Posted on 07/13/2008 5:55:31 PM PDT by Lorianne
America’s tradition of bold national projects has dwindled. With the country’s infrastructure crumbling, it is time to revive it ___ THE Mississippi River pushed relentlessly past dozens of levees this month. Towns were submerged, their buildings tiny islands in murky water. Ducks paddled on ponds that had once been farmland. Some flooding was inevitable, given the force of the swollen Mississippi. But a poorly managed flood-defence system did not help.
For the past few years it has been hard to ignore America’s crumbling infrastructure, from the devastating breach of New Orleans’s levees after Hurricane Katrina to the collapse of a big bridge in Minneapolis last summer. In 2005 the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that $1.6 trillion was needed over five years to bring just the existing infrastructure into good repair. This does not account for future needs. By 2020 freight volumes are projected to be 70% greater than in 1998. By 2050 America’s population is expected to reach 420m, 50% more than in 2000. Much of this growth will take place in metropolitan areas, where the infrastructure is already run down.
(Excerpt) Read more at economist.com ...
To go with the title, I expect to see a crass photo of a plumber...
Don’t build in the flood plain.
Farm on the flood plain, don’t live on it
Well I’m sure we’d all love to upgrade our infrastructure, but every time we try, it turns out that there is some yellow winged moss fly or some such who’s environment might be impacted and the lawsuits shut the work down.
Get rid of liberalism and it’s restrictions and entitlements and big government and it’s taxes and we wouldn’t be having these problems.
Yup.
Don’t build on the best farmland in the world, grow things on it. When it floods, you’re only out a single crop, and as a nice bonus you get the fertility of your fields rejuvenated for next year.
Very little would be built on floodplains or on Florida beaches if the owners had to assume the full risk of such a dangerous location. Instead taxpayers and those living in less-exposed locations subsidize them.
That's a lot of money. I could maybe support a government program on cold fusion, shale oil, or methane hydrates, but fiddling with rivers is not something I want the government to do. Certainly not with that kind of money,
“Very little would be built on floodplains or on Florida beaches if the owners had to assume the full risk of such a dangerous location. Instead taxpayers and those living in less-exposed locations subsidize them.”
Sounds good until you try the real world. You can’t build in the Rocky Mountains and farm the plains. You gotta live in the plains to farm it.
Same with the beaches. Lotta people want a beach vacation. Hard to have a beach side hotel without a beachside hotel.
No matter where you live there are risks, whether its tornadoes, draught, earthquakes, hurricane, fire, or flood. You can live as a community and help your neighbors or you can live on your own.
I do agree with you so far as to not build below sea level.
I love reading these little articles in The Economist informing us rube Yanks the correct way to do things.
I was amused by this one.
Isn't congestion sort of the opposite of sprawl, with both referencing density? How does one reduce one without increasing the other?
And if you do decide to build on land that's 8' below sea level, you might want to insure it. If you decide not to insure it, please don't ask other tax payers to bail you out.
How much of the $1.6 Trillion you just saved the government do you get to keep as a commission?
how much of the money intended for infrastructure was spent on bridges for bikes, empty mass transit and the like - i think it was in portland where someone calculated that they could pay every cyclist $30,000 instead of building a bridge for them
but then, fixing a failing bridge does not get a senator’s name on it like a new (unused) bike bridge
Sure lots of people want to live on the beach.
What I object to is that less-wealthy people inland wind up subsidizing the risk of the more-wealthy waterfront residents. That’s just wrong. As it is when taxpayers rebuild a home three or five times, which has happened.
If given my druthers, I’d pay to rebuild a waterfront home once at taxpayer or insurer expense. Thereafter the occupant is on his own. I suspect most would prefer to take the money and build somewhere less exposed. There is no constitutional right to subsidies for risky behavior.
I grew up in the midwest along the MO River. People built on the bottoms because the land was flat and it was easy to build. Generally a bluff was one to two miles away and the building could have been done there, at slightly more cost, but it was just easier to build in the bottom and then bitch and moan when the levee inevitably breaks.
You want to see a classic example? Take the land between the Sacramento Airport and downtown. It's been rice growing land for decades and has been 10 feet under water at least twice in the last 20 or years. Even the pioneers weren't dumb enough to build there.
Five or six years ago an agency redesignated the floodplain and suddenly thousands of home and offices began going up, with no change whatsoever in the infrastructure to protect the land.
What do you think happened to the value of that agricultural land when redesignated for development? Could those making the decision have been compensated in some way? What do you think the chances are that we'll have heartrending stories about the devastating flooding of the Sacramento River and the billions of dollars of resultant damage sometime in the next 20 years?
“That’s just wrong. As it is when taxpayers rebuild a home three or five times, which has happened.”
Agreed
‘I’d pay to rebuild a waterfront home once at taxpayer or insurer expense. “
Insurers are (should be) private companies. If they want to keep paying thats their choice. The other customers should be able to decide whether to use that company or another.
“I suspect most would prefer to take the money and build somewhere less exposed. “
Probably not, most live there because its a beautiful place to live.
Our economic policies are forcing people to move into population centers. Because of that there is a huge demand for any land close to that population center.
Many are still living in hotels, rentals and manufactured housing paid for by taxpayers.
Whenever the Feds try to boot them out or cut off the flow of free money they get taken to court before some sympathetic judge who usually extends the period freebie cutoff deadline.
But in Punta Gorda, Florida there are still homes with blue tarps to cover roofs torn off by a hurricane two years before Katrina.
FEMA made a commitment to repair/replace them but has said they do not have any money because it is all dedicated to the Katrina clean-up (and the rebuilding, bailouts, free living and welfare scamming).
Of course, these people in Punta Gorda (mostly Caucasian) haven't been whining and making accusations of racism (no one would listen any way) so FEMA will probably just continue to ignore them.
I don't necessarily agree that FEMA should be replacing private property destroyed in natural disasters but that seems to be the accepted course of action these days.
And as long as FEMA made a commitment they should honor it.
But the loud mouth Katrina contingent seems to be permanently ensconced as #1 on the list for FEMA spending.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.