Infrastructure Cuts Would Make the Unthinkable Unsurvivable

Friday 1 April 2011

by: Allison Kilkenny, Truthout

Closed bridge at Cameron, Arizona. (Photo: frankhg)

Do you like this? Click here to signup for free email updates from Truthout.

It's no secret that the nation's infrastructure is in dire shape. Last year, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave US infrastructure a "D" rating and specifically bridges a "C," an average grade that might thrill mediocre students, but in this case means 12 percent of the more than 72,000 bridges in the country are too old or "structurally deficient." Additionally, according to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, 4,400 dams are considered susceptible to failure.

Despite ominous warnings from the country's engineers, infrastructure remains a thoroughly unsexy issue that causes people to nod off. Transportation networks and buildings are things we take for granted - structures that have always and will always be there. It isn't until infrastructure fails that we understand they are magnificent feats and begin to appreciate how much human effort it takes to maintain an acceptable level of safety during our daily commutes.

The aftermath of the Japan earthquake conveys two tales: the nuclear infrastructure and also the story of the country's roads, bridges and buildings. One story has an abysmal ending, the other relatively successful. Despite the failure in Fukushima where reactors were built on an expectation that a 7.9 quake would be the maximum any plant in the area would ever experience - and apparently didn't account for the likelihood of an auxiliary tsunami - it appears as though Japan's overall infrastructure is holding together.

It should be emphasized that the over 10,000 missing people, deaths of thousands (and counting,) radiation exposure, over 100 crippled trains and the obliteration of entire towns all occurred in a rich nation best prepared for earthquakes. Japanese citizens participate in earthquake drills from early childhood, and buildings must adhere to the strictest of regulation codes. Structures are even made "earthquake proof" with deep foundations and shock absorbers designed to withstand seismic waves.

Conversely, Americans are woefully unprepared to deal with quakes. "Americans are not adequately prepared," says Yumei Wang, a geotechnical engineer in Oregon. "The Japanese have the most advanced preparations in the world." However, the biggest problem isn't that Americans are underprepared for a massive quake - it's that their infrastructure isn't ready.

Certain groups like the conservative Heritage Foundation have seized on this moment to accuse Japan's investment in infrastructure of somehow having failed because many roads and Fukushima's nuclear facilities could not withstand a massive quake and tsunami. Such criticisms are silly, namely because very few structures on earth could withstand the impact of a 9.0-magnitude quake and subsequent massive wave, but that's no reason to forego regulation like Japan's rigorous safety standards that saved even more citizens from being killed by collapsing roads and buildings.

By and large, [Japan's buildings] passed the grade. Those who were in Tokyo describe seeing skyscrapers sway and spin, some at an angle of 20 degrees; others inside the scrapers said they pitched and rolled as if they were on the deck of a ship at sea. But the buildings did not fall.

Of course, "Building Doesn't Collapse" isn't a lead CNN is likely to run with anytime soon.

Like Japan, California has very strict building codes that have been in place since the 1933 Long Beach quake that destroyed almost all of the reinforced masonry buildings, but even California's stringent guidelines don't match the seriousness of Japan's codes. For example, in 1971, California's high overpasses, where the 5 and 14 freeways meet, collapsed and the cross-section's replacement also fell in a 1994 quake. These kinds of events (caused by 6.6- and 6.7-magnitude quakes, respectively) are horrific enough without adding the element of radiation leakage.

There are 104 nuclear power reactors in the country with permits pending for 20 more (13 states share the same Japanese containment system). Within the hotbed of earthquake activity in California, there are two nuclear power plants. The owner of San Onofre nuclear plant says there's no cause for concern, but his reasoning sounds eerily familiar. "The science says that we could see about five miles from the plant an earthquake, perhaps equal to a magnitude 6.5, 6.6," Gil Alexander of Southern California Edison told "CBS News." "So we designed the plant to exceed the maximum threat. It's designed to withstand a 7.0." [Emphasis added.]

But what happens when the Big One hits? The Pacific Northwest is "overdue [for a major quake]," warns geotechnical engineer Wang of the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. Studies indicate a 7.8 magnitude earthquake in California could kill 1,800 people and destroy 300,000 structures. In 2008, the official earthquake forecast, known as the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF,) predicted California has more than a 99% chance of having a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake within the next 30 years and a 46% chance of getting hit with a quake of magnitude 7.5 or greater in the same time span. Alexander would have been better off saying: We're about half sure these plants will still be here in the next few decades.

Oregon's Senate President Peter Courtney says his state is not prepared for a Japanese-style quake. "The whole valley will shut down. You'll lose bridges. You'll lose buildings. You won't be able to get people in and out of health facilities, hospitals. If it's during the daytime and kids are in school, including Oregon State, Lord knows the number of people who are going to be injured or killed. The magnitude of this is beyond description. We are not prepared," he says.

