Yesterday, the Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards and I testified before the Joint Economic Committee on the issue of infrastructure spending. Today, Chris has a good post following up one issue that came up during the hearing: Is our infrastructure crumbling? The answer is: not really.
When I testified to the Joint Economic Committee yesterday, the subject of bridges came up again and again. Numerous people said or implied that our bridges are crumbling and falling down, and that more funding was desperately needed.
The problem with that narrative is that the number of bridges that are in bad shape has been falling steadily over time. The nation’s bridges appear to be in better condition than ever, as indicated by data from the Federal Highway Administration. The FHWA’s inventory of bridges identifies those that are “structurally deficit” and “functionally obsolete.” Definitions for those terms are here.
The chart shows that the share of the 100,000+ bridges in the National Highway System that are either S.D. or F.O. has declined steadily since 1992. (Hat tips: Randal O’Toole and Matt Fay)
Over at the Washington Post a few weeks ago, Charles Lane also made the case that our infrastructure isn’t crumbling.
My testimony is here.
But everybody KNOWS infrastructure is crumbling!
Reminds me of John Tierney's motto:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Just because an idea appeals to a lot of people doesn't mean it's wrong. But that's a good working theory."
High Speed RAIL !!!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFacts are such an impediment to wishful thinking, Peter Pan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMust we grow up?
Great! So we can be less concerned about infrastructure!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou say that like it's a joke. Yes, the level of alarmism in recent years does indeed appear to be overblown, so yes, we can talk a walk back from it.
Why exactly do you have a problem with this?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA percentage doesn't tell us anything. If we are growing the number of bridges, then the newer bridges will increase the total and the percentage will decrease- even though our old infrastructure really is crumbling.
If we are discussing public safety and liabilities (i.e. costs that we need to pay in order to maintain ailing infrastructure), then a more useful statistic would be "Total Bridges" with an absolute number rather than percentages. After all, costs are dependent on the NUMBER of deficient bridges- not their percentage. Likewise, our safety is not at risk based on the percentage of bridges, since not all bridges have equal likelihood of being crossed. Absolute number may not give us the best picture of safety, but it is better than percentage.
Eyeballing the raw data linked above, it looks like the data is far more mixed than the trend-line above indicates. We are better off on "Structurally Deficient" bridges vs 1992, but we have more "Functionally Obsolete" bridges than in 1992.
I usually love Veronique's posts and tend to agree with her on most issues. Using inappropriate statistics (especially when their use can lead people to inaccurate conclusions) is a disappointing mistake from her that hurts our cause.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"A percentage doesn't tell us anything. If we are growing the number of bridges, then the newer bridges will increase the total and the percentage will decrease- even though our old infrastructure really is crumbling."
Ummm . . . that's why we build new bridges.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Ummm . . . that's why we build new bridges."
Ummm...no it is not.
We build bridges for several reasons. One is to replace older bridges- in that case the total number of bridges stays the same. We also build new bridges to support population growth in new areas or to support kickback growth for senators in Alaska.
In those latter two cases, we still have the same number of crumbling bridges- the same risk to the people who were using those bridges. Yet the "Percentage" graph would indicate we are in a better place.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI get that. A bridge in bad shape is still in bad shape if you build a new one. But it does lower the percentage of bad bridges and it's not as meaningless as you say. The way you're formulating your objection, you're saying there's no improvement even though new bridges are being built.
How many of those new bridges built, even if not direct replacements, will cause traffic on the old bridges to drop, perhaps even to nothing, rendering the old bridge irrelevant? The numbers don't say.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI looked around the American Society of Civil Engineers website for the report card External Link
I have to say, Veronique had more data in her short post than I was able to find to substantiate the grades at the scorecard website. Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see any discussion of the methodology used to make the evaluations or to come to the grades, much less any data.
I was quite surprised. I expected better. It's the site a lobbying group seeking lots of federal spending would put together, not engineers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFeel free to look at the federal highway administration link she has.
For example
----------------------# Bridges # SD # FO # Def
2002 TOTALS 591,220 81,437 81,573 163,010
2010 Totals 604,474 69,223 77,410 146,633
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo tell me, what are you going to believe;
Data on a chart, or your own lying eyes?
