logo
US infrastructure improved with Biden-era spending but there's a long way to go

US infrastructure improved with Biden-era spending but there's a long way to go

The Hill25-03-2025

A once-every-four-years report card on the upkeep of America's infrastructure gave it a 'C' grade on Tuesday, up slightly from previous reports, largely due to investments made during former President Joe Biden's administration.
The report from the American Society of Civil Engineers, which examined everything from roads and dams to drinking water and railroads, warns that federal funding must be sustained or increased to avoid further deterioration and escalating costs.
'We have seen the investments start to pay off, but we still have a lot of work to do out there,' said Darren Olson, chair of this year's report. He said decrepit infrastructure – from poor roads that damage cars to delayed flights to power outages that spoil groceries — hurts people and the economy.
'By investing in our infrastructure, we're making our economy more efficient, we're making it stronger (and) we're making ourselves globally more competitive,' he said.
It's especially critical that infrastructure can handle more extreme weather due to climate change, said Olson, noting hurricanes that devastated the East Coast and parts of Appalachia last year. The U.S. saw 27 weather disasters last year that cost at least $1 billion, second-most since 1980.
The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided $550 billion in new infrastructure investments, but is set to expire in 2026. Another $30 billion came from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, including for projects focused on clean energy and climate change, the engineering group said.
President Donald Trump's administration has targeted some of Biden's green policies. Public parks improved to a C-minus from a D-plus, for example, thanks in part to significant investments over several years. Recently, however, the Trump administration moved to slash National Park Service staffing.
In 2021, the U.S. earned a C-minus overall. The investments made since then are just a fraction of the $9.1 trillion that the civil engineers group estimates is needed to bring all of the nation's current infrastructure into a state of good repair.
Even if current federal infrastructure funding were maintained, there still would be a $3.7 trillion gap over a decade, according to the report.
The bill to upgrade and maintain the nation's roughly 50,000 water utilities, for example, is $625 billion over the next two decades, according to the federal government. The grade for drinking water was C-minus, unchanged from four years ago.
Many communities already struggling to maintain old, outdated drinking water systems also face new requirements to replace lead service line s and reduce per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, collectively known as PFAS.
The infrastructure bill helped complete or start 'a lot of really important projects,' said Scott Berry, director of policy and governmental affairs at the US Water Alliance. 'But the gap has widened so much over the last couple of decades that a lot, lot more investment is going to be needed.'
The bill also provided billions to help the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers upgrade inland waterways, which move roughly $150 billion in commerce every year, improving the grade from a D-plus to a C-minus.
Barges on the Mississippi River, for example, carry enormous amounts of coal, soybeans, corn and other raw materials to international markets. But critical infrastructure like locks and dams — many built more than a half-century ago and requiring regular maintenance and repair — is often invisible to the public, making it easy to neglect, said Mike Steenhoek, executive director of the Soy Transportation Coalition.
And when big projects are funded, it too often comes in stages, he said. That forces projects to pause until more money is appropriated, driving up costs for materials and labor.
'If we really want to make the taxpayer dollars stretch further, you have got to be able to bring a greater degree of predictability and reliability in how you fund these projects,' he said.
The report's focus on engineering and money misses the importance of adopting policies that could improve how people use and pay for infrastructure, according to Clifford Winston, a microeconomist in the Brookings Institution's economic studies program.
'You fail to make the most efficient use of what you have,' said Winston. For example, he noted that congestion pricing like that recently adopted by New York City — charging people to drive in crowded areas — places the burden on frequent users and can pressure people to drive less, reducing the need for new bridges, tunnels and repairs.
Roads remain in chronically poor shape, receiving a D-plus compared to a D in the last report, despite $591 billion in investments since 2021.
Two categories, rail and energy, received lower grades. Disasters like the derailment of a train carrying dangerous chemicals in East Palestine, Ohio, in 2023 lowered rail's previous B mark to a B-minus.
The energy sector, stressed by surging demand from data centers and electric vehicles, got a D-plus, down from C-minus.
Engineers say problems in many sectors have festered for so long that the nation must figure out how to address the shortcomings now or pay for them when systems fail.
On Wednesday, a delegation of engineers will visit Washington to talk to lawmakers about the funding impacts and 'the importance of continuing that investment,' said Olson, who said the needs are a bipartisan issue.
'When we talk about it in ways of how better infrastructure saves the American family money, how better infrastructure supports economic growth, we're really confident that … there is strong support,' he said.
___

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

State leaders react to President Trump's Fort Novosel name change
State leaders react to President Trump's Fort Novosel name change

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

State leaders react to President Trump's Fort Novosel name change

DALE COUNTY, Ala. (WIAT) — President Joe Biden changed the name of Fort Rucker in southeast Alabama to Fort Novosel during his administration. That's because Gen. Edmund W. Rucker, for whom it was originally named, served as a Confederate Officer. Now, President Donald Trump is restoring that name in honor of a different veteran, also named Rucker. The name of Fort Novosel is changing back to Fort Rucker, now after Capt. Edward Rucker, a WWI pilot. Rep. Rick Rehm (R-Dothan) said the change is a good thing. 'That doesn't mean that we need to be erasing history or forgetting,' he said. 'We need more history in the schools. We need to talk about the past. How we came to today and keep working on all working together.' But Congressman Shomari Figures (D-AL) said in a statement, in part quote, 'This is really a middle finger to black people in Alabama, and the black soldiers who have to serve at this base.' Democratic leaders on the state level had similar convictions. 'People of color, such as myself, are reminded of what black people had to go through just to get to the freedoms that we have now,' said Rep. Juandalynn Givan (D-Birmingham). 'Wars that were fought to keep people like me enslaved.' Walker County Sheriff Nick Smith accuses district attorney of lying about severity of charges against him 'We should be past this,' said Rep. Kenyatte Hassell (D-Montgomery). 'I think this is undermining to the Biden Administration, which is the whole purpose of this.' 'Unless the Lord intervenes, we're gonna suffer,' said Rep. Thomas Jackson (D-Thomasville). 'Some difficult days, some very difficult days ahead for our nation,' he said of the current state of affairs. But, Rep. Rehm said this is not a step backward- it's a reset. 'For veterans, and army aviators, and the soldiers that serve today, it's always been known as Fort Rucker,' said Rehm. 'And so, I think it just kind of puts that controversy back, ends that controversy. It's no longer named after a Confederate general.' In a statement, the Army said they will 'take all necessary actions to change the names of seven Army installations in honor of heroic Soldiers who served.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

