Rebuilding Americas Infastructure

[NobleSavage]

I don't feel like looking up any stats, but the US is constantly graded D or F on infrastructure by civil engineers. We can borrow money at practically 0 percent. It seems like a no brainier of a great investment. We are talking about 2.7 trillion, I don't know what the money multiplier is; maybe an econ person can chip in. I would have no problems raising taxes that would offset the debt. I feel the boom to the economy would outweigh the taxes.

 

[untermensche]

There are two paths we can take.

We can repair old technology, or install modern technology.

If we actually did the best thing and installed new bridges and roads it would help part of the economy. But not the part of the economy that runs the government.

 

[ksen]

If we actually did the best thing and installed new bridges and roads it would help part of the economy. But not the part of the economy that runs the government.

wat?

 

[Harry Bosch]

I don't feel like looking up any stats, but the US is constantly graded D or F on infrastructure by civil engineers. We can borrow money at practically 0 percent. It seems like a no brainier of a great investment. We are talking about 2.7 trillion, I don't know what the money multiplier is; maybe an econ person can chip in. I would have no problems raising taxes that would offset the debt. I feel the boom to the economy would outweigh the taxes.

You'd almost think that civil engineers have an economic incentive in improving infrastructure!

 

[NobleSavage]

I don't feel like looking up any stats, but the US is constantly graded D or F on infrastructure by civil engineers. We can borrow money at practically 0 percent. It seems like a no brainier of a great investment. We are talking about 2.7 trillion, I don't know what the money multiplier is; maybe an econ person can chip in. I would have no problems raising taxes that would offset the debt. I feel the boom to the economy would outweigh the taxes.

You'd almost think that civil engineers have an economic incentive in improving infrastructure!

Maybe, do they have a political infrastructure of any kind?

 

[fromderinside]

We're up against the conservative deficit hand wringers. It doesn't matter whether the job only takes about three trillion at about 2% interest. It only matters that we have a $17 trillion federal debt. Kinda reminds me of the tailor who designed invisible clothes for the King. "You'll look fine in these clothes sir and it won't cost you a thing."

 

[Nexus]

If we actually did the best thing and installed new bridges and roads it would help part of the economy. But not the part of the economy that runs the government.

wat?

Bankers and weapon makers run our govt not business that rely on bridges and roads the most.

 

[ksen]

Oh, thanks.

 

[arkirk]

Actually, we need not only to rebuild, but also to redesign our infrastructure. There is lots of work that should be at least underway, but it is completely unfunded and even unconsidered. We probably would not be doing ourselves much of a favor just rebuilding what we have already done. The generals and the oil giants seem content to just let our infrastructure languish as long as they keep getting paid.

 

[repoman]

The sunk costs in our infrastructure are truly staggering.

If we had a benefit of 20/20 hindsight from NOW, I think that as a country (and planet) we would be embark on a truly massive relocalization program of walking and bicycling distances. We would find out how to feed and house everyone as the gasoline runs out. But we are doubling down AFTER the peak of oil.

The opportunity costs of doubling down on roads for cars will prove fatal.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't feel like looking up any stats, but the US is constantly graded D or F on infrastructure by civil engineers. We can borrow money at practically 0 percent. It seems like a no brainier of a great investment. We are talking about 2.7 trillion, I don't know what the money multiplier is; maybe an econ person can chip in. I would have no problems raising taxes that would offset the debt. I feel the boom to the economy would outweigh the taxes.

You'd almost think that civil engineers have an economic incentive in improving infrastructure!

I was thinking the exact same thing while walking on a bridge in Cleveland built in the 20s and stumbling on a hole in the bridge deck, while inspecting access for an entirely unrelated project at the site.

Stinger, the problem is multi-fold. American infrastructure is pretty old. America's utility infrastructure is borderline ancient in many cities! While bridges aren't falling down everywhere, they are certainly being stressed via overloading the original design loads to allow more traffic, eating into the safety factors, and corrosion. The Cleveland Innerbelt bridge was dangerously nearing a collapse scenario. It isn't often that a DOT shuts down the most important Interstate in a large city. The bridge that had collapsed in Minneapolis was so far gone, that the Civil Engineers pretty much stated it was almost too risky to try and fix it as that could have precipitated a collapse.

All structures have an expiration date. It seems odd that people dying from a corroded bridge collapse wasn't enough to convince people that "yeah, we need to address our infrastructure issue".

 

[NobleSavage]

The sunk costs in our infrastructure are truly staggering.

If we had a benefit of 20/20 hindsight from NOW, I think that as a country (and planet) we would be embark on a truly massive relocalization program of walking and bicycling distances. We would find out how to feed and house everyone as the gasoline runs out. But we are doubling down AFTER the peak of oil.

