This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, July 26, 2011 - No one knows better than Missourians about the importance of physical infrastructure to the economic health and well-being of a state. We are centrally located in nearly the exact middle of the country. The state is within 600 miles of over half the manufacturing plants in the United States. However, Missouri, just like the rest of the country, is suffering from years of infrastructure neglect and severe underinvestment.
According to the well-respected Report Card for America's Infrastructure, issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers in 2008, Missouri has the following dismal record:
- 33 percent of Missouri's bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
- Missouri has 462 high hazard dams -- dams whose failure would cause a loss of life and significant property damage.
- 38 of Missouri's 664 dams are in need of rehabilitation to meet state safety standards.
- 95 percent of high hazard dams in Missouri have no emergency action plan (EAP), a predetermined plan of action in an area affected by a failure or mis-operation of a dam.
- Missouri's drinking water infrastructure needs an investment of $5.96 billion over the next 20 years.
- Missouri ranked 20th in the quantity of hazardous waste produced and 18th in the total number of hazardous waste producers.
Ironically enough, two of the report's top three infrastructure concerns for Missouri strike at the very heart of the state's supposed geographical advantage of being in the middle of the country: roads and bridges. The third, wastewater, also has a direct negative impact on economic development.
Unfortunately, the other 49 states fare just as bad or worse, which is why the highly regarded Urban Land Institute warns that unless the U.S. makes its national infrastructure a top priority, we risk undermining our ability to compete with the rest of the world.
The institute, in collaboration with Ernst and Young, released "Infrastructure 2011: A Strategic Priority" earlier this year with far less media fanfare than it deserved. It should be read and digested by every major economic policy maker at the national level. While it examines global trends in infrastructure, its principal focus is on the United States.
Internationally, the report says, government and business leaders universally recognize that national infrastructure programs should be at the top of policymakers' priority lists because of their key role in the future success and prosperity of modern society. Countries with well-established and adequately funded infrastructure programs are ensuring their economic advantage over less far-sighted competitors in years to come.
The report adds that the United Kingdom, Brazil and China have been making impressive strides in this area. The U.K. will spend $326 billion on infrastructure over the next five years, even though, if anything, its budget woes exceed those of the United States. China, America's biggest economic competitor, has even more ambitious infrastructure plans. By 2020, China plans to finish a 10,000-mile high-speed rail network, as well as construct new airports, ports and subway systems in its major centers. China will have one of the most modern transportation networks in the world within a couple of decades.
Meanwhile, the United States continues to lose ground. Despite more than 30 years of under-investing, the problem remains, according to the report, "simple public resistance to paying more for those systems -- either through higher taxes or user fees."
This is another area where the prevailing anti-tax anti-spend ideology of the past 30 years has set us back to the point where we are barely treading water while our competitors outpace us.
Fortunately, the institute's report suggests ways that we can avoid becoming a second-rate economic power as a result of failing infrastructure.
- First, address necessary repairs and upgrades to existing systems now.
- Second, develop a national strategy and use a Race-to-the-Top model to prioritize and finance merit-based projects.
- Third, focus on the nation's metropolitan centers, much as China is doing with its infrastructure program.
- Fourth, to help with financing infrastructure projects, the report recommends: more long-term certainty for federal funding to assist with planning; federal and state infrastructure banks to help with project financing; and phasing-in user fees.
A tall-order indeed for a government that cannot seem to get its act together enough to prevent default on its debt.
Robert A. Cropf chairs the Department of Public Policy Studies at Saint Louis University.