Between 2000 and 2003, the percentage of the nation's 590,750 bridges rated structurally deficient or functionally obsolete decreased slightly from 28.5% to 27.1%. However, it will cost $9.4 billion a year for 20 years to eliminate all bridge deficiencies. Long-term underinvestment is compounded by the lack of a Federal transportation program.
The grades for many other critical infrastructure areas were given, for the most part, lower grades in 2005 then in 2001. Waste water, roads and our national Energy Power Grid continue to fall apart with little or no funding being allocated to address their dire condition.

The amount of money needed to bring our infrastructure up to a passing grade has been estimated at about $1.6 trillion. The fact of the matter is that the GOP would rather cut taxes for the wealthiest of our citizens then spend money to ensure our nation has a safe and strong infrastructure. Additionally we have squandered billions in Iraq, and by the time we are done in that country we will have spent over a trillion dollars, billions of which are unaccounted for, billions more being spent on corruption, and billions being wasted on projects that are substandard and incomplete.

Over and over we have seen and suffered from the inept and corrupt GOP. Yesterday we lost more lives, but, as many of you know, the GOP isn't satisfied with just destroying our nations infrastructure, they have also been successful in making our food supplies less safe, their policies have also resulted in massive recalls for things such as toys that contain unacceptable levels of lead paint. Over and over we see the results of the mantra of the GOP which is that government can't be trusted with your money, but the reality is that when the GOP takes AWAY the ability of the government to do its job through reduced funding of essential services, our whole nation suffers, and people end up dead.

Every state in our union has dire needs for their infrastructure. In California they suffered through blackouts (created by oil companies and Enron), our interstate highways are falling apart, and even our city roads are filled with potholes the size of basketballs. Why don't we have the funding to do the most basic of repairs and maintenance? Because the GOP has pushed a policy of tax relief for the wealthy and ignored our safety.

You get what you pay for, and our nation is seeing the results of what the GOP thinks the majority of us are worth. We can see that the GOP thinks we are NOT worthy enough to have roads that are safe, bridges that are safe, water we can trust, the GOP would rather make sure those at the top have more money in their pocket.

Destruction of our Infrastructure, unsafe food, failure of FEMA, unsafe toys for our children, no medical care for the poor, college tuition rising so high that many middle class families can no longer afford to send their children, rewarding corruption, lack of oversight for drug companies, politicizing our Justice Department.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, Prez Chimpy!

John E., the Trib item here says 12 percent of the bridges are classified as stucturally deficient. You are claiming a figure more than twice that amount.

Anyway, Johnny E., as usual you have everything wrong.

And once again, Deranged John E., those tax cuts went to everyone, poor and rich a like. And you know what Perpetually Clueless John E., revenues to the feds has skyrocketed in recent years.

But I know, you will never let facts get in the way of your maniacal thoughts.

"Atlas Shrugged," anyone? Ms. Rand, you have unfortunately become a profit of doom.

john d. you are a perfect neocon. i have yet to get a tax cut from bushie. the only tax cuts he allowed is to the richest 2%. go back and do some research.
revenues to the fed have increased because they have cut and eliminate "deducts" that would have come to the "average joe and jane". monies have then been shifted to over priced no bid contracts that benifit mainly cheny's former company. get with it. look listen pay attention and not just to right wing talk and tv

We've had the best economic expansion in decades, unfortunately we've wasted all of it on picking fights around the world and never spent a dime on strengthening our home land infrastructure. What a disgrace, the cost Iraq war will me felt for the next 10 years and counting (1 trillion dollars). This is money should have been spent on AMERICA, I hope you agree - let all your politicians know http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=272 shame on them

It's not just bridges. As the American Society of Civil Engineers Infrastructure Report Card 2005 points out(http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=103), we're $1.6 trillion behind in infrastructure investment. That, by the way, is the amount of tax cuts Mister Bush tried to get passed in 2001, before he had the Global War on Terrorism™ with which to shape his legacy. Congress "compromised" and gave him only $1.35 trillion, tax cuts that writer Robert Freeman once labeled a "national form of insanity."

What the ASCE's report points out is that bridges aren't our only problem:

Dams (D+) Since 1998, the number of unsafe dams has risen by 33% to more than 3,500. While federally owned dams are in good condition, and there have been modest gains in repair, the number of dams identified as unsafe is increasing at a faster rate than those being repaired. $10.1 billion is needed over the next 12 years to address all critical non-federal dams--dams which pose a direct risk to human life should they fail. ...

Drinking Water (D-) America faces a shortfall of $11 billion annually to replace aging facilities and comply with safe drinking water regulations. Federal funding for drinking water in 2005 remained level at $850 million, less than 10% of the total national requirement. The Bush administration has proposed the same level of funding for FY06. ...

Schools (D) The Federal government has not assessed the condition of America's schools since 1999, when it estimated that $127 billion was needed to bring facilities to good condition. Other sources have since reported a need as high as $268 billion. Despite public support of bond initiatives to provide funding for school facilities, without a clear understanding of the need, it is uncertain whether schools can meet increasing enrollment demands and the smaller class sizes mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act. ...