The opportunity costs of doubling down on roads for cars will prove fatal.

In my ideal world we would all walk or bike. Rail for transport. I like being in the city and in the country. I find suburbia to be mind numbing and that is what cars give us. I hate car culture, but I don't maintain any delusions that it will ever change.

 

[Harry Bosch]

You'd almost think that civil engineers have an economic incentive in improving infrastructure!

I was thinking the exact same thing while walking on a bridge in Cleveland built in the 20s and stumbling on a hole in the bridge deck, while inspecting access for an entirely unrelated project at the site.

Stinger, the problem is multi-fold. American infrastructure is pretty old. America's utility infrastructure is borderline ancient in many cities! While bridges aren't falling down everywhere, they are certainly being stressed via overloading the original design loads to allow more traffic, eating into the safety factors, and corrosion. The Cleveland Innerbelt bridge was dangerously nearing a collapse scenario. It isn't often that a DOT shuts down the most important Interstate in a large city. The bridge that had collapsed in Minneapolis was so far gone, that the Civil Engineers pretty much stated it was almost too risky to try and fix it as that could have precipitated a collapse.

All structures have an expiration date. It seems odd that people dying from a corroded bridge collapse wasn't enough to convince people that "yeah, we need to address our infrastructure issue".

Cool that you remembered my Indian name. I'm actually pro-infrastructure spending. We should have doubled it to combat the 08 recession. Infrastructure has to be done, I'd like to see it done during bad times. interestingly, many democrats were against significantly higher infrastructure spending because it's mostly men that work in those fields. I was simply making the point that of course civil engineers are going to claim that we need to spend more money on infrastructure!

 

[Earl IV]

GW had the perfect opportunity to start this (and I made note of it) early in his term, when we had a budget surplus (he foolishly squandered on "tax rebates") and unemployment on the rise.

One wonders where we'd be today...

 

[arkirk]

That is exactly what I meant when I mentioned redesign, not rebuild.

The sunk costs in our infrastructure are truly staggering.

If we had a benefit of 20/20 hindsight from NOW, I think that as a country (and planet) we would be embark on a truly massive relocalization program of walking and bicycling distances. We would find out how to feed and house everyone as the gasoline runs out. But we are doubling down AFTER the peak of oil.

The opportunity costs of doubling down on roads for cars will prove fatal.

The idea that we can just keep doing as we have done in the past is foolhardy. Our infrastructure is not only old, it is also old fashioned. We need to refine our efficiency levels in transportation and power generation and communication.

You pointed to the types of things that would help a lot. Unfortunately, we are stuck in a mid-twentieth century mindset as well as a government stagnation. Too many big hands are in the social cookie jar. Their talk and carrying on for their personal and corporation profits drowns out and takes up the time needed for our government to debate and learn how to serve the people.

We have a false contest between Democrats and Republicans with faux moral issues when we should have a government asking "How can we serve the American people as a whole?" I suppose folks like Hilary and Boener and McConnel and others in our political class, have no interest in what actually goes on in America.

If the right things were on the agenda, we would still simply need a different kind of people running things....people with humane motives. I still wish the best for our poor government, but it is currently occupied by people with a kind of rich folks "circle the wagons" and "ignore the rabble" mentality. Helicopters and corporate jets do not need an alternative system to serve their masters. Our roads and bridges decay underfoot. Carbon footprint is the last thing on their jet set minds.

As long as we have the people we have heading up our governments, we will continue to see the decay. I agree with you about the need for informed social and environmental planning. Like Henrietta Hen said, "But who will help me?"

 

[bleubird]

http://www.dot.gov/highway-trust-fund-ticker
and congress is doing what?

 

[bilby]

America is the victim of a double whammy; firstly, much of the infrastructure taken for granted today was first implemented on a large scale in the USA - so you have the oldest stuff, and you have version 1.0. In the developed world, we had the chance to take your ideas, and then improve on them. Secondly, in Europe they had the advantage of being devastated by two world wars. Huge amounts of older stuff were destroyed in the 1940s, and had to be built anew in the '50s and '60s - using more modern techniques and materials than before. Bridges in particular were popular candidates for destruction.

Of course, right now you have hyper-low interest rates, and a large pool of unemployed people, so it makes sense on every level to borrow money and spend it on building a shit load of replacement infrastructure. Because this is an eminently sensible idea that would help your economy in both the short and long term, it will, of course, be strenuously opposed by your insane congress. It is your own fault for abandoning the British model of government by subtle nepotism in favour of your new model of government by open bribery.

 

[bleubird]

And we have all those lazy Mexicans just sucking up all our welfare,and taking all the jobs.Oh, wait?