The Corpus Callosum

On 6 June 2008, the Federal Register in the USA contained a notice, that the Department of Homeland Security is conducting a review.  They are reviewing the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP).

The Federation of American Scientists points out that DHS is soliciting public comment.

The NIPP is explained and documented at a DHS site.  one of the documents (1.3MB PDF) is this one: National Strategy for Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets.  It highlights the importance of our infrastructure:

The Importance of Critical Infrastructures
America's critical infrastructure sectors provide the foundation for our national security, governance, economic vitality, and way of life. Furthermore, their continued reliability, robustness, and resiliency create a sense of confidence and form an important part of our national identity and purpose. Critical infrastructures frame our daily lives and enable us to enjoy one of the highest overall standards of living in the world.

Indeed, it would be hard to argue that critical infrastructure is anything but, well, critical.  

So it makes sense to think about protecting it.  In developing a strategy for protection, it makes sense to look at two kinds of threat: the gravest threats, and the most likely threats.

The gravest threats are the catastrophic ones: nuclear bombs, hurricanes, floods.   But by far the most likely threat is nothing like that.  The most likely threat is simple decay.  

The cracks are showing
Jun 26th 2008 | CHICAGO AND NEW YORK
From The Economist print edition

America's tradition of bold national projects has dwindled. With the country's infrastructure crumbling, it is time to revive it

For the past few years it has been hard to ignore America's crumbling infrastructure, from the devastating breach of New Orleans's levees after Hurricane Katrina to the collapse of a big bridge in Minneapolis last summer. In 2005 the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that $1.6 trillion was needed over five years to bring just the existing infrastructure into good repair. This does not account for future needs. By 2020 freight volumes are projected to be 70% greater than in 1998. By 2050 America's population is expected to reach 420m, 50% more than in 2000. Much of this growth will take place in metropolitan areas, where the infrastructure is already run down.

If America does not act, says Robert Yaro of the Regional Plan Association (RPA), a body that plans for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut region, it will have the infrastructure of a third-world country within a few decades...

tha articles goes on to point out that America has a "grand tradition of national planning," but adds,

Such plans stand in stark contrast to the federal government's strategy today. America invests a mere 2.4% of GDP in infrastructure, compared with 5% in Europe and 9% in China, and the distribution of that money is misguided.

So the Administration is scrambling to figure out how to protect the infrastructure, but at the same time, they are letting it whither on the vine.  

It is not that the problem has gone unrecognized.  In 2005, Congress created The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission to study the problem, with respect to the transportation infrastructure.  They concluded:

The U.S. now has incredible economic potential and significant transportation needs.  We need to invest at least $225 billion annually from all sources for the next 50 years to upgrade our existing system to a state of good repair and create a more advanced surface transportation system to sustain and ensure strong economic growth for our families.  We are spending less than 40 percent of this amount today. [emphasis added]

A significant increase in public funding is needed to keep America competitive.  Additional private investment in our system is also needed.

Keep in mind that this was a Republican-dominated Congress at the time.  

Incidentally, the Commission felt that development of commuter and freight rail systems should be a high priority.  But is the Government following its own advice?  Hardly.  Every year, Amtrak struggles to get one billion dollars in federal funding.  Contrast this with the $15  billion the airlines got after 9/11, and the $30 billion that went for the Bear Stearns bailout.  Yet the airline industry is in a decline (as is the banking industry), while rail usage is increasing.  

In 2006, the Center for Strategic and International Studies sponsored a similar commission to develop a report: Guiding Principles for Strengthening America's Infrastructure (PDF.)  They concluded:

America's economic well-being and physical security depend on safe and reliable public infrastructure. Roads, airports, railways, ports, and other public investments are instrumental in boosting America's productivity and global economic competitiveness. Facilities that manage water, waste, and energy are fundamental in sustaining our quality of life and health. But we are both under-investing in infrastructure and investing in the wrong projects: new investments are critically needed, but we lack the policy structures to make the correct choices and investments.

No kidding.

The CSIS folks were off on at least one thing: "Aviation passenger traffic is projected to grow by more than 39 percent between 2006 and 2016."  But they point out some alarming things that I can't dispute:

The nation's infrastructure facilities are deteriorating at an alarming rate. For example: half of the 257 locks on the more than 12,000 miles of inland waterways operated by the Army Corps of Engineers are functionally obsolete; three-quarters of the nation's public school buildings fail to meet the basic needs of children; 27 percent of the 590,750 bridges nationwide are structurally deficient or obsolete; $11 billion annually is needed to replace aging drinking water facilities. The American Society for Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates a five-year total investment need of $1.6 trillion, and grades the nation's overall infrastructure as a "D."

The ASCE Report Card for America's Infrastructure is on their site.  Sure, they have a vested interest in the subject.  More construction means more jobs for them.  But they provide data to back up their claims.  For example, they point out that spending for maintenance of the electrical grid has declined by 1% per year for the past 16 years.  Likewise, investment in wastewater treatment is declining, even though the system is aging, and in some cases, overtly failing.  

There are a few flickering signs of change.  The House just passed HR 6052, which calls for increased public transit funding.  Some of the Presidential candidates, although not McCain, support infrastructure improvement.

The AAAS summary of the Science and Technology platforms of the two candidates includes this for Obama:

Specifically, Senator Obama's platform includes:

• Creating a newly appointed Chief Technology Officer (CTO) to ensure that the government has the most updated infrastructure and technology services available.
• Doubling federal funding for basic research
• Investing $150 billion over ten years in the next-generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, commercialization of plug-in hybrids, commercial-scale renewable energy, and transition to a new digital electricity grid
• Making the R&D tax credit permanent
• Making skilled labor a top priority
• Improving the H-1B visa program to attract highly skilled talent from abroad to enhance U.S. competitiveness.
• Reforming the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

And for McCain:

Senator McCain's platform addresses competitiveness through tax incentives for innovation, specifically:

• Banning Internet taxes

• Making the research and development tax credit permanent and establishing the credit at 10 percent of wages spent on R&D

• Allowing first-year deductions, or "expensing", of investments in equipment and technology

I couldn't find a comparable independent source for Nader, but I did learn that before the 2000 election, he proposed spending the surplus on infrastructure improvement.  Obviously, that is not even faintly possible now, but it gives us an indication of his priorities.

Anyway, back to the main point.  The DHS is proposing that we refine our plan to protect the infrastructure.  Fine.  But without some additional investment, "the terrorists" won't have to do a thing.  It will all fall apart on its own.