Tag Archives: engineering

ASCE 2025 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure

The American Society of Civil Engineers (of which I am a member) has released their every-four-years assessment of U.S. infrastructure. Why every four years? Once per presidential cycle I assume, and maybe they aim for about a year after the election to avoid being overly political? Because the goal here is to influence policy and keep the taps flowing with money for infrastructure projects that engineers will work on. It’s a lobbying group and it’s a big business, but nonetheless they try to be objective and infrastructure investment is needed.

The “letter grades” thing is kind of a gimmick, but an effective one I think for getting headlines and communicating with the media and the political class. Then there is more detailed information that interested people, or hopefully people who might be drafting future legislation, can dig into. What is most interesting to me personally is the references.

Anyway, to summarize, the Biden infrastructure spending is slowly working its way through the system and this has resulted in some improvement. I think this is Biden’s true positive legacy, whether he eventually gets any credit for it or not. But the report comes across as pleading for the country to sustain the slightly increased momentum created by the Biden-era funding bill. In my ideal world, infrastructure wouldn’t be funded by One Big Bill once a generation, but continuously as it is needed. And the way for the federal and state governments to do it, I have always thought, would be in a counter-cyclical manner during recessions. Planning should be regional in nature, with local projects that are consistent with long-term planning goals ready to go as funding becomes available. Some funding should be local, because the local community needs skin in the game. Federal and state governments could then match this local investment at a higher or lower level depending on what is happening in the economy. And there needs to be money for the full life cycle including maintenance/repair/upgrade/replacement, not just for new construction. And that is my personal broken-record infrastructure rant from this one civil engineer, thank you for listening.

the tech revolution and the engineering, architecture and construction industry

This article from Engineering News Record tries to answer the question of what the tech revolution means for the engineering, architecture, and construction industry.

As the world around us becomes more technology-driven and sophisticated, what will that mean for A/E/C? It’s been well-documented that the construction industry productivity gains in the past 40 years have been paltry, and that’s perhaps stating it lightly. So how can we go to IBM’s Watson for legal advice (yup, Watson will put a lot of lawyers out of business), get advanced health screening on our smartphones, obtain a master’s degree on our tablet computer, and then turn around and tolerate 20th century design and construction approaches? How can we allow technology companies to create massively personalized customer experiences, and then deal with a lack of communication and transparency on our construction projects, or dumb models (even worse, 2-D printed drawings!) with meaningless data?

We can’t. Our clients won’t. We need to embrace technology, get comfy with data, and revolutionize the client experience.

I figured the article would elaborate on the three suggestions above, but it doesn’t, really. I think our industry lags behind for a few reasons. First, we design and build things that last a long time, like highways, sewer pipes, buildings, etc. Even if the level of knowledge and technology relating to these things is increasing, they don’t get replaced very often. When individual little pieces of our transportation and water systems break, we replace them with similar or incrementally improved pieces, because it doesn’t seem to make sense to replace the whole system with something radically different all at once, even if that could be the right long-term answer. University curricula, professional groups, labor groups, institutions such as utilities and authorities, licensing and credentialing programs, and their associated lobbyists arise to resist change and perpetuate the status quo. Engineers and architects aren’t really trained in long-term planning or system thinking. There is a planning field that sort of is, but we constantly beat them down and encourage them to conform to short-term thinking so they can remain employed in our industry. In private consulting we talk about serving our clients all day long, but there is really a revolving door between private industry and public clients and not a whole lot of room for new and revolutionary thinking to enter the mix. Truly disruptive technology like self-driving cars leading to drastically reduced demand for private vehicle ownership, and drastically reduced demand for paved surfaces, could eventually push out some of the old thinking. It’s hard to imagine the water or environmental equivalent, but maybe a truly revolutionary toilet that doesn’t require a sewer system at all could be an example. Truly revolutionary building materials like cheap carbon fiber could be another.