In 2007 the state released a report on the need for seismic retrofitting in Oregon. James Roddey of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries says it wasn't optimistic.

James Roddey: "Half of all of the schools in the state were at high, or very high risk of collapse and to a much lesser degree the police stations and fire stations were at risk."

So that's about 1,500 school buildings at risk.

Roddey hopes to have all of Oregon's schools, fire stations and police stations retrofitted ... in 25 years.

As the country's networks of roads and bridges age, America is simultaneously experiencing a harsh era of austerity. Meanwhile, the president has called for the country to "live within its means" at the same time he proposes investing in infrastructure. President Obama proposed $50 billion to upgrade national infrastructure and yet he brags about meeting Republicans "halfway" on proposed budget cuts - cuts that will make his kind of vision for growth impossible.

The president appears prepared to humor the GOP's dystopian vision for the future even though a dollar "saved" on not maintaining or updating infrastructure is actually a dollar wasted. As The Washington Post reports, "it's cheaper to strengthen a bridge that's standing than repair one that's fallen down."

Rep. Jerry Costello (D-Illinois) echoes that sentiment in The Hill:

[I]t is estimated that every $1 billion invested in national infrastructure creates 35,000 jobs and generates $6.1 billion in economic activity.

The fiscally responsible thing to do in this case is invest in infrastructure. Yet, the cacophony for cuts has reached such a frenzied level that Sen. John Kerry was recently forced to bypass the austerity craze with a proposal for legislation to create an infrastructure bank that would provide loans for large building projects. The I-bank is designed to skirt Washington's paralysis in order to return to a time when Americans built things.

Budget cuts are normally already painful for poor and vulnerable Americans, but infrastructure austerity thrusts ascetic measures onto massive structures that support, carry and contain millions of Americans every day. These decaying giants surround us, and it's the duty of the government to maintain and improve such structures.

One of President Obama's stock lines on the campaign trail was his supposed refusal to "kick the can down the road," but by refusing to care for the nation's infrastructure, that's precisely what he's doing. Particularly, the Obama administration leaves the country vulnerable to catastrophe in the event of a Japanese-level quake.

Infrastructure Cuts Would Make the Unthinkable Unsurvivable

Friday 1 April 2011

by: Allison Kilkenny, Truthout

Closed bridge at Cameron, Arizona. (Photo: frankhg)

Do you like this? Click here to signup for free email updates from Truthout.

It's no secret that the nation's infrastructure is in dire shape. Last year, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave US infrastructure a "D" rating and specifically bridges a "C," an average grade that might thrill mediocre students, but in this case means 12 percent of the more than 72,000 bridges in the country are too old or "structurally deficient." Additionally, according to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, 4,400 dams are considered susceptible to failure.

Despite ominous warnings from the country's engineers, infrastructure remains a thoroughly unsexy issue that causes people to nod off. Transportation networks and buildings are things we take for granted - structures that have always and will always be there. It isn't until infrastructure fails that we understand they are magnificent feats and begin to appreciate how much human effort it takes to maintain an acceptable level of safety during our daily commutes.

The aftermath of the Japan earthquake conveys two tales: the nuclear infrastructure and also the story of the country's roads, bridges and buildings. One story has an abysmal ending, the other relatively successful. Despite the failure in Fukushima where reactors were built on an expectation that a 7.9 quake would be the maximum any plant in the area would ever experience - and apparently didn't account for the likelihood of an auxiliary tsunami - it appears as though Japan's overall infrastructure is holding together.

It should be emphasized that the over 10,000 missing people, deaths of thousands (and counting,) radiation exposure, over 100 crippled trains and the obliteration of entire towns all occurred in a rich nation best prepared for earthquakes. Japanese citizens participate in earthquake drills from early childhood, and buildings must adhere to the strictest of regulation codes. Structures are even made "earthquake proof" with deep foundations and shock absorbers designed to withstand seismic waves.

Conversely, Americans are woefully unprepared to deal with quakes. "Americans are not adequately prepared," says Yumei Wang, a geotechnical engineer in Oregon. "The Japanese have the most advanced preparations in the world." However, the biggest problem isn't that Americans are underprepared for a massive quake - it's that their infrastructure isn't ready.

Certain groups like the conservative Heritage Foundation have seized on this moment to accuse Japan's investment in infrastructure of somehow having failed because many roads and Fukushima's nuclear facilities could not withstand a massive quake and tsunami. Such criticisms are silly, namely because very few structures on earth could withstand the impact of a 9.0-magnitude quake and subsequent massive wave, but that's no reason to forego regulation like Japan's rigorous safety standards that saved even more citizens from being killed by collapsing roads and buildings.

