In 2012, one in nine, or just below 11%, of the nation¡¯s bridges were classified as structurally deficient. (Bridges that require significant maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement. These bridges must be inspected at least every year since critical load-carrying elements were found to be in poor condition due to deterioration or damage.)And that's for a C+ in this category. America received a D+ overall according to the link, not a D-. Either one is a terrible grade, though. There's no reason we shouldn't be getting an A+ when we've got millionaire CEOs paying no more tax than the middle class.
Because of a shortage of qualified workers, the complex nature of rush-hour scheduling, and SEPTA's desire to limit costs for employee benefits, all engineers and conductors work overtime every week and are paid accordingly.Gee, that sure sounds sustainable.
filthy light thief: ... it¡¯s worth noting that the ASCE always gives U.S. infrastructure poor grades. From reading past reports, you¡¯d get the impression that it¡¯s a miracle the United States is even a functioning country. And it¡¯s hardly surprising that an engineering group is in favor of trillions in additional spending on civil-engineering projects.For this to be a relevant criticism, it would also have to follow that the nation's bridges are proving themselves functionally safe despite these suspiciously self-interested poor grades.
Metal oxides can be pretty tough and often work to protect the material underneath (and are thusly common ingredients for paints - not just for pigment properties).That depends on the rust *staying* on the metal underneath, no? That works for paint where the oxides are mixed into binders, and for some metals (aluminum pretty much instantly forms an ultra-thin coat of aluminum oxide on any exposed surface), but iron and steel are typically a horrible exception: the rust tries to expand as it oxidizes, which stresses its interface with the metal underneath, which causes it to spall off easily, which exposes more fresh surface to turn to rust and repeat the cycle.
States and local governments are the biggest part of the story here. They¡¯ve historically provided the vast majority of spending for roads, highways and bridges, and they¡¯ve been pulling back on spending since 2008 as a result of the economic downturn and requirements to balance their budgets. California¡¯s transportation spending declined by 31 percent from 2007 to 2009, for instance. Texas¡¯s fell by 8 percent.posted by zombieflanders at 9:29 AM on May 24, 2013 [3 favorites]
At the same time, Congress hasn¡¯t filled in the gap. There was a one-time $46 billion infusion of transportation spending in the stimulus bill. But that wasn¡¯t enough to offset the drop at the state and local level. Meanwhile, the most recent highway bill out of Congress kept federal spending at current levels rather than increasing it.
The big question is whether Congress should be spending more ¡ª and if so, how much? We¡¯ve seen various reports arguing that America¡¯s infrastructure is aging and in dire need of an upgrade. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave the country¡¯s bridges a C+ in its 2013 report card. These estimates don¡¯t always take a full account of costs and benefits of increased spending, although the I-5 bridge collapse will presumably give these groups further ammo.
Another consideration, meanwhile, is that Congress can borrow money for remarkably low rates right now. And experts say it¡¯s typically cheaper to fix roads and bridges early on rather than wait until they get truly decrepit. That suggests now could be an apt time to invest in repairs, rather than putting them off until later.
« Older Nothing to see here. Move along now. | Corporate Spirit: how many times did you cry... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Renoroc at 5:21 AM on May 24, 2013 [1 favorite]