pared a report on local road and bridge needs in 2007. .... equipment repair and replacement. Upgrading ... computer sof
c i t y
i n f r a s t r u c t u r e
n e e d s
State of MN Infrastructure What do we know about the state of public infrastructure in Minnesota? All indications point to big trouble for the state and its cities—due to a lack of investment in infrastructure, and deferred maintenance of aging and deteriorating facilities.
A
s we witness congested highways, overflowing sewers, and crumbling bridges, it’s clear that our nation and state’s infrastructure— thus, our quality of life—is in jeopardy. With the economy in the dumps and cities struggling to make ends meet, it’s uncertain how cities can continue to fund the proper care of important facilities. Infrastructure includes streets, sewers, water and other utilities, bridges, traffic control devices, public buildings, levees, dams, airports, waste management structures, energy facilities, waterway facilities, transit, and more. Some infrastructure is provided by counties, regional and special districts, the state, and the federal government. But most is provided by cities. The public relies on this infrastructure and, in fact, usually takes it for granted—as long as it works.
Overall infrastructure needs in the state
What do we know about the serviceability of public infrastructure in Minnesota’s cities? Consolidated information is not readily available, which makes precise conclusions difficult. However, the available information leads to the conclusion that Minnesota and its cities are headed for more trouble—perhaps big trouble—due to a lack of investment and deferred maintenance. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) produced the 2009 Report Card on America’s Infrastructure (see a summary on page 32 of the March 2009 issue of Minnesota Cities), which gave the nation’s infrastructure a grade of D. What is the condition and future of similar public facilities in Minnesota, particularly in our cities?
4
By Thomas J. Eggum, P.E. In the late 1980s, Congress produced the first public U.S. infrastructure report card following a multi-year study. Nationally, the average condition was rated “a scant C.” In 2 decades, it has dropped a full grade. Also in the 1980s, a parallel study was done in Minnesota. In general, public infrastructure in Minnesota and other Midwestern states was considered to be significantly better than the national average. Minnesota then ranked above most of the nation as a good steward of public facilities. The I-35W bridge collapse brought Minnesota into the national spotlight and alarmingly suggested that we might no longer be the good stewards we once were. Is this tragic event an anomaly? What else might be out there waiting to happen? Studies of local roads, bridges, wastewater, stormwater, and drinking water suggest that there are extensive unmet public investment needs that will require billions of dollars above current spending plans. Several organizations have made projections about specific areas of Minnesota infrastructure: ■ ASCE projected that the state’s utility infrastructure improvement needs exceed $8 billion. ■ The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) identified a need for $65 billion to meet its statewide performance targets until 2028. ■ The Minnesota Department of Health estimated that a $5.72 billion investment in drinking water facilities is needed over the next 20 years. ■ The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) identified that $4.53 billion is required for waste-
M
i n n e s o ta
C
i t i e s
water infrastructure capital projects over the next 20 years. ■ MPCA also estimated that $1.35 billion is needed for stormwater management projects under existing rules over the next 10 years. Moreover, costs for water infrastructure are continuously increasing due to environmental and public health requirements. Streets and bridges
The City Engineers Association of Minnesota, the Minnesota County Engineers Association, the Minnesota Public Works Association, and the League of Minnesota Cities prepared a report on local road and bridge needs in 2007. This report, The End of the Road, makes the case for additional funding to keep up with local transportation facilities that are aging, over capacity, and expanding as many cities grow. The local (city and county) road and bridge system includes 53,000 centerline miles, more than 9,000 bridges, and represents over 21 billion miles traveled annually. The ASCE reports the following about Minnesota streets and bridges: ■ Vehicle travel on Minnesota highways has increased 47 percent from 1990 to 2007. ■ Thirty-two percent of our major roads are in mediocre or poor condition. ■ Seventy-six percent of state highways in urban areas are congested. ■ Thirteen percent of Minnesota bridges are structurally deficient or obsolete. The Minnesota Transportation Alliance estimates that unfunded transportation needs in the state total $1.83 billion
A
u g u s t
2009
