Right. So it’s the usual buck-passing clusterfuck?
There’s no denying the economics.
But let’s not overlook the simple pragmatism.
There are villages in Africa where the women folk spend half their day fetching water and firewood for cooking fuel.
Relieve them of that burden, and they can do something else:
- attend school
- contribute to their community by running a small business, sewing, cleaning, or whatever
We take for granted things like indoor plumbing, which is in evolutionary terms a very recent development.
And if you have spent some quality time in an outhouse in sub-freezing weather, that cold toilet seat is an experience you’ll remember.
Our society is efficient.
I’m a fellow foreigner but I think infrastructure spending must necessarily be both federal and regional, because it involves large projects that connect states (e.g. the interstate), decisions that affect many states (e.g. rules about where you can build an airport) and many small scale decisions that only affect one small region (e.g. change a specific junction).
Just like in the UK; you wouldn’t just decide in the Scottish parliament to build and pay for a train line that abruptly ends at the border, and hope the UK parliament decides to connect something to it. 
In general, sure - investment pays off in the long run. It doesn’t follow, however, that all infrastructure spending is automatically a good idea. The idea that it is is what leads to bridges to nowhere.
If some given infrastructure spending really leads to greater prosperity and thus an ROI on the money spent, well and good. If it doesn’t, you might just have well hired people to dig holes and fill them up again.
Regards,
Shodan
Everything is crumbling individually but when people talk about infrastructure crumbling what is generally meant is a degradation of the total infrastructure over time. This is not what is untrue. The total quality of american infrastructure has been improving over the last 40 years.
Most of it would also be “federal” in Spain, or at least the biggest roads generally are. In our case it’s a matter of how much territory does a road cover (it falls under the budget of the territory in which it is, so for example streets are municipal while regional roads are regional and highways are national), with exceptions for Navarre and Euskadi due to our having had more-separate budgets in general for historical reasons. We’re sneakily and unofficially more and more federal every time, but when you have many different roads that go through different combinations of “three to seven different regions” it’s a lot easier to manage them at the national level than have a bazillion different multiregional commisions.
Or maybe our politicians haven’t realized they could charge separate per diem for each commission 
let’s not give them ideas.
In the US there’s the added twist of a lot of infrastructure decisions being considered “of military import”, no matter how big or how little. You see these little plaques on bridges with their military inventory number, for example.
If you believe that an organization whose purpose is the welfare of its members is advocating for those members to be given tens of billions of dollars is doing so solely out of concern for others then we have different views of human nature.
Here is a cite about the cost of environmental regulations on infrastructure spending. According to the GAO the average time of completing an environmental impact statement is four years. The FHA says the average time to do that for a highway project is seven years. During that time high priced lawyers and researchers are getting paid full time before the first bit of dirt can be turned.
The Common Good Institute estimates that the delays cost the country 3.7 trillion dollars.
When asked why this might be, the ten most dense ranted about Marxist Fascist Muslim Atheist Obama and the ten least dense explained that, duh, roads and stuff cost more per person in areas where people are spread further apart.
Yep, we pay local taxes for city streets, state taxes for state roads, and national taxes for the interstate. Other categories make sense to be national (flood control on cross-state rivers). But “Big package” federal infrastructure is also very keyed to national politics.
For example, in Obama’s 2009 package, my neighborhood in my (big, well-to-do) city got its open air reservior covered over to prevent The Joker, er, terrorists from poisoning our water supply - technically wholly a local concern but created jobs from national coffers on a national anti-terrorism priority - and I’m sure this happened across the nation. Gave us a nice new park on top!
Maybe. But from that article one is just a single headline click away from
[QUOTE=The Washington Times Opinion]
The problem with Attorney General Jeff Sessions has always been that he is too nice.
He is a consummate gentlemen in a cesspool of diseased vermin and poisonous pit vipers, writhing and scampering around in their eternal dark struggle to exterminate one another.
[/QUOTE]
:eek:
True, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and I’m sure many — maybe even a majority — of the sentences in the Washington Times are true. Still, I am more confident in information that comes from a more, well, mainstream (;)) source.