By and large, [Japan's buildings] passed the grade. Those who were in Tokyo describe seeing skyscrapers sway and spin, some at an angle of 20 degrees; others inside the scrapers said they pitched and rolled as if they were on the deck of a ship at sea. But the buildings did not fall.

Of course, "Building Doesn't Collapse" isn't a lead CNN is likely to run with anytime soon.

Like Japan, California has very strict building codes that have been in place since the 1933 Long Beach quake that destroyed almost all of the reinforced masonry buildings, but even California's stringent guidelines don't match the seriousness of Japan's codes. For example, in 1971, California's high overpasses, where the 5 and 14 freeways meet, collapsed and the cross-section's replacement also fell in a 1994 quake. These kinds of events (caused by 6.6- and 6.7-magnitude quakes, respectively) are horrific enough without adding the element of radiation leakage.

There are 104 nuclear power reactors in the country with permits pending for 20 more (13 states share the same Japanese containment system). Within the hotbed of earthquake activity in California, there are two nuclear power plants. The owner of San Onofre nuclear plant says there's no cause for concern, but his reasoning sounds eerily familiar. "The science says that we could see about five miles from the plant an earthquake, perhaps equal to a magnitude 6.5, 6.6," Gil Alexander of Southern California Edison told "CBS News." "So we designed the plant to exceed the maximum threat. It's designed to withstand a 7.0." [Emphasis added.]

But what happens when the Big One hits? The Pacific Northwest is "overdue [for a major quake]," warns geotechnical engineer Wang of the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. Studies indicate a 7.8 magnitude earthquake in California could kill 1,800 people and destroy 300,000 structures. In 2008, the official earthquake forecast, known as the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF,) predicted California has more than a 99% chance of having a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake within the next 30 years and a 46% chance of getting hit with a quake of magnitude 7.5 or greater in the same time span. Alexander would have been better off saying: We're about half sure these plants will still be here in the next few decades.

Oregon's Senate President Peter Courtney says his state is not prepared for a Japanese-style quake. "The whole valley will shut down. You'll lose bridges. You'll lose buildings. You won't be able to get people in and out of health facilities, hospitals. If it's during the daytime and kids are in school, including Oregon State, Lord knows the number of people who are going to be injured or killed. The magnitude of this is beyond description. We are not prepared," he says.

In 2007 the state released a report on the need for seismic retrofitting in Oregon. James Roddey of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries says it wasn't optimistic.

James Roddey: "Half of all of the schools in the state were at high, or very high risk of collapse and to a much lesser degree the police stations and fire stations were at risk."

So that's about 1,500 school buildings at risk.

Roddey hopes to have all of Oregon's schools, fire stations and police stations retrofitted ... in 25 years.

As the country's networks of roads and bridges age, America is simultaneously experiencing a harsh era of austerity. Meanwhile, the president has called for the country to "live within its means" at the same time he proposes investing in infrastructure. President Obama proposed $50 billion to upgrade national infrastructure and yet he brags about meeting Republicans "halfway" on proposed budget cuts - cuts that will make his kind of vision for growth impossible.

The president appears prepared to humor the GOP's dystopian vision for the future even though a dollar "saved" on not maintaining or updating infrastructure is actually a dollar wasted. As The Washington Post reports, "it's cheaper to strengthen a bridge that's standing than repair one that's fallen down."

Rep. Jerry Costello (D-Illinois) echoes that sentiment in The Hill:

[I]t is estimated that every $1 billion invested in national infrastructure creates 35,000 jobs and generates $6.1 billion in economic activity.

The fiscally responsible thing to do in this case is invest in infrastructure. Yet, the cacophony for cuts has reached such a frenzied level that Sen. John Kerry was recently forced to bypass the austerity craze with a proposal for legislation to create an infrastructure bank that would provide loans for large building projects. The I-bank is designed to skirt Washington's paralysis in order to return to a time when Americans built things.

Budget cuts are normally already painful for poor and vulnerable Americans, but infrastructure austerity thrusts ascetic measures onto massive structures that support, carry and contain millions of Americans every day. These decaying giants surround us, and it's the duty of the government to maintain and improve such structures.

One of President Obama's stock lines on the campaign trail was his supposed refusal to "kick the can down the road," but by refusing to care for the nation's infrastructure, that's precisely what he's doing. Particularly, the Obama administration leaves the country vulnerable to catastrophe in the event of a Japanese-level quake.

Infrastructure Cuts Would Make the Unthinkable Unsurvivable

Friday 1 April 2011

by: Allison Kilkenny, Truthout

Infrastructure Cuts Would Make the Unthinkable Unsurvivable

Friday 1 April 2011

by: Allison Kilkenny, Truthout

Closed bridge at Cameron, Arizona. (Photo: frankhg)

Do you like this? Click here to signup for free email updates from Truthout.

