Infrastructure, Not So Crumbling
Jack Shafer at Slate wonders if our crumblinginfrastructure (one word in some politicians' usage) is really in such bad shape, when you actually parse the definitions. After quoting some scaremongering major journalism about how "one-quarter of the nation's bridges are "structurally deficient" or "functionally obsolete," debunker extraordinaire Shafer notes:
The scary-sounding phrases structurally deficient and functionally obsolete combined with those big numbers are enough to make you bite your nails bloody every time you drive over a river or beneath an underpass. Yet if any of the cited pieces paused to define either inspection term, you'd come away from the alarmist stories with a yawn. As a 2006 report by U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration puts it (very large PDF):
Structural deficiencies are characterized by deteriorated conditions of significant bridge elements and reduced load carrying capacity. Functional obsolescence is a function of the geometrics of the bridge not meeting current design standards. Neither type of deficiency indicates that the bridge is unsafe. [Emphasis added.]
A "structurally deficient" bridge can safely stay in service if weight limitations are posted and observed and the bridge is monitored, inspected, and maintained. A bridge designed in the 1930s could be deemed "functionally obsolete" because it's narrower than modern standards dictate or because its clearance over a highway isn't up to modern snuff, not because it's in danger of tumbling down. (The Department of Transportation's 2004 inventory found 77,796 U.S. bridges structurally deficient and 80,632 functionally obsolete, for a totally of 158,428 deficient bridges.)….
For those of us who track infrastructure madness in the press, the current round is mighty familiar. As deplorable as our bridges may be, they're better than they were a generation ago. Today, the government classifies about 25 percent of U.S. bridges as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. A July 18, 1982, New York Times article headlined "Alarm Rise Over Decay in U.S. Public Works" cites government statistics that classify 45 percent of U.S. bridges deficient or obsolete.
Samuel Staley and Adrian Moore of the Reason Foundation on why not all infrastructure spending is created equal.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This may be but it does not change the fact that private industry, when given an opportunity to show itself, outperforms government operations in every single endeavor.
http://mises.org/story/3416
SHUT UP, THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS CRUMBLING! AND YOU SHOULD ALL BE ASHAMED FOR DRIVING CARS AND CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING WHICH IS GOING TO KILL US ALL. LIBERTARIANS ARE THE REASON THERE'S SUFFERING IN THE WORLD!. AND ALL YOU PRIVATIZTION FREAKS CAN ALL JUST SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP SO THE REST OF US DON'T NOTICE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Libertardians are stoopid.
(The Department of Transportation's 2004 inventory found 77,796 U.S. bridges structurally deficient and 80,632 functionally obsolete, for a totally of 158,428 deficient bridges.)
Probably even fewer, unless it's impossible for a functionally obsolete bridge to also be structurally deficient.
All the same, I still wouldn't feel great about traveling over a structurally deficient bridge.
A "structurally deficient" bridge can safely stay in service if weight limitations are posted and observed and the bridge is monitored, inspected, and maintained.
Kinda like the Big Dig before part of it up and fell off killing a woman. I'd rather the bridge not need to be monitored, inspected, and maintained. Why trust the government to do any of those three things? Just build a safe bridge.
obi juan, all bridges need to be monitored, inspected, and maintained all the time. That is what keeps them safe.
All kinds of things threaten bridges, from major and minor collisions to corrosion from road salt or aggressive marine environments.
Many of the problems we are currently experiencing are due to states skimping on bridge inspections and maintenance. You see, they don't get to hit Uncle Sugar up for those and they always have so many more important vanityessential programs to fund with state revenues.
I can't tell which of the Tony posts is fake.
I have a friend in the infrastructure-inspection business. He seems to think that if the rest of us knew what he knows we would shit our collective pants.
I think we all know that politically, replacing or maintaining a bridge does not translate into a lot of votes.
I'm old enough to have noticed a substantial deterioration of our streets and roads in the last 20 years. The problem with bridge deterioration is that much of it is in the substructure and can't be seen except by an inspector.
Obviously, maintenance funds have been bled off for years--probably into those massively wonderful government schools we all love.