We’ve discussed how democracy has played a major part in our failure to have a modern rail system. And like it or not, our electoral system has had a bigger role than most people would like to admit in contributing to the dire state of our existing infrastructure. A report released this week by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, titled “Road Work Ahead: Holding Government Accountable for Fixing America’s Crumbling Roads and Bridges,” supports this idea:
The deterioration of our roads and bridges is no accident. Rather, it is the direct result of countless policy decisions that put other considerations ahead of the pressing need to preserve our investment in the highway system. Political forces often undermine a strong commitment to maintenance: Members of Congress, state legislators and local politicians thrive on ribbon-cuttings. Powerful special interests push for new and bigger highways. Meanwhile, federal and state policies – which should provide strong guidance in the wise use of taxpayer dollars – often fail to achieve the proper balance between building new infrastructure and taking care of what we already have built.
In other words, politicians get reelected by building (and funding) new shiny roads and bridges that offer plenty of photo-ops and nice padding for their resumes come election time. What’s far less sexy and soundbite-worthy is “I fixed every crumbling bridge and pothole-ridden road in this state.” For an unskilled politician, these massive new projects can lead to disaster (the Bridge to Nowhere, anyone?). But for most always-election-ready officials in D.C., new highways and bridges are easy makeshift symbols of progress and “getting things done.” [SButtonZ button="digg"]
Other factors identified in the report that contribute to the abysmal state of our roads, bridges, airports, and more include:
1) Spending is not targeted toward specific goals. Federal highway programs largely dole out money to states based on standardized funding formulas and with no prioritization of projects based on their importance. States are guaranteed to receive funds totaling a minimum of 92 percent of the federal gas taxes collected in their state, regardless of whether the state spends the money wisely.
2) States can divert maintenance money to other uses. States can, and often do, shift federal money intended for maintenance to other projects—including the construction of new roads and bridges. Between 2005 and 2007, states redirected one out of every 10 federal dollars intended for bridge repair to other purposes.
3) There is little accountability for proper maintenance. In theory, federal law authorizes the U.S. Transportation Secretary to withhold funds from states that fail to properly maintain roads and bridges; but the law does not define “proper maintenance” and the power is virtually never used.
4) Perverse incentives undermine progress. States receive more federal bridge maintenance and repair money when they face higher bills for bridge repair. The system inadvertently encourages states to neglect bridge maintenance and shift the money to other uses.
So basically it’s a perfect storm of skewed incentives, faulty bureaucratic systems, mishandled funds, and lack of accountability. Sprinkle a little campaign-ready showmanship on top, and it’s little wonder our roads and bridges are in the state they are.
The report also shows how failing to make repairs actually increases costs in the long run:
On the positive side, the report does offer solutions, including a plan for reorganizing federal highway programs to focus exclusively on either maintenance or new construction, laws that require states receiving federal aid to plan for future maintenance before building new roads, and effective ways to measure performance and reward states that are succeeding.
The effect of lowest bid wins also leads to infrastructure that only lasts 15 or 20 years before needing replacement again or drastically higher maintenance costs. If bids required 50 or 100, or beyond lifespans for infrastructure, thats investing in the future, and our children won’t be paying to replace the bridge from the 99 cent store.
But our bridges aren’t crumbling. Or at least, if they are crumbling, the FHWA thinks that they’re steadily getting better. If you look at the FHWA’s deficient bridge statistics (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/deficient.cfm) you’ll see a steady improvement in the number of deficient bridges from 1992 to 2009.
It’s possible that our bridges could be even better than they are, but the trendline is definitely not towards more bridges being deficient, and it’s anti-scientific to claim that it is.