Sunday, February 17, 2008

The Future of Our Infrastructure

The collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis was a wake up call about the needed maintenance of the country's infrastructure. This article at World Changing discusses the future our infrastructure and concludes that we must rethink our investments in certain infrastructure to fit the needs of the 21st century.

America is falling apart at the seams. Our power grids, our rail system, our roads and bridges, our drinking water and drainage systems, our dams, our ports, our dumps: they're all failing, sometimes in visible catastrophic ways, often in just slow losses of service and usability.

There are three major schools of thought about what to do. The first is the status quo among politicians: do nothing, and hope nothing major happens on our watch. The second is the status quo among many chambers of commerce: rebuild the old systems with updated versions of the old technologies, paying a bonanza to construction and engineering corporations and turning the repaired systems over to private, for-profit utilities. These are both terrible ideas. There is, though, a third way. We might look into this unfolding disaster and see an opportunity for real change.

Most of the infrastructure we use today was designed a century ago: some of it is based on ideas that go back to the Roman Empire. Almost all of it is at best industrial in its thinking. Essentially all of it was designed for a world without climate change, resource scarcity or any proper understanding of the value of ecosystem services. In other words, most of the systems upon which we depend are not only in a state of critical disrepair, they're out-dated and even out of touch with the realities of our century.

As we undertake their repair and replacement, we ought to be thinking like people native to the 21st century. We ought to be imagining systems which aim to provide the end services we want (access, communications, food, water, sanitation) in the most efficient, flexible and sustainable ways possible.

There are many opportunities in Iowa to rethink our infrastructure needs. There is a lot of talk about how to fund road expansion, yet little talk of alternative transportation such as high speed rail. Expansion of broadband to rural areas would be a big boost to economic development in the state. The states waterways are polluted, yet we continue to allow large hog confinements overwhelm them with waste. And finally, as we strive to become the renewable energy capital of the world, we are about to pour billions into two coal-fired power plants.

3 comments:

bgunzy said...

We'll still need heavy use roads; we stil need to get production from here to there, even if we try to localize it as much as possible.

Once the cities stop polluting the waterways and demanding cheap food then the hog confinements can do so as well and shut down.

My concern about future planning based on an agenda is what happens when that agenda doesn't turn out exactly as planned...What point is high speed rail when there's no one to ride it?

noneed4thneed said...

I don't think high speed rail is feasible throughout the state, but in areas like Iowa City-Cedar Rapids, Des Moines-Ankeny-Ames, and Des Moines-West Des Moines make sense to have commuter trains. It would also be nice to have from Chicago through Iowa to Denver or Kansas City.

bgunzy said...

Could a commuter train system work without major subsidization? Would it be least cost/low hassle enough for people to park the cars and ride to work?

A fair number of people here in "The South of Iowa" do the RideShare thing, where they share a van to Des Moines. It is a great savings to them to do so, especially with $3/gal gasoline. I don't know how much this is subsidized (if at all), but it seems to fit the bill.

I could see a high-speed train system criss-crossing the country, like what Europe has. I wonder if, however, it would take a rebuilding of infrastucture (rails, stations, etc) to make it work. My guess is that you'd have to keep freight trains off of it as well to keep it open for passengers. It would have to compete with airlines, probably not only on cost but on hassle (less of it) as well.