It's no secret that the nation's infrastructure is in dire shape. Last year, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave US infrastructure a "D" rating and specifically bridges a "C," an average grade that might thrill mediocre students, but in this case means 12 percent of the more than 72,000 bridges in the country are too old or "structurally deficient." Additionally, according to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, 4,400 dams are considered susceptible to failure.

Despite ominous warnings from the country's engineers, infrastructure remains a thoroughly unsexy issue that causes people to nod off. Transportation networks and buildings are things we take for granted - structures that have always and will always be there. It isn't until infrastructure fails that we understand they are magnificent feats and begin to appreciate how much human effort it takes to maintain an acceptable level of safety during our daily commutes.

The aftermath of the Japan earthquake conveys two tales: the nuclear infrastructure and also the story of the country's roads, bridges and buildings. One story has an abysmal ending, the other relatively successful. Despite the failure in Fukushima where reactors were built on an expectation that a 7.9 quake would be the maximum any plant in the area would ever experience - and apparently didn't account for the likelihood of an auxiliary tsunami - it appears as though Japan's overall infrastructure is holding together.

It should be emphasized that the over 10,000 missing people, deaths of thousands (and counting,) radiation exposure, over 100 crippled trains and the obliteration of entire towns all occurred in a rich nation best prepared for earthquakes. Japanese citizens participate in earthquake drills from early childhood, and buildings must adhere to the strictest of regulation codes. Structures are even made "earthquake proof" with deep foundations and shock absorbers designed to withstand seismic waves.

Conversely, Americans are woefully unprepared to deal with quakes. "Americans are not adequately prepared," says Yumei Wang, a geotechnical engineer in Oregon. "The Japanese have the most advanced preparations in the world." However, the biggest problem isn't that Americans are underprepared for a massive quake - it's that their infrastructure isn't ready.

Certain groups like the conservative Heritage Foundation have seized on this moment to accuse Japan's investment in infrastructure of somehow having failed because many roads and Fukushima's nuclear facilities could not withstand a massive quake and tsunami. Such criticisms are silly, namely because very few structures on earth could withstand the impact of a 9.0-magnitude quake and subsequent massive wave, but that's no reason to forego regulation like Japan's rigorous safety standards that saved even more citizens from being killed by collapsing roads and buildings.

By and large, [Japan's buildings] passed the grade. Those who were in Tokyo describe seeing skyscrapers sway and spin, some at an angle of 20 degrees; others inside the scrapers said they pitched and rolled as if they were on the deck of a ship at sea. But the buildings did not fall.

Of course, "Building Doesn't Collapse" isn't a lead CNN is likely to run with anytime soon.

Like Japan, California has very strict building codes that have been in place since the 1933 Long Beach quake that destroyed almost all of the reinforced masonry buildings, but even California's stringent guidelines don't match the seriousness of Japan's codes. For example, in 1971, California's high overpasses, where the 5 and 14 freeways meet, collapsed and the cross-section's replacement also fell in a 1994 quake. These kinds of events (caused by 6.6- and 6.7-magnitude quakes, respectively) are horrific enough without adding the element of radiation leakage.

There are 104 nuclear power reactors in the country with permits pending for 20 more (13 states share the same Japanese containment system). Within the hotbed of earthquake activity in California, there are two nuclear power plants. The owner of San Onofre nuclear plant says there's no cause for concern, but his reasoning sounds eerily familiar. "The science says that we could see about five miles from the plant an earthquake, perhaps equal to a magnitude 6.5, 6.6," Gil Alexander of Southern California Edison told "CBS News." "So we designed the plant to exceed the maximum threat. It's designed to withstand a 7.0." [Emphasis added.]

But what happens when the Big One hits? The Pacific Northwest is "overdue [for a major quake]," warns geotechnical engineer Wang of the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. Studies indicate a 7.8 magnitude earthquake in California could kill 1,800 people and destroy 300,000 structures. In 2008, the official earthquake forecast, known as the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF,) predicted California has more than a 99% chance of having a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake within the next 30 years and a 46% chance of getting hit with a quake of magnitude 7.5 or greater in the same time span. Alexander would have been better off saying: We're about half sure these plants will still be here in the next few decades.

Oregon's Senate President Peter Courtney says his state is not prepared for a Japanese-style quake. "The whole valley will shut down. You'll lose bridges. You'll lose buildings. You won't be able to get people in and out of health facilities, hospitals. If it's during the daytime and kids are in school, including Oregon State, Lord knows the number of people who are going to be injured or killed. The magnitude of this is beyond description. We are not prepared," he says.

In 2007 the state released a report on the need for seismic retrofitting in Oregon. James Roddey of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries says it wasn't optimistic.

