Ratings of 'functionally obsolete' or "structurally deficient" don't mean that a bridge should be repaired, nor that it is unsafe for any use. A bridge that is positively unsafe is closed.
He is also right that money for bridges does not necessarily get used for bridges that could benefit from repair. There are no requirements on where the money goes. In fact it can be used for highways. He is WRONG that a bridge that could benefit from repair is the one that should be repaired. The public might be better served with a whole new bridge somewhere else. Depends on the traffic a bridge would sustain. He is also wrong in the implication that the Feds know better which bridge to fix than the locals. Of course, politics could infect the decision at either end. There is a bias towards "ribbon-cutting" -- building new stuff rather than fixing old. It's more politically rewarding to open up a new facility (until the old one collapses and kills somebody; but that is a rare event).
He is clueless about the benefits of more bridge capital or infrastructure of any type. Many bridges facilitate roads for auto travel. If you think we need more of that you like more bridges. Naturally there is a good case for more emphasis on rail, though buses use the same bridges as cars.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1127T
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> wrote:
>
> at least in re bridges. I'm not a fan of his, but he seems to have a couple
> of points, and if they're wrong, I'd love to have someone point them out:
>
> URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2216532
>
> His main assertions are:
>
> 1) Things are a lot better now than they were 25 years ago. The current
> dire stat is that 25% of our bridges are "structurally deficient" or
> "functionally obsolete." In 1982, the figure was 45%.
>
> 2) Neither of those scary-sounding technical categories are really that
> scary. They don't mean the bridge is unsafe.
>
> 3) If we gives lots of money to localities to fix their bridges, the odds
> are very high that they will spend the money on new contruction rather than
> fixing existing infrastructure (based on past practice; and the fact that
> our accounting system gives us no ability to track whether money is spent on
> new construction or upgrading; and the local politics truism that "nobody
> ever got to cut a ribbon for upgrading a bridge."
>
> All refutations gratefully accepted.
>
> Michael
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>