GETTING THERE: State roads, bridges just don't make the grade

Colorado's network of roads, bridges and dams is decaying, as time, weather and neglect slowly erode the asphalt, steel and concrete used after World War II to construct a modern state.

And the deterioration is only going to get worse.

That's the grim conclusion of a group of professionals who help design and build Colorado's infrastructure. The Colorado section of the American Society of Civil Engineers released a report card this week that graded the condition of the state's infrastructure as C+.

"I would be concerned about it if I got a C+ if I was in school," said Jeff May, president of the Colorado branch of the engineering society.

The society's report card was based not on its engineering studies but on existing analyses of the state's web of transportation and water services. The report card revealed some bright spots: Aviation fared well, with a B+; dam safety a B; and environmental cleanup a B-. But those were the highest marks, with infrastructure for drinking water, water supply, energy and mass transit all receiving an average grade.

The most glaring problem, May said, is the condition of Colorado's roads, which received a D+, and a prediction that would drop to a D- in just a few years.

It isn't surprising the society's report called for renewed spending on infrastructure. The same call has been heard from Gov. Bill Ritter, a blue ribbon panel he appointed to study the issue, and even local engineers who maintain this region's roads and bridges.

It also wasn't a surprise the society backed some of the blue ribbon panel's ideas for funding that work, particularly raising federal and state fuel taxes and indexing them to inflation.

But the society added a couple of interesting and timely suggestions:

The first: The Colorado Legislature should create what the society calls an infrastructure bank to finance large public-works projects.

The second: The Legislature should appoint a commission, made up in part of engineers and technical experts, that would help decide how the money gets spent.

May said such a commission would help dilute the influence of politics that inevitably arises when trying to decide what projects should get funded.

"I support more dollars and large sums being spent right now," he said. "But I'm concerned about how projects are put forward; what projects are included; how to make sure prioritizing projects leads us to a future we as citizens want - and assure there are no ‘bridges to nowhere.'

We want to make sure those decisions are technically based."

Some challenges are facing those who support increased spending on infrastructure.

There doesn't seem to be a groundswell of support, at least from the public, for raising state fuel taxes. That leaves the question of where lawmakers will get the money to stick into a new infrastructure bank, especially as they are now grappling with how to cut more than $630 million in state spending to make up for a shortfall in this year's budget.

And even hopes for massive federal spending may be misplaced. El Paso County Commissioner Wayne Williams told colleagues this week the state anticipates getting about $422 million from the Obama administration for infrastructure improvements, less than half of what it requested.

-

Tell me your commuter tales. 636-0197 or bill.mckeown@gazette.com