James Roddey: "Half of all of the schools in the state were at high, or very high risk of collapse and to a much lesser degree the police stations and fire stations were at risk."

So that's about 1,500 school buildings at risk.

Roddey hopes to have all of Oregon's schools, fire stations and police stations retrofitted ... in 25 years.

As the country's networks of roads and bridges age, America is simultaneously experiencing a harsh era of austerity. Meanwhile, the president has called for the country to "live within its means" at the same time he proposes investing in infrastructure. President Obama proposed $50 billion to upgrade national infrastructure and yet he brags about meeting Republicans "halfway" on proposed budget cuts - cuts that will make his kind of vision for growth impossible.

The president appears prepared to humor the GOP's dystopian vision for the future even though a dollar "saved" on not maintaining or updating infrastructure is actually a dollar wasted. As The Washington Post reports, "it's cheaper to strengthen a bridge that's standing than repair one that's fallen down."

Rep. Jerry Costello (D-Illinois) echoes that sentiment in The Hill:

[I]t is estimated that every $1 billion invested in national infrastructure creates 35,000 jobs and generates $6.1 billion in economic activity.

The fiscally responsible thing to do in this case is invest in infrastructure. Yet, the cacophony for cuts has reached such a frenzied level that Sen. John Kerry was recently forced to bypass the austerity craze with a proposal for legislation to create an infrastructure bank that would provide loans for large building projects. The I-bank is designed to skirt Washington's paralysis in order to return to a time when Americans built things.

Budget cuts are normally already painful for poor and vulnerable Americans, but infrastructure austerity thrusts ascetic measures onto massive structures that support, carry and contain millions of Americans every day. These decaying giants surround us, and it's the duty of the government to maintain and improve such structures.

One of President Obama's stock lines on the campaign trail was his supposed refusal to "kick the can down the road," but by refusing to care for the nation's infrastructure, that's precisely what he's doing. Particularly, the Obama administration leaves the country vulnerable to catastrophe in the event of a Japanese-level quake.

Infrastructure Cuts Would Make the Unthinkable Unsurvivable

Friday 1 April 2011

by: Allison Kilkenny, Truthout

Closed bridge at Cameron, Arizona. (Photo: frankhg)

Do you like this? Click here to signup for free email updates from Truthout.

It's no secret that the nation's infrastructure is in dire shape. Last year, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave US infrastructure a "D" rating and specifically bridges a "C," an average grade that might thrill mediocre students, but in this case means 12 percent of the more than 72,000 bridges in the country are too old or "structurally deficient." Additionally, according to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, 4,400 dams are considered susceptible to failure.

Despite ominous warnings from the country's engineers, infrastructure remains a thoroughly unsexy issue that causes people to nod off. Transportation networks and buildings are things we take for granted - structures that have always and will always be there. It isn't until infrastructure fails that we understand they are magnificent feats and begin to appreciate how much human effort it takes to maintain an acceptable level of safety during our daily commutes.

The aftermath of the Japan earthquake conveys two tales: the nuclear infrastructure and also the story of the country's roads, bridges and buildings. One story has an abysmal ending, the other relatively successful. Despite the failure in Fukushima where reactors were built on an expectation that a 7.9 quake would be the maximum any plant in the area would ever experience - and apparently didn't account for the likelihood of an auxiliary tsunami - it appears as though Japan's overall infrastructure is holding together.

It should be emphasized that the over 10,000 missing people, deaths of thousands (and counting,) radiation exposure, over 100 crippled trains and the obliteration of entire towns all occurred in a rich nation best prepared for earthquakes. Japanese citizens participate in earthquake drills from early childhood, and buildings must adhere to the strictest of regulation codes. Structures are even made "earthquake proof" with deep foundations and shock absorbers designed to withstand seismic waves.

Conversely, Americans are woefully unprepared to deal with quakes. "Americans are not adequately prepared," says Yumei Wang, a geotechnical engineer in Oregon. "The Japanese have the most advanced preparations in the world." However, the biggest problem isn't that Americans are underprepared for a massive quake - it's that their infrastructure isn't ready.

Certain groups like the conservative Heritage Foundation have seized on this moment to accuse Japan's investment in infrastructure of somehow having failed because many roads and Fukushima's nuclear facilities could not withstand a massive quake and tsunami. Such criticisms are silly, namely because very few structures on earth could withstand the impact of a 9.0-magnitude quake and subsequent massive wave, but that's no reason to forego regulation like Japan's rigorous safety standards that saved even more citizens from being killed by collapsing roads and buildings.

By and large, [Japan's buildings] passed the grade. Those who were in Tokyo describe seeing skyscrapers sway and spin, some at an angle of 20 degrees; others inside the scrapers said they pitched and rolled as if they were on the deck of a ship at sea. But the buildings did not fall.

