What Emil writes makes a lot of sense.

But, as "there will not be sufficient public investment resources available to protect ourselves adequately against the next storms and floods or to restore and upgrade all of the key elements of our transportation, energy, telecommunications, and social infrastructure", should not the possibilities of private provision be explored?

Concern about adaptation to climate change and, partcularly, to rising sea levels has grown among transportation executives and policy makers over the last few years, as it has become increasingly evident that significant steps to mitigate these trends (aside from the implementation of more rigorous fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles) are unlikely to occur in the near future and would, in any event, come too late to alter the impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions already in the atmosphere.

Many transportation agencies have begun to take prospective steps to adapt to climate change by building rising sea levels and the risks of more severe storms into the designs of facilities that are-to-be-constructed. But these changes in design criteria, important as they are, would offer protection only in the future. Super Storm Sandy raised the urgent question of whether federal, state, and local governments are prepared to invest the hundreds of billions -- or, more likely, trillions -- of dollars into retrofitting existing infrastructure and constructing new storm surge and flood barriers.

We do have some sense of what such protective systems and barriers might look like and what their cost might be. After all, the residents of the below-sea-level parts of the Netherlands have protected themselves from the sea for generations and have added to these barriers (with much ingenuity and at great cost), as sea levels have risen. Significant enhancements of protective infrastructure have been constructed in this country, as well (the post-Katrina rebuilding of levees around New Orleans is evidence of such an investment). But the costs are huge, and the benefits are uncertain.

The demands for measures to protect the vulnerable East and Gulf coasts from the effects of more severe storms and flooding are likely to persist, even after some measure of "post-Sandy normality" has returned. But where is the money going to come from? We are in a period of severe fiscal challenges and persistent budget deficits at all levels of government, and these circumstances are likely to continue for many years. Public investment resources are scarce, and potential infrastructure investments will, in this atmosphere, compete against each other. For example, constructing a new flood barrier or huge storm surge gates across a harbor may mean that there are no funds available to restore or replace an aging and outmoded bridge or tunnel.

Federal, state, and local governments, all of whom are fiscally constrained, face these risks and challenges. Almost certainly, there will not be sufficient public investment resources available to protect ourselves adequately against the next storms and floods or to restore and upgrade all of the key elements of our transportation, energy, telecommunications, and social infrastructure, so how will we choose what to protect, first?

In these circumstances, the first order of business should be to develop the means to analyze risks, benefits, and costs, so that government is able to target limited investment resources on the most urgent needs and to prioritize projects across a wide array of infrastructure. As is true in so much else in the area of infrastructure, we first need to reform the institutions at all levels of government by which we assess, analyze, and make investment decisions.

It is indisputable that our transportation system is aging and threatening our competitiveness with the rest of the world. The steady deterioration of our infrastructure, well documented by the nation’s leading civil engineers, should scare America into action.

Yet it took a natural disaster such as Sandy, the hurricane that struck the East Coast with a fury rarely seen in this region, to get our attention. Suddenly, with lives and property at risk and vital transportation threatened, Americans and the politicians they elect were paying attention. Peoples’ lives were turned upside down, businesses were idled, entire towns were left in ruin and vital services such as public transit, passenger rail, air service and freight transportation came to a halt.

These moments make us focus on basic necessities – like New Yorkers paralyzed by flooded tunnels and shuttered transit systems – and realize we can’t live without them. But if we only worry about these things during moments of adversity such as hurricanes, we’re officially late. By deferring billions in much needed investments in badly deteriorating transportation systems we leave Americans and the economy on which they rely vulnerable.

That’s our nation’s problem – America has been officially late for a generation as investments to modernize our transportation system and infrastructure have been tripped up by partisan political bickering and paralysis.

But this can change and Tuesday’s historic election gives us that chance.

The nation rejected a wrongheaded plan to gut vital transportation investments and instead re-elected a president who has made ‘nation building here at home’ a priority in a second term. We need a good dose of nation building. It gives us a chance to update a public infrastructure designed in a different era. It gives us a chance to transform our freight and passenger networks and make sure they reflect the modern needs of our economy. And yes, it gives us a chance to take advantage of engineering and technology advancements that can make our transportation system and infrastructure more resilient when tested by events such as the storm Sandy.

To the politicians I say this: Getting to work or having your freight delivered on time isn’t important to just Democrats or Republicans. Making sure your flight is safe and reliable isn’t crucial to one political party or the other. And having infrastructure that can withstand a direct hit from a natural disaster is important to everyone, whether you own a small beach cottage on the New Jersey shore, need a reliable freight network to sell your products or simply want bus, air or train service to be there when you need it.

The post-Sandy clean-up has captivated Americans and the work ahead to restore the East Coast economy will be daunting. But remember it was only five years ago that we all watched in horror as the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis collapsed during rush hour with 100 cars on it. That was in 2007, when one-quarter of our nation’s 600,000 bridges were labeled as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. How far have we come? Not very far – we’ve shortened the list by 1.6%. We must do better.

Clearly, we have a long way to go. Hurricane Sandy must be a loud wake-up call. We need politicians on both sides of the aisle now to come together and dedicate the long-term federal resources needed to finally make this the generation that ends the neglect and indifference that has defined our transportation policy for too long.

Let’s not forget that upgrading our transportation system and beefing up our infrastructure will also fuel the type and pace of job creation so badly needed in America. It will put millions to work fulfilling the President’s vow to rebuild the economy from the middle class out.

Elections have consequences. It will be up to us to make sure that among those consequences is a renewed sense of urgency to make sure America has the transportation system and modern infrastructure it needs to keep our economy expanding and yes, to bounce back quickly from natural disasters like Sandy.

Indeed “road and power-line maintenance isn't a fun way to spend money“ when the assets are publicly owned. Easier to kick such expenditures “down the road” and to hope that federal assistance will help in the case of break-downs. This is one of the reasons that the provision of transport infrastructure is too important to be left to politicians who often have other priorities.

Now to try to answer the questions:

What does a robust long-term infrastructure system look like? It looks like a revenue-earning facility that is maintained to ensure that it’s earnings do not collapse following predictable emergencies.

How much does it cost? As much as users are prepared to pay for the services it provides.

Where are we now in relation to such a thing? As our governments have run out of money, we are a bit closer.

How do we get where we need to go? We sell concessions to private providers, as is done in France and Britain, obligating them to provide specified services over specified time periods.

What level of urgency should we assume when talking about infrastructure? The same level that we apply to the supply of food, water, electricity, telecommunications, and other necessities.

How do natural disasters play into the debate? Private suppliers take the probability of natural disasters very seriously, and insure against contingencies they cannot themselves handle.

Whose leadership is most important in building solid infrastructure protections? Private entrepreneurs, like those who provided networks of long-distance roads in the US and UK in the 18th/19th centuries under conditions far more difficult than those prevailing today.

Is it a state responsibility or a federal one? Responsibility should be at the lowest practicable level, which, for most projects, would be the state level.

Does political rhetoric hurt or help the conversation? It generally does more harm than good.

If so, how? It does harm by seeking to support favored providers, rather than the general public.