1 out of 6 bridges in Texas is "functionally obsolete"

[Slick Vik]

Over two hundred million trips are taken daily across deficient bridges in the nation’s 102 largest metropolitan regions. In total, one in nine of the nation’s bridges are rated as structurally deficient, while the average age of the nation’s 607,380 bridges is currently 42 years. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that to eliminate the nation’s bridge deficient backlog by 2028, we would need to invest $20.5 billion annually, while only $12.8 billion is being spent currently. The challenge for federal, state, and local governments is to increase bridge investments by $8 billion annually to address the identified $76 billion in needs for deficient bridges across the United States.

In Texas, the engineers say:

1,372 of the 52,260 bridges in Texas (2.6%) are considered structurally deficient.

8,680 of the 52,260 bridges in Texas (16.6%) are considered functionally obsolete.

Due to the size and extent of its road network Texas has about 60 percent more bridges than any other state in the country, making it numerically the most vulnerable to bridge failures. Moreover, one third of the state’s bridges have been in service for more than half a century.

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/?cmpid=kiaheb

[august948]

Another good reason to invest transportation dollars in road infrastructure.

[Slick Vik]

Another good reason to invest transportation dollars in road infrastructure.

Incorrect as we don't have the money to keep up with the maintenance of roads over time.

[livincinco]

Another good reason to invest transportation dollars in road infrastructure.

 

Bad investment.  Much better to invest in destroying the existing infrastructure and building an entirely new set of infrastructure instead.  Clearly cheaper and more efficient.

[RedScare]

Incorrect as we don't have the money to keep up with the maintenance of roads over time.

 

Incorrect, as we DO have the money to keep up with maintenance over time.

 

Further, functionally obsolete is not an unsafe bridge. It simply means it no longer handles the demands put on it, such as capacity, speed or weight. Basically, it is a good bridge that isn't big enough anymore.

[Slick Vik]

Incorrect, as we DO have the money to keep up with maintenance over time.

.

100% false

[Slick Vik]

Bad investment. Much better to invest in destroying the existing infrastructure and building an entirely new set of infrastructure instead. Clearly cheaper and more efficient.

Pretty much what happened already with streetcars and freeways

[Slick Vik]

Incorrect, as we DO have the money to keep up with maintenance over time.

Further, functionally obsolete is not an unsafe bridge. It simply means it no longer handles the demands put on it, such as capacity, speed or weight. Basically, it is a good bridge that isn't big enough anymore.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2010/02/24/senate-budget/

[RedScare]

You posted an article on nationwide highway funding in a thread about Texas bridges. Further, the article did not claim there was no money for maintenance. It stated that there are "tough choices" to be made for highway funding. Of course, if there are tough choices for highway funding, there are even tougher choices for rail funding, as the highways already exist, but the rail does not. Highways can be repaired, but non-existent rail cannot.

[livincinco]

Incorrect, as we DO have the money to keep up with maintenance over time.

Further, functionally obsolete is not an unsafe bridge. It simply means it no longer handles the demands put on it, such as capacity, speed or weight. Basically, it is a good bridge that isn't big enough anymore.

That's totally false. The ASCE estimates that it needs an additional $157 billion annually to bring all deficient infrastructure up to acceptable standards and that's way bigger than current federal spending of $3.8 trillion annually. That number includes expenditures needed for roads, bridges, dams, drinking water, hazardous waste, levees, solid waste, waste water, aviation, inland waterways, ports, rail, transit, public parks, schools, and energy, but I'm sure that almost all of it is for roads and bridges so there's no way we can afford to maintain our roads.

