leads to exportable products (because a budget surplus is Homeland Security) and upgrading and protecting the internet/phone/t.v. – for without communications we are both blind and deaf.
But perhaps the greatest terrorist threat of all is incompetent and corrupt politicians.
posted by John Csakany on 8-7-2007 at 2:39 pm
I think the underlying issue here is age. The infrastructure is so old the it needs to be replaced/rebuilt.
It positively amazes me how much of this was done in the 25 years that followed the end of WWII (The generation before the Baby Boomers). There is a reason we call them the “Greatest Generation”.
Not only did they consistently run an annual budget surplus, they also, paid off the WWII debt while funding the Marshal Plan. Plus, they constructed our highway system and national electrical grid, along with many other public projects that exist today. On top of that, most of this was supported by a nation that was largely single-income families.
It seems like our society today accomplishes so much less with so much more.
posted by n2y2 on 8-7-2007 at 3:31 pm
It’s the tax cuts.
As is mentioned above, it will cost money to fix all of the problems of infrastructure.
The next time someone tells you he or she is against raising taxes point to that bridge and all of New Orleans. There are your tax cuts right there.
posted by mungley on 8-7-2007 at 4:04 pm
“It’s the tax cuts.
As is mentioned above, it will cost money to fix all of the problems of infrastructure.
The next time someone tells you he or she is against raising taxes point to that bridge and all of New Orleans. There are your tax cuts right there.”
I whole heartedly disagree with this statement. I don’t know about the rest of you but I pay a LOT of taxes. The money for these types of projects is already there in the budget without raising taxes. The priorities simply need to change. We are spending more money now than on defense than ever before. In 2006 we spent over 1 trillion tax payer dollars on defense. (Check out the Congressional Budget Office Website’s Historical Data in pdf form http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical)
As Mr. John Csakany and I said previously–improving our domestic, infrastructure is more effective at home security than spending over 1 trillion dollars on war.
However after destroying all of Iraq’s government, civil unions, and infrastructure we are now responsible for rebuilding Iraq as well as the United States. The problem we have gotten ourselves in is not going to be easily solved.
posted by Michael on 8-7-2007 at 4:38 pm
Don’t forget about the big cement block falling on the car in Boston’s “big dig”
posted by Edward on 8-7-2007 at 6:02 pm
To Michael above:
Your point is well taken with two comments.
1.) I was actually going to suggest shifting funds from the defense budget, but since we are funding this illegal and immoral war in Iraq largely on borrowed funds I didn’t see the point. (Though borrowing money to fix our infrastructure would be a better use of the the money.)
2.) Taxes are a value for the money thing. I don’t mind taxes if they go toward a better quality of life for our fellow Americans.
Here’s my rant: Plus much of the revenue could come from increased corporate taxes and higher taxes on the very wealthy both of which groups take disproportionate advantage of infrastructure compared to what they put into it (In my opinion). Could we not tax trucking companies for highway use? The wear and tear on the roads is much greater from trucking than automotive use.
Even if someone uses the tired old excuse that corporate taxes pass on the the consumer, a direct charge to the shipping companies (Who would automatically pass it on the the retailers who use them) would cause them to do something to improve their methods of shipping. Right now we pay at he pump, but have no control over how the biggest abusers of the infrastructure interact with it.
Thank you.
posted by mungley on 8-7-2007 at 7:11 pm
To Mungley,
Your rant is well taken and I honestly think you have some interesting ideas to expand on. I agree with increasing corporate taxes but my only concern is that the money lost would be passed on to the consumer like you said.
My shipping rant:
I work for a steel wholesale company so your remarks about adding a shipping charge struck me in an interesting way. You are definitely correct that the large trucks hauling heavy materials cause the most damage on the roads. Our company loads trucks to 49,000 pounds because that is the maximum weight allowed at weigh stations.
In my experience the costs associated with freight are highly inflated. For example to take a 49,000 lb load of rebar from Baltimore, MD to Wilmington, DE is about $400.00 dollars. It’s about 75 miles in distance and takes roughly an hour and a half each way. On average a Kenworth truck gets 7 miles per gallon but as low as 4. So lets say at 7 mpg for 70 miles that would be a little over 10 gallons of fuel. Diesel is running around $3.00 a gallon so that is $30.00 in fuel. Plus the driver, lets say he is making $30.00/hour, drives up and back and it takes him 3 hours. Thats $90.00 in labor, $30.00 in fuel, and the rest is profit. Of course there are tolls to pay on the way but not $280.00 worth.
Shipment prices could definitely be lowered and simultaneously taxed.
posted by Michael on 8-7-2007 at 8:02 pm
You aren’t alone in the sagging infrastructure, we have had a few problems here in Montreal, the most recent was the collapse of an overpass in Laval and of another on the outside of the island. Although this isn’t recent, during the ice storm in 1998 (i think it was 1998), almost 10 years ago, we suffered a large amount of damage to the structural integrity of our power lines and supports, our roads suffered greatly and the damages cost the province millions. Of course this was horrible, as any natural disaster is, but it really opened my, our, eyes to the fragility and our dependence on our government to assure that things stay intact and work. To keep the people safe.
posted by Lisa on 8-7-2007 at 8:07 pm
To those who argue taxing corporations more is the answer to pay for infrastructure improvements, look at current federal tax receipts; they are up. That in spite of the much-hated-by-the-left Bush tax cuts. It’s simple economics people.
To those who say we’re spending too much on defense and ought to redirect it to rebuilding infrastructure, I would argue that if we didn’t spend on defense we would likely be forced to spend on replacing infrastructure destroyed by terrorist attacks.
And to everyone who complains that the federal government needs to solve this, it’s a state/local issue. Why oh why do people think that federal funds appropriated for local and state infrastructure projects (aka: pork) is free money? We all pay for it, one way or another. I would rather it be done on the local level so that things are handled more efficiently, there are no federal strings attached, and people are made aware of how much these things really cost. And that they may come to realize we don’t need the federal government to micromanage every little detail of our lives.
posted by Dave on 8-8-2007 at 10:09 pm