The Condition of U.S. Bridges - Research Paper Example

Section/# Decaying Bridge Infrastructure: An Overview and Proposal for Remediation, Upgrade, and Repair Abstract: The following analysis provides an overview of the relevant issues facing the infrastructure repair that is required within the United States; specifically with regard to the nation’s bridges. Decades of use, overuse, and the determined robbery of ear-marked funds designated for repair have resulted in a situation in which the infrastructural integrity of these bridges themselves are in jeopardy. As a function of the analysis, the author will propose some key changes and approaches that could potentially serve as a means of upgrading and saving this infrastructure without incurring massive national debt or negatively impacting upon the tax-payer to an overly high level or degree. Introduction: The history of infrastructure improvement within the United States is one that cannot be defined in simplistic terms. Instead, different periods in the nation’s economic history have created different approaches towards the way in which infrastructure is addressed, created, sustained, and funded. As the United States experience a profound level of economic growth following the conclusion of the second world war, the Eisenhower administration, in tandem with stakeholders within both local, regional, and state governments, engaged in one of the most visionary and extensive infrastructure improvements the United States had experienced; the interstate highway system. Since the massive expenditures of the Eisenhower era, maintenance and sustainment of this expensive interstate highway system have been allocated by the federal government as a means of ensuring that this particular project would not fall into disrepair. However, even a cursory element of analysis reveals the fact that the nations bridges suffer from a severe lack of funding and interest in their sustainment and repair. As compared to the interstate highway system for individual state will local roads, the health and safety ramifications that this particular oversight engenders are necessarily large. For instance, in the eventuality that a particular interstate is left in a state of disrepair for a long period of time, travelers on this road will likely experience only a certain level of annoyance as a result of this fact. However, in the eventuality that bridge repair is neglected, not only does this pose a severe threat to the structure itself, it also indicates a situation in which the lives of all potential travelers are affected or at least put at risk as a result this lack of repair. Accordingly, the following paper will seek to provide the reader with a discussion and analysis of the current state of bridge repair that exists within the United States. By analyzing history, engaging with the issues at hand, and understanding the course of the problem, is the hope of this author that the stakeholder will come to a more informed understanding concerning this particular issue. Finally, the analysis will engage prescriptive changes that might seek to impact upon the situation that has thus far been defined. Background: As a result of years of declining budgets with respect to bridge repair, it is estimated that only one in the ninth bridges are currently considered as “structurally deficient”. The underlying reason for the lack of funding that bridge repair has been able to affect over the past several years can be linked to various factors. One of the first factors that should be considered is with respect to declining overall revenue that gas taxes have been able to derive. As the cost of a gallon of gasoline has risen precipitously over the past 20 years (nearly 400% in some cases) the response by both federal and state government was to decrease the overall tax burden that was leveraged against this particular commodity. 1 Naturally, the underlying goal for such an approach was to make the resource more affordable to the population; thereby increasing mobility and decreasing the overall rates of joblessness that the economy would otherwise experience. However, a downside to this approach was the fact that federal and state revenue that was earned on each and every gallon of fuel sold was not able to meet the same levels as it had during the 1980s and 1990s. As the reader can reasonably expect, the inability of revenue to keep up with the increased requirements of infrastructure repair created a situation in which a veritable avalanche of projects competed for repair by increasingly reduced levels of funding.2 The Current Situation: Research into the current state of the nation’s bridges estimates that by 2025, fully ¼ bridges will be over 65 years old. Although this figure may not seem of any special importance, almost all of the bridges that were build within the United States in the past 60-70 years were designed for a useful operational life of not more than 50 years.3 As can readily be noted, this effects a situation in which the aging infrastructure of the United States requires nearly immediate action should it continue to be serviceable and safe for future individuals to utilize and rely upon. Another salient historical fact concerning the decay of bridge infrastructure within the United States has to do with the falling level of funding that has been dedicated towards repairing these structures over the past 20 years. 