Transit (D+)Transit use increased faster than any other mode of transportation--up 21%--between 1993 and 2002. Federal investment during this period stemmed the decline in the condition of existing transit infrastructure. The reduction in federal investment in real dollars since 2001 threatens this turnaround. In 2002, total capital outlays for transit were $12.3 billion. The Federal Transit Administration estimates $14.8 billion is needed annually to maintain conditions, and $20.6 billion is needed to improve to "good" conditions. Meanwhile, many major transit properties are borrowing funds to maintain operations, even as they are significantly raising fares and cutting back service. ...

Wastewater (D-) Aging wastewater management systems discharge billions of gallons of untreated sewage into U.S. surface waters each year. The EPA estimates that the nation must invest $390 billion over the next 20 years to replace existing systems and build new ones to meet increasing demands. Yet, in 2005, Congress cut funding for wastewater management for the first time in eight years. The Bush administration has proposed a further 33% reduction, to $730 million, for FY06.

You're doing a heckuva job earboy.

Read it weep.

In case you want to look at the statistics. Structurally deficient bridges are down alomost 30,000 from 1995. It looks President Bush is cleaning-up another mess inherited from the previous administration.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2006/html/chapter_02/table_l_09.html

Ray G, ALL income tax went down under Bush. 28 percent tax bracket, where most Americans are at went down to 25 percent. The tax deduction for kids doubled under Bush. The marriage penalty tax went away. Plus in 2001, nearly everyone got at least a $300 rebate from Bush and in 2002, families with kids all received at least another $300 rebate.

And under Bush, those in the lowest income sector no longer pay a federal income tax. You do some research for a change. Last week I supplied a link that proved all of that.

Frank,

Look at the link I provided, see the trend. This makes you one of the following: a reporter with an agenda, a lazy reporter, or just a liar.

When you use figures, put them in context.

Read it weep.

In case you want to look at the statistics. Structurally deficient bridges are down alomost 30,000 from 1995. It looks President Bush is cleaning-up another mess inherited from the previous administration.

Posted by: Terry | August 2, 2007 7:58 PM

Wingnut Terry,
Try telling that fairytale about Prez Chimpy to the good people of Minnesota.

Read it and weep?

From Terry's own link:

Urban deficient (Structural + functional) bridges 1995-2000 (Clinton) 599 fewer

Urban deficient bridges 2001-2005 (Bush) 1903 more

Rural deficient bridges 1995-2000 (Clinton) 19,582 fewer

Rural deficient bridges 2001-2005 (Bush) 10,602 fewer

Total deficient bridges 1995-2000 (Clinton) 20,181 fewer

Total deficient bridges 2001-2005 (Bush) 8699 fewer

Clinton 2000 20,181 fewer-Bush 2005 8699=

11,482 fewer deficient bridges at the end of Clinton's term vs. the end of 2005 into Bush's term

Structurally deficient urban bridges 1995-2000 (Clinton) 2,510 fewer

Structurally deficient urban bridges 2001-2005 (Bush) 105 fewer

Structurally deficient rural bridges 1995-2000 (Clinton) 18,231 fewer

Structurally deficient rural bridges 2001-2005 (Bush) 7,567 fewer

Total structurally deficient bridges 1995-2000 (Clinton) 20,741

Total structurally deficient bridges 2001-2005 (Bush) 7,672

According to these figures from the DOT that Terry linked, there were 13,069 less structurally deficient bridges at the end of Clinton's term than at the 2005 mark in Bushes term.

Since Clinton's term encompasses 6 years of the study the average reduction in structurally deficient bridges per year between 1995-2000 was 20,741 divided by 6= 3,457 per year

For the five years of Bush's term encompassed in the study 2001-2005 the ave per yer reduction in structurally deficient bridges was 7,672 divided by 5= 1,534 per year.

WTF, Terry? Where do you get off claiming that Bush has done a better job at improving infrastructure than Clinton?

Terry-

Let's look at the numbers, shall we?

1995- 185,267 deficient bridges total

2000- 165,086 total

2005- 156,335 total.

So, that makes the numbers drop over 20,000 during the Clinton 5 years, and under 9,000 during the Bush 5 years of the statistics you yourself provided. The rate of repair has slowed under Bush. Hardly cleaning up a Clinton mess, is he?

However, as I've repeatedly said this is NOT a partisan issue. BOTH parties are at fault, and both parties have contirbuted to this problem over a span of decades.

Maybe Terry is counting the glorious "Bridge to Nowhere," a proud symbol of GOP accomplishments. I didn't think pork would be as structurally sound as steel and concrete....

Tony, I agree!!! This is not a partisan issue. Both parties are at fault, states and feds are at fault. Rather than throwing money at silly earmarks, pet project, new projects, why can't the politicians spend money on what we have, keep it proper working order and in good shape?

Oh Man, I agree with Johnny D on something?

Does anyone have the name of a good therapist?

I'm not surprised the wingnuts can't do math. After all, they only need to count up to eight; the number of cylinders on their Hemi.

