Recently, the International Energy Agency (IEA) "an autonomous organisation which works to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for its 28 member countries and beyond," released a new report titled, Global Land Transport Infrastructure Requirements (2013). The 52-page report is available here; according to the abstract:
[o]ver the next four decades, global passenger and freight travel is expected to double over 2010 levels. In order to accommodate this growth, it is expected that the world will need to add nearly 25 million paved road lane-kilometres and 335 000 rail track kilometres. In addition, it is expected that between 45 000 square kilometres and 77 000 square kilometres of new parking spaces will be added to accommodate vehicle stock growth. These land transport infrastructure additions, when combined with operations, maintenance and repairs, are expected to cost as much as USD 45 trillion by 2050.
This publication reports on the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) analysis of infrastructure requirements to support projected road and rail travel through 2050, using the IEA Mobility Model. It considers land transport infrastructure additions to support travel growth to 2050. It also considers potential savings if countries pursue “avoid and shift” policies: in this scenario, cumulative global land transport infrastructure spending could decrease as much as USD 20 trillion by 2050 over baseline projections.
Recently, the American Society of Civil Engineers, a professional organization "represent[ing] . . . 140,000 members of the civil engineering profession worldwide" issued its 2013 Report Card for America's Infrastructure. The report card, which is produced once every four years "depicts the condition and performance of the nation’s infrastructure in the familiar form of a school report card—assigning letter grades that are based on physical condition and needed fiscal investments for improvement." According to the press release, America's overall grade was a D+ reflecting a $3.6 trillion dollar investment to correct by 2020.
Recently, the National Academies Press (NAP) released a report produced by Charles W. Wessner, Rapporteur; the Subcommittee on Electric Drive Battery Research
and Development Activities; Committee on Competing in the 21st Century: Best
Practice in State and Regional Innovation Initiatives; Board on Science,
Technology, and Economic Policy; Policy and Global Affairs; and the National Research
Council titled, Building the U.S. Battery Industry for Electric Drive Vehicles: Summary of a Symposium (2012). The 246-page report is available free with a one-time registration. According to the abstract,
[s]ince 1991, the National Research Council, under the auspices of the Board on
Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, has undertaken a program of activities
to improve policymakers' understandings of the interconnections of science,
technology, and economic policy and their importance for the American economy
and its international competitive position. The Board's activities have
corresponded with increased policy recognition of the importance of knowledge
and technology to economic growth. The goal of the this symposium was to conduct
two public symposia to review and analyze the potential contributions of
public-private partnerships and identify other relevant issues for the
Department of Energy, Office of Vehicle Technologies, Energy Storage Team's
activities in the energy storage research and development area. The symposia
will also identify lessons from these and other domestic and international
experiences to help inform DoE as to whether its activities are complete and
appropriately focused. Additional topics that emerge in the course of the
planning may also be addressed. Building the U.S. Battery Industry for
Electric Drive Vehicles: Summary of a Symposium gathers representatives
from leading battery manufacturers, automotive firms, university researchers,
academic and industry analysts, congressional staff, and federal agency
representatives. An individually-authored summary of each symposium will be
issued.
The symposium was held in Michigan in order to provide direct access to the
policymakers and industrial participants drawn from the concentration of battery
manufacturers and automotive firms in the region. The symposium reviewed the
current state, needs, and challenges of the U.S. advanced battery manufacturing
industry; challenges and opportunities in battery R&D, commercialization,
and deployment; collaborations between the automotive industry and battery
industry; workforce issues, and supply chain development. It also focused on the
impact of DoE's investments and the role of state and federal programs in
support of this growing industry. This task of this report is to summarize the
presentations and discussions that took place at this symposium. Needless to
say, the battery industry has evolved very substantially since the conference
was held, and indeed some of the caveats raised by the speakers with regard to
overall demand for batteries and the prospects of multiple producers now seem
prescient. At the same time, it is important to understand that it is
unrealistic to expect that all recipients of local, state, or federal support in
a complex and rapidly evolving industry will necessarily succeed. A number of
the firms discussed here have been absorbed by competitors, others have gone out
of business, and others continue to progress.
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Rural Water Infrastructure: Additional Coordination Can Help Avoid Potentially Duplicative Application Requirements GAO-13-111 (Oct. 16, 2012). The 62-page report, available here, discusses how
[m]any rural communities with populations of 10,000 or less face challenges in financing the costs of replacing or upgrading aging and obsolete drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. EPA and USDA oversee the three largest federally funded drinking water and wastewater funding programs for these communities. In response to Pub. L. No. 111-139, which directs GAO to identify and report on duplicative goals or activities in the federal government, this report examines the (1) potential for fragmentation, overlap, and duplication between EPA and USDA drinking water and wastewater infrastructure programs and (2) extent to which these agencies coordinate at the federal and state level to fund community water infrastructure projects. GAO analyzed relevant laws and regulations and program data and documents. GAO also visited five states based on high rural funding needs and geographic location (Colorado, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota) to meet with federal, state, and community officials and visit projects. GAO recommends that EPA and USDA complete guidelines to help states develop uniform preliminary engineering reports, develop guidelines to help states develop uniform environmental analyses, and reemphasize the importance of statelevel coordination. EPA neither agreed nor disagreed with GAO's first two recommendations and concurred with the third. USDA neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations.
Recently, the National Academies Press (NAP) released a report produced by the Committee on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Science, Engineering,
and Planning; Water Science and Technology Board; Division on Earth and Life
Studies; and the National Research Council titled, Corps of Engineers Water Resources Infrastructure: Deterioration, Investment, or Divestment? (2012). The 108 page report is available here, free with a one-time registration. According to the abstract,
[o]ver the past century, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has built a vast network of water management infrastructure that includes approximately 700 dams, 14,000 miles of levees, 12,000 miles of river navigation channels and control structures, harbors and ports, and other facilities. Historically, the construction of new infrastructure dominated the Corps' water resources budget and activities. Today, national water needs and priorities increasingly are shifting to operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation of existing infrastructure, much of which has exceeded its design life. However, since the mid-1980s federal funding for new project construction and major rehabilitation has declined steadily. As a result, much of the Corps' water resources infrastructure is deteriorating and wearing out faster than it is being replaced. This report explores the status of operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation of Corps water resources infrastructure, and identifies options for the Corps and the nation in setting maintenance and rehabilitation priorities.
