Posts: 3,987
Registered: ‎05-03-2010

U.S. Bridges and Roads report card

Here's an interesting report that came across my desk, today. It's from the desk of Mike Steenhoek, Executive Director Soy Transportation Coalition.


You may be aware that yesterday the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) released their 2017 Infrastructure Report Card – an assessment of the condition of the nation’s infrastructure across 16 categories (surface transportation, railroads, inland waterways, electrical grid, etc.).  The report card is issued every four years and can be reviewed at
The overall grade given to the U.S. infrastructure incorporating all 16 categories is a D+.  Some of the grades for the individual categories that are consequential to the movement of soybeans and other agricultural products are as follows:
·         Bridges: C+
·         Ports: C+
·         Dams: D
·         Railroads: B
·         Roads: D-
·         Inland Waterways: D
·         Levees: D
The report card estimates that between 2016 – 2025 (10 years), there will be a funding gap across all the infrastructure categories of $2 trillion.
Some thoughts related to agricultural transportation that may be of interest:
·         First of all, it’s hard to have an A+ economy and A+ agriculture with a D+ infrastructure.  In order to be profitable, it is not sufficient to stimulate supply and demand.  It is also essential to stimulate greater connectivity with supply and demand.  Transportation infrastructure provides that connectivity.
·         I like to argue that agriculture has one of the most diverse and elongated supply chains of any industry in existence.  We are heavily exposed to and dependent upon our system of roads and bridges, highways and interstates, inland waterways, railroads, and ports.  Farmers do not have the luxury of locating themselves in proximity to infrastructure.  Rather, farmers hope infrastructure locates in proximity to them.  Our viability as an industry depends upon having each of these modes being properly maintained and providing seamless transition from one to the other.
·         It is essential to have a robust amount of funding for improving our infrastructure.  However, it is just as essential for federal, state, and local government to provide greater predictability and reliability of that funding.  This is a topic that receives less attention.  When it comes to promoting our transportation infrastructure, I would rather the government be predictably good than sporadically great.  Constructing and maintaining infrastructure is very expensive and requires years of planning and execution.  It is much more effective when government can provide greater certainty of funding over a number of years rather than a surge of funding in one year and a scarcity of funding the next.  Because we do not provide this certainty – especially with regards to our lock and dam inventory – cost escalations and project delays become commonplace.
·         It is very apparent that additional funding is necessary.  The Soy Transportation Coalition, for example, funded and disseminated analysis a couple years ago that suggested indexing the fuel tax to inflation so that revenue to improve our roads and bridges can better keep pace with the costs of doing so.  However, it is also important for federal, state, and local government to demonstrate better stewardship of taxpayer dollars when maintaining and improving infrastructure.  Before the government asks more from the taxpayer, it should ask more from itself.  There are opportunities to institute and employ best practices so that taxpayer dollars can be stretched further.