Patrick J. Natale, P.E.

America needs to invest in its economic future now, and one of the best and most effective ways of doing that is to invest in our own infrastructure. There is broad agreement on the need to create jobs and improve the economy. For the U.S. economy to be the most competitive in the world, we need a first class infrastructure system. Yet today, our infrastructure systems are failing to keep pace with the current and expanding needs, and investment is faltering.

Without question, America’s infrastructure is in need of an upgrade. ASCE’s 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure awarded America’s infrastructure a “D.” But what does a “D” mean? In our recent series of economic studies, titled Failure to Act, we found that if America continues down its current path on infrastructure investment, America will lose $3.1 trillion in GDP, $1.1 trillion in trade value, and 3.5 million jobs—all by 2020. American businesses must be positioned to compete in the ever-emerging global economy, and currently, our nation is not keepin

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates that over 95 percent of overseas trade produced or consumed by the United States moves through our nation’s 300 commercial ports. Yet, our ports are in danger of losing their competitive advantage due to the slow and very complex process of critical dredging projects. Wednesday’s hearing by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and the status of the nation's ports put a giant spotlight on that alarming fact. This issue is made all the more critical due to the looming arrival of new, larger container ships that will begin to pass through America’s ports once upgrades to the Panama Canal are completed in 2015.

To accommodate this new traffic, U.S. seaports and inland waterways will need an investment of $30.2 billion by 2020 according to a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). In Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Airports, Inland Waterways, and Marine Po

Does the average American have a clue what they’re paying for their roads, transit, marine ports or even airports? Let’s be realistic – no. Americans don’t see the full cost of the infrastructure they use everyday, creating the illusion that it’s a free ride. Tolling is one of the only distinct user fees that people pay on a regular basis. Even when Americans are at the gas pump, they don’t know much about how their fill-up pays for the roads. For the record, a 15 gallon tank fill up only pays in $2.75 to the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and if you fill up once a week, that’s only $143 a year to maintain the federal portion of the roads.

In addition to largely invisible funding, the infrastructure needs have a tendency to be invisible to the public as well. Although some are very obvious like closed or weight posted bridges, the majority of our systems are showing their age in much more subtle ways– think exposed rebar and cracked pavement on roads and bridges, and trains that break down more often - while citizens continue c

Americans spend about 4.2 billion hours a year sitting in traffic, and that frustration is something we all know well. Yet, it does not make the strongest case for federal investment. Traffic congestion can seem a very local or individual issue – if we want our particular commute to improve, we look to our cities, counties, or even states for solutions such as bonds, tolls, HOV lanes, and other measures to improve the roads and expand our travel choices. That may be why we saw so many states successfully pass bonds to finance transportation projects last year.

Regardless, the case for a greater federal investment in our aging and crumbling infrastructure is stronger than ever. America’s roads and bridges are in desperate need of repairs and modernization.

ASCE’s 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure graded the nation’s roads a “D-”, bridges a grade of “C”, and transit a grade of “D”. With nearly one-third of roads in poor or mediocre condition, a quarter of the nation’s br

Regardless of your political views, President Obama has brought transportation and infrastructure back into mainstream conversation, at least for the moment.

As Michael Tomasky argues in Newsweek, Obama’s call for infrastructure investment was not only about jobs but about our competitiveness in global markets. Both the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation and the Building America’s Future Educational Fund have released reports showing how we are rapidly falling behind our global competitors such as China, Japan, and South Korea when it comes to investing and modernizing our transportation systems.

The attention to infrastructure from both sides of the aisle is a good thing and critical to our future. In addition to the President’s speech, it should not be overlooked that the Senate EPW Committee unanimously passed a short-term clean extension for surface transportation. Whether Congress elects to set their sights on a longer-term highway bill, or to take a closer look at Obama’s plan, there seems to be growing bipartisan con

ASCE was pleased to see President Obama address the need to fund surface transportation programs and extend the current authorization that funds the nation’s roads, bridges, and transit systems. The nation’s infrastructure requires strong leadership in order for the improvements that are needed to be fully realized. With the support and leadership of President Obama, ASCE hopes that surface transportation programs will not have to endure being shut down in a situation similar to the two week FAA furlough that occurred this past July. We hope that the President’s leadership in surface transportation investment will propel Congressional action and create jobs for the coming decade.

