U.S. Gets D+ in Infrastructure

[Ming]

Sava and Sloww... don't get into it again, or you are both gone.

[DanS]

We spend an awful lot of money on most of our infrastructure. There might be soft spots, but I am as skeptical as Oerdin on the overall "grade". It doesn't seem credible. If you want, I can go into detail on each portion of the infrastructure.

Does anybody remember about the thousands of bridges that were in danger of collapse about 10 years ago?

[st_swithin]

The Bay Bridge was one.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
What did Cuba get?
How about China?
North Korea? Hell. North Korea can't even build a single road.

Why would the American Society of Civil Engineers look at those other countries?

And would you kindly not insult me. While I do try to refrain from insulting others, it becomes more difficult when insulted.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
If you want, I can go into detail on each portion of the infrastructure.

While I'm sure others would find that somnorific, I'd actually be interested in seeing that. Lord only knows why I find interesting the things that I do.

Does anybody remember about the thousands of bridges that were in danger of collapse about 10 years ago?

And haven't they been doing a lot of bridgework since then?

[DanS]

And haven't they been doing a lot of bridgework since then?

Well, if we're still only getting a D+, then wouldn't you think we need a different group of engineers?

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
You're right; it's absurd to have our infrastructure evaluated by a bunch of unqualified, self-serving hacks like civil engineers. Like you, I eagerly await the more informed input of Republican politicians, Corporate CEO's, and the staff of Fox News, and I look forward to being told that everything is Just Fine.

Jesus Christ! Read my frigging post will you? I just said they are an interested party so you should take what they're saying with a grain of salt. That doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about but they may just be playing things a little worse then they truly are. Is this so hard to understand?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I just said they are an interested party so you should take what they're saying with a grain of salt.

I actually agree with Oerdin on this point. They are an interested party who stand to directly benefit from a massaive infrastructure overhaul program. On the other hand, they are also the only people other than say, the Army Corp of Engineers, to be able to evaluate the condition of our infrastructure, so we're kinda stuck.

[DanS]

For example, in one area of infrastructure spending--freeways--we spend about $30 billion a year at the federal level (.3% of the economy). The federal tax for this fund is matched at about 2/3rd the federal level by the states. Leaving aside city streets, I guess we're spending over $50 billion a year on roads.

I can't help but suggest that our road system over the last 20 or 30 years has improved dramatically. Cars now run a couple hundred thousand miles. Of course, part of this increase is because of higher quality cars. The roads are still improving in the area of Ohio where I grew up.

On roads, I would give us at least a B+.

[Sava]

Personally, I'm with Bob Graham (D. Fla) who thinks an investment in public works and infrastructure programs will help spur the economy like such programs after the Great Depression. And coincidentally, it looks like our infrastructure needs work.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
On roads, I would give us at least a B+.

It really depends, I think, on which roads. I just drove the Chicago and back, and there are some pretty crappy roads out there. Most of the construction is on the interstate system, but it is done in a rather shoddy manner, such that they have to be redone constantly. You'd think they'd bit the bullet and build thicker roads. Some municipalities, such as Atlanta, are doing this. Hell, Roman roads are still being used today, by motor traffic (though nothing so great as what a typical American expressway experiences). I'd give them a C- (which is what the report gave the transportation system, BTW, now that I go back and check).

[Ming]

American roads take a pounding from the semi trailor truck traffic. No other country torturers it's roads like we do. Yeah... maybe they should build them thicker/sturdier... but they are still going to get torn up by the constant abuse of trucks. Add in the wear and tear of winter in the northern states via salt and snow plows, and the roads are going to need to be fixed on a regular basis no matter what.

[Sava]

I see a problem with our current road construction and highway building programs. I suspect that contractors use substandard materials in order to save costs, but also because the bureaucracies in government have set budgets for such things and if they don't spend a certain amount of money in a year, they will get less of a budget the next year. I also think there are connections between unions, private non-union contractors. and bureaucracies that guarantee such projects regardless of what is really needed.

In the Chicago area, for instance, perfectly good roads are torn up and resurfaced for no reason. The new surfaces are usually substandard blacktop instead of the reliable and long-lasting concrete that more permanent surfaces are made with.