Tony and dt,

I probably went off a little quick on Clinton, but that was in response to John E's (and other's)stupidity - I should know better by now.

However, I will continue on with my points and the math. Faster rate of decrease during the last 5 yrs of Clinton, lower overall total numbers during Bush.

Tony,

That is a bigger drop. The real question is, are there now more deficient bridges now or in 2000? There are about 9,000 less deficient bridges now even though there are 6,000 more bridges in total.

Dt,

Same concept as I just explained to Tony. It is the total number of deficient bridges that matters. The change does not matter.

To your statement "According to these figures from the DOT that Terry linked, there were 13,069 less structurally deficient bridges at the end of Clinton's term than at the 2005 mark in Bushes term."

The number of structurally deficient bridges in 2000 was 83,576. The number of structurally deficient bridges in 2000 was 75,923. Are you in John E's math class?

The important figure is the % of deficient bridges to total bridges. That % is less under George Bush.

"Same concept as I just explained to Tony. It is the total number of deficient bridges that matters. The change does not matter."

Sorry Terry, that just doesn't cut it. The rate does matter. If only one bridge had been fixed under Bush the total would have gone down.

The fact is our performance under both Bush and Clinton has been insufficient. The fact that Bush has slowed our rate of progress is completely unacceptable.

Tony,

"The fact is our performance under both Bush and Clinton has been insufficient. The fact that Bush has slowed our rate of progress is completely unacceptable."

Just the opposite. The performance on the maintenance of the bridges has been acceptable in the past and that is borne out thru the fact that there have not been incidents like this before. There has to be a risk assessment done and a cost/benefit analysis applied to it. There are risks in life and mitigating risks cost money.

For example, most bridges have simple guardrail system that prevents cars from going over the side. However, that guardrail design might only prevent 99% of the cars that hit the guardrail from going over the side. That guardrail system has a cost "x". In order to get the guardrail system to 100%, the gov't might have to spend "2x". A risk assessment asks the questions if it is worth double the money to incresae safety by 1%.

Gov't money is not an infinite.

As I linked before in a different post on this topic, there is money in the transporation budget - $60 billion annually. It's how its spent that is the question. The links I provided showed federal gov't transportation money going for bike paths. Why?

"The performance on the maintenance of the bridges has been acceptable in the past and that is borne out thru the fact that there have not been incidents like this before."

Terry, get out of "Must defend Status Quo at all costs mode" and think for a minute.

Our infrastructure is rapidly aging. Bridges like this, that were built as part of the early expansion of the Interstate highway system, are reaching ages in excess of 40 years now. What was sufficient to maintain them in the past is not sufficient now, and will continue to be less sufficient in the future.

Bridges are just one example amongst many types of infrastructure facing the same issues.

In 2005 The Federal Highway Administration estimated it needen $375 Billion to fund highway repair and improvement projects. It got only $286 Billion in the highway bill passed that year. 76%.

Th Federal Highway Administration Trust fund is projected to run dry in 2009.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20095291/

All is not well Terry. We've built up a problem over decades, and now the piper must be paid.

Get your head out of the sand and be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

"Terry, get out of "Must defend Status Quo at all costs mode" and think for a minute."

that's 59 seconds longer than some.

"Th Federal Highway Administration Trust fund is projected to run dry in 2009."

Let's get off the fund is about to run dry and the sky is falling credo. "Funds" in DC mean nothing. If they did, Social Security wouldn't be a bhig issue, but it is a big issue since gov't borrows from one fund to pay for other needs.

"In 2005 The Federal Highway Administration estimated it needen $375 Billion to fund highway repair and improvement projects. It got only $286 Billion in the highway bill passed that year. 76%."

Have you ever known anyone to gov't official, or private sector official, to not give a padded estimate? When you get into the real world you will know this.

Also, look at the link I provided to Friday's story about this. Money is appropriated from the feds to the states for transporation needs and then the states take the money and build bike paths. The money is there, it needs to be spent wiser.

Terry-

Wow. You are so completely in denial it's truly amazing.

There's no point in discussions with you. You shrug off any fact or figure presented as "padded" or inherently false if it comes from government or academia.

Terry, I know that you are only ever concerned about yourself and your immediate family. Do your kids drive over bridges terry? Live near a levy or damn? A pipeline? Think about one of those failing and maybe you'll see the importance of this issue and get passed the "hey it was only one bridge so who cares, everything is perfectly fine attitude."

Tony,

Back to "I'm an old selfish ogor". The statics I quoted were from the gov't - $60 billion in spending. You just think throwing more gov't money, preferably from taxing the filthy rich, is the solution to every problem.
Throwing money at a problem does not solve it - see education. It's taking the money you have and using it smarter. For example, looking at maintaining the cureent infrastructure instead of building bike paths.

My kids drive over bridges, I drive over bridges - I have never worried about one collasping and I don't now. I have lived near a damn, never had a worry about that either. Live near major natural gas pipelines - not gov't owned by thge way - don't worry about then either.

When you take an economic's course someday, you will learn about evaluating risk.

You never did answer the question from about a week ago - what do you do to contribute to this country's economy?