c i t y

i n f r a s t r u c t u r e

n e e d s

State of MN Infrastructure
What do we know about the state of public infrastructure in Minnesota?
All indications point to big trouble for the state and its citiesdue to a lack of investment
in infrastructure, and deferred maintenance of aging and deteriorating facilities.

s we witness congested highways,

overflowing sewers, and crumbling bridges, its clear that our
nation and states infrastructure
thus, our quality of lifeis in
jeopardy. With the economy in
the dumps and cities struggling
to make ends meet, its uncertain how cities can continue to fund the
proper care of important facilities.
Infrastructure includes streets, sewers,
water and other utilities, bridges, traffic control devices, public buildings,
levees, dams, airports, waste management structures, energy facilities, waterway facilities, transit, and more. Some
infrastructure is provided by counties,
regional and special districts, the state,
and the federal government. But most is
provided by cities. The public relies on
this infrastructure and, in fact, usually
takes it for grantedas long as it works.

Overall infrastructure needs in the state

What do we know about the serviceability of public infrastructure in Minnesotas cities? Consolidated information
is not readily available, which makes
precise conclusions difficult. However,
the available information leads to the
conclusion that Minnesota and its cities
are headed for more troubleperhaps
big troubledue to a lack of investment
and deferred maintenance.
The American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) produced the 2009
Report Card on Americas Infrastructure
(see a summary on page 32 of the
March 2009 issue of Minnesota Cities),
which gave the nations infrastructure
a grade of D. What is the condition
and future of similar public facilities in
Minnesota, particularly in our cities?

By Thomas J. Eggum, P.E.

In the late 1980s, Congress produced the first public U.S. infrastructure report card following a multi-year
study. Nationally, the average condition
was rated a scant C. In 2 decades, it has
dropped a full grade. Also in the 1980s,
a parallel study was done in Minnesota. In general, public infrastructure in
Minnesota and other Midwestern states
was considered to be significantly better than the national average. Minnesota
then ranked above most of the nation as
a good steward of public facilities.
The I-35W bridge collapse brought
Minnesota into the national spotlight
and alarmingly suggested that we might
no longer be the good stewards we
once were. Is this tragic event an
anomaly? What else might be out there
waiting to happen? Studies of local
roads, bridges, wastewater, stormwater,
and drinking water suggest that there
are extensive unmet public investment
needs that will require billions of dollars
above current spending plans.
Several organizations have made
projections about specific areas of
Minnesota infrastructure:
ASCE projected that the states
utility infrastructure improvement
needs exceed $8 billion.
The Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) identified a
need for $65 billion to meet its statewide performance targets until 2028.
The Minnesota Department of
Health estimated that a $5.72 billion
investment in drinking water facilities
is needed over the next 20 years.
The Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) identified that
$4.53 billion is required for waste-

i n n e s o ta

i t i e s

water infrastructure capital projects

over the next 20 years.
MPCA also estimated that $1.35 billion is needed for stormwater management projects under existing rules
over the next 10 years.
Moreover, costs for water infrastructure are continuously increasing due
to environmental and public health
requirements.
Streets and bridges

The City Engineers Association of

Minnesota, the Minnesota County
Engineers Association, the Minnesota Public Works Association, and
the League of Minnesota Cities prepared a report on local road and bridge
needs in 2007. This report, The End of
the Road, makes the case for additional
funding to keep up with local transportation facilities that are aging, over
capacity, and expanding as many cities
grow. The local (city and county) road
and bridge system includes 53,000
centerline miles, more than 9,000
bridges, and represents over 21 billion
miles traveled annually.
The ASCE reports the following
about Minnesota streets and bridges:
Vehicle travel on Minnesota highways has increased 47 percent from
1990 to 2007.
Thirty-two percent of our major roads
are in mediocre or poor condition.
Seventy-six percent of state highways
in urban areas are congested.
Thirteen percent of Minnesota
bridges are structurally deficient
or obsolete.
The Minnesota Transportation Alliance
estimates that unfunded transportation
needs in the state total $1.83 billion

u g u s t

2009

annually for state highways, transit,

local streets and bridges, waterways,
freight rail, and airports. The one-time
funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA),
often referred to as the federal stimulus package, has provided $585 million
for Minnesota transportation. MnDOT
manages the states transportation portion of ARRA and has provided limited
funding for some local projects.
In its current highway investment
plan, MnDOT identifies $65 billion in
needed projects, $5 billion of which is
for bridges. MnDOT also calculates that
for the 3,500 local miles on the Minnesota municipal state aid (MSA) system,
the average needs cost per mile is
$1.16 million. That equals over $4 billion
in needs for state aid streets and bridges.
While this figure includes bridges that
are on the system, it excludes some construction costs. This funding source pertains only to state aid roads (20 percent
of a typical citys system) for the 144
cities that are part of the MSA system.
The End of the Road report notes
that annual traffic growth increases
much faster than the state aid system
adds miles to the program. So, needs
always exceed available funding. Traffic
includes greater levels of heavy commercial vehicle miles, which cause
accelerated wear and tear on local
roads, lowering the service life. And, as
the network ages, maintenance needs
increase. Further, as additional cities
join the system, the available funding pie pieces get thinner. The Minnesota Transportation Alliance reports
that there will be another initiative for
increased local road and local bridge
program funding in the months ahead.
Wastewater

