ASCE's Infrastructure Report
I posted a few weeks ago about how I disapproved of ASCE's infrastructure report (here and here). I just wanted to clarify how I feel about it, now that I've had a while to ponder the situation. Basically I still disapprove. Without qualifications.
First off, I think it blurs the line between our role as protecting the public welfare and a new role of setting policy for political gain. To me it is similar to the issues that top military leaders must deal with. It is clear that you must have soldiers to fight wars. Getting their opinion on military matters is essential. But clearly, you can't let the military decide which wars should be fought. Not only is that a question they can't answer, it's a question they don't want to. It's a conflict of interest.
In this democratic republic we call the United States of America, there is only one group that can set policy and that is the citizenry. We vote to elect leaders to represent our wishes; on the other hand ASCE has not been elected, appointed, or chosen to act in any representational capacity on this issue (other than by us clever engineers).
Because they have no official right to set policy in this matter, ASCE is acting as a lobbyist group. And what are they lobbying for? More money. They want the US public to spend more money on civil engineering projects. Who will this benefit? Well, that's a complicated issue. If it results in "bridges to nowhere" then additional spending won't benefit anyone but builders and engineers. Then 20 years down the road those unneeded bridges and roads will be "crumbling" and used to justify more spending. The ability for this report to be pushed in front of the public to proclaim how much we need more bridges and superhighways is another reason I hate it.
The final reason I just wish ASCE would quit this is because it makes an implicit appeal (sometimes explicit) that spending more on infrastructure projects will provide more safety for the public. This is downright dangerous. If the last report card from 2005 had somehow convinced lawmakers to invest USD$2Trillion into all these projects, could we have averted the most famous disasters since that time? Would Minnesota's I-35W bridge still be up? Would the city of New Orleans have been spared? The answer is no. But I have still seen these issues used to justify additional infrastructure spending.
My opinion is that until ASCE can prove that not a single member will profit from its recommendations, ASCE should refrain from making these alarmist reports on infrastructure.
First off, I think it blurs the line between our role as protecting the public welfare and a new role of setting policy for political gain. To me it is similar to the issues that top military leaders must deal with. It is clear that you must have soldiers to fight wars. Getting their opinion on military matters is essential. But clearly, you can't let the military decide which wars should be fought. Not only is that a question they can't answer, it's a question they don't want to. It's a conflict of interest.
In this democratic republic we call the United States of America, there is only one group that can set policy and that is the citizenry. We vote to elect leaders to represent our wishes; on the other hand ASCE has not been elected, appointed, or chosen to act in any representational capacity on this issue (other than by us clever engineers).
Because they have no official right to set policy in this matter, ASCE is acting as a lobbyist group. And what are they lobbying for? More money. They want the US public to spend more money on civil engineering projects. Who will this benefit? Well, that's a complicated issue. If it results in "bridges to nowhere" then additional spending won't benefit anyone but builders and engineers. Then 20 years down the road those unneeded bridges and roads will be "crumbling" and used to justify more spending. The ability for this report to be pushed in front of the public to proclaim how much we need more bridges and superhighways is another reason I hate it.
The final reason I just wish ASCE would quit this is because it makes an implicit appeal (sometimes explicit) that spending more on infrastructure projects will provide more safety for the public. This is downright dangerous. If the last report card from 2005 had somehow convinced lawmakers to invest USD$2Trillion into all these projects, could we have averted the most famous disasters since that time? Would Minnesota's I-35W bridge still be up? Would the city of New Orleans have been spared? The answer is no. But I have still seen these issues used to justify additional infrastructure spending.
My opinion is that until ASCE can prove that not a single member will profit from its recommendations, ASCE should refrain from making these alarmist reports on infrastructure.
Labels: ASCE, ASCE Report, infrastructure
posted by Graeme at
2:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home