|
By Janice Kaspersen
The vast built framework we call the infrastructure—the sewers, roads, airports, communications networks, power grids, water-supply lines, railways, levees, dams, and bridges—is something most people can comfortably ignore until something goes wrong with some part of it. We react immediately to annoyances like a backed-up sewer line, major inconveniences like a citywide power outage or a closed interstate, and all-out disasters like a failed levee. We tend to have short memories, though, and the public and political will to put effort and money toward repairing and upgrading “the infrastructure” as a whole often depends on how bad the last incident was. As officials trying to sell the idea of a stormwater utility and its associated costs to the voting public have pointed out, it helps to make the pitch during or just after the rainy season.
The collapse several weeks ago of a section of busy freeway in the San Francisco Bay Area highlighted once again how vulnerable we are to disruptions in any part of the infrastructure, and the cost—in time, money, and frustration—when a piece of the system fails. The problem in this case wasn’t caused by something wearing out; flames from a crashed tanker truck weakened an overpass’s support beams and caused it to plummet onto the road underneath. Still, with early estimates of two to three months to put the roadway back into service, and with the State of California planning to ask for federal disaster aid to help cover a repair bill in the tens of millions of dollars, the event has brought “the failing infrastructure problem” back into the public eye.
At least one organization is steadily monitoring the overall situation. The American Society of Civil Engineers periodically issues a Report Card for America’s Infrastructure. The last one, in 2005, was fairly dismal across the board, giving an overall grade of D. “ASCE estimates that $1.6 trillion is needed over a five-year period to bring the nation’s infrastructure to a good condition,” the organization has stated. “In the short term, small steps can be taken” by Congress and at the state and local level to make things better. The organization’s Web site includes links to articles showing just that—individual improvement efforts, as well as areas that need more attention.
What does all this mean for the ESC industry, and for those fields that rely on erosion and sediment control techniques? When the last ASCE report card was issued, Erosion Control pointed out that since most of the needed upgrades involve earthmoving activities of some kind, what looks to some like a crisis presents opportunities for the ESC industry—not only to do the work but also to ensure that it’s done right. The ASCE site now provides information that makes those opportunities easier to find. The site also includes an “Action Plan” for Congress with specific recommendations—bills the ASCE would like to see passed and funding it believes should be authorized in seven broad areas. Several of these—Bridges, Roads & Transit; Inland Waterways; and Dams & Levees—fall squarely into the ESC domain. The site also has state-by-state updates on the most urgent problems the ASCE believes need to be addressed.
It’s worth keeping track of what’s going on in your local area, both to seek out opportunities and to see whether you agree with how infrastructure issues are being prioritized. You can see the Action Plan at http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/actionplan07.cfm.
Send
Janice an Email
EC - July/August 2007 |
|