According to the ASCE Report Card,

$2.73 billion is needed for wastewater
infrastructure in Minnesota. The MPCA
calculates the investment needed at
$4.5 billion over the next 20 years,
based on its 2008 biennial survey and
report on state wastewater needs. Since
the report is based on capital needs, it
does not include operations and maintenance costs for staff, chemicals, other
supplies, laboratory work, energy, or
equipment repair and replacement.
Upgrading unsewered areas having
inadequate or failing treatment systems
is estimated to cost another $1 billion.
A 2004 MPCA report included a

A

u g u s t

2009

focused needs study in nine counties in

west central Minnesota. The findings
suggest that an on-site review will produce a more complete inventory of needs
and a much higher needs figure than the
state survey alone.This means that the
data collected for wastewaterand perhaps for other Minnesota infrastructure
is likely to produce a low estimate.
Stormwater

ASCE did not include stormwater as a

category for its Report Card. And, unlike
wastewater and drinking water reporting, reporting of stormwater needs is
not compulsory, so fewer communities cooperate with the survey process.
Therefore, the MPCAs cost estimates
involve selective sampling and careful
extrapolation. The MPCA data indicates
that eligible stormwater costs cover only
20 percent of total costs since projects
typically include other infrastructure.
Based on this model, the stormwater
needs for Minnesota communities total
$1.35 billion over 10 years.
Responsibility for stormwater
management at the local level is shared
between municipalities and watershed management organizations. The
needed investment in city stormwater infrastructure will be increased by
new regulations, permit processes, and
stormwater pollution prevention programs that are much more focused on
quality than in the past. The needs
estimate is likely to grow substantially
as the new rules are implemented.
Drinking water

ASCE calls for an investment of

$5.46 billion over the next 20 years to
bring Minnesota drinking water infrastructure up to standards. The Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) 2007
needs study sets the needed 20-year
investment for Minnesota communities
at $5.98 billion. About two-thirds of
this total is for transmission and distribution projects. Another one-quarter is
for treatment. The remainder is for storage, source, and miscellaneous expense.
According to the EPA, the estimate
does not include dams, raw water reservoirs, and projects needed mainly
for fire protection or to serve future
users. Also excluded from the estimate
are operational and maintenance costs,
water rights or fee payments, studies,
computer software for routine operations, and employee wages and other

i n n e s o ta

i t i e s

administrative costs. Therefore, like the

estimates for wastewater, these figures
do not reflect the full investment that
will be needed by local governments.
Continued neglect has real costs

Like the rest of the country, Minnesota has not invested proportionally in
replacement and maintenance of infrastucture, let alone expansion. Our welldeveloped infrastructure has historically
provided the state and country with a
major advantage in global competition.
But other countries have been investing
more in recent years. Without strong
remedial action, our advantage will
continue to erode.
City leaders are well aware of these
challenges and are scrambling to find
money to invest in infrastructure projects. While the outlook is bleak, it is not
hopeless if city officials act now. Funds
are few, but there are ways to finance
capital infrastructure projects (see the
article on page 6 for more details about
financing options).
Another action city leaders must
take is to push their state and federal
legislators for funding. These lawmakers have indicated that they understand
the need for increased investment in
infrastructure, but they need to hear
more from constituents. If they dont
hear much about this issue, that sounds
to them like lack of urgency and low
priority. Mayors and other elected
city officials can be influential; legislators will support increased funding if
enough concerned local policy makers
counter the persistent no tax mantra.
Strong and informed local leadership is
necessary to challenge this mindset.
The general public is less aware of
needs; much infrastructure remains hidden until it fails. Public education is
critical. The overall cost for years of
neglect will be formidable. It may be
unaffordable in the short run. But a
plan to solve this growing problem can
be made now and can include early
implementation action. The alternative
is leaving a shameful legacy for our kids
and grandkids.
Thomas J. Eggum, P.E., is senior consultant
in the municipal services division of TKDA,
and former public works director/city engineer for the City of St. Paul. Phone: (651)
292-4406. E-mail: tom.eggum@tkda.com.