More Infrastructure Failures Likely

Today, as we learn more about the tragic bridge collapse in Minnesota, we should understand this may well be a continued occurance throughout America. In March of this year a portion of a concrete railing of a minor St. Louis road collapsed onto interstate I-55 just blocks from my house (see post).   Had the massive piece of concrete landed on top of a car no doubt that someone would have been killed.

In the last 50+ years prior generations went on a road building spree.  Land was plentiful, gasoline was cheap and pollution from car exhausts wasn’t a concern.  Roads and bridges sprang up everywhere to feed the rush into the corn fields and forests around established cities.
The proper maintenance of that older infrastructure, combined with the costs for our current expansion projects to handle ever more SUVs, will send the richest country to the poor house.

Yesterday’s bridge collapse will likely reinforce the advocates seeking billions of dollars to replace or build new bridges, ramps, roads and such.  These groups, backed by those who seek to gain work from the projects, will push for more bridge replacements.  Clearly, the bridge that collapsed was in need of help.   Reports indicate it was known that three structural members were carrying more load than others, why weren’t these beefed up so as to prevent a collapse and the deaths of those trusting the safety of the bridge?

Reports vary but it seems like the Minnesota officials were not planning to replace the bridge for another 10 years or so.  To a degree, they were likely trying to figure out what to do with all the traffic during the construction.

Our society has become so dependent upon the car and the old infrastructure we’ve built that we don’t seem to know how to reverse the trend.  Each passing year we just pile on more new infrastructure and make our way down a list of items to be repaired or replaced.  The WPA never really stopped, we just renamed the job creation program the Department of Transportation.

The freedom of mobility is often cited as the benefit the car and our system of roads and bridges has afforded us in our society.  The irony, of course, is the increased mobility for those driving came at the expense of those who once relied on the rights of way for walking or bicycling.  Increased mobility for some had lead us to decreased mobility for others.  For example, far fewer kids walk to school than just 30 years ago.  Why?  That “freedom” of mobility has become mandatory.

I liken this to the unhealthy behavior that keeps a battered woman in an abusive relationship.   Our auto-dependent culture is not really good for us but we just can’t bring ourselves to leave it.  The number of victims of this freedom will continue to rise.

City of St. Louis Lacks Good Street Tree Requirement

One of the key ingredients, in my view, of making cities more walkable (ie: walker friendly) is the proper placement of street trees — trees placed between the sidewalk and curb. These add order to the street as well as create a sense of division between sidewalk and passing traffic. Sadly, the city doens’t have a street tree requirement for new projects.

Above is Hartford looking eastbound with the old Commerce Bank parking lot on the right. Planned housing for this parking area has hit a financing snafu but evntually we’ll see something built here. This post is about the great street trees that line both sides of Hartford.

Sadly, when Commerce Bank torn down the more urbna 2-story structure a few years ago and built a new branch they neglected to include urban street trees along the entire south side of Hartford.

Combined with mostly blank walls this treeless area gives off a much different feel than the surrounding area with its tree-lined streets and sidewalks. At most six trees could have been placed along the side length of this property for a total cost of maybe $3,000. The true value to the area would have been far greater.

In stark contrast to the side street, the Grand side of the Commerce does have urban street trees at nice intervals. I have to wonder if the city made Commerce include these? Was there a concious decision to not have trees on Hartford just around the corner?

The retail building just to the north of Commerce Bank, built in the early 1990s, includes street trees along Grand (above) and Hartford (below).

So often it is the little things that make a difference and when it comes to increasing pedestrian activity (and thus a reduced burden on car storage) little details such as street trees do make a difference.

The city does have some suburbanish landscaping requirements that basically require some token trees/shrubs between the sidewalk and parking lots to screen cars but when it comes to the public right of way — the public sidewalk — it is perfectly OK to allow it to be a wide expanse of blank concrete. Somebody in city government needs to wake up and work on improving our standards. They could start by reviewing the Great Streets initiative from the East-West Gateway Council of Governments.