Talk:Infrastructure

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Urban studies and planning C‑class Top‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

I'm not quite sure where those last two I added (mail and money) fit in best; it could be argued that mail ought to got under services, or under transportation; similarly, money could go under services or utilities. -- John Owens 11:09 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

OED suggests that the term can be defined quite broadly as "the collective term for the subordinate parts of an undertaking", which leaves the definition wide open. The definitions presented here seem more based on a feeling about what should fit in. In flood risk management people refer to flood defences as "infrastructure". As the subordinate parts of a flood risk mitigation undertaking this would seem to have some validity. I got here from a discussion about whether, in that context, "soft" defence measures such as land use management and tree planting qualify as infrastructure. -- Hamish Harvey

I am working in FEMA's ESF #14 Long Term Community Recover...more specifically, in the Environmental/Infrastructure section. I was wondering how the term infrastructure applies to long term community recovery. If it is in the sense of sewer and waterlines, then I believe that you can't have those lines run effictevly, an effective and efficent infrastructure, without money...or funding. The question I have, is the funding of such systems considered infrastructure? Cassidy

Split article

We should really separate out physical infrastructure (economics, urban planning, etc) from the other stuff ... whatever that is. This mush of an article doesn't encourage expansion of either.Rd232 1 July 2005 12:48 (UTC) f

Jingel

Interesting website. Love the definitions and layered links to subjects. Infrastructure is of particular interest to me as I publish ReNew Canada - The Infrastructure Renewal Magazine (www.renewcanada.net).

worldbank.org external link

This link: Private Participation in Infrastructure Database

Was added by an editor whose only contributions have been to promote the World Bank Group. We have recently uncovered significant edits promoting this organization (see this WikiProject Spam discussion). In the interest of our neutral point of view policy and conflict of interest guideline I've moved it here for other editors to consider. Thanks. -- Siobhan Hansa 20:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've hacked this around a bit to try and improve it and make it a bit less of a "mush of an article". Hopefully it's better and easier to read. I've also provided another reference, as well as links to Asset Management and other relevant articles. Still needs work though - any feedback, comments etc welcome. OceanKiwi (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009 revision

I am a civil engineer at a consulting firm in Montreal, and I design infrastructure for a living. With all the recent talk about governments investing in infrastructure in order to alleviate the current economic crisis, I wanted a clear idea of what exactly is infrastructure, so I looked it up on Wikipedia. I was surprised that there was not a list of different types of infrastructure, so I added one (the section called "Infrastructure assets categorized by function")(Since renamed "Types of Infrastructure"), which includes references to the relevant Wikipedia pages. I later realised that the original article already had such a list, but that it had been erased in september 2006.

I also greatly shortened the introductory paragraph by creating a new section called "Related concepts and various uses of the term"(Since split into two sections), and putting most of the original information here. The section on "Critical infrastructure" was also included with this new section (now included with "Various Uses of the Term"). I also clarified or added related concepts such as "public works", "public services" and "land improvements", with links to the relevant wiki pages.

The title of the section "History" was changed to "History of the term".

It is clear to me that the definition of "infrastructure" varies somewhat according to the discipline using the term. Engineers use it in a limited sense to describe large structures that generally take the form of a network instead of a building or an industrial plant. Military planners and developmental economist take a more general view and include basic public, financial and security services.

I know the article could be shortened, but I hesitate to erase other people's work. Please feel free to abbreviate, improve on or to add to any of my contributions.

- Alex Plante, P. Eng.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexPlante (talk • contribs) 16:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AlexPlante (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

On the weekend of January 17-18 I started a new "History" section. My technique is to cut and paste extracts from the history sections of the various articles about specific types of infrastructure, and then try to reduce these extracts to a brief summary. I'm afraid this will take a few more weekends. Until then I've left stubs. I admit that the extracts that I have included could be reduced further AlexPlante (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is taking longer than I thought it would. It's also too long. AlexPlante (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future sections

In the economics section I would like to add a subsection indicating the value of infrastructure assets, as well as the value of annual investment in infrastructure. I know that statistics Canada has published a few studies on the subject, but I would also like to get US and other country information. My guess is that for most industrial economies infrastructure investment represent approx. 1 to 2% of GDP and approx. 10 to 20% of physical assets in the economy.

