See more great art by Swedish artist Johan Thörnqvist at his website.

While we argue over who deserves to say what to whom, our country is falling apart. In the 2011 Infrastructurist Forum Part II, highly-educated policy wonks try to figure out how to get government to invest in infrastructure for the rest of us:

Christopher Leinberger, Visiting Fellow at Brookings, Founding Director of the Real Estate Program at the University of Michigan, and author of The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream :

First and most important, we need to realize that there is an infrastructure crisis. The U.S. has been investing less than 2% of GDP annually in our infrastructure, which does not even maintain what we currently have. Europeans spend 5% and China 8%…we are being lapped. ...

Second, the country is broke, and the Feds should understand what match they can provide; the days of 50-80% matches are long over — better to get real and provide 20-33% with the matches being the same for all modes.

Finally, the Federal government should use the one thing it still has in abundance: credit enhancement. Through TIFIA or a national infrastructure bank, provide local and state governments, who have conducted their blueprint planning, with partial credit enhancement for transportation bonding.

Joel Kotkin, author of The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050 and The City: A Global History :

America has pressing infrastructure needs — driven by long-standing inattention as well as the demands of a growing population. Yet at the same time, our budget deficit threatens the very basis of our future and competitive position.

This means we have to look at investment in infrastructure in a practical way. For example, the President’s obsession with high speed rail seems misplaced; it would serve few people, is fantastically expensive and will take a long time to construct. There are more immediate investments that make more sense for the economy: improvements of ports, roads, bridges, existing rail systems and water systems. These are needed now for our competitiveness and for the growth of our highly dispersed, highly diversified economy. ...

Longer term, we should look at how to tax carbon in a slow, but increasing rate, which would give us time to shift to natural gas based power while using some of the funds for new research in conservation and renewables. This would be a pragmatic approach which might not please the green or coal/oil lobby but might benefit the country in the short, medium, and longer run.

Deron Lovaas, Federal Transportation Policy Director at the Natural Resources Defense Council :

First, ensure the federal program does no harm. Neglect by state transportation departments and politicians’ preference for flashy new projects instead of essential maintenance have put existing assets in danger of collapsing, as happened with the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis in 2007. Travelers across America are subject to similar dangers. An eye-popping 500 bridges failed between 1989 and 2003, and nearly 8,000 other bridges face the same issues as the I-35W bridge. Roads and transit also suffer from disrepair no one would tolerate in their own home.

As such, we need a strong “fix-it-first” rule. Substantial investment should be allocated exclusively to repairs, and states and regions must meet a “state of good repair” performance standard to receive further funding. The era of wasteful earmarks such as the infamous “bridge to nowhere” must give way to a ensuring the safety of Americans by fixing our decaying infrastructure.

William Schroeer, Policy and Research Director, Smart-Growth America :

The most important action we can take is to transparently prioritize investments. Not because we “can’t afford” a certain level of spending, but because we can never afford to waste money. And that’s what we are now doing. AASHTO, in their report “Rough Roads Ahead,” says  that”$1 spent in keeping a good road good precludes spending $6-$14 to rebuild one that has deteriorated.” Anyone would love a 600% to 1400% return in an investment portfolio. Why do we not get those returns? Because we chase 16% returns. According to the Eno Foundation, annual return on highway investment peaked in the 1950s and ’60s at 35% to 48% but has dropped steadily since, to 10-16% in the 1980s. Letting repair costs go up 400% so we can get a 16% return wastes money.

The common, and stunningly obvious, theme is that we are costing ourselves more in the long run by not maintaining what we have right now. But looking at the comments section, the conversation turns to the problems of ... wait for it ... union contractors and bidding practices.

Chris Philips says:

... I’ve been numbed by the Washington State model, which involves choosing the highest bidder, reducing the scope of the project, then going back to the taxpayer for surprise 70 percent overrun. maybe in other parts of the country these things work better.

Alon Levy says:

Oh, hell, no. Things in much of the rest of the country work worse. In New York, they’re legally obligated to pick the lowest bidder. There’s no leeway allowed for quality and track record, so the MTA writes over-exacting specs to cover all its bases, as a result of which competent contractors avoid bidding and seek private sector work instead. Many contracts get just one bid, from companies like Skanska, which is currently facing trial for bribery in Argentina.

If you look for competence in English-speaking countries, you’ll have to look very hard, and you won’t find it in the US. You’ll find bits and pieces in Canada and New Zealand, and a little in Australia. Calgary tends to build things cheaply just by planning ahead and reserving right-of-way ahead of time.

Having to pick the lowest bidder has always been a problem in construction. I was walking a site with one of my first bosses once and he spoke briefly with a subcontractor. As we walked away he said, "Strictly From Hunger." He explained that it meant people who have no real skill, they just work for the money. Low bidders do often seem to spend more time trying to justify change orders than executing the project.