Why Sustainability Concepts Need to be at the Heart of Infrastructure Rebuilding

By Arnold Bloch, Ph.D.
Principal, Howard/Stein-Hudson Asscociates

In Felix Rohatyn's wonderful book from 2009, Bold Endeavors: How Our Government Built America, and Why it Must Rebuild Now, he makes four important points:

"The nation is falling apart - literally. ...the country's entire infrastructure...is rapidly and dangerously deteriorating."
"...the federal government has traditionally been the indispensable investor in our nation." (His book traces federal investments from the Louisiana Purchase through the Interstate Highway System.)
While the nation has gained untold benefits from these federal investments, at the time they were made they were all typically "attacked as costly, unmanageable, and unnecessary."
Despite significant federal investment presently on infrastructure projects, "...there is no system guiding these funds toward their most important uses." ¹

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that a major poll administered in February 2011 found the following:

"Upkeep of roads, bridges and transit systems is a high priority to an overwhelming margin of Americans, but by an even greater margin they don't want to pay more for it." ² [Emphasis added].

Why doesn't the American public want to pay for what it sees as an important need? Here are three likely reasons for this seeming paradox:

The cost is truly significant. Just two years ago, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission estimated it would take $200 billion annually through 2035 to maintain and improve the nation's highway and transit systems-a number which is nearly three times what all levels of government are paying today for this purpose.³
Americans have become short-sighted and highly political. Or as The Economist called it, "...modern America is stingier..." than it has been in nearly 200 years when it comes to infrastructure. ⁴ Congressional earmarks in ISTEA, TEA-21, and SAFETEA-LU did little to spur major new nationwide investment in infrastructure repair; instead, they have helped to fuel a more recent backlash against federal spending in general, with little or no replacement by state or local government.
There is no real, comprehensive plan for infrastructure renewal. For something that will cost so much money and in an atmosphere of growing mistrust of the efficiency or effectiveness government spending, the lack of an apparent infrastructure maintenance and improvement plan is devastating.

The absence of an infrastructure rebuilding plan is something that nearly all transportation planners, policy makers, and voters can agree upon. But the basic objectives of that plan are open to debate. At an AASHTO conference in 2010, the debate is laid out succinctly.⁵ On the one hand, the concept of a National Infrastructure Bank to select, finance, and better manage national infrastructure investments should not be subject to "vague 'livability' and 'sustainability' requirements." On the other hand, infrastructure improvements should be incentivized to support sustainable development patterns and invest in linkages that better interconnect streets, transit, housing, and jobs, and mixed-use neighborhoods in both urban and suburban locations.

In this author's opinion, it is not primarily a question of what goals and objectives should be accommodated by a nationwide infrastructure rebuilding plan, but rather what goals and objectives are likely to be successful in getting such a plan established. Flaws in previous funding programs are not merely those of perceived mismanagement, unfair distribution of funds, or even (as one source calls it) a "perverse incentive system," i.e., a system that rewards inefficient use of infrastructure by separating users from an understanding of the costs they are imposing.⁶ A more thorough view of flaws would include the unintended consequences of past investments, those which are recognized by an increasing number of citizens: the gutting of urban vitality, the over-reliance on the automobile for nearly all forms of productive travel, and a deterioration of quality of life as perceived by both urban and suburban residents and travelers - both for themselves and their children.

Transportation infrastructure and services are and always will be a means to an end. The end should not be seen as a rebuilt infrastructure, but as a tool for a rebuilt economy and an improved quality of life for Americans which can be sustained for years to come. Sustaining such a future means using the infrastructure tool in sustainable ways. Being able to secure the funding for such a necessary and bold endeavor (to borrow from Mr. Rohatyn's premise) relies upon convincing Americans and their elected representatives that the goals are consistent with their basic desires. This is best accomplished by showing how "sustainability" is a real concept - and not a vague requirement - which can help guide investments to achieve real economic/quality of life goals, objectives, and performance measures.

Endnotes:

Rohatyn, Felix, Bold Endeavors, Simon & Schuster, New York, 2009.
Halsey, Ashley, "Rockefeller Foundation survey: Americans rank transportation needs high but don't want to pay the costs," The Washington Post, February 13, 2011.
National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, Paying Our Way: A New Framework for Transportation Finance, Washington, D.C., February 2009.
"Life in the Slow Lane," The Economist, April 28, 2011.
AASHTO Center for Excellence in Project Finance, Proceedings of the Forum on Funding and Financing Solutions for Surface Transportation in Coming Decades, September 2010.
Energy Security Leadership Council, Transportation Policies for America's Future, February 2011.

< Back to News