America’s Stunted National Debate About Infrastructure

When the discussion about infrastructure is limited to the question of whether we're spending enough, we're not talking about the infrastructure issues that really matter.

States keep building monster interchanges we don't need.
States keep building monster interchanges we don't need.

If there’s one message about infrastructure that Americans have had drilled into their heads, it’s this: We need to spend more on it. That’s what the American Society of Civil Engineers keeps saying, and what infrastructure coverage in general interest media keeps repeating.

The White House itself referred to ASCE’s infrastructure report card — hardly the product of a disinterested third party — in announcing its “infrastructure plan” last week.

The Trump claim of investing $1.5 trillion in infrastructure was easily proven a sham. It calls for $200 billion in federal funding over 10 years, with cuts in his budget proposal offsetting the new infrastructure spending the White House laid out. Despite some cringe-inducing headlines, most reporters figured this out.

But when the national debate about infrastructure is limited to the question of whether we’re spending enough, we’re not talking about the infrastructure issues that really matter.

We haven’t delved into fundamental questions like: What should we repair? What should we build? How well are our current investments serving us? Given available resources and the results of past spending, what’s the best way to allocate infrastructure funding?

As Adie Tomer put it at Brookings, the Trump plan “is mostly a vehicle to indiscriminately boost spending” instead of “establishing a clear long-term vision for the country’s infrastructure that supports a more competitive and inclusive economy.”

Put another way, the White House has proposed a method to divide spoils, not to address the nation’s infrastructure needs.

About a quarter of the spending would be reserved for rural areas, guaranteeing a cut for Trump’s base.

About half would go to a discretionary grant program emphasizing private investment. The program would be administered by the White House, giving the Trump team a large pool of funds to dole out as patronage. The type of transportation project this program would favor — privately-financed roads — would both feed sprawl and create new risks for taxpayers.

Meanwhile, the Trump budget calls for cutting off funds to existing transit improvement programs like New Starts, one of the reasons it has accurately been described as an attack on cities.

Nor does the plan address the issue of poor maintenance and “crumbling” transportation infrastructure. America wouldn’t have a problem with decrepit roads and bridges if states focused on fixing existing infrastructure instead of building sprawl-inducing highway expansions. And yet, nothing in Trump’s proposal mandates investment in maintenance, reports Transportation for America.

The highway network that began under Eisenhower was essentially completed a long time ago. For years it’s been apparent that road expansion is an increasingly poor fit for cities that are choking on cars, hollowed out by sprawl, or both. But American infrastructure spending continues on autopilot.

Kentucky and Indiana have poured $2.6 billion into two gigantic highway bridges out of all proportion to what Louisville needs. Georgia DOT is building a $1 billion interchange in Atlanta that will make the city’s car dependence problem worse. Colorado is moving ahead with a $1.2 billion highway expansion cutting through asthma-plagued north Denver neighborhoods. The list goes on.

On the local level, there’s clearly a political appetite for a different way of doing things. Voters approve most transit ballot measures, and there’s a trend toward decoupling these local funding packages from road expansion. The emphasis is increasingly on transit, biking, and walking, instead of splitting the baby.

Translating this momentum to the arena of national partisan politics will be challenging, to say the least. When one of the two political parties is institutionally hostile to cities and the people who live in them, filibuster-proof support for changing federal infrastructure policy will be hard to muster.

First, though, we need to talk about what we want federal infrastructure policy to achieve. And right now, we aren’t even having that debate.

8 thoughts on America’s Stunted National Debate About Infrastructure

  1. I do wish reporters would adequately research their thoughts before putting them down for the public consumption: (1) transportation agencies–states DOTs, MTPOs, RTPOs, counties,cities, etc. are first and foremost looking at no-build solutions BEFORE thinking about capital investments like operational and demand management strategies. (2) Maintenance of existing infrastructure is indeed a top priority and trade-offs have sometimes got to be made when between high congestion locations and deteriorating infrastructure due to limited resources. (3) Transportation agencies realize that the best solution is mass transit but there are several constraints to this including: massive investments, changing our driving cultures, and federal priorities.

