Infrastructure Stimulus Part I

This is the first in a four (maybe more) part series I am going to do blasting the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) for what I believe is a breach of ethics on the highest level possible. This morning the ASCE released their results of a nationwide survey of almost every public work possible, from dams, bridges, and roads, to water treatment, power generation, and railroads. Overall, not a single group got above a "C" grade, and the average grade was a "D".

This report comes out hours before the House is expected to easily pass their version of the Obama Stimulus Package, and pass it on to the Senate, where the real debate is to begin.

I have four major issues with the "timely" release of this survey.
1. This is, under a cloak of legitimacy, lobbying for taxpayer dollars to fund private business. This violates the oath taken by a professional engineer when they take their oath and get licensed.
2. The recommendations made by this survey are impractical, given the time frame suggested.
3. The increase of $500 billion in less than 4 years implies the nation will soon need to spend the entire GDP on building roads, which is a falsehood, and makes the dollar figure suspicious.
4. The environmental impact of some of these recommendations fly in the face of the oath a professional engineer takes when they become licensed.

I will explore each of these in due turn, starting with the first.

As an engineer, I am normally all about government spending on public works. As I noted here, government projects typically are large-scale, expensive, and long-term; an engineers dream (if you ignore the documentation and CA that drives your profit down). A massive push by the Federal government to increase infrastructure spending, renovate GSA buildings, and (re)vamp up the country's government properties would serve my industry very, very well.
However, releasing a report that says "give us money, lots of it, and fast" a day before the government is expected to vote on where the stimulus money goes has the stink of lobbying all over it, and I cringed when I saw the report had been released today. If the report had been released with enough time for its validity to be debated, this would not be an issue. Next, I expect the ASCE to say "without this infrastructure spending, the economy will fail. Oversight will also cause the economy to fail. Just give us the money, and we'll take care of the rest. Trust us, we're experts."

The previous report, released in 2005, made prophetic claims, like the idea that major U.S. bridges were in serious danger of collapse, and when the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis collapsed in 2007, killing thirteen, the ASCE collectively celebrated (and mourned) their foresight. The report requested $1.6 trillion be allocated to infrastructure building in the next 5 years. Of course, not all this money was to repair bridges. Much was to build new structures, like sewage treatment facilities, expand airports and add runways (good runways cost over $100 million a piece), and expand the railroad system in the country. Many bridges in the report listed as "dangerous" were recommended not to be repaired, rather be replaced with larger, newer bridges.

The report released this morning was not scheduled for release until March, but in the face of a quick stimulus decision by Congress, the ASCE has released a "draft version" which claims the extent of work needed has increased a whopping $500 billion, bringing the grand total to $2.2 trillion dollars. The House stimulus package, as written, includes $150 billion in immediate spending on infrastructure.

The NSPE (National Society of Professional Engineers) wrote The Engineer's Creed in 1954. A couple excerpts:

I Pledge to participate in none but honest enterprise.

I Pledge to place service before profit and the honor and standing of the profession before personal advantage.

Neither of these two creeds are being followed by the ASCE in the publishing of this report.

The NSPE Fundamental Canon 3: Engineers Shall...Issue Public Statements Only In An Objective And Truthful Manner.

Report chairman Andrew Herrmann, who happens to be a principal at a prominent civil engineering firm suspiciously close to D.C., obviously is not an objective observer of the nation's infrastructure, given that his firm does major bridge and highway work at the state and Federal level!

The NSPE Fundamental Canon 4: Engineers Shall...Avoid The Perception Of Conflicts Of Interest.

Steve Ellis, the vice-president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, makes it poignantly clear that this Canon has been boldly breached by the ASCE:

The civil engineers' group is "certainly in the position to be qualified to talk about deteriorating infrastructure — but also to benefit," he said, "something policymakers need to keep in mind."

It is not something that policy makers should have to keep in mind. The ASCE, clearly having a conflict of interest (mostly due to the "rush" release of the report right before the vote on the stimulus package) should not have released the report before the scheduled March date.

I have literally no power to report these people for ethical violation, and even if I did, the ASCE would probably laugh it away as nonsense. But if we are to take engineers seriously as professionals who do their work without greediness and with the public interest at heart, then we need to not make rush decisions and try to lobby for dollars.

NSPE Fundamental Canon 6: Engineers Shall Act In Such A Manner As To Uphold And Enhance The Honor, Integrity, And Dignity Of The Engineering Profession.

Stay tuned.


_