My just-mentioned reservior project was “shovel-ready” when Obama’s stimulus funded it. That is, it had been on the wish list for some time, the paperwork had been done or essentially done (not sure if it was paid nationally or locally), and it just needed the shot of funds to get the digging started. My understanding (without delving into the evidence, so feel free to correct me) was that many of the Obama stimulus projects were like that, pretty much ready-to-go, with emphasis on “how can we get actual construction jobs going now?”
That was the theory, but the problem is that most projects were not like that. See here (cite is not the Daily Worker but some may still find it believable) from February 2012.
The relevant paragraph:"The problem with most of the projects was that the Obama administration and Congress had defined “shovel ready” too broadly. The original plan called for putting “shovels in the ground” within 90 days. But when the rules were written, states ended up with 120 days to have their road projects “approved.” It often took six more months to a year before most of the projects were under construction.
Weatherization, for example, was billed as the low-hanging fruit of the clean-energy movement. But states are still sitting on roughly a billion dollars in unused grant money because of a tortured bureaucracy, in which the federal government paid the states, which paid local nonprofits, which then hired the contractors.
Neither states nor nonprofit groups were prepared to handle 20 to 30 times more money than usual. And federal officials brought ready projects to a standstill in the first year by applying new rules regarding prevailing wages."
Another reason might be that, duh, each state gets the same amount of senators so Alaska has the same representation in the Senate as New Jersey even though the smaller eastern states are more likely to need infrastructure improvements because of age and use.
That would include the entire Interstate System. The Interstate was originally funded because after WWII Eisenhower was able to make the case that it was militarily necessary.
There had been federal money spent on national highways before, but the system as a whole was inadequate and folks arguing that improving highways would boost the economy weren’t having much luck getting funding.
Eisenhower had, early in this career, been part of the 1919 Convoy that tested how long it would take to get from Washington DC to San Francisco. So he knew that the highways were a military weakness. The trip took 56 travel days. (There were originally rest days scheduled, but some of those were used to make up lost time.)
My favorite bit of information:
This is for highways going into new areas. Maintenance is exempt. Increasing the size of an existing roadway, or otherwise modifying the footprint is not exempt, but takes less time than a completely new road.
Even an exempt project has environmental costs, though. You still have to note any adjacent habitat that may have endangered species or nesting migratory birds, and you have to take steps not to damage them. That can include fencing of areas that construction equipment can’t go or putting nets around trees or bridges so that birds can’t start nests before the construction starts. (In our area, nesting season starts in February, but construction season usually starts in April.)
Forgot to add above that the environmental phase is usually scheduled parallel to the Right of Way acquisition phase. Depending on which goes more smoothly, either can be completed first.
I have no idea if this is true, but I would agree that “America’s infrastructure is crumbing” has been one of those “known problems” that people have been complaining about for at least the 40+ years I’ve been on Earth. I would have thought it would have all collapsed by now, given the way people carry on about it.
Fact of the matter is that you can drive from anywhere to pretty much anywhere these days. I constantly see major infrastructure projects, at least in the North East. Boston’s Big Dig. New York’s Second Ave subway. Major renovations or complete rebuilding of the Tappen Zee Bridge, Bayonne Bridge and Pulaski Skyway. In fact, half the major roads in New Jersey seem like they are being rebuilt or expanded at any time.
Yes, those are some major infrastructure projects underway now, but the Second Avenue Subway line was proposed in 1919, work started in 1972, stopped in 1975 and then restarted in 2007. The Tappan Zee Bridge opened in 1955 with a fifty-year life expectancy (2005) but construction on the replacement didn’t start until 2013.
I completely agree that a national political swing dumping sudden money on any priority, from infrastructure to military to anything else, leads to a lot of waste just because scaling up is hard. In a perfect world, I’d prefer gradualism and putting control locally when it’s a local project - though this might argue for more process planning, not less.
I think it might be a mistake to talk about “infrastructure” as some monolithic whole, because there are a lot of different kinds of infrastructure, in various states of urgency. Our roads, for instance, are pretty good (though they have room for improvement), and our communications systems are getting better all the time. But our power grid, though functional, is far less efficient than it could be, and our water distribution systems are teetering on the edge of cataclysm.
I have never heard of this, and google isn’t helping. What are you talking about?