National Park Service adds more projects to NEPA exclusion list
National Park Service adds more projects to NEPA exclusion list

E&E News

time39 minutes ago

  • E&E News

National Park Service adds more projects to NEPA exclusion list

Completing a job initiated by the Biden administration, the National Park Service on Wednesday announced 33 types of projects that will no longer require the most extensive environmental reviews. The so-called categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act are designed to speed work on projects deemed not to have significant environmental impacts. 'The Department of the Interior is focused on streamlining government processes that have slowed progress for too long,' Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement. 'These reforms will help the National Park Service act more efficiently while continuing to uphold environmental standards.' Advertisement NPS cited examples that include infrastructure upgrades, communications improvements, rights-of-way authorizations, cultural and natural resource management, recreation access and emergency response efforts.

Trump administration reviewing Biden-era submarine pact with Australia, UK
Trump administration reviewing Biden-era submarine pact with Australia, UK

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Trump administration reviewing Biden-era submarine pact with Australia, UK

US President Donald Trump's administration has launched a formal review of former President Joe Biden's AUKUS defense pact with Australia and Britain to allow Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines, a US defense official said. Australia, which sees the submarines as critical to its own defense as tensions grow over China's expansive military buildup, said it remained committed to the project and looked forward to working closely with the US on the review. As well as causing alarm in Australia, the review could also throw a wrench in Britain's defense planning. AUKUS, worth hundreds of billions of dollars, is at the center of a planned expansion of Britain's submarine fleet. 'We are reviewing AUKUS as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the President's America First agenda,' the US official said of the review, first reported by Financial Times. 'Any changes to the administration's approach for AUKUS will be communicated through official channels, when appropriate.' AUKUS was formed in 2021 to address worries about China's growing power. It envisages Australia acquiring up to five US Virginia-class submarines from 2032. Then, Britain and Australia would design and build a new class of submarine, with US assistance. The UK would take first delivery in the late 2030s, with delivery to Australia in the early 2040s. Before that, the US and Britain would start forward rotations of their submarines in 2027 out of an Australian naval base in Western Australia. Vocal skeptics among Trump's senior policy officials include Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon's top policy adviser, who cautioned last year that submarines were a scarce, critical commodity, and US industry could not produce enough to meet American demand. Submarines would be central to US military strategy in any confrontation with China centered in the First Island Chain, running from Japan through Taiwan, the Philippines and on to Borneo, enclosing China's coastal seas. 'My concern is why are we giving away this crown jewel asset when we most need it,' Colby said last year. Only six countries operate nuclear-powered submarines: the US, the UK, Russia, China, France and India. A spokesperson for Australia Defense Minister Richard Marles said the US had informed Australia and the UK of the review. 'AUKUS will grow both US and Australian defense industry as well as generating thousands of new manufacturing jobs,' the spokesperson said. A British government spokesperson called AUKUS 'one of the most strategically important partnerships in decades' that also produces 'jobs and economic growth in communities across all three nations.' 'It is understandable that a new administration would want to review its approach to such a major partnership, just as the UK did last year,' the official said, adding that Britain will 'continue to work closely with the US and Australia … to maximize the benefits and opportunities' of AUKUS. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but one official told Reuters the Trump administration 'is regularly reviewing foreign agreements to ensure they align with the American people's interests – especially those initiated under the failed Biden foreign policy agenda.' US Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said AUKUS was 'critical to ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific' and the administration should work to strengthen it and the US submarine industrial base. 'Anything less would play directly into China's hand,' said Kaine, who represents Virginia, where US submarines are built. AUKUS is Australia's biggest-ever defense project, with Canberra committing to spend A$368 billion ($240 billion) over three decades to the program, which includes billions of dollars of investment in the U.S. production base. On Tuesday, Britain announced plans to invest billions of pounds to upgrade its submarine industry, including at BAE Systems in Barrow and Rolls-Royce Submarines in Derby, to boost submarine production as announced in Britain's Strategic Defence Review. Under this, it will build up to 12 next-generation attack submarines of the model intended to be jointly developed by the UK, US and Australia under AUKUS. In the US Congress on Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said 'we're having honest conversations with our allies' and added in reference to Australia: 'We want to make sure those capabilities are part of how they use them with their submarines, but also how they integrate with us as allies.' Former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who signed a previous agreement to acquire French submarines shelved in favor of AUKUS, told CNBC last week it was 'more likely than not that Australia will not end up with any submarines at all, but instead, simply provide a large base in Western Australia for the American Navy and maintenance facilities there.' AUKUS expert John Lee at Washington's conservative Hudson Institute think tank said the Pentagon review was aimed at determining whether it could afford to sell up to five submarines when it was not meeting its own production targets. Kathryn Paik, a Biden White House official now at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies, said providing submarines to Australia would not sacrifice US readiness but instead boost collective deterrence. 'This review most definitely makes our allies in Canberra and London concerned, and could cause them to doubt US reliability as an ally and partner,' she said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store