Wednesday, August 17, 2011
What becomes rather clear to me is that these national calculations are simply not to be trusted. Infrastructure always needs to be maintained and pretty well it is on a local needs basis. After all anyone on the ground can determine which roads are heavily used and need plenty of support and which are rarely used and need only the minimum. What this approach does not do is encourage the over building of capacity anywhere. That decision must be made at a higher level in order to channel real growth.
That leaves us to discuss the future. Two major changes are looming on the horizon.
The most obvious is the advent of electric transport generally. This will have the effect of cutting the actual vehicle weight in half at least and produce a commensurate decline in outright road wear. Coming with this will be driverless cars. Thus while traffic will not necessarily lessen except where high population density has allowed the effective use of trains, the road wear will be much lower and automatic driving may allow for some smarter engineering that lowers road costs.
Less obvious is the coming advent of airships for long haul transport. Once the adjustment is made, airships sized to carry one, two, and four containers at a time will easily take over the whole of long haul trucking. Firstly the operating costs are likely to be much lower once we have mass production of airships. There is no running gear to wear out or excess mass to haul around at all that vaguely compares to that of a truck. Even better, movement is generally straight line at a plausible seventy plus miles per hour even without clever engineering. The goods are also delivered unshaken which seriously matters for plenty of cargos.
I cannot over estimate the airship revolution made possible by modern materials. An airship can deliver directly from an origination facility to a distribution facility by straight line travel half way around the world at a speed of close to two thousand miles per day. In fact, on a west to east route flying with prevailing winds, one could easily add an extra thousand lie each day. That means that
produce could be a mere day away from New York
and two days away from . Paris
Just about every aerospace player is working up designs as we speak. They have all made the same calculation and understand that they can clearly compete directly with a lot of, if not all long haul trucking and in time with even rail transport. After all, just what does a ship rail link do for you between
and North America if the container can be moved directly from a factory in
central China to in a week? Chicago
What this means is that the interstate infrastructure will simply end up exiting the long haul trucking business in general rather quickly. This will lower the wear hugely and expand capacity for ordinary vehicular traffic. The trend is thus fo the better in the medium term.
What I have just described will be in the throes of full conversion within the decade and will complete with startling speed. The skies near cities are going to be actually full of airships and the freeways will feel like it is Sunday.
Breaking free from the infrastructure cult of roads
16 AUG 2011 9:20 AM
Cross-posted from Strong Towns.
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has just released a report that should be titled "Pretending it is 1952." Like a broken record, ASCE is again painting a bleak picture of the future if American politicians -- as if they need to be plied -- won't open up the checkbook for our noble engineers. And in a way that the Soviet Central Committee would have expected from Pravda, the media and blogger world is sounding the alarm. This feels more like a cult than a serious discussion on
In the Long Depression of the 1870s, the railroads found they had overinvested in transportation capacity. Speculating on future growth and the returns on land development, they collectively built more rail lines than could be put to productive use. The result was a huge financial correction in which the private-sector railroads consolidated their routes, downsized their unproductive infrastructure, and put their reserve capacity into endeavors that had a higher rate of return. This was a painful, but necessary, correction.
The parallels to 2011 are obvious. We've built out the interstate highway system as it was originally envisioned -- although we opted to go through cities instead of around as planned -- and then we built some more. We poured money into highways, county roads, and local streets. We have so much transportation infrastructure -- a huge proportion of it with no productivity -- that every level of government is now choking on maintenance costs.
While originally conceived in the name of "national defense," these investments were made in the service of "growth" and the belief that all increases in mobility, no matter how insignificant, would add to the overall prosperity. We've spent trillions to save seconds in the first and last mile of each trip, and what we've gotten is the fake prosperity of a land-use pattern that is bankrupting us, housing bubble and all. This is the essence of the financial correction we are experiencing.
But there is one huge difference between today and 1873. Back then, while the railroads received government subsidies, they were still private businesses. They had to face financial reality. Today, our transportation systems are a public good funded through government spending. The only reality check on this system is financial collapse.