[DanS]

We are building new road infrastructure too, so we're doing better than just keeping up the pace. Boston's Big Dig is wrapping up. In Virginia, the Mixing Bowl is being fixed. In my home town, there's a federally-funded bypass going in that's not strictly necessary but that will help the local economy.

For maintenance, in Alexandria, a new drawbridge is being built on the Potomac for the Beltway.

I'm sure that there are many other local big ticket roads projects with which I am not familiar.

[Sava]

In the Chicago area, it looks like we are going to need another North-South Interstate along the outer edge of the Western Suburbs. I-290 is under heavy construction and widening, but the suburbs are expanding far west of the Ike (290). For those of you familiar with the area, it's my opinion that Route 59 should be made into an Interstate. There are plans to extend I-355 South to I-80... I wonder if another interstate is in the plans? It will probably not even be a consideration until after the economy picks up... it might not even be possible for a decade. Also, they are extending commuter train lines from East Aurora all the way to O'Hare.

As for infrastructure improvements as a whole, they create jobs, and help increase the strength of our economy by reducing commuter travel times and increasing the shipping capability for goods.

[DanS]

Roads in DC are now being repaved for the first time in decades. Outside my apartment building they are doing a new underpass for the local circle. The roads are still being torn up to bury fiber optic cable, but the pace is slower (and in any event, fiber optic is infrastructure too).

If you also want to include rail transportation in the analysis, then I can also give some anecdotal evidence that we are expanding our infrastructure. In DC, I guess about 10 stations have been added to Metro in the last decade (green line completion, yellow line completion, blue line completion). 5 or 10 stations will be added in the coming decade with a several billion dollar extension of the orange line (halfway to Dulles airport) and a new New York Avenue station. They're adding more cars to the trains and staying open later on the weekends, which will help better utilize the infrastructure that we have.

Commuter trains are now permanent in the Virginia suburbs, with two lines added in the last decade.

Amtrak has spent a lot of money upgrading its service from Washington to Boston. While the change is only marginal, they are doing more than maintaining.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
Congrats GePap on the new line. From where to where?

From 129th street to the southern tip of manhattan, running mostly on 2nd avenue. It would be only the second subway liune running north-south the whole lenght of Manhattan. Currently there is only one such line, and obviously it is horribly crowded.

Don't know what the name would be though..given we have trains
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9, 1/9, a,b,c,d,e,f,g,j,k,l,m,n,q,r,s,v,w,y,z. Maybe H? But who like the H line? Or the 8 train?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GePap


From 129th street to the southern tip of manhattan, running mostly on 2nd avenue. It would be only the second subway liune running north-south the whole lenght of Manhattan. Currently there is only one such line, and obviously it is horribly crowded.

Don't know what the name would be though..given we have trains
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9, 1/9, a,b,c,d,e,f,g,j,k,l,m,n,q,r,s,v,w,y,z. Maybe H? But who like the H line? Or the 8 train?

Do you really think this is going to happen any time soon?

I vote for it being the P train, because then at least we'd have one accurately-named line!

[GePap]

The city is already looking at designs from architectural firms (the company my stepdad wroks for is one of them) for stations and so forth. They are as close as they have ever come, and they can get their hands on Fed money now.

As for the name, exactly why they avoid P. * sounds fine..unless of course they have an express and a local, which is likely, so we need two names, so 8 would be out.

Why not the T and U? Or U and X?

[GePap]

from:http://www.tstc.org/bulletin/20011203/mtr34410.htm

Last week, the MTA board approved a $200 million contract for the preliminary engineering study for the 2nd Avenue subway. The contract went to DMJM Harris. The study will cover eight miles of tunnel from 125th Street in East Harlem to the financial district and include 15 stations. The $200 million is part of $1 billion allocated for the project in the MTA's 2000-2004 capital budget, which is still not fully funded or received approval by the state legislature. The environmental impact statement for the new subway line is underway now. The MTA estimates that it will begin construction in 2004. The Second Avenue subway could take up to 15 years to build and cost estimates now stand at $12 billion.

Hmmm, I was wrong, my stepdad's company already got a contract.