Of course, "Building Doesn't Collapse" isn't a lead CNN is likely to run with anytime soon.

Like Japan, California has very strict building codes that have been in place since the 1933 Long Beach quake that destroyed almost all of the reinforced masonry buildings, but even California's stringent guidelines don't match the seriousness of Japan's codes. For example, in 1971, California's high overpasses, where the 5 and 14 freeways meet, collapsed and the cross-section's replacement also fell in a 1994 quake. These kinds of events (caused by 6.6- and 6.7-magnitude quakes, respectively) are horrific enough without adding the element of radiation leakage.

There are 104 nuclear power reactors in the country with permits pending for 20 more (13 states share the same Japanese containment system). Within the hotbed of earthquake activity in California, there are two nuclear power plants. The owner of San Onofre nuclear plant says there's no cause for concern, but his reasoning sounds eerily familiar. "The science says that we could see about five miles from the plant an earthquake, perhaps equal to a magnitude 6.5, 6.6," Gil Alexander of Southern California Edison told "CBS News." "So we designed the plant to exceed the maximum threat. It's designed to withstand a 7.0." [Emphasis added.]

But what happens when the Big One hits? The Pacific Northwest is "overdue [for a major quake]," warns geotechnical engineer Wang of the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. Studies indicate a 7.8 magnitude earthquake in California could kill 1,800 people and destroy 300,000 structures. In 2008, the official earthquake forecast, known as the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF,) predicted California has more than a 99% chance of having a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake within the next 30 years and a 46% chance of getting hit with a quake of magnitude 7.5 or greater in the same time span. Alexander would have been better off saying: We're about half sure these plants will still be here in the next few decades.

Oregon's Senate President Peter Courtney says his state is not prepared for a Japanese-style quake. "The whole valley will shut down. You'll lose bridges. You'll lose buildings. You won't be able to get people in and out of health facilities, hospitals. If it's during the daytime and kids are in school, including Oregon State, Lord knows the number of people who are going to be injured or killed. The magnitude of this is beyond description. We are not prepared," he says.

In 2007 the state released a report on the need for seismic retrofitting in Oregon. James Roddey of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries says it wasn't optimistic.

James Roddey: "Half of all of the schools in the state were at high, or very high risk of collapse and to a much lesser degree the police stations and fire stations were at risk."

So that's about 1,500 school buildings at risk.

Roddey hopes to have all of Oregon's schools, fire stations and police stations retrofitted ... in 25 years.

As the country's networks of roads and bridges age, America is simultaneously experiencing a harsh era of austerity. Meanwhile, the president has called for the country to "live within its means" at the same time he proposes investing in infrastructure. President Obama proposed $50 billion to upgrade national infrastructure and yet he brags about meeting Republicans "halfway" on proposed budget cuts - cuts that will make his kind of vision for growth impossible.

The president appears prepared to humor the GOP's dystopian vision for the future even though a dollar "saved" on not maintaining or updating infrastructure is actually a dollar wasted. As The Washington Post reports, "it's cheaper to strengthen a bridge that's standing than repair one that's fallen down."

Rep. Jerry Costello (D-Illinois) echoes that sentiment in The Hill:

[I]t is estimated that every $1 billion invested in national infrastructure creates 35,000 jobs and generates $6.1 billion in economic activity.

The fiscally responsible thing to do in this case is invest in infrastructure. Yet, the cacophony for cuts has reached such a frenzied level that Sen. John Kerry was recently forced to bypass the austerity craze with a proposal for legislation to create an infrastructure bank that would provide loans for large building projects. The I-bank is designed to skirt Washington's paralysis in order to return to a time when Americans built things.

Budget cuts are normally already painful for poor and vulnerable Americans, but infrastructure austerity thrusts ascetic measures onto massive structures that support, carry and contain millions of Americans every day. These decaying giants surround us, and it's the duty of the government to maintain and improve such structures.

One of President Obama's stock lines on the campaign trail was his supposed refusal to "kick the can down the road," but by refusing to care for the nation's infrastructure, that's precisely what he's doing. Particularly, the Obama administration leaves the country vulnerable to catastrophe in the event of a Japanese-level quake.

Infrastructure Cuts Would Make the Unthinkable Unsurvivable

Friday 1 April 2011

by: Allison Kilkenny, Truthout

Infrastructure Cuts Would Make the Unthinkable Unsurvivable

Friday 1 April 2011

by: Allison Kilkenny, Truthout

Closed bridge at Cameron, Arizona. (Photo: frankhg)

It's no sec­ret that the nation's in­frastruc­ture is in dire shape. Last year, the American Society of Civil En­gine­ers gave US in­frastruc­ture a "D" rat­ing and specifical­ly brid­ges a "C," an average grade that might thrill medioc­re students, but in this case means 12 per­cent of the more than 72,000 brid­ges in the co­unt­ry are too old or "struc­tural­ly de­ficient." Ad­ditional­ly, ac­cord­ing to the As­socia­tion of State Dam Safety Of­fici­als, 4,400 dams are con­sidered sus­cep­tible to failure.