In July, ASCE released a first-of-its-kind economic study that found even current investment levels in transportation infrastructure (http://www.asce.org/economicstudy/) will cost the American economy more than 870,000 jobs and suppress the growth of the country’s Gross Domestic Product by almost $900 billion by the year 2

In order to raise the nation’s declining surface transportation grades in ASCE’s 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure (Roads, D-; Bridges, C; Transit, D),the nation must be dedicated to making the investments that are required. Leveraging funds, consolidating programs, streamlining project delivery, and incorporating maritime programs are all positive programmatic reforms; however, these reforms without additional funding cannot solve the current infrastructure crisis.

The nation requires strong bi-partisan leadership that will incorporate the compelling programmatic reforms that have been outlined in the House Transportation Reauthorization proposal into an investment package for surface transportation that addresses the investment gap. This should not be a political issue. While ASCE is sympathetic to the current economic climate, pushing off investing today’s infrastructure investments until tomorrow will only engender even greater costs, while also setting back economic advances and job creation for future generations.

President Eisenhower envisioned a national highway system that would connect our nation and spur growth, prosperity and security. But even he could not have foreseen how significantly this system would transform our nation, or that our growth, prosperity and security would one day become dependent on the functioning of this system.

As we celebrate this week’s anniversary of the beginnings of the national highway system (and, yes, we should celebrate what has been identified as one of the top ten engineering achievements of the last century), we are also all painfully aware that demands have far outpaced capacity in many parts of the system, and much of the system suffers from poor conditions at the hands of years of underinvestment. Today, we spend 4.2 billion hours stuck in traffic at a cost of $710 per motorist and one in four of our bridges are functionally obsolete or structurally deficient.

To move this country forward, we need to make the same kind of commitment President Eisenhower made for the interstate system. To meet the demands of our global

It is clear from public opinion polls and focus groups that the American public’s faith in the federal government’s ability to deliver transportation solutions is waning. Surface transportation authorization legislation must clearly define the federal role and responsibilities, and from that definition, the framework for a performance-based and fully accountable system can emerge. By introducing a new authorization bill that establishes a set of specific performance standards in areas such as congestion relief, asset protection, safety and financial stewardship and then imposing tangible enforcement mechanisms, these standards can be achieved. Congress would therefore be responsible for incorporating reliable units of measurement, in order to ensure that the best projects are selected by the Department of Transportation.

In ASCE’s 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure the nation’s roads received a D-, bridges a C, and transit systems a D. To bring just these three categories of the nation’s infrastructure into a state o

There is no way to get around the data – as a nation we are not investing enough in our surface transportation system. While our transportation systems crumble, it continues to under-perform. ASCE’s 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure graded the nation’s roads a D-, bridges a C, and transit systems a D. In order to bring just these three categories of the nation’s infrastructure into a state of good repair it would take an estimated $1.2 trillion, from 2009 – 2013. If current spending levels are maintained we would spend only $455 billion over that same period. Unfortunately, we are not likely to even maintain these current levels!

Effective maintenance programs are critical for the integrity of the nation’s surface transportation system. With the current surface transportation system falling into extreme disrepair, focusing a new six year authorization on maintenance could gain strong bipartisan support and the driving public would benefit.

While funding for repair and maintenance is crucial, the is

The Senate Finance Committee hearing last week shined a spotlight on the current debate raging around surface transportation investments and displayed just how divided the two sides of the aisle have become on an issue that was once bipartisan. Unfortunately, while Congress continues to debate, the nation’s infrastructure continues to deteriorate. In order for Congress to make these necessary investments the public must trust their legislators and be willing to accept new ways to pay for a shared system. Congress and the Department of Transportation should work to reform the current system including program consolidation, development of performance metrics, and additional revenue to address the investment gap.

There are some who may argue that designating all highway and transit funds to the states, without federal government mandates, is the best solution, yet this course of action would be counter to the national highway system that President Eisenhower envisioned. The federal government does have a constitutionally mandated role to play in surface tr

It is understandable that the nation’s mayors would place a lower priority on building new roads. Local budgets have been severely squeezed over the last couple of years and it is becoming increasingly difficult just to maintain the existing roads and transit systems. Building new roads just looks unattainable at the moment. Further, as urban density increases, it is obvious that we need to move people more efficiently and need more capacity on our transit systems.

Despite these facts, one-size-fits-all funding and policy paradigms will not address the diverse range of problems facing transportation infrastructure in all regions of the country. We need flexible, sustainable solutions that meet the needs of different populations, environments and geographies, and regional economies. In many cities that answer is definitely shoring up existing assets and expanding transit. In other areas it might mean new highway capacity and in many areas it would be a mix of both. And in many communities, it’s a mix that also includes non-structural alternatives s