As many as 5,000 bridges along Germany's autobahns are so decrepit that they need to be renovated or rebuilt as quickly as possible. But the state, restrained by a national debt brake, is struggling to find the money.
Honestly this is the problem with all road infrastructure. It’ll be interesting to see how countries like China manage it. China currently has the largest paved-road system in the world, and maintaining that will not come cheap.
The issue in Germany isn’t so much that infrastructure needs to be maintained but that a lot of the bridges were built more or less at the same time (after ww2) so they’re now failing more or less at the same time (at the end of their lifetime, no surprise there). Usually, a country doesn’t build so much at the same time, so maintenance doesn’t come all at once.
And they have not built their system with long term staging/replacement in mind. A lot of their shorter bridges don’t look like they are designed for staged maintenance. Also, the political will to build is different than the political will to maintain.
This makes one of the “solutions” from the article: “A law was introduced at the end of 2023 that will eliminate the need for permits and environmental impact assessments for bridges that are being widened to add lanes as part of renovations.” look particularly shortsighted. Infrastructure is a maintenance debt that we are reckoning with, so we will make it easier to build specifically bigger infrastructure so that in 25 years we will have an even bigger problem to solve? Not to mention the concept of induced demand meaning that those lanes are going to increase the amount of vehicles using the bridge, which would be exactly the kind of thing that should get an environmental assessment, versus repurposing some lanes for sustainable transit or building a separate bridge for those modes
China’s road infrastructure is all much newer than most other developed nations. And since it was built later I imagine the materials and civil engineering undergirding them is better.
However, the bill always comes due eventually for reinforced concrete. It’s currently coming due in most of the west now from all the freeway building that happened in the 50s.
China still has a long time til they’re in the same place, and it will be interesting to see if they learned the lessons of not deferring maintenance.
The real answer is that most roads are a transient solution as transit gets built out. They should form an auxiliary network, not the backbone of a country’s transportation.
China also had a couple of twists. At least parts of the West have general counterparts to these problems.
Some cities had infrastructure built out ahead of demand. Many of the cities did start filling up with people, which is great. However, the infrastructure aged well ahead of when it was used. So some of the infrastructure is coming due for expensive maintenance, often without a solid tax structure to pay for it. Readers of Strong Towns will recognize this general pattern of overbuilding without building a solid foundation, but it just has a Chinese character to it.
Linked to that is a growing debt crisis at the local government level. The most current estimate I could find is 94 trillion yen (US$13 trillion). Many infrastructure investments were made that are projected to never be paid off in their lifespan. Again, Strong Town readers will recognize this general pattern.
Going from pure speculation, I wonder whether they might have been able to avoid some of the problems with aging unused infrastructure by setting aside land and right-of-way. Here in Portland, when they were planning the I-205 freeway, one concession to transit and bike advocates was to set aside a right-of-way for a transit way and a bike path. That particular concession was made around 1975. The bike path was built immediately. The northern end was used to extend the preexisting light rail to the airport on September 10, 2001 (great timing) as part of the Red Line. The southern end became part of the Green Line later.
Honestly this is the problem with all road infrastructure. It’ll be interesting to see how countries like China manage it. China currently has the largest paved-road system in the world, and maintaining that will not come cheap.
The issue in Germany isn’t so much that infrastructure needs to be maintained but that a lot of the bridges were built more or less at the same time (after ww2) so they’re now failing more or less at the same time (at the end of their lifetime, no surprise there). Usually, a country doesn’t build so much at the same time, so maintenance doesn’t come all at once.
Meanwhile, bosses: Imma need you all to come back in to the office…because reasons.
And they have not built their system with long term staging/replacement in mind. A lot of their shorter bridges don’t look like they are designed for staged maintenance. Also, the political will to build is different than the political will to maintain.
This makes one of the “solutions” from the article: “A law was introduced at the end of 2023 that will eliminate the need for permits and environmental impact assessments for bridges that are being widened to add lanes as part of renovations.” look particularly shortsighted. Infrastructure is a maintenance debt that we are reckoning with, so we will make it easier to build specifically bigger infrastructure so that in 25 years we will have an even bigger problem to solve? Not to mention the concept of induced demand meaning that those lanes are going to increase the amount of vehicles using the bridge, which would be exactly the kind of thing that should get an environmental assessment, versus repurposing some lanes for sustainable transit or building a separate bridge for those modes
It will come cheap though and it will probably come twice as fast as anywhere else.
That they aren’t being properly maintained/funded? It looks like a bunch of the bridges that are having issues are mostly due to age.
China’s road infrastructure is all much newer than most other developed nations. And since it was built later I imagine the materials and civil engineering undergirding them is better.
However, the bill always comes due eventually for reinforced concrete. It’s currently coming due in most of the west now from all the freeway building that happened in the 50s.
China still has a long time til they’re in the same place, and it will be interesting to see if they learned the lessons of not deferring maintenance.
The real answer is that most roads are a transient solution as transit gets built out. They should form an auxiliary network, not the backbone of a country’s transportation.
China also had a couple of twists. At least parts of the West have general counterparts to these problems.
Some cities had infrastructure built out ahead of demand. Many of the cities did start filling up with people, which is great. However, the infrastructure aged well ahead of when it was used. So some of the infrastructure is coming due for expensive maintenance, often without a solid tax structure to pay for it. Readers of Strong Towns will recognize this general pattern of overbuilding without building a solid foundation, but it just has a Chinese character to it.
Linked to that is a growing debt crisis at the local government level. The most current estimate I could find is 94 trillion yen (US$13 trillion). Many infrastructure investments were made that are projected to never be paid off in their lifespan. Again, Strong Town readers will recognize this general pattern.
Going from pure speculation, I wonder whether they might have been able to avoid some of the problems with aging unused infrastructure by setting aside land and right-of-way. Here in Portland, when they were planning the I-205 freeway, one concession to transit and bike advocates was to set aside a right-of-way for a transit way and a bike path. That particular concession was made around 1975. The bike path was built immediately. The northern end was used to extend the preexisting light rail to the airport on September 10, 2001 (great timing) as part of the Red Line. The southern end became part of the Green Line later.
It’s true what you said, being newer than most other developed nations.
However at the back of my mind, whenever it says “made in china”, i don’t expect much quality or built to last.
I get that. There was a time when “made in Japan” meant low quality also. Times are a changin’.
Japan buying up all of USA debt and land was a scary Boogeyman.
I think I remember Saudi Arabia doing it too.
Then China.
I wonder if the American empire will last long enough for another country to do it.
the whole made in … thing was originally implemented to mark the inferior products / cheap copys of british products that where made in germany