De­spite omin­ous warn­ings from the co­untry's en­gine­ers, in­frastruc­ture re­mains a thorough­ly un­sexy issue that causes peo­ple to nod off. Trans­por­ta­tion net­works and build­ings are th­ings we take for gran­ted - struc­tures that have al­ways and will al­ways be there. It isn't until in­frastruc­ture fails that we un­derstand they are mag­nifi­cent feats and begin to appreciate how much human ef­fort it takes to main­tain an ac­cept­able level of safety dur­ing our daily com­mutes.

The af­termath of the Japan earthquake con­veys two tales: the nuc­lear in­frastruc­ture and also the story of the co­untry's roads, brid­ges and build­ings. One story has an ab­ysm­al end­ing, the other re­lative­ly suc­cess­ful. De­spite the failure in Fukus­hima where rea­ctors were built on an ex­pec­ta­tion that a 7.9 quake would be the maxi­mum any plant in the area would ever ex­peri­ence - and ap­parent­ly didn't ac­count for the li­kelihood of an auxilia­ry tsunami - it ap­pears as though Japan's over­all in­frastruc­ture is hold­ing togeth­er.

It should be em­phasized that the over 10,000 mis­s­ing peo­ple, de­aths of thousands (and co­unt­ing,) radia­tion ex­posure, over 100 crippled trains and the ob­litera­tion of en­tire towns all oc­cur­red in a rich na­tion best pre­pared for earthquakes. Japanese citizens par­ticipate in earthquake drills from early childhood, and build­ings must ad­here to the stric­test of re­gula­tion codes. Struc­tures are even made "earthquake proof" with deep foun­da­tions and shock ab­sorb­ers de­sig­ned to with­stand seis­mic waves.

Con­ver­se­ly, Americans are woeful­ly un­prepared to deal with quakes. "Americans are not adequate­ly pre­pared," says Yumei Wang, a geotechn­ical en­gine­er in Oregon. "The Japanese have the most ad­vanced pre­para­tions in the world." Howev­er, the bi­ggest pro­blem isn't that Americans are un­derprepared for a mas­sive quake - it's that their in­frastruc­ture isn't ready.

Cer­tain groups like the con­ser­vative Heritage Foun­da­tion have seized on this mo­ment to ac­cuse Japan's in­vest­ment in in­frastruc­ture of some­how hav­ing failed be­cause many roads and Fukus­hima's nuc­lear facilit­ies could not with­stand a mas­sive quake and tsunami. Such critic­isms are silly, name­ly be­cause very few struc­tures on earth could with­stand the im­pact of a 9.0-magnitude quake and sub­sequent mas­sive wave, but that's no rea­son to forego re­gula­tion like Japan's rigor­ous safety stan­dards that saved even more citizens from being kil­led by col­laps­ing roads and build­ings.

By and large, [Japan's build­ings] pas­sed the grade. Those who were in Tokyo de­scribe see­ing skyscrap­ers sway and spin, some at an angle of 20 de­grees; oth­ers in­side the scrap­ers said they pitched and rol­led as if they were on the deck of a ship at sea. But the build­ings did not fall.

Of co­ur­se, "Build­ing Doesn't Col­lap­se" isn't a lead CNN is li­ke­ly to run with an­ytime soon.

Like Japan, Califor­nia has very strict build­ing codes that have been in place since the 1933 Long Beach quake that de­stroyed al­most all of the re­in­forced mason­ry build­ings, but even Califor­nia's strin­gent guidelines don't match the serious­ness of Japan's codes. For ex­am­ple, in 1971, Califor­nia's high over­pas­ses, where the 5 and 14 freeways meet, col­lap­sed and the cross-section's re­place­ment also fell in a 1994 quake. These kinds of events (caused by 6.6- and 6.7-magnitude quakes, re­spec­tive­ly) are hor­rific en­ough with­out add­ing the ele­ment of radia­tion leakage.

There are 104 nuc­lear power rea­ctors in the co­unt­ry with per­mits pend­ing for 20 more (13 states share the same Japanese con­tain­ment sys­tem). With­in the hot­bed of earthquake ac­tiv­ity in Califor­nia, there are two nuc­lear power plants. The owner of San Onof­re nuc­lear plant says there's no cause for con­cern, but his rea­son­ing sounds eeri­ly familiar. "The sci­ence says that we could see about five miles from the plant an earthquake, per­haps equal to a mag­nitude 6.5, 6.6," Gil Al­exand­er of Sout­hern Califor­nia Edison told "CBS News." "So we de­sig­ned the plant to ex­ceed the maxi­mum threat. It's de­sig­ned to with­stand a 7.0." [Em­phasis added.]

