Isn't there a bit of a conflict of interest here, insofar as the members of the ASCE would be the ones to benefit from increased infrastructure spending?

Note that the article says "The tunnels and canals, though old, were maintained regularly".

Hundred year old infrastructure is not the most sturdy, obviously this structure was past the end of its design life (leading to its failure).

Maintaining a structure doesn't prevent the concrete from spalling (as the chemical bonds that bind the concrete age and degrade), nor does it necessarily pick up on failing earthen tunnels in hard to inspect areas.

Many bridges across the country are going on 100 years old, and have a ~50 year design life. Structurally they are deficient, often undersized for the modes of traffic using them, and structural failure (which is very possible) would likely kill people. US infrastructure needs heavy investment, rather than the neglect it has seen for decades.

They are also the most competent and qualified to make that determination. It's the same logic with any expert, your plumber says your pipes need to be replaced because xyz, you don't believe them, they say it's your decision, pipe bursts floods your basement and takes your hot water tank with it. You call the plumber and have them do even more work and they take substantially more of your money. If they were actually out to make money then they'd wait until the infrastructure is literally dust at which point they can name their price and you'd have to eat it.

That is the same argument made to debunk climate change science. As if people dependent on a theory being true would set aside their morals and say that theory is true.

Maybe I'm being too cynical, but the ASCE giving infrastructure a D+ feel a little self serving. It's a little like the American Plastic Council highlighting people getting food poisoning from using reusable shopping bags.

If you look at the Wikipedia List of Bridge Failures [1], since 2000, the US has had 28 bridge failures, over double the next highest entry on that list. Bridge failures are big enough events that, for developed countries, there's little chance of missing significant ones so we can treat the data as mostly reliable.

Per capita, there are some countries higher like Canada. but it's pretty clear that US bridges are unusually bad compared to most other developed countries.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures#2000%E...

Which body would you trust to give a dispassionate rating?

> Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance.

But we're not building either! Where are the US's fancy new high speed trains?

I realize that's not quite the same thing, but this isn't a case of existing infrastructure being neglected in favor of shiny new projects. We're just not putting basically any money into public infrastructure.

You have to make maintenance sexy. How you do that is beyond me, but it's a cultural issue.