[livincinco]

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2010/02/24/senate-budget/

Thanks for posting these numbers. I got my numbers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, but they clearly don't know what they're talking about. I'm ashamed I even posted it. The DC Streets blog is a far more credible source for subjects like needed infrastructure. I bet GM funds those so-called "civil engineers".

http://www.asce.org/failuretoact/

[Slick Vik]

You posted an article on nationwide highway funding in a thread about Texas bridges. Further, the article did not claim there was no money for maintenance. It stated that there are "tough choices" to be made for highway funding. Of course, if there are tough choices for highway funding, there are even tougher choices for rail funding, as the highways already exist, but the rail does not. Highways can be repaired, but non-existent rail cannot.

http://smmercury.com/2013/04/10/roadblocks-emerge-for-for-texas-transportation-funding

[livincinco]

http://smmercury.com/2013/04/10/roadblocks-emerge-for-for-texas-transportation-funding

 

The current model is clearly unsustainable.  Last year, TxDoT spent $2.7 billion to maintain the slightly less than 80,000 miles of state roads in the state of Texas.  Those same dollars could have been used to construct 27 miles of light rail.

 

I'm outraged at this clear abuse of government funds and you should be too.

[RedScare]

http://smmercury.com/2013/04/10/roadblocks-emerge-for-for-texas-transportation-funding

 

You'll have to try harder than linking a California newspaper. For instance, livincinco just posted that the maintenance budget for highways was $2.7 Billion last year. Looking deeper into those articles and links would have told you that the 2 year total TxDot budget is $20.8 Billion, or $10.4 Billion per year. So, highway maintenance accounts for only 26% of the budget. The $4 Billion shortage would not affect the maintenance of existing highways. It would mean fewer new and expanded highways. 

 

So, in conclusion, your statement that we don't have money for maintenance is wrong, and my statement is correct. We DO have money for maintenance, but we need to find more revenue for new roads, as the more efficient vehicles of today produce less gas tax revenue.

[jt16]

The current model is clearly unsustainable. Last year, TxDoT spent $2.7 billion to maintain the slightly less than 80,000 miles of state roads in the state of Texas. Those same dollars could have been used to construct 27 miles of light rail.

I'm outraged at this clear abuse of government funds and you should be too.

I honestly can't tell, are you serious? Are you making the argument that we should trade maintaining 80,000 miles of road for 27 miles of new rail?

[Slick Vik]

You'll have to try harder than linking a California newspaper. For instance, livincinco just posted that the maintenance budget for highways was $2.7 Billion last year. Looking deeper into those articles and links would have told you that the 2 year total TxDot budget is $20.8 Billion, or $10.4 Billion per year. So, highway maintenance accounts for only 26% of the budget. The $4 Billion shortage would not affect the maintenance of existing highways. It would mean fewer new and expanded highways.

So, in conclusion, your statement that we don't have money for maintenance is wrong, and my statement is correct. We DO have money for maintenance, but we need to find more revenue for new roads, as the more efficient vehicles of today produce less gas tax revenue.

Myth of efficient vehicles

http://www.carfreeinbigd.com/2009/02/myth-of-efficient-car.html?m=1

[livincinco]

Myth of efficient vehicles

http://www.carfreeinbigd.com/2009/02/myth-of-efficient-car.html?m=1

It's a good thing that quote is so much more credible than the actual miles driven per capita trending down for the past eight years along with the 18% improved efficiency of fuel mileage during the last five years.

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/93781/102888.pdf

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/02/27/for-eighth-year-in-a-row-the-average-american-drove-fewer-miles-in-2012/

[Slick Vik]

It's a good thing that quote is so much more credible than the actual miles driven per capita trending down for the past eight years along with the 18% improved efficiency of fuel mileage during the last five years.

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/93781/102888.pdf

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/02/27/for-eighth-year-in-a-row-the-average-american-drove-fewer-miles-in-2012/

Yes but the focus on efficient cars still puts the car as the superior life of transportation which means more $$$ shifted towards highways, sprawl, etc

[RedScare]

Yes but the focus on efficient cars still puts the car as the superior life of transportation which means more $$$ shifted towards highways, sprawl, etc

 

Which is just one more reason that your "dying suburb" theory is faulty. CAFE standards require fleet fuel effiency to further increase to 35 mpg by 2016, and to rise to 54.5 mpg by 2025. With 60 mpg cars and electric vehicles, a person will be able to drive to downtown and back home to the Woodlands on a single gallon of gas. This will further erode incentives to move closer to the urban core.