But what hap­pens when the Big One hits? The Pacific Northwest is "over­due [for a major quake]," warns geotechn­ical en­gine­er Wang of the Oregon De­part­ment of Geology and Miner­al In­dust­ries. Stud­ies in­dicate a 7.8 mag­nitude earthquake in Califor­nia could kill 1,800 peo­ple and de­stroy 300,000 struc­tures. In 2008, the of­fici­al earthquake forecast, known as the Uni­form Califor­nia Earthquake Rup­ture Forecast (UCERF,) pre­dic­ted Califor­nia has more than a 99% chan­ce of hav­ing a mag­nitude 6.7 or larg­er earthquake with­in the next 30 years and a 46% chan­ce of gett­ing hit with a quake of mag­nitude 7.5 or great­er in the same time span. Al­exand­er would have been bet­t­er off say­ing: We're about half sure these plants will still be here in the next few de­cades.

Oregon's Sen­ate Pre­sident Peter Co­urtney says his state is not pre­pared for a Japanese-style quake. "The whole val­ley will shut down. You'll lose brid­ges. You'll lose build­ings. You won't be able to get peo­ple in and out of health facilit­ies, hos­pit­als. If it's dur­ing the daytime and kids are in school, in­clud­ing Oregon State, Lord knows the numb­er of peo­ple who are going to be in­jured or kil­led. The mag­nitude of this is be­yond de­scrip­tion. We are not pre­pared," he says.

In 2007 the state re­leased a re­port on the need for seis­mic retro­fitt­ing in Oregon. James Rod­dey of Oregon De­part­ment of Geology and Miner­al In­dust­ries says it wasn't opt­imis­tic.

James Rod­dey: "Half of all of the schools in the state were at high, or very high risk of col­lap­se and to a much less­er de­gree the police sta­tions and fire sta­tions were at risk."

So that's about 1,500 school build­ings at risk.

Rod­dey hopes to have all of Oregon's schools, fire sta­tions and police sta­tions retro­fit­ted ... in 25 years.

As the co­untry's net­works of roads and brid­ges age, America is simul­taneous­ly ex­perienc­ing a harsh era of aus­ter­ity. Meanwhile, the pre­sident has cal­led for the co­unt­ry to "live with­in its means" at the same time he pro­poses in­vest­ing in in­frastruc­ture. Pre­sident Obama pro­posed $50 bi­ll­ion to upgrade nation­al in­frastruc­ture and yet he brags about meet­ing Re­pub­licans "halfway" on pro­posed bud­get cuts - cuts that will make his kind of vis­ion for growth im­pos­sible.

The pre­sident ap­pears pre­pared to humor the GOP's dys­topian vis­ion for the fu­ture even though a dol­lar "saved" on not main­tain­ing or up­dat­ing in­frastruc­ture is ac­tual­ly a dol­lar was­ted. As The Was­hington Post re­ports, "it's cheap­er to strength­en a brid­ge that's stand­ing than re­pair one that's fall­en down."

Rep. Jerry Co­stel­lo (D-Illinois) ec­hoes that sen­ti­ment in The Hill:

[I]t is es­timated that every $1 bi­ll­ion in­ves­ted in nation­al in­frastruc­ture creates 35,000 jobs and generates $6.1 bi­ll­ion in economic ac­tiv­ity.

The fis­cal­ly re­spon­sible thing to do in this case is in­vest in in­frastruc­ture. Yet, the cacop­hony for cuts has rea­ched such a fren­zied level that Sen. John Kerry was re­cent­ly for­ced to bypass the aus­ter­ity craze with a pro­pos­al for legis­la­tion to create an in­frastruc­ture bank that would pro­vide loans for large build­ing pro­jects. The I-bank is de­sig­ned to skirt Was­hington's para­lysis in order to re­turn to a time when Americans built th­ings.

Bud­get cuts are nor­mal­ly al­ready pain­ful for poor and vul­ner­able Americans, but in­frastruc­ture aus­ter­ity thrusts as­cetic measures onto mas­sive struc­tures that sup­port, carry and con­tain mill­ions of Americans every day. These de­cay­ing giants sur­round us, and it's the duty of the govern­ment to main­tain and im­prove such struc­tures.

One of Pre­sident Obama's stock lines on the cam­paign trail was his sup­posed re­fus­al to "kick the can down the road," but by re­fus­ing to care for the nation's in­frastruc­ture, that's pre­cise­ly what he's doing. Par­ticular­ly, the Obama ad­ministra­tion leaves the co­unt­ry vul­ner­able to cat­astrop­he in the event of a Japanese-level quake.