2011 Issue

20 parks and recreation, rail, roads, schools, solid waste, transit, wastewater - of infrastructure. These grades range from C+ down to a D-. In almost every case, the grades are the same or lower as were conferred by the earlier Report Card in 2005. The grade of C for our nation’s bridges is given partly because a quarter of those bridges are rated as functionally obsolete or structurally obsolete, and that percentage is getting worse in urban areas. The grade of D for aviation is a result of increasing delays, an overdue need to modernize the outdated air traffic control system, and the failure by Congress to enact a federal aviation funding program. Similarly, Congress’s failure to reau- thorize the funding programs for our road network, coupled with the fact that Americans now spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic (at a cost of $78.2 billion in wasted fuel and time), earned roads a grade of D-. Levees, an infrastructure category brought to light largely as a result of failures following Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, has a grade of D- due to the fact that 85% of the nation’s 100,000 miles of levees are locally owned and maintained, are in unknown condition, and many are over 50 years old. Our drinking water systems earned a grade of D- because of the fact that we lose 7 billion gallons of treated water daily through leaking pipes and face an annual shortfall of $11 billion to replace aging facilities and comply with regulations. The poor grades and the reasons behind them go on and on. As we know, talking about the problem is not enough; we need to propose solutions. Clearly, much of our infrastructure is lo- cal, and many solutions will be site-specific and crafted for local needs. But, in a more general sense, the latest Report Card outlines five key solutions to the nation’s infrastructure chal- lenges as a first step toward raising the grades. The proposed solutions are as follows: • Increase federal leadership in infrastructure to address the crisis. • Promote sustainability and resilience in infrastructure to protect the natural environment and withstand natural and man-made hazards. • Develop federal, regional, and state infrastructure plans that complement a national vision and focus on system- wide results. • Address life-cycle costs and ongoing maintenance to meet the needs of current and future users. • Increase and improve infrastructure investment from all stakeholders. A part of the solution is financial; we simply need to increase our investment. Since the early 1970s, there has been a drastic decline in the funding that supports the infrastructure of the United States. By the end of the 1960s, an era of great infrastruc- ture expansion, federal spending was approximately 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP); by the mid-1990s, federal spending had declined to about 2.5 percent. Considering that much of that infrastructure is at the end of its useful life, and that we will add 100 million people to our population in the United States in the next 40 years, we will need enhanced and renewed systems to meet our needs. We need a long-term, sustained investment to maintain our quality of life. Continuing to patch and pray with these facilities is not an option. Not all of the solutions are focused on money, however. We need some big-picture vision and planning, referred to by some as century level vision. Those of us who work in state and local government may be skeptical of the call for increased federal leadership and federal infrastructure plans. But imagine where our interstate highway system would be today if the federal government had played only a small, supportive role in that enterprise. Instead, they came forward with a bold, long-term plan to create an interconnected system of highways through the entire country. They followed up on that plan with uniform standards and criteria, and significant funding to support the plan. A similar national vision in the 1970s led to uniform water and sewer treatment standards in communities of all sizes in the United States. Today, as a result, you can safely drink the water from almost any public drinking water source of any size. Broad, imaginative infrastructure plans like these don’t exist today. According to Congressman Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, a vocal advocate for infrastructure, we need to begin today by articulating forcefully and clearly the need for an infrastructure vision for this century. (Civil Engineering Magazine, April 2010, ASCE, p.72.) The American Society of Civil Engineers has con- vened a series of roundtable discussions with leaders throughout the country to begin a dialogue on infrastructure renewal, and is moving forward with many partners to foster the development of an ambitious plan. One of the elements of a bold infrastructure vision for this new century, an element that will capture the imagination and support of the general public, is to create new infrastructure systems that are sustainable and resilient. Sustainability is the set of design, construction, maintenance and operations practices that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. Many of us have been using sustainable elements in some of our projects for years, but a new level of performance and ingenuity is warranted. Sustainable design encompasses reduced energy use, reuse of materials, conservation of water, an increased focus on emissions and air quality, community connectivity, multiple-benefit projects, attention to biodiversity, and up-front consideration of the life- cycle costs and ultimate demolition of our facilities. All of this will provide engineers with new challenges and opportunities, and expand our role in the public policy dialogue. The former Dean of Yale Medical School, Dr. Lewis Thomas stated that the greatest advances in improving human health were the development of clean drinking water and sewage systems. So, we owe our health as much to civil engineering as we do biology.