   I posted some data for the US, I need to find some info from other countries.AlexPlante (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to create a section on the design and construction of infrastructure (which is what I do for a living). Who does it? (mainly civil engineers, but also urbanists and electrical engineers) What are the major steps? (feasibility studies, impact studies, detailed engineering, the tendering process, construction)

   This I did several weeks ago AlexPlante (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AlexPlante (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of infrastructure

In the section "Types of infrastructure" I've limited the list to fixed assets that take the form of a network or are the critical nodes of a network. However some public services and private businesses perform very similar functions, namely:

Municipal bus transport
Municipal garbage and recyclables collection
Petroleum and natural gas transport by tanker ships and trucks
Petroleum refineries
The postal service
Ferry service

These services perform many of the same type of services that infrastructure does (i.e. conveyance of people, vehicles, energy, information, etc..) However intead of being fixed assets they are networks of vehicles that follow regularly scheduled routes. They also depend on critical nodes that are fixed assets (bus terminals and maintenance centres, waste disposal facilities, petroleum refineries, petroleum and natural gas distribution terminals, postal sorting centres, etc..). It hardly seems logical to include electricity generation plants with infrastructure, but not oil refineries. Nor is it logical to include trams and trolleys, but not busses. Furthermore, although I haven't said so explicitely in the article, in the case of railways, subways, tramways, etc.. I think that the rolling stock should be included as part of "infrastructure".

Although these are services, those performing the "service" rarely have any contact with the "client", and indeed no contact is required to perform the service. This is very different from schools, hospitals and emergency services, where some sort of social or even physical contact between the service providers and "clients" is essential.

This question needs more thought and research.

AlexPlante (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate some feedback on this question. AlexPlante (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my view a service or facility is within the definition of infrastructure when the following criteria are fulfilled:

The service or facility has one or many important services that are dependent upon it, or the service or facility is in itself crucial.
Significant cost (broad definition of cost, including ecological, political, social, etc.) are involved in replacing the service or facility
There is a risk of loosing the service or facility —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulagutten (talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the best way to judge whether a service or facility should be defined as infrastructure is to think about the consequenses if the service or facility did not function or suddenly had poorer quality for, say, half a year.

If this definition is used then both "Pneumatic tube mail distribution networks" and "Solid waste landfills" should be relatively easy to replace the current services and facilities (other distribution networks and new landfills). At least when one compares to a thing like a country's legal system. A legal system could for example suddenly be replaced with Sharia law, as we have seen examples of in parts of Pakistan.

Another argument for including the legal system is an example I saw some time back when the Greek government seemed powerless to implement effective laws against human trafficking. This was apparently due the problem that any effective laws would stand in direct conflict with other existing laws (I do not remeber whether the other laws were included in the constitution). This means that the Greeks did not have the proper infrastructure in place to tackle this problem or similar problems. There are many other examples of legal systems that hinder essential facilities or services.

I would also say that the political system should be included, for much the same reasons as legal system.

When it comes to global warming it seems like the rain forests provide an essential part of the protection against global warming. Defining rain forests as infrastructure, would, however turn the world upside-down in a good way, I believe. --hulagutten (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a civil engineer, I've tended to look at infrastructure as something that you build, except that instead of being in one location, such as a building or an industrial plant, it takes the form of a network spread over a large area. So I included in the scope all physical networks or parts of networks without taking into account how essential they are. In your approach, you focus on the "essentialness" of infrastructure, and less on what physical properties it has. I think both approaches capture some of the flavour of "infrastructure". We need some way of combining both approaches without being so broad that everything becomes "infrastructure". Something can be very essential (such as the air we breathe) without being infrastructure. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of having 2 separate lists, one for "hard" infrastructure, which would essentially take my engineering approach of only considering physical networks, and another for "soft" infrastructure, which would focus more on facilities and systems (generally non-physical systems) that provide structure and allow essential services to be performed. AlexPlante (talk) 07:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Rocks

I added a photo of the Oil Rocks under the engery infrastructure headline, which is a oil-town created in 1947. Neftchi (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

What does "In subsequent years, the word has grown in popularity and been applied with increasing generality to suggest the internal framework discernible in any technology system or business organization." mean?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.177.132 (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Soft" Infrastructure

Following the addition of a category for "financial infrastructure", I'm wondering if this cannot be expanded into a more general category of "Soft" infrastructure. This would include:

Educational infrastructure
Health Care infrastructure
Financial infrastructure
Emergency services infrastructure
Police, law enforcement, justice and penal infrastructure
Sports and recreational infrastructure
Cultural infrastructure
Trade and commercial infrastructure
Tourism infrastructure

In all these cases, the infrastructure would consist of the highly speciallized buildings and equipment, plus the body of rules and regulations governing the various systems, plus the systems and organizations by which highly skilled and specialized professionals are trained, advance in their careers by acquiring experience, and are disciplined (if required) by professional associations (professional training, accreditation and discipline), plus the complicated financing of these systems (often a mixture of fees + insurance + taxes + donations, etc..).

We've got to be careful with this aproach, because looked at this way, everything can become "infrastructure".