California is leading the west in crumbling infrastructure and decay. It is a simple law of economics, when most of your capital is invested in entitlements and eco-fraud, there simply isn't anything left over for those pesky highways, bridges, and roads.
But don't take me word for it, come drive through our state - once the envy of many, now comparable to parts of Afghanistan. May I suggest 4-wheel drive?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is absurd. Until last July I lived in and drove through Los Angeles daily.
The infrastructure is old, yes. But hardly crumbling. Just because the concrete jungle reeks of seventies architecture doesn't mean it is unsafe.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCalifornia (2009 stats) ranks 9th among the states in per capita income. About $59,000 annually.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy should the hard-earned incomes of people in other states pay to fix YOUR decay, just because YOU don't want to pay?
Politicians seem to be unable to say "infrastructure" without describing it as "crumbling." Because if it isn't crumbling, you can't hold up the taxpayers for more money to hand out to your favored (i.e., unionized) construction companies. "Stimulus" money didn't go just to unionized government employees - think about that the next time you see a road sign bragging about how the road improvements that aren't being made are being paid for with "stimulus" money.
"Stimulus" - $800 billion worth of vote-buying.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI suspect its only people who never travel abroad who believe that US infrastructure is not crumbling. You only have to have visited a modern Asian city or been to Germany or Scadanavia to realize just how old and crumbly US infrastructure is- its almost embarrassing. And dont get me started on US airports which have the organization and look of Asian or EU bus stations!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have been in all, and see the only difference being age. The newer airports in any country all look alike - we just are not building as many new ones, we are upgrading.
Same in Europe. Some do look old, but not crumbling. If you do a lot of traveling, as you suggest you would say - as most international business travelers would say - that occasionally you forget where you are, it all looks the same until you place close attention to the people in the building.
I see road construction everywhere. The only difference being the major highways in Europe seem to be better paved than anywhere else, including China.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is purely ironic, or perhaps the message is related?
CNBC just advertised what looks to be a huge propaganda piece pretending to be a Journalistic effort, pushing raising taxation in the name of infrastructure.
It only reminds one, the Democratic Partisans peddled their folk as being brilliant while demeaning others as being dim witted - yet they are stuck on using "building roads" as their answer for all. The reason we raise taxes and create jobs, to build roads?
The same Party which basically shut down NASA...
Same old, same old con game, swindle, etc., designed to rob Americans of hard earned capital to fund their corrupt Political Machine. Global Warming! - we need to raise taxes and have socialism/communism, Jobs going overseas! - we need to raise taxes and have socialism/communism, Bridges and Roads are old! - we need to raise taxes and have socialism/communism, Someone Four hundred years ago was victimized! - we need to raise taxes and have socialism/communism, etc.
The issue remains, without the likes of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, NYTIMES, WAPO, US Today, MTV, etc., the Democratic Party would not have such a misguided influence. And it is clear today, why the important Media Institutions, the Courts, etc., were mindlessly ceded to the foolish Democratic Partisans - as evidence by our terribly weak sideline Punditry in Conservative circles these days. We simply let so much slide, making huge mistakes, just as foolish as Conservatives handled the second Reagan and GW Bush Presidential tenures.
We best get it together, or it will be far too late - it almost already is too lost in some ways.
2012 is essential, and if Democrats want to run on raising taxes and more governmental spending, they are more than welcome to the folly and denial - but we better have someone other than a well past their prime Beltway Celebrity Politician who took funds from Fannie and Freddie as the Nominee. Or we will continue to see the very worst...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMadame de Rugy's link to definitions is revealing. Those functionally obsolete bridges (about 15,000 of them now) ARE NOT CRUMBLING - they simply cause motorists to be inconvenienced. And not all the structurally deficient bridges (about 5,000 of them now) are dangerous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHer graph shows that we've upgraded about 4,000 functionally obsolete bridges since 1992, and almost the same number of structurally deficient bridges.
I.e., if we had upgraded only the bridges that were structurally deficient since 1992, there would be almost none left. Priorities?
Also, about 132 times as many State and local bridges are structurally deficient (number about 85,000) when compared to such Federal bridges (number: 642). (year 2000 stats)
Let the rich people in California, especially Los Angeles, fix their own bridges.