As a Civil Engineer myself, I feel like people don't realize the amount of underlying stuff that goes into even basic infrastructure projects. There's layers of planning, design, permitting, regulations and bidding involved. It usually takes years to finally get to construction and even then there's a whole host of issues that arise that can delay even a simple project. Case in point: I was the principal inspector for a small pump station project, estimated two weeks of construction and it took just over 3 months.<p>There's definitely room for improvement though. A big part of the issue is the mismatch between the private and municipal sides of the project. As someone on the private side as a consultant, it can be really frustrating to constantly jump through bureaucratic hoops that come across as massive wastes of time and money.
Related, here's a diagram that shows energy flows in our economy, from the raw material source (oil, gas...) through the sectors, industries, and specific use:<p><a href="http://energyliteracy.com/" rel="nofollow">http://energyliteracy.com/</a><p>(for example, most oil is for transportation, most of which is highway, about 3/4 of which is light-duty vehicles, which is roughly 50% cars and 50% light trucks, about 1/3 of which are to earn a living...)<p>via <a href="https://www.fastcoexist.com/3062630/visualizing/this-very-very-detailed-chart-shows-how-all-the-energy-in-the-us-is-used" rel="nofollow">https://www.fastcoexist.com/3062630/visualizing/this-very-ve...</a><p>via <a href="https://plus.google.com/+TimOReilly/posts/DLcTGBpwZSF?sfc=true" rel="nofollow">https://plus.google.com/+TimOReilly/posts/DLcTGBpwZSF?sfc=tr...</a>
Not trying to nitpick, but at least a tiny sliver of this data is misleading: the Amtrak stations markers include locations that are definitely not passenger rail stations. For example, the map shows a half-dozen dots on the southwest Washington state coast, but the only western Washington passenger rail service is up and down I-5, and then eastbound from there.
For context, here's population <a href="http://i.imgur.com/mcA2hWa.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/mcA2hWa.jpg</a>.<p>Kind of obvious, but a lot of infrastructure (esp. for resource extraction) is far away from centers of population.
No communication networks -- people in underserved areas are crying out for fiber or anything better than DSL. It's not clear anybody really wants more electric lines or pipelines but very clear that people want better internet.
<p><pre><code> The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates that more than 95
percent of overseas trade produced or consumed by the United
States moves through our ports.
</code></pre>
Who woulda thought that <i>overseas</i> trade would go through <i>ports</i>.
I am a road enthusiast. I have driven on almost every single major road in CA Nevada and especially the deserted "no one goes there" type roads. I also take interest in history of roads.<p>California has been sitting ducks on some really important road proposals or last so many years despite the deaths they have been causing. My suspicion is that politicians want to push trains and other larger projects where they might get kickbacks instead of upgrading existing roads.<p>Here are some observations:<p>1. Highway 1 seems to be under repair all the year for last 3 years.
2. Highway 152 is the only major road that connects SJ with I-5. despite this it is one lane for a large part. It has very high fatality and traffic jam rate. Decades have passed since government planned to broaden it. [<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_152" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_152</a>]
3. Panoche road. Not sure why this road exists. But since it does then making it an expressway could have helped create an alternative to 152 reducing traffic and accidents.
4. Then there is Route 130 that connections bay area to I-5. Several times it was proposed that this route be widened as an alternative to 152 but it never went ahead. I once saw a car fall several feet below the road just because he got spooked to see me coming in opposite direction. It is that desolated.
10 most populous cities in America (by order of most to least): New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose.<p><i></i><i>Honorable mention: San Francisco is at 13th</i><i></i>
In case lazarogamio is still reading comments here, some feedback:<p>I have mild red-green color blindness (deuteranopia), which I think is why I'm having trouble reading a couple of the maps. For example, I can't distinguish the bridges in need of repair from the rest of the bridges. The pipelines map is also pretty difficult to read.<p>Better color choices, and high-resolution images, would be much appreciated. Thanks!
If anyone is interested in infrastructure, I highly recommend "On the Grid" (<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Grid-Average-Neighborhood-Systems-World/dp/1609611381" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/Grid-Average-Neighborhood-Systems-Wor...</a>)<p>Excellent book that goes over all the systems making up a city. I read it a couple of years ago but off the top of my head, it covers electricity, telecommunications, roads, public transport, three water systems (freshwater, sewage, rainwater) and how they are all interconnected.
As an addendum to the two maps here showing freight tonnage by rail and water route, the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics has a nice one that overlays rail/water/truck tonnage on one map: <a href="http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/transportation_in_the_united_states_2013/moving_goods.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...</a>
I first thought all those aligned bridges were following the course of rivers. But it seems that most of them just cross over railways! Compare: <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/maps-of-american-infrastrucure/img/bridges-1480.jpg?c=400" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/maps-of-ame...</a> (bridges) and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/maps-of-american-infrastrucure/img/rails-1480.jpg?c=348" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/maps-of-ame...</a> (railways).
There's a lot of interesting data in the article, but some of the visualizations remind me of this:
<a href="https://xkcd.com/1138/" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/1138/</a>.
Two things jump out at me: are there really that many bridges in need of maintenance in the Bay Area? Caltrans is making a big investment (e.g. Bay Bridge, Benecia etc).<p>I am also amazed at how much freight still comes into SF/Oakland and New York. Perhaps the "SF" traffic is actually Pittsburg and Stockton and I just can't see it clearly at this resolution.
It's probably an apples to oranges comparison, but the image of America's electric grid looks like the prototypical "disaster" scenario when you're a new hire and walk into a train wreck of a server room that's been ignored or half-heartedly managed for years :)
Looking at this behemoth infrastructure, one can safely say that by just tweaking/updating existing maintenance related policies, a plenty of new jobs can be added.<p>Not to mention implementing policies for the addition of new infrastructure. For example adding more windmills or installing more solar plants etc etc.
Fascinating to see how closely coal and natural gas map to states that went red in the election vs. all the renewables in blue states. Here's a map: <a href="http://www.270towin.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.270towin.com/</a>
Ever driven through any of California's oil fields? Drive through someplace like Taft, and you'll see that the number of pipes just there on the property probably dwarf the amount of pipes moving that oil across the country.