Wal Mart disaster relief.

[paulsharvey]

So, as an example. FDOT, is only responsible for the state highway system (also has some very minor coordination rolls in aviation and rail traffic, as well as ferrys), but not County, City, private or other roads. Last few storms; FDOT has taken responsibility for removing debris in "REDI" counties (Rural Economic Development Intiative; IE poor rural counties). Rather than have the county or town they to remove millions of cubic yards of debris, and then fight with FEMA after the fact for reimbursement; the state is doing it, and already is very familiar with FEMA requirements on documenting. It first started with major county roads, and eventually evolved into clearing bus routes, that include private roads, non-maintained easements, ect.

What this does, is allow things to move fast, and the state is basically doing the work (primarily its emergency contractors), and can float the spending better than a small rural county, while waiting on reimbursement. Sure, some parts of FLa, a single county has over 1M people, others, as low as 14,004 (Hamilton County).

Water and waste water are a bit harder, as say, the Town od Greenville, might (it does) have a lot of 10" AC water mains. Gainesville, a close major city, has almost all 8 or 12" DIP; and Tallahassee I'm sure it's all C900 PVC. Neither is stocking large amounts of 10" fittings (kinda a bustard size).

The water/waste water (and small gas utilities) generally have inter-agency agreements, to have a neighboring, larger municipality help in emergencies (for a cost).

 

[paulsharvey]

Yes they know. But ... my wife worked in the branch that prioritizes the many competing demands for funds, in state DOT. She says the funding and staffing requests from the DOT Maintenance branch always get put second behind the priority of spending gas tax money for new construction, now mostly widening for more traffic lanes. Because reducing congestion is what the motoring public is demanding of their elected representatives, and this demand filters down to the budget decision makers.

So, Maintenance is left to get by with whatever they can accomplish with less funding than they requested. This leaves them with after-the-fact mess cleanup instead of the preventive maintenance they know is needed.

And - in the broader perspective - more lanes and other means of improving capacity, encourages developers to build new housing farther out from where jobs are, because now the commute time from out there has become reasonable. Then a decade later all the new commuters from out there demand more capacity because the congestion they caused has made their commute unreasonably long. So they put pressure on the legislature to make them a priority. This has been the model ever since the beginning of the California freeways. Your Tax Dollars A Work!

Wow, close to home, 100% accurate. Yes, it's easier to spend money on "capacity" because people see the improvement; rebuilding an existing 2 lane bridge that's 70 years old, no one sees the benefit.

I was monitoring a bridge during Milton, on a US hwy, that was built pre 1969 at the very latest (based on saying SRD instead of FDOT). It doesn't need a capacity increase, IE widening, but it has reached the end of its service life.

People don't see drainage pipe systems, so although they are critical, politicians want to see "lane miles resurfaced"...

 

[paulsharvey]

On the power side; tree trimming, pole replacement and storm hardening are critical. People don't like the looks of the tree trimming, they don't like the lane closures for pole replacement, they don't like chemical spraying, but each is important. Underground power is Far more expensive, and more durable, but not invincible, and when it is damaged, takes longer (and more money) to repair.

Telecoms; many people don't think of as critical infrastructure, but without internet, no sales of gas, groceries, no 911, no checking on family... Something like 80% of people believe cell phones are wireless... the towers still need fiber optical connection to the "grid".

Gas, it's generally pretty durable; but is susceptible to wash outs/erosion, bridge collapses, and damage at reg stations/city gate stations. Also regional problems can prevent gas transmission. It still better off than water/sewer/power/telecoms.

Water/Waste water, many many towns/cities are milking along 100 year old systems, that barely function on a good day. Look up the Jackson Miss issues, in a state capital city... And it's Extremely expensive/disruptive to repair/replace/upgrade.

Roads have critical choke points, often at rivers, and then dang few bridges. Many major bridges are old, and minor bridges are worse than the general public cares to know.

Storm water systems, a combination of patch work systems, old pipe, under design, lack of maintenance. Also Very expensive/disruptive to replace. If caught early, it can be lined, but normally it has to get too bad to reline before people take action.

This storm really high lights Infrastructure.

 

[ponytug]

@paulsharvey I had read some utility document a while back (2004-ish, but the document wasn't new then.) that underground lines had a 50 year lifespan, and overhead wires were 75 years. (I was pricing out the probably cost to run underground wire up to a lot that we were thinking of buying. ($$$ and one of several reasons we did not buy the property) However, I am sure that was not an average that included areas that get hurricanes!

Just out of curiosity, do you have a link for the lifespan? I could easily believe that improvements in insulation have increased the lifespan of underground lines, and storms have done the reverse to overhead lines.

All the best,

Peter

 

[paulsharvey]

@paulsharvey I had read some utility document a while back (2004-ish, but the document wasn't new then.) that underground lines had a 50 year lifespan, and overhead wires were 75 years. (I was pricing out the probably cost to run underground wire up to a lot that we were thinking of buying. ($$$ and one of several reasons we did not buy the property) However, I am sure that was not an average that included areas that get hurricanes!

Just out of curiosity, do you have a link for the lifespan? I could easily believe that improvements in insulation have increased the lifespan of underground lines, and storms have done the reverse to overhead lines.

All the best,

Peter

I do not; but in coastal areas, salt water intrusion into the ground based transformers, as well as into the wire-insulation junction do corroded aluminum primary and secondary wires.

Looks like Google AI is suggesting 30-100 years, with UG primary being 40-50 years. I'm assuming salt environment shortens it to lower.

That's fine for a home, or likely even a commercial property, but Infrastructure has a problem that most "builders" don't think about. We design the surface coarse of asphalt to last 12-18 years, but the storm drains under, have min 50 year service life. Same with virtually all hard to access stuff. Bridges can be extended, and can often go 75 years, With maintenance, If the original design still meets current needs (loads, traffic, ect). Wooden power poles loose a lot of strength before they are rotten too.

It's generally easy to install UG during a virgin road, or a new build neighborhood, but even with directional drilling, the price skyrockets once the other Infrastructure is in place.

Underground power (or anything else) also can be affected by wash-outs/erosion, and then it's often next to impossible to pull new wire in old conduit, between cracks, mud, crushing, ect. UG power can be spliced, if the wire is in good shape, but you are introducing a weak spot.

Where UG power shines, far far less tree fall damage, and virtually no wind damage. Trees falling Can still damage UG power, but it's got to be less than 10% as much.

Just as background, I'm no civil engineer, I just work around them, review plans, and oversee installation/construction; but I don't design anything.

Edit: really, even for a single family home, 30 years really isn't a good life span... it sounds like a long time, and would likely last 3-6 ownership cycles; but that would be a 1994 home...

 

[ultrarunner]

@paulsharvey I had read some utility document a while back (2004-ish, but the document wasn't new then.) that underground lines had a 50 year lifespan, and overhead wires were 75 years. (I was pricing out the probably cost to run underground wire up to a lot that we were thinking of buying. ($$$ and one of several reasons we did not buy the property) However, I am sure that was not an average that included areas that get hurricanes!

Just out of curiosity, do you have a link for the lifespan? I could easily believe that improvements in insulation have increased the lifespan of underground lines, and storms have done the reverse to overhead lines.

All the best,

Peter

I have almost 50 year underground in WA that has had 3 spliced in the last 7 years.

PSE says 50 years so I should consider replacing... I said how soon can you do it... then silence.

PSE charged to install underground to the transformer just outside the home and has responsibility to maintain.

The difference is now it would be in conduit instead of direct burial.

It's 3 years now without a new break.