I use the term "Soft" infrastructure, because instead of focussing on massive engineered physical networks ("Hard" infrastructure), there is a much greater emphasis on the institutions and systems that allow skilled professionals to supply services to people. AlexPlante (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see all of these categories included apart from

Cultural infrastructure
Sports and recreational infrastructure

The reason is that a these phenomenons will continue to exist even without any supporting infrastructure. The people have practiced sports, recreation and culture throughout history without the support of infrastructure. I, though, know that things like "high-culture" have a habit of being exibited or performed in expensive buildings, but they can just was well be exibited or performed in other places.

To make create the overall kategory of "soft infrastructure" is a good idea. Just do it! --hulagutten (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm insanely busy until the end of June (I'm working on several commuter train infrastructure projects).

In fact, all of the activities listed above could exist without supporting infrastructure, but at a more primitive level. You're excluding cultural and sports infrastructure not because they would continue without infrastructure, because you do not consider them to be "essential".

I think there's a more subtle point you may be mis-understanding about "Soft" infrastructure. Take the example of Health Care infrastructure. In my mind, the entire health care system in not "infrastructure", but is rather an essential service. The heart of "health care" is doctors and other medical professionals providing individually-tailored services to their patients. The personal relationship between professional and patient is central to the system, and by its nature is contrary to what I see as the impersonal, anonymous and standardised nature of the services provided by true "infrastructure". When I speak of "Health care infrastructure", I do not mean the entire health care system, but rather the parts of the system that includes the facilities and organizational forms that allow the professionals to provide health care services to their patients. So in other words, Health care is NOT infrastructure (even though it's an essential service), but HAS an infrastructure. The infrastructure is the "system" part of the health care system, not the "health care" part. Health care is an essential service, but not in and of itself "infrastructure". AlexPlante (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have done an excellent job with the article!

You have a really good point that healthcare HAS infrastructure, but is not infrastructure itself.

I have thought some more about whether sports and cultural infrastructure should be included. I believe that one should be very strict with something having to be "essential" for a society in order to be infrastructure. If we are not strict about this, then one could make perfectly valid arguments that smuggler networks is a form of infrastructure, because it enables the consumption of illegal substances. These networks take a lot of time to build, because they are based on mutual trust in all parts of the chain, as there is no functioning legal system in the underworld. They also require an underworld code-of-conduct in order not to self-destruct.

There could be different opinions on whether the world would be a better place without such illegal substances, especially when it comes to the lighter drugs, which is an essential part of many sub-cultures. Similarly, there are different opinions on whether the world would be a better place without things like high-culture, which require large amounts of public funds being spent on things like Opera buildings (I should mention that I am a decent classical violinist, myself).

Therefore, I would like to exclude sports and cultural infrastructure, because they are not essential.--hulagutten (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it useful to Google expressions to see how others use them. I included sports and cultural infrastructure because it often includes big expensive facilities that are often publicly funded (sometimes using budgets reserved for "infrastructure"). Anyway, here's an example of what I was talking about: http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?m=/index&nid=525469 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexPlante (talk • contribs) 02:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But do you agree, then, that smuggler networks should be included as well? If not, please explain the reason why it should not. Similarly, I do not believe that the pyramids should be considered infrastructure, even though they were huge civil engineering projects. This also goes for various statues, and monuments. We have to consider how important those things are for the society. --hulagutten (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't laugh, but according to the US government, monuments are considered "critical infrastructure" http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL32631.pdf

Not all infrastructure is critical. Here's a list of what the Canadian government considers to be "infrastructure": http://www.buildingcanada-chantierscanada.gc.ca/creating-creation/isf-fsi-guide-eng.html

As a Canadian, I can attest that it is essential for every small town and city district to have a their own hockey areana, or the country will collapse. (joke).

More seriously, we must remember that this is an encyclopedia, so we must explain terms as they are used in reality by serious people and organizations. If you can find a reference where a serious government is willing to subsidize drug smuggling infrastructure, maybe we should include it.

I'm considering including the warehousing, shipping and computerised accounting systems of major retailing chains as infrastructure, but I need to do more Googling to confirm if others (especially serious organisations) also consider that to be the case. AlexPlante (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. We have to follow uses that can be referenced with reliable sources. Thank you for discussing this with me. --hulagutten (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

typos and errors and overall poor writing

This:

"Most infrastructure is designed by civil engineers, except for telecommunications, electricity and monitoring networks, that are designed mainly by electrical engineers."

is inaccurate and written poorly.

Telecommunications networks, especially inter-networks, are designed by network engineers, not EE's. "Monitoring Networks" has a vague definition here but if you're talking about computer networks, monitoring networks are generally designed by systems engineers or simply, "programmers".

I would absolutely love to edit this article in detail and make it more grammatically correct but unfortunately I don't have the time to do so.

Otherwise I think it's looking pretty good. Decent read. Thanks.