[DanS]

$12 billion for 15 stations isn't bad at all, which makes me think they will raise the price tag eventually. DC Metro stations cost about as much and I'm sure are utilized only a fraction of what a Manhattan station is utilized.

[DanS]

On second look it's about 2x the cost of a new Metro station (out in the suburbs). Probably still well worth it.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


From 129th street to the southern tip of manhattan, running mostly on 2nd avenue. It would be only the second subway liune running north-south the whole lenght of Manhattan. Currently there is only one such line, and obviously it is horribly crowded.

Don't know what the name would be though..given we have trains
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9, 1/9, a,b,c,d,e,f,g,j,k,l,m,n,q,r,s,v,w,y,z. Maybe H? But who like the H line? Or the 8 train?

Could it possibly be part of the redevelopment of the Trade Center area? Looking at a map 2nd Ave looks to dead end at E. Houston Street with the financial district being farther south. Is this correct?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
Che is a ration[al] man.

No, he's a communist.

[Ned]

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned Che is a ration[al] man.

No, he's a communist.

Skywalker, those who believe in God, Gods, Fairies and Communism all have a blind spot in their thinking, IMHO. However, get them away from their core belief system, where logic does not apply, and they all can be quite rational.

[Nubclear]

Skywalker, those who believe in God, Gods, Fairies and Communism all have a blind spot in their thinking,

I don't believe in gods nor do I believe in faries.
Does that mean I don't have a blind spot?

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Sure, we need experts but maybe not from a trade group representing interested parties.

As a Professional Engineer myself, I feel I have to speak on this point. In Canada, engineering is a regulated profession with requirements for practice not dissimilar to medicine or law, in that you need a baccalaureate (sp?) degree from an accredited university and 4 years of practical experience before you can register as a Professional Engineer. Each province has a regulatory body that oversees engineering in the province, and each of those bodies are represented in turn in the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers. The primary mandate of these regulatory bodies, first and foremost, is to serve and protect the public interest. Engineers are bound by bylaws and by a code of ethics, to always put the public interest ahead of our own gain.

The situation is not dissimilar in the USA, though licensing/registration requirements vary more from state to state than in Canada's provinces. So I'll put a lot more stock in an infrastructure report prepared by engineers than by any other body, thank you very much. (A similar infrastructure report was released by CCPE and the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers in June on Canada's infrastructure needs.)

[DanS]

Optimus: You may put more stock in it, but I don't. I've seen too many special interests at the trough in my lifetime to not do simple reality checks to help form my own opinion. I know that we spend about 1.5x more of a percentage of our economy on construction than does Europe (2x in absolute terms), for instance. Even if you consider population growth in the States requiring additional spending, the civil engineers are fairly busy here in comparison to most other places (except Japan, of course).

Maybe Canada doesn't have as much self dealing as does the US and therefore doesn't require such skepticism. I don't know. Even if self dealing isn't a problem, then people tend to focus on their own part of the economy and not the whole. I don't know any teachers who say that we spend enough on education, for instance.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


Could it possibly be part of the redevelopment of the Trade Center area? Looking at a map 2nd Ave looks to dead end at E. Houston Street with the financial district being farther south. Is this correct?

The Line would go beyond Houston to end a few blocks away from South Ferry (which is as far south as one can go in Manhattan). Bt this is on the other side of the island from the WTC area, and I do not think it will be connected to the new transportation hub they plan to construct there.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by DanS
Maybe Canada doesn't have as much self dealing as does the US and therefore doesn't require such skepticism.

Engineers aren't permitted to unionize in Canada, and even trade bodies are a bit dodgy; they have to focus on public awareness of engineering rather than on generating work for engineers (I hope I've phrased that distinction well enough). I know the US engineering regulations are different, but I don't know how much since the variation from state to state is wider. I've done very little work in the US in my career so I haven't had to familiarize myself with the situation.

I don't know. Even if self dealing isn't a problem, then people tend to focus on their own part of the economy and not the whole. I don't know any teachers who say that we spend enough on education, for instance.

That's true, and I'm not saying that engineers should be in charge of public funding for engineering projects. The decisions should still rest in the hands of elected officials, but they'd best treat engineering reports as what they are: expert opinions from qualified professionals, and not dismiss them out of hand as self-serving lobbying.