annually for state highways, transit, local streets and bridges, waterways, freight rail, and airports. The one-time funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), often referred to as the federal stimulus package, has provided $585 million for Minnesota transportation. MnDOT manages the state’s transportation portion of ARRA and has provided limited funding for some local projects. In its current highway investment plan, MnDOT identifies $65 billion in needed projects, $5 billion of which is for bridges. MnDOT also calculates that for the 3,500 local miles on the Minnesota municipal state aid (MSA) system, the “average needs cost per mile” is $1.16 million. That equals over $4 billion in needs for state aid streets and bridges. While this figure includes bridges that are on the system, it excludes some construction costs. This funding source pertains only to state aid roads (20 percent of a typical city’s system) for the 144 cities that are part of the MSA system. The End of the Road report notes that annual traffic growth increases much faster than the state aid system adds miles to the program. So, needs always exceed available funding. Traffic includes greater levels of heavy commercial vehicle miles, which cause accelerated wear and tear on local roads, lowering the service life. And, as the network ages, maintenance needs increase. Further, as additional cities join the system, the available funding pie pieces get thinner. The Minnesota Transportation Alliance reports that there will be another initiative for increased local road and local bridge program funding in the months ahead. Wastewater
According to the ASCE Report Card, $2.73 billion is needed for wastewater infrastructure in Minnesota. The MPCA calculates the investment needed at $4.5 billion over the next 20 years, based on its 2008 biennial survey and report on state wastewater needs. Since the report is based on capital needs, it does not include operations and maintenance costs for staff, chemicals, other supplies, laboratory work, energy, or equipment repair and replacement. Upgrading unsewered areas having inadequate or failing treatment systems is estimated to cost another $1 billion. A 2004 MPCA report included a A
u g u s t
2009
focused needs study in nine counties in west central Minnesota. The findings suggest that an on-site review will produce a more complete inventory of needs and a much higher needs figure than the state survey alone.This means that the data collected for wastewater—and perhaps for other Minnesota infrastructure— is likely to produce a low estimate. Stormwater
ASCE did not include stormwater as a category for its Report Card. And, unlike wastewater and drinking water reporting, reporting of stormwater needs is not compulsory, so fewer communities cooperate with the survey process. Therefore, the MPCA’s cost estimates involve selective sampling and careful extrapolation. The MPCA data indicates that eligible stormwater costs cover only 20 percent of total costs since projects typically include other infrastructure. Based on this model, the stormwater needs for Minnesota communities total $1.35 billion over 10 years. Responsibility for stormwater management at the local level is shared between municipalities and watershed management organizations. The needed investment in city stormwater infrastructure will be increased by new regulations, permit processes, and stormwater pollution prevention programs that are much more focused on quality than in the past. The needs estimate is likely to grow substantially as the new rules are implemented. Drinking water
ASCE calls for an investment of $5.46 billion over the next 20 years to bring Minnesota drinking water infrastructure up to standards. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2007 needs study sets the needed 20-year investment for Minnesota communities at $5.98 billion. About two-thirds of this total is for transmission and distribution projects. Another one-quarter is for treatment. The remainder is for storage, source, and miscellaneous expense. According to the EPA, the estimate does not include dams, raw water reservoirs, and projects needed mainly for fire protection or to serve future users. Also excluded from the estimate are operational and maintenance costs, water rights or fee payments, studies, computer software for routine operations, and employee wages and other
M
i n n e s o ta
C
i t i e s
administrative costs. Therefore, like the estimates for wastewater, these figures do not reflect the full investment that will be needed by local governments. Continued neglect has real costs
Like the rest of the country, Minnesota has not invested proportionally in replacement and maintenance of infrastucture, let alone expansion. Our welldeveloped infrastructure has historically provided the state and country with a major advantage in global competition. But other countries have been investing more in recent years. Without strong remedial action, our advantage will continue to erode. City leaders are well aware of these challenges and are scrambling to find money to invest in infrastructure projects. While the outlook is bleak, it is not hopeless if city officials act now. Funds are few, but there are ways to finance capital infrastructure projects (see the article on page 6 for more details about financing options). Another action city leaders must take is to push their state and federal legislators for funding. These lawmakers have indicated that they understand the need for increased investment in infrastructure, but they need to hear more from constituents. If they don’t hear much about this issue, that sounds to them like lack of urgency and low priority. Mayors and other elected city officials can be influential; legislators will support increased funding if enough concerned local policy makers counter the persistent “no tax” mantra. Strong and informed local leadership is necessary to challenge this mindset. The general public is less aware of needs; much infrastructure remains hidden until it fails. Public education is critical. The overall cost for years of neglect will be formidable. It may be unaffordable in the short run. But a plan to solve this growing problem can be made now and can include early implementation action. The alternative is leaving a shameful legacy for our kids and grandkids. Thomas J. Eggum, P.E., is senior consultant in the municipal services division of TKDA, and former public works director/city engineer for the City of St. Paul. Phone: (651) 292-4406. E-mail:
[email protected].
5
