Too Big to Fall

Right away, Robert Puentes of the Brookings Institution, who wrote the foreword of the book, brings up a serious issue when it comes to our infrastructure and transportation system. He points out that our system needs to be “nimble enough to handle massive disruptions.” He uses September, 11, 2001 as an example, saying that we need alternatives to roads to evacuate people in dangerous and/or catastrophic situations; New York used their ferry system and D.C. used their Metrorail system. Then I ask myself, “What if something happened in Baltimore or Atlanta? Orlando or Miami? Long Beach?” 

Just like all other machines need maintenance and new innovation over time, so too do the nation’s bridges. It’s amazing that America doesn’t pay more attention to the roads, bridges, tunnels, highways, and byways we ride across every day. We are not still using the same models of innovations we used 50-, 60-, or 100 years ago, yet we’re still driving on roads with technology that was built that long ago. Vehicles change year to year; refrigerators, washers, dryer, and televisions have changed over the years, yet we expect our infrastructure to remain forever. The book points out that political leaders who allocate transportation funds would rather spend federal dollars on new projects than to maintain the existing ones. Its about public appeal as opposed to what we need; new construction gets groundbreaking and ribbon cutting ceremonies, and news coverage, while maintenance gets none of the above. However, it would have kept bridges from falling in New York in 1987 and Minnesota in 2007. 

Just as vehicle, electronic, and appliance technologies become obsolete, so too do the technologies used to create walkways, skyways, tunnels, and bridges. While replacing outdated phones and laptops is an easy solution for individuals, replacing infrastructure is a whole different animal. Not everything can or should be demolished and rebuilt. The I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis was repeatedly deemed structurally deficient for 16 years prior to part of it collapsing in 2007. That means for over a decade and a half political leaders chose to ignore the recommendations of the transportation engineers and used the funds on other projects. 

It’s true that cars are lighter than they used to be; no longer masses of metal, but we also have to realize that (A) there are hundreds of thousands more cars than there used to be and (B) the main transport of goods back when most of our old infrastructure was built was rail not eighteen wheelers. There are alternate routes for trucks and weight limits for vehicles for a reason. There are use limitations and life spans for all infrastructure as well. These days we are not only asking our infrastructure to outperform what it was designed to do, but also outlive the life span it was given all with little to no maintenance.