By Robert Wright, Contributing Writer
The bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) has a little less than two years remaining, having passed its “halfway point” last May. This landmark piece of legislation has revolutionized the country’s infrastructure by spending $1.2 trillion, with $550 billion aimed at new investments and programs and about $39 billion on the transportation industry.
By comparison, the entire Interstate Highway System was projected to cost $25 billion and be completed in 12 years at its outset in 1956. But, in reality, it took 35 years to finish the originally planned system, with several “tweaks” and revisions, at a cost of $114 billion, which is equivalent to $600 billion today.
Unfunded needs should be expected with the IIJA, as well. Furthermore, multiple generations likely will interact with the IIJA, as was the case with the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. To get a better sense of what that might look like, let’s examine the roles each generation played with President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s groundbreaking law.
Members of the first generation (1956-1975) are known as the “builders” of the original interstate framework. They established the science and standards for a cohesive national roadway network and managed to complete a great deal of the envisioned system.
I started working in the transportation engineering field during the second generation of highway engineers. We are the “completers” group (1976-1995) because we finished what the builders started and fine-tuned it as needed.
However, community concerns and new environmental legislation entered the process. The completers group had to find ways to reconsider and finish the most troublesome portions of the interstate system.
This second generation also utilized the Highway Trust Fund to extend its benefits to arterials and local roads that augmented the interstates. Local bridges, in particular, benefitted greatly from this attention.
The third generation (1996-2015) is the “preservers” group. They focused on protection of the investment and assets of the highway program.
As traffic volumes grew, solutions were not found in expensive and often impossible capacity expansion projects. Thus, this group used emerging technologies, such as intelligent transportation systems (ITS), to enhance and optimize existing capacity and fund transit improvements to help reduce traffic volumes.
As the next generation came along, in 2016, communities looked at options to the original highways. Many of the highways needed major rehabilitation and rebuilding programs as they reached the end of service life.
This created opportunities to revisit whether highways that brought on unintended consequences, often resulting in divided and impacted communities, needed to be rebuilt in-kind or could be reimagined with amenities and open space. These options could also provide better accommodation for pedestrians and bicyclists. That is why this is the “rethinkers” group.
The years leading up to the IIJA gave this group time for the evaluation of some creative options for the replacement of many urban highways. The influx of IIJA funds has fueled innovative ideas for the future. New community links and amenities can be established over or under highways, serving the needs of residents and road users.
During these last two generations, it has become painfully evident that we need to plan projects to be as non-impactive as possible. Current traffic levels in busy urban areas often restrict lane closures to overnight hours and on weekends. This raises construction costs and slows schedules.
As a result, project planning has become more dependent on the “constructability” of solutions to address the continued tightening of construction windows and constraining of methods.
Like the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, the IIJA needs to be passed and carried by the generations that succeed the “rethinkers.” The future of America’s infrastructure and transportation field depend on this.
Money is only one factor. As we enter the second half of the IIJA, we need to have the political desire and commitment to keep our infrastructure dependable and viable. We need to have trained staff to handle these projects.
As the second Trump administration takes the helm, many think IIJA funding is “untouchable” and in place. However, it is not yet known if new policy on government efficiency and cost-cutting will impact anticipated projects.
Hopefully, since the American Society of Civil Engineers has reported poor grades on transportation infrastructure, IIJA funding will remain intact and allow the planned investments to accomplish the goals of improved facilities and mobility.
As my own “service life” in this field winds down, I remain hopeful that engineering and construction staffing in the “rethinkers” generation can similarly be enhanced and replenished to allow the needed improvements to keep flowing. RB
Robert M. Wright, P.E., is a project manager with Bowman Consulting Group at its office in Philadelphia.