4 As compared to the early to mid 1990s, the current level of money allocated to bridge repair is fully 3 times less. Without accounting for inflation, this statistic alone encourages the reader to understand the fact that the federal government has seemingly let bridge repair fall under a category of “non-importance”. Whereas it is true that subsequent economic slow-downs and hardships of other varieties have taken place in the intervening years, the reality of the fact is that without a schedule and dedication to ensuring that the infrastructure remains functional and improved, the economy as a whole cannot continue to hope for times of growth and development in the near future. Legislation and Systematic Weakening of Infrastructure Renewal: As with many issues exhibited at the national level, Congress has chosen to ignore this and hope that future leaders might address these pressing needs. This tactic of kicking the can down the road is partially to blame for the situation that has thus far been illustrated. However, lest anyone accuse Congress of outright ignoring the issue, then they would not have considered the detrimental impact that MAP-21 effected as a means of ensuring that potential available funding for bridge infrastructure repair was made unavailable. In 2012, Congress voted by majority that the fund for bridge repair should be absorbed by other transportation funds and utilized as the DOT saw fit. Although the gesture of reliance upon the DOT to specify what projects should receive priority could be seen as thoughtful, the reality of the fact was the a specific pot of money that had been designated for bridge repair had been liquidated with a single vote of the Congress. Currently estimates for a complete and total overhaul of all effected bridges, namely those in disrepair, exceed 80 billion dollars. This staggering sum would have only been partially covered by the funds that were liquidated within MAP-21; however, the addition of such a fund would have gone a long way towards ensuring that many of the most egregiously bad bridges received abatement in the near future. However, before it is understood by the reader that MAP-21 all but doomed the outlook for bridge upkeep and repair within the United States, it must also be noted that MAP-21 sought to reduce the reliance of the state government on federal funds. This worked to the advantage of some states and against others. For instance, those states that did not have severely degraded infrastructure already found it rather simple to allocate a larger portion of funds as a means of ensuring that bridge upkeep was performed.5 By means of contrast and comparison, those states that suffered from low budgets and poor infrastructure would find it all but impossible to meet the standards or the quotas that MAP-21 set forward. Be effectively eliminating a large percentage of potential federal money to be utilized for bridge repair, the federal government created a self fulfilling prophecy through which a certain segment of the states would be able to meet the standards and slowly up fit their bridges and other states would not. Proscriptions for Change: Ultimately, the proscriptions for change with respect to effecting a higher level of bridge repair in the future are not extraordinarily surprising; however, they will be financially difficult to effect and burdensome considering the reduced amount of time that is left to complete them. As a result of the fact that Congress and other stakeholders have ignored this issue for such a very long period of time and robbed from the coffers of funds that would have otherwise helped to achieve these goals, the national budget deficit will be added to and the engineering capacity of the system will be tested. Firstly, it will be necessary to allocate and dedicate funds once again for bridge repair. Although it is tempting to provide the Department of Transportation with a set budget and encourage them to spend it judiciously, issues relating to up-fitting and improving upon the nation’s infrastructure, specifically in terms of bridge repair, are not up for debate; they must e effected almost immediately.6 Yet, beyond merely allocating a specific fund and line item for bridge repair within the United States budget, it will also be necessary to ensure that these projects receive a type of priority ranking for repair. As numerous reports have denoted, there exists many different levels of severely damaged or unfit bridges within the United States. As such, targeting these most unfit bridges and considering the overall level of traffic that they must carry on a daily basis will be a prime starting point for seeking to determine what projects are kicked off when. Beyond merely prioritizing funds and dedicating them as well as prioritizing which bridges need the most immediate address of funds and labor, it will also be necessary for a special committee to be appointed which will oversee this process. Although it will not be completed within a few months or years time, it will be necessary for stakeholders to continually re-address the issues and determine whether or not the correct level of progress is being made. Moreover, rather than re-federalizaing the process, the funds that have thus far been referenced can be made partially available to local or state governments as a means of encouraging them to take something of a “golden opportunity” and partner with the federal government; otherwise the timetable and deadline for bridge renewal and repair may very well be their responsibility entirely.7 Such a carrot and stick approach may seem rather foolish; however, it may be the only way of encouraging those states that have fallen behind their metrics for bridge repair to take advantage of the partnership that the federal government is offering them. Lastly, a highly unpopular approach to raising the necessary