Hacker News Reader

Comment by chishaku | Hacker News Reader

For understanding the scope of the political problem, the American Society of Civil Engineers has an infrastructure scorecard.

The national scorecard for 2013:

    Dams D
    Drinking Water D
    Hazardous Waste D
    Levees D-
    Solid Waste B-
    Wastewater D
    Aviation D
    Bridges C+
    Inland Waterways D-
    Ports C
    Rail C+
    Roads D
    Transit D
    Public Parks & Recreation C-
    Schools D
    Energy D+

Pennsylvania got a B for Rail in 2014. Michigan got a D for Drinking Water in 2009 (most recent grade).

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

View on HN

I don't know anything about the American Society of Civil Engineers, but don't they have every reason to make these grades as low as possible?

This seems unnecessarily conspiratorial considering we know for a fact that the US's infrastructure is literally crumbling beneath our cars and trucks.

Not to say that there aren't issues, but "crumbling US infrastructure" has been an on-again off-again news story for literally decades during which time we've had periods like the stimulus package for "shovel-ready" projects. I suspect infrastructure spending, especially in a country as large as the US, is essentially an unlimited sinkhole.

But then fix the sinkhole. Regionalize it, manage it better, change the incentives. I don't know what the answers are, but there's a whole host of countries that have great quality roads, bridges, and public transport.

And no, the 'size' of the US isn't a very good excuse. If a backwater road in Minnesota is run down, ok, but we're talking about major infrastructure in urban areas.

>Michigan got a D for Drinking Water in 2009 (most recent grade).

As someone living in Michigan, perhaps it was propped up (to the national average, which is already terrible) by the various municipalities that are fairly wealthy and funded.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com