Share this post

The deterioration and vulnerability of the US infrastructure has been brought to the forefront in recent years by events such as water main failures, levee breaks, power grid disruptions and a high-profile bridge collapse.

Beginning in 1998 The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) periodically produces a “Report Card for America’s Infrastructure,” giving a grade from A to F to various components of the national infrastructure. The current report card, published in 2009, provides a broad survey of infrastructure conditions, with an average grade of “D,” and spending needs. The report card anticipates a five-year need of more than $2.1 trillion to restore the U.S. infrastructure to good conditions, with only approximately half of that amount currently funded.

The report card also identifies ways to best direct infrastructure investments. These approaches go far beyond basic maintenance and focus on concepts such as modernization and redundancy. A major goal of the investments is to improve the resiliency of infrastructure systems.

Stimulus Spending

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, i.e. the stimulus) directed approximately $72 billion toward infrastructure spending. ARRA accounts for approximately 3.4 percent of the total five-year needed investment and increases the estimated five-year planned spending by approximately 7.9 percent. The most spending is in areas 

of energy, roads, bridges, and transit.

Projects are selected and prioritized for stimulus funds based on the following criteria:

• Three-year completion
• Economically distressed areas
• Expeditious project delivery (obligation of at least 50 percent of the state’s funds within 120 days or funds withdrawn and redistributed to other states)
• Maximum job creation and economic benefit.

Bridges and Energy

America’s bridges are in desperate need of infrastructure investment. Of the 603,245 listed in the Nation’s Bridge Inventory, 71,179 (or 12 percent) of these bridges are deemed structurally deficient. A structurally deficient bridge requires immediate rehabilitation to stay operational, is posted to allow only light vehicular traffic or is closed. Another 78,468 (or 13 percent ) of bridges in America are classified as functionally obsolete. A functionally obsolete bridge does not satisfy the current minimum design criteria, such as the width of the lanes and shoulders, or the clearance between the bridge and the roadway beneath it. Taken together, deficient bridges represent 25 percent of the bridges on America’s highways. In terms of ARRA funding, when the funds were apportioned to the states there no distinction was given as to whether the money should be used for highways (pavements) or bridges. Of the $27.5 billion stimulus money given to Federal Highway Administration to apportion to the states, approximately $3.13 billion (or 11.9 percent) has been obligated to date for bridge improvement, bridge replacement or new bridge construction projects. Although this funding will meet needs, there is no guarantee that these funds improved or replaced the deficient bridges because there was no requirement to do so in the stimulus bill, and because of the tight time frame for obligation of stimulus funds. Typically, bridge design and permitting can take from one year to as long as three years. The state departments of transportation (DOTs) were asked to turn around the bridge projects in 120 days. This type of turn-around could only be done if the bridge had already been designed and the permits secured well before the stimulus bill was enacted. Therefore, state DOTs had no opportunity to prepare designs for deficient bridges once the funds were apportioned, but had to go with projects that were already designed. If these projects also happened to be repairing or replacing a deficient bridge, then that was very beneficial.

For energy, a primary focus of the stimulus spending is on energy efficiency. The goals of this efforts are described as: “The Recovery Act provides for unprecedented investments in the weatherization of homes of low-income Americans, state and local energy efficiency programs, Energy Star appliance rebates, and buildings and industrial efficiency. Ultimately, the Recovery Act will allow for execution of the largest weatherization program in U.S. history and lay the foundation for an expansion of the program in the future.” While energy efficiency has a collateral benefit of reducing demands placed on the electricity grid, it does not directly address the primary need of modernization.

Some stimulus money also is identified for modernizing the electricity grid and other far-reaching activities. However, for many of these projects, preconstruction work – such as environmental assessments, local approvals and permits for rights of way – cause substantial delays. Thus, most of these strategically focused projects would not be viable for the short-term focus of the stimulus spending. Stimulus spending represents a small fraction of the needed infrastructure funding. The goals of the stimulus effort manifestly direct the funds toward short-term projects that, although beneficial, do not address the strategic, long-term infrastructure needs. Additionally, when actual infrastructure spending data becomes available for the current year, it may reflect that many states used stimulus money as a way to address budget shortfalls by reducing their planned activities.

Two things are needed: 1) long-term comprehensive plans for infrastructure investment and 2) funding sources.

Comprehensive investment plans –  taking transportation as an example – could be along the lines of a robust multi-year surface transportation bill that adequately addresses long-term infrastructure needs. The “Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users” bill expired on Sept. 30, 2009, and the DOT funding for our roads, bridges, transit systems, railroads, pipelines and airports are existing on a continuing resolution through December 2010. Those needs should be prioritized in terms of repairing deficiencies, and not just to stimulate the economy.

Stephen J. Smith is vice president of CTLGroup and Susan Lane is manager - transportation structures at Portland Cement Association. For more information, visit www.ctlgroup.com or www.cement.org.