  2. 1. Repeal the tolling ban on existing interstate routes.
    2. Restrict federal road investments to only cover preservation projects, no federal investment for projects that increase road capacity because that is a waste of money.
    3. Flip the USDOT budget on its head and invest heavily in mass transit rather than road building. The US needs a massive initiative like when the Interstate system was built out, only for high speed rail.

  3. “a $1.2 highway expansion” sounds like a very good deal. I’m guessing there’s a missing “billion” in there?

  4. Let’s clear up one issue that policy makers and the main stream press simply do not understand – bridge condition. ASCE’s Report Card and the National Bridge Inspection Standards (mandated by FHWA) both use subjective visual inspection to assess bridge condition. Yet the FHWA readily admits (in a detailed study published 18 years ago) this process, used for over 45 years, is highly variable and cannot be used to optimize bridge investments. A more accurate and objective technology to assess bridge condition is called structural monitoring; consisting of a suite of sensors, wireless communication and the Internet (Internet of Things). It has been used to safely defer huge bridge repair and replacement projects; develop less expensive repair alternatives vs. full scale replacement; or remove unnecessary restrictive load postings, making freight corridors more productive. Judicious use of this technology safely deferred hundreds of millions in projects that were not necessary – for projects that only my company conducted. The technology also enhances user safety, because knowing bridge condition is better than guessing to ensure user safety. So, given this technology is commercially proven, provides a robust return on investment for owners and is known and accepted by the FHWA, why isn’t structural monitoring being used more frequently across the US? If we want to stretch limited dollars across our transportation system, this is one of the best methods we can use to develop and implement optimized spending plans.

  5. Maintenance may be the top priority at the DOT level, but the DOT is slave to politics. The DOTs that do maintain well (as opposed to merely saying so) are operating under laws that require roads to be maintained. Meanwhile, if state law gives big piles of money to new highways and squat to preservation, there’s nothing the DOT can do about it no matter what the engineers would like.

    Same is true of mass transit. Where I live in Washington, the state requires a large percentage to go to maintenance so roads or in generally good condition. But the state effectively bans the DOT from transit spending, leaving Seattle on its own.

  6. More infrastructure equals less traffic injuries and fatalities in my opinion. Hopefully they don’t waste our money or embezzle it though…

    -Rob @ Limo PCB Our site

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Obama Calls For ‘More Creative’ Ways to Pay For Infrastructure

At a meeting today with his outside economic recovery advisers, President Obama emphasized the importance of shoring up the nation’s crumbling infrastructure but warned that the mounting federal deficit would require "more creative, new approaches to financing" investment in transit, bridges, and road repairs. President Obama (Photo: AP) "I think my team will testify when […]

Fmr. Comptroller General: We Can’t Solve Our Problems With Spending Cuts

In an op-ed in this morning’s New York Times, Laura D’Andrea Tyson argues for increased investment in infrastructure, pointing out that the nation’s infrastructure will deteriorate quickly if spending is not increased. Tyson chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton and currently serves on President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. “Infrastructure spending, […]

Streetsblog Capitol Hill Q&A: Blumenauer Talks Economic Recovery

On the issue of clean transportation, from transit to bike paths to clean water, few members of Congress are as knowledgeable or active as Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR). Chief of the Congressional Bicycle Caucus and founder of the new Livable Communities Task Force, the Portland lawmaker is on the front lines of Washington’s biggest infrastructure […]

Report: Get Out of the Highway-Obsessed Eisenhower Era

Building America’s Future, led by former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, has added their voice to the chorus calling for greater investment in U.S. infrastructure, lest the country fall behind its global competitors. In a new report, Falling Apart and Falling Behind, BAF recommends more […]

House Passes Transportation Extension Unanimously

Well, that wasn’t so hard. The GOP-led House just approved a six-month extension of the transportation law. After about 45 minutes of debate, the chair called for a voice vote, and no one objected. In this way, a unanimous consent vote might be even easier to pass than a vote under “suspended rules” which require a […]