We have a government that can borrow and tax as much money as needed and a Federal Reserve to print whatever Congress lacks the "courage" to raise. Combine that with a cult-like belief that the path to prosperity in
is to create more growth through more infrastructure
spending, and you have a recipe for financial disaster. There is no negative
feedback loop here that will slow this madness. Even Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann is a shill for massively unproductive
transportation projects in her own district. America
So in steps the American Society of Civil Engineers. If this is an infrastructure cult, they are the normal-looking guy that is there to reassure anyone who might think of leaving. That is probably what upsets me the most. I'm proud to be a civil engineer, but I will have nothing to do with ASCE and their self-serving, narrow view of the world. Consider the following:
ASCE estimated the "costs to households and businesses" from transportation deficiencies in 2010 to be $130 billion. (pg. 3 of the report)
ASCE estimated the cumulative losses to businesses will be $430 billion by 2020. (pg. 5)
ASCE estimated the cumulative losses to households will be $482 billion by 2020. (pg. 5)
If you add these together, the total cost to households and businesses is $1.042 trillion. Well, ASCE states that to reach "minimum tolerable conditions" (a pretty sad standard) would take an investment of $220 billion annually. Over 10 years, that's $2.2 trillion. Yeah, you read that right. The American Society of Civil Engineers wrote a report that suggested over the next decade we spend $2.2 trillion so that we can save $1.0 trillion. And you wonder why we're broke.
There are some things to understand about the $1 trillion as well. Those aren't losses to businesses and households as in money out of their pockets. This is the same old game we reported on extensively last year with our disucssion of the cost-benefit analysis approach on the Staples overpass. The costs are all very real dollars that we spend. The benefits -- or in this case the losses -- are things like lost driving time and wear and tear on your car.
Say you work at a job making $25/hour. By ASCE math, I as an engineer spend untold sums and improve your commute by two and a half minutes in each direction. Each day that is five minutes saved. Each week it is 25 minutes. Each year I've saved you 22 hours. Over the 25 years of that road, I've saved you 540 hours which, at $25 per hour, is worth $13,500. Now, it is not just you that has enjoyed this tremendous windfall. Look around at the thousands of others on the road with you. Add them all up and, according to ASCE and the standard engineering approach, this transportation project is making us all very rich.
ASCE is touting some other GDP costs as well, although it is hard to discern them clearly since, due to the ridiculousness of the numbers, they are forced to project out to 2040. Anytime someone has to project out that far to make an economic argument, they are grasping. For some context, consider that 30 years ago, inflation was over 10 percent, interest rates were over 15 percent, the internet was still a decade and a half away, Ronald Reagan was president, and the big event of the year was the launching of the Space Shuttle. Think they've factored in that kind of volatility? And you have to love the hubris of engineers making projections. What other profession would do a 30-year projection and come up with a precise number like $3.248 trillion?
ASCE estimated that, in a 30-year trend projection, we would have 400,000 more jobs in 2040 if we fully funded our transportation system (pg. 13). The ridiculousness of this number can't be overstated. New jobless claims last week alone were 400,000. We're supposed to make a multi-trillion dollar investment over the next three decades on a trend line projection that we'll have 400,000 more jobs? Are they serious?
One other thing in the report that made me shake my head was a table they had titled "Top 20 Countries and Economies Ranked by the Quality of Roads and Railroads" (pg. 17). For roads, the
States is ranked 19th, behind such countries as France (second), Switzerland
(fifth), all countries that I have driven in. Anyone who has done likewise will
attest that the standard highway in Europe is like a country road here in the Germany I agree
that their freeways are awesome, but they are also designed to connect towns,
not feed strip development. I would attest that the "quality" in this
case is less engineering-based and more a function of their adjacent land use
not messing things up as ours does. U.S.
The table itself is based on an "Executive Opinion Survey" from "The Global Competitiveness Report for 2010-2011" [PDF]. ASCE doesn't point out that, despite the sad opinion of our roads, the report ranks the
as the fourth most competitive
economy in the world. It is not really clear how we became so competitive with
an infrastructure system ASCE ranked as a 'D'. Just maybe there is more to an
economy than infrastructure? United
At Strong Towns, we want our infrastructure maintained. In fact, it's the common denominator of a
. But the reason why
we can't maintain our infrastructure is not because we lack the money or are
afraid to spend it. It is because the systems we have built and the decisions
we've made on what is a good investment are based on the kind of ridiculous
math you see reflected in this ASCE report. We spend a billion here and a
billion there and we get nothing but a couple minutes shaved off of our
commutes, which just means we can build more roads and live further away from
where we work. (Or, as we call that here in Strong
Town : growth.) America
Sixty years of unproductive infrastructure spending later, we are awash in maintenance liabilities with no money to pay for them. This is what happens when you have a government-subsidized, Ponzi-scheme growth system that, at all times, lives for the next transaction. America is all about new growth, which is why we don't even bother to question the findings in a study like this.
The ASCE report is an embarrassment to the engineering profession. The fact that politicians,journalists, and bloggers are all lined up to mindlessly parrot these conclusions is pathetic. If we are actually going to get this country moving in a positive direction, we need a real understanding of how infrastructure spending is used to create value. We need a new approach to land use.
Charles Marohn is a professional engineer licensed in
and the president of the nonprofit
organization Strong Towns. Minnesota