revenue to accomplish these tasks without exponentially enlarging the national deficit would be to re-adjust fuel taxes so that they represent a commensurate amount of tax as they did in the 1980s. Once again, as with any economic trade off, this would potentially harm to already fragile recovery that is being experienced from the 2007/2008 economic collapse. An ancillary approach that could be used in tandem or by itself would be to begin charging a toll of use of interstate roads. Although likely to be widely unpopular, these approaches are possibilities that could be used in tandem with the other approaches that have thus far been referenced as a means of addressing this very salient and impactful issue concerning the future safety and resiliency of the nation’s infrastructure. Although none of the approaches that have thus far been mentioned will be especially popular with lawmakers or the taxpayer, perhaps the least popular would be the need to cease many highway expansion projects up until the point in time that the bridge repair and up fit process has at least been partially completed. Whereas it is true that the nation’s 300 million people could benefit from the growing infrastructure that is being planned throughout the 50 states, there is in fact no need for an infrastructure improvement program that is still linked by faulty and decaying bridges. By explaining this to stakeholders, both in government and without, the likelihood of freeing up tens of billions of dollars in funds that would otherwise be allocated to expansion projects is possible. Naturally, the difficulty of achieving such a strategy is extremely high; as such, it has been mentioned last. Lawmakers and societal stakeholders will be highly reticent to discuss the possibility allowing “pet” projects to fall by the wayside; yet, the greater good will only be effected if such an approach is in fact engaged. Nevertheless, it is still worthy of discussion for those that are interested in how such a mammoth task could be accomplished in a minimal amount of time. The emphasis on the states and the level to which they will be able to compensate these projects is an oversight due to the fact that each and every state has different budgets and different priorities. Poorer states would of course not have the overall level of disposable resources, without government/federal assistance, to engage in such projects. The economic issues that have come to a degree of increased relevance over the past several years have only served to further compound the issues that are being faced today. In much the same way the Social Security fund is systematically raided for its liquidity, the funds for highway and bridge repair have been systematically looted by politicians eager to fund other projects or through their support behind a given piece of legislation. Taken on aggregate, this has created a snowballing situation; one that threatens to culminate in a seemingly insurmountable level of immediate investment as a means of addressing the core challenges that exist with respect to the structural integrity of the nation’s infrastructure.8 Conclusion: Although there have been many proscriptions for change that have been illustrated within this brief analysis and discussion, it is the view of this author that a mixed method approach is the most reasonable towards achieving the goal of improving upon the infrastructure of the system. Ultimately, the issue at hand is so large and requires such a very great investment that it will require more than one solitary approach to effectively address. Moreover, the historical analysis that has been provided illustrates the fact that the scope and gravity of this issue is such that seeking to ignore it further will not accomplish any goal but to further increase the overall amount of necessary funding that will be required to address the issue that has been put forward. Should Congress and other stakeholders within regional and state government addressed these issues as they began to be experienced, the infrastructure bubble that we are now currently experiencing would not be evidenced to the degree or extent that it is. Bibliography Al-Sabah, Meshal. 2014. "Intangible Infrastructure of the GCC: Bridging the Divide." Global Society: Journal Of Interdisciplinary International Relations 28, no. 2: 151-157. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed May 7, 2014). Bacon, Jeff. 2011. To establish a National Commission on the Infrastructure of the United States : report (to accompany S. 775) (including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office). n.p.: [Washington, D.C. : U.S. G.P.O., 2007]., 2007. Government Printing Office Catalog, EBSCOhost (accessed May 7, 2014). Salazar, Luis Guillermo LoriaMora, Jose Francisco GarroJimenez, Roy Barrantes. 2011. "National significance." Roads & Bridges49, no. 9: 39. MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 7, 2014). SCHANZ, KATIESCOTT, JULIE. 2013. "The Road Map to the Future." South Carolina Business 34, no. 6: 16. MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 7, 2014). Transportation for America. 2013. “The Fix We’re in For.” Transportation for America 1: 8. MasterFile Premier, EBSCOhost(accessed May 7, 2014). Zuckerman, Mortimer B. 2009. "The Case for a National Infrastructure Bank." U.S. News Digital Weekly 1, no. 47: 25. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed May 7, 2014). Zhu, Kevin. 2013. "National Infrastructure Report Card Underscores Importance of Swift Action in Repairing Nations Bridges." PRWeb Newswire, 2013. Business Insights: Essentials, EBSCOhost (accessed May 7, 2014). Read More