Samuel Schwartz, formerly the chief engineer overseeing bridge safety for the New York City Department of Transportation, said: "I wouldn't want more than 1 percent of bridges being structurally deficient. If you have to keep your eye on 12 to 15 to 20 percent of your inventory that is in that condition, that's hard."
– "Inspectors still rely on old techniques: Tap, look and listen," Star Tribune
When tons of steel and concrete inexplicably drop underneath us, it's natural to question how a bridge reached that condition. Design, inspection, maintenance and traffic loads will all come under scrutiny as we try to determine immediate causes and long-term contributions to the disaster.
But even if we find some answers and agree to invest more in infrastructure, we'll still need to address another critical insufficiency.
The human capital shortage.
Employers of all types have long been planning how to retain needed skills and experience when the Baby Boomer bulge hits retirement and there aren't enough qualified workers to replace them. But public works departments, utilities and other infrastructure-related organizations face particular challenges. For example:
- As the Strib article quoted above notes, more and better inspections mean more trained and experienced inspectors. Technology can certainly help, but the eyes and ears of field-experienced inspectors are also vital.
- The job requires technical education and willingness to climb around in uncomfortable places. How many in the computer-raised generation will seek jobs that require them to hang off a bridge, crawl underground or be hoisted up around high voltage?
- As cost-cutting has eliminated jobs or let positions expire through attrition, it hasn't left room for many younger people coming up with updated skills and new ideas. It becomes more difficult to pass on institutional knowledge and ready the next generation of managers.
- Many public sector employees entered the field seeking job security, but they also have a strong sense of public service. How are they supposed to feel about either when a candidate who campaigned on the theme "government bureaucrats waste our money" shows up and says: "I'm your new boss, come to lead you into the 21st Century."
Do you think following a leader who frames big government as the problem just might create some cognitive dissonance in the people who work for it?
For example, Minnesota Department of Transportation employees may not have taken much cheer from department commissioner/Lt. Gov. Carol Molnau's impassioned defense of their professionalism during a post-collapse press conference. Not if they also saw her smiling as her boss vetoed the bill to fund new work by her department. [Although maybe they didn't; the link is to Nick Coleman. I couldn't locate a photo of the veto signing that confirmed this.]
UPDATE: Brian Lambert has the photo of the beaming Molnau, along with some other happy stampers.
It's also become clear, especially nationally, we can't run critical government functions with staffers appointed for their and ideology and political connections.
Here's how Connie Nelson, a member of Peter Hutchinson's Public Strategies Group, asks the question:
What happens if you want to hire and no one wants to work for you—or any other government organization?
It's a question every son and daughter of the Reagan Revolution needs to ask themselves.