[Slick Vik]

Which is just one more reason that your "dying suburb" theory is faulty. CAFE standards require fleet fuel effiency to further increase to 35 mpg by 2016, and to rise to 54.5 mpg by 2025. With 60 mpg cars and electric vehicles, a person will be able to drive to downtown and back home to the Woodlands on a single gallon of gas. This will further erode incentives to move closer to the urban core.

What about the massive increase in population that will clog the roadways?

[RedScare]

What about the massive increase in population that will clog the roadways?

 

Your question was answered in post #17.

[kdog08]

Your question was answered in post #17.

 

So what was the solution to our state bridge situation in the OP and to a lesser extent the overall infrastructure in our rapidly growing state? Status quo..... or......? 

[Slick Vik]

Your question was answered in post #17.

According to this post I take it you don't see any need tor further highway expansion.

You posted an article on nationwide highway funding in a thread about Texas bridges. Further, the article did not claim there was no money for maintenance. It stated that there are "tough choices" to be made for highway funding. Of course, if there are tough choices for highway funding, there are even tougher choices for rail funding, as the highways already exist, but the rail does not. Highways can be repaired, but non-existent rail cannot.

You ignored my first post. Where is the $8 billion going to come from?

[RedScare]

In much of the country, that is correct. Vehicle Miles Traveled has peaked in most of the country, and is now in decline. In those areas only maintenance and replacement of obsolete infrastructure is needed. In places like Texas, population growth still dictates a need to expand the road network in parts of the state. As for where the money comes from, that depends on lawmakers. Texas lawmakers need to get used to the idea of raising the gas tax to make up for revenue gaps. Nationally, lawmakers will need to decide whether infrastructure needs can be financed through deficit spending, or whether something else gets cut. However, in both state and national levels, the decision will be made by lawmakers, not us.

[august948]

Yes but the focus on efficient cars still puts the car as the superior life of transportation which means more $$$ shifted towards highways, sprawl, etc

That's because cars are clearly the preferred mode of transportation and roads are clearly the more flexible transportation infrastructure.

[livincinco]

Yes but the focus on efficient cars still puts the car as the superior life of transportation which means more $$$ shifted towards highways, sprawl, etc

Yes, let's absolutely discourage innovation in the car industry. Innovation is bad. More efficient cars are extremely bad. Absolutely the worst thing that could happen is development of efficient electric cars. Because if we reduce the cost of car ownership and the carbon impact of those cars, we aren't going to have reasons to get rid of them.

[RedScare]

All this talk about cars has me wanting to go look at new cars. I promise to get an efficient one if I buy one.   

[august948]

All this talk about cars has me wanting to go look at new cars. I promise to get an efficient one if I buy one.   

All this talk about cars makes me want to go get one of these.

Eight gallons to the mile, baby!

[mfastx]

Do total highway rebuilds count as "maintenance?" 

 

Because when you're not rebuilding a road, maintenance is quite cheap.  I'm surprised it's that much honestly.  

 

 

[livincinco]

Do total highway rebuilds count as "maintenance?" 

 

Because when you're not rebuilding a road, maintenance is quite cheap.  I'm surprised it's that much honestly.  

 

The below description includes road base repairs, so I would tentatively say yes.

 

Per the state comptroller's website:

 

Highway system maintenance includes roadway surface improvement, road base repairs, bridge and drainage structure inspection and maintenance and road sign and traffic signal repair. It also encompasses litter cleanup, roadside mowing, rest area maintenance and the repair of damage caused by floods, hurricanes and other disasters.