http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
This report is issued every four years. Rails got a C+, an improvement from 2009, thanks to infrastructure investments.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
from the Executive Summary: "Railroads are experiencing a competitive resurgence as both an energy-efficient freight transportation option and a viable city-to-city passenger service. In 2012, Amtrak recorded its highest year of ridership with 31.2 million passengers, almost doubling ridership since 2000, with growth anticipated to continue. Both freight and passenger rail have been investing heavily in their tracks, bridges, and tunnels as well as adding new capacity for freight and passengers. In 2010 alone, freight railroads renewed the rails on more than 3,100 miles of railroad track, equivalent to going coast to coast. Since 2009, capital investment from both freight and passenger railroads has exceeded $75 billion, actually increasing investment during the recession when materials prices were lower and trains ran less frequently. With high ridership and greater investment in the system, the grade for rail saw the largest improvement, moving up to a C+ in 2013."
I think also that a do nothing, spend nothing, status quo complacent Congress makes anybody and everybody else who spends money and makes improvements look good.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6 I think also that a do nothing, spend nothing, status quo complacent Congress makes anybody and everybody else who spends money and makes improvements look good.
Spend nothing?
We spent around $800-billion in the first round of stimulus and it was largely targeted to infrastructure. Where is the result?
Bucyrus,
If you read the report that Schlimm provided a link for you will see that there have been improvements to our infra structure. However, it was in such bad shape that the over all grade rose only to D+.
John
John,
I was only commenting on Henry’s point that we are not spending money. It seems like this country has spent far more money on infrastructure in the last five years than at any other time in its history. For about half of what was allotted for stimulus in one signing, we could have bought the entire HSR system rollout for the U.S.
I skimmed over the report, but I have to ask if a report showing that we don’t spend enough on infrastructure is objective. I would never expect to see such a report that gives an “A” as a grade. Maybe they exist. Can somebody cite an example of an infrastructure report card that does not call for more spending on infrastructure? Maybe it’s just a coincidence, but one political party always claims that infrastructure spending is woefully inadequate.
Remember the source American Society of Civil Engineers, that is people who get paid to build infrastructure. I think it is safe to assume they never met an infrastructure project they did not like.
They have every right to lobby, and this report is part of their program. The general public, and hopefully the politicians, need to view this report in its true light as a lobbying exercise.
Mac
When the Minneapolis I35W bridge collapsed, politicians flocked to the microphone and blamed the collapse on taxpayers because they are unwilling to spend enough on infrastructure. Of course as we now know, the collapse had nothing to do with a lack of maintenance. In fact the bridge was undergoing maintenance when it collapsed. But the cause of the collapse was an engineering design flaw.
It's always a sign of desperation to engage in disparaging sources of information (ASCE) that doesn't fit into our mindset, even when that mindset is not well-informed about the topic, in this case infrastructure. here is the link to the 2009 report card summary:
https://apps.asce.org/reportcard/2009/grades.cfm
schlimm It's always a sign of desperation to engage in disparaging sources of information (ASCE) that doesn't fit into our mindset, even when that mindset is not well-informed about the topic, in this case infrastructure. here is the link to the 2009 report card summary: https://apps.asce.org/reportcard/2009/grades.cfm
Schlimm,
Since I feel this disparaging comment is directed at my previous post, I must point out that I did not disparage the ASCE. I did point out that they are hardly an unbiased source.
I will now freely disparage the Executive Summary which mixes strong freight railroad investment with positive comments about Amtrak, two issues that have virtually nothing to do with each other. The report itself is more clear in pointing out that freight carriers have made massive investments and will have to do more to keep up with expected traffic growth. ATK, by contrast has a plan to get to a "state of good repair" over several years. That means ATK is not in a state of good repair now.
The state of good repair comment makes sense only for the lines ATK owns, that is the NEC and appendiges. The freight railroads and ATK are very different entities. This report makes that distinction only if you know enough to read between the lines. For members of the public and the politicans to ferret out that basic fact, they will have to know it going in.
This report contains no news. I stand by my comment that it is a lobbying piece by an interested party. I will disparage them for not making clear the difference between freight carriers and ATK since they should be smart enough to know the difference.
I think the distinction was clear enough to most readers. I was certainly not suggesting ATk is at the same level as freight lines and neither did the report, if you had examined it.. Here is a link to details in the entire report which makes the investment picture clearer:
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/#e/rail-investments
And Mac, you were not actually the "target" of my comment.
Maintenance is always the Red Headed step-child of infra-structure. Nobody gets their picture taken when 100 miles of track has had a tie & surfacing gang go through and restore the line to track speed. Nobody gets their picture taken when the storm sewer that was just waiting the right storm to fail, was replaced with a improved system that can handle twice the volume. Nobody gets their picture taken for making structural upgrades to an existing bridge, people only b!tch about the congestion that they upgrades caused as they were being installed. The list goes on and on. Legislators and JQ Public both think once a infrastructure asset is created it will last forever without investment in maintenance - when financial times get tight, the first place that gets looked to for additional funds to bail out the 'important' things is the maintenance budget. Grand projects may expand societies grasp, maintenance keeps one able to utilize that grasp for years to come.
Had the ASCME report come out in the middle 70's, Class I's in general would have received a D- and Penn Central would have come in at a F----.
Yes, ASCME is biased on what they report - WHO ISN'T. Every organization has their own point of view that they champion - that is the American way.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.