posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:31 PM
$17 billion big ones for updating bridges?
That figure in itself is too low for there to be sufficient funds to keep the bridges that need it in good repair. Seventeen billion a year just to
fix or completely renovate a few hundred bridges a year. Now granted there are states that can get the money with no problem. However, there states
like California and New York that don't have the money to supply the majority of funds needed to make these repairs. There are bridges in my area
that are in dire need of repair. Most of these bridges are on state highways and a U.S. highway. The thing is, the state of West Virginia has built
about thirty new bridges in the past four years.
Our drinking water systems are facing an $11 billion dollar hole when it to replacing outdated facilities?
That my friend would fall on the utility companies that own the water treatment and the pumping facilities that are used to get our drinking water.
Yes, the government should supply about 25 to 30% of the funding needed to complete the overhauls that our water system needs. However, the majority
of the funding should fall on the hands of the utility companies that own the said facilities and pipelines needed to improve our water systems.
Granted that some locations here in the United States don't have the "city water" that most locales have. The replacement of water pipes, treatment
facilites, and pumping facilities would fall on the state run Public Service Districts that may not have the ability to acquire the funds needed, or
the equipment needed, for replacement projects. Therefore, funding for these projects may come from the state Department of Environmental Protection
or the state Public Service Commission. If that is the case, then the states that don't have the funding for these projects may ask the government
A projected cost of $1.5 trillion dollars to upgrade our electric infrastructure by 2030?
As with the water treatment and pumping facilities owned by private utility companies before, this would also fall on the privately owned utility
companies' hands. It would be the utility companies that would be responsible for a majority of the funding required to upgrade the capacity of our
electrial infrastructure. It would also be up to the utility companies to keep up maintanence on the infrastructure itself.
I do agree that the amount of funding for the "Superfund" does need to increase. If you increase the amout of funding to, let's say $12 billion, it
would make a big dent on the amount of hazardous waste cleanup sites across the country. Not to far from me is one of those Superfund projects. This
site, now home to the McClintic Wildlife Management Area, was the former location of the West Virginia Ordinance Works during World War II. After the
war had ended, the site itself is also home to the Mason County Airport and a business park. In 1979, fishermen in the Wildlife Management Area
noticed red water seepage at the site. In 1981, TNT; DNT; and other residual effects from the Ordinance Plant had been identified. It was in 1983 that
the site was listed on the National Priorities List that made it eligible for the Superfund program. It will take another $99.3 million until 2020 to
completely clean this site alone.
As for the funding of inland waterways and levee projects. That falls solely on the government and the Army Corps of Engineers. It is going to take
all of the $225 billion, and then some, to complete the construction and maintanence of our waterways and levees. It is going to take several billion
dollars to keep the dams on resevroirs from failing and absolutely destroying a lot of people's homes and businesses. By several billion, it is going
to take at least another $100 to $150 billion on top of what is being spent on waterways and the levees.
More than $200 billion needed to upgrade rail infrastructure?
As with the water and electrical infrastructure before. A majority of the funding should fall on the railroads themselves. Say this Heartland Corridor
Project that Norfolk Southern is undertaking to increase intermodal capacity on a few lines. Seventy five to eighty percent of the money is coming not
only from the railroad, but it is also coming from the public entities that want to see the increase in rail revenue. While only twenty to twenty five
percent of the funding is coming from the government itself. I can tell you this right now, the railroads are spending as much as they can without
going bankrupt on the infrastructure.
$186 billion for needed for highway improvement projects?
I agree that it is going to take the $186 billion needed to upgrade our highways and byways. The problem is that a bunch of states don't have the
money now for the repairs that the highways and byways need to be considered top notch. You see, we nearly got it right when we adopted the idea of
superhighways from the Germans during and after World War II. The only problem is that nobody back then saw the need for the increase in funding to be
able to handle the increased traffic capacity that we constantly have problems with now.
As for the $332 billion needed to upgrade our schools.......
That would fall on the hands of the state's and federal Department of Education to set aside the funding for the needed upgrades and the construction
of new schools. On average, it takes $10 to $20 million dollars for the construction of new schools. This includes the cost of all supplies needed and
the time to build the school. However, the state can help with the funding if the school district cannot afford the cost of a new building or they
cannot afford to maintain the schools at which need repairs or renovations. If there are multiple districts in a state that cannot fund either, then
it should be on the hands of the government to provide funding. As for the reason why funding for schools dropped drastically, all you have to do is
look at the "No Child Left Behind" Act which Bush 43 put into law