As part of the heightened concern over the condition of the nation’s infrastructure caused by the collapse this summer of the Minneapolis bridge, two prominent members of ASCE have testified before Congress. Andrew Herrmann, P.E., F.ASCE, a managing partner and bridge engineer for Hardesty and Hanover, of New York City, and a member of ASCE’s Board of Direction, testified before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on September 5 and before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on September 20. On September 19, Kevin Womack, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, the chair of ASCE’s National Transportation Policy Committee, addressed the House Committee on Science and Technology.
In offering his testimony, Herrmann noted that the number of deficient bridges—those rated either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete—has steadily declined in the past 12 years, falling from 34.6 percent to 25.8 percent. Nevertheless, 31.2 percent of all bridges in urban areas have been classified as functionally obsolete. What is more, based on projections from 2006, removing or repairing all deficient bridges nationwide could take 57 years, if not longer in view of the fact that efforts to improve deficient bridges are “now slipping or leveling off,” Herrmann said.
Despite the obvious evidence that the nation’s bridges need additional resources, “deficient bridges are not the sole problem with our nation’s infrastructure,” Herrmann said. Roads, public transportation, airports, ports, and waterways also require attention. “As a nation, we must begin to address the larger issues surrounding our infrastructure so that public safety and the economy will not suffer,” he said.
Herrmann explained that the nation’s bridge inspection program—which has been in place since the early 1970s—has mandated biennial inspections of bridges longer than 20 ft (6 m) located on public roads and that certain bridges qualify for an exemption from the two-year inspection requirement. “Approximately eighty-three percent of bridges are inspected once every two years, twelve percent are inspected annually, and five percent are inspected on a four-year cycle,” he said.
Bridge classifications and conditions are recorded in the National Bridge Inventory, which is maintained by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The criteria used to classify bridges are set forth in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges as well as in the FHWA’s Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges. In addition to setting guidelines for determining a bridge’s overall rating, or sufficiency rating, these manuals provide criteria for ranking bridges as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. “A structurally deficient bridge may be restricted to light vehicles because of its deteriorated structural components. While not necessarily unsafe, these bridges must have limits for speed and weight and are approaching the condition [in which] replacement or rehabilitation will be necessary,” Herrmann said. “A bridge that is functionally obsolete is safe to carry traffic but has less than the desirable geometric conditions required by current standards. A bridge is functionally obsolete if the deck geometry, clearances, approach, roadway alignment, overall structural evaluation for load capacity, or waterway adequacy is rated less than or equal to three.” The structural rating scale runs from 0 to 9, he explained, and a rating of 3 therefore denotes a serious condition.
Herrmann also pointed out that current national bridge inspection standards do not require bridge inspectors to be professional engineers. As he explained, “ASCE believes that nonlicensed bridge inspectors and technicians may be used for routine inspection procedures and records, but the preinspection evaluation, the actual inspection, ratings, and condition evaluations should be performed by licensed professional engineers experienced in bridge design and inspection.” Engineers possess the knowledge and expertise to recognize load paths, fatigue, and potential distress, he asserted. With this information, Herrmann noted, rapid, potentially lifesaving decisions can be made, for example, closing the bridge or one of its lanes or imposing load restrictions.
On August 8, shortly after the Minneapolis tragedy, Jim Oberstar, the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, announced legislation that would create a trust fund to address the repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of structurally deficient bridges. (See Policy Briefing, Civil Engineering, October 2007.) ASCE supports the rapid enactment of Oberstar’s initiative. However, Herrmann explained that while ASCE is pleased with Oberstar’s proposed legislation, “it is essential to remember that this legislation, while a good first step, is not the sole solution.” ASCE also recommends that the distribution of federal funds be based on a formula that considers public safety. “Any bridge safety program should be based on providing for public safety first,” he said. Moreover, the initiative must not detract from funding for the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
Herrmann then outlined ASCE’s policies regarding bridge funding and safety, warning that the Highway Trust Fund is in danger of becoming insolvent and therefore requires an increase “to provide orderly, predictable, and sufficient allocations to meet current and future demand.” By fiscal year 2009, the fund may be overdrawn by as much as $4.3 billion. What is more, insufficient funding for bridge rehabilitation projects will result in higher annual maintenance costs. “Investment to improve the condition and functionality of the nation’s bridges will reduce the required investment in the future,” he said.
ASCE advocates the establishment of bridge safety programs that incorporate the latest technology for analyzing bridges, post speed and weight limits on bridges that are deficient, institute regular maintenance schemes, and establish properly funded ways for prioritizing the replacement of functionally obsolete or structurally deficient bridges. As a national goal, the number of structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges nationwide should be less than 15 percent.
ASCE also recommends that “adequate revenues be collected and allocated to maintain and improve the nation’s transportation systems and to be consistent with the nation’s environmental and energy conservation goals,” Herr-mann said. To accomplish this, ASCE would have these funds come from such user fees as sales taxes on fuel. It also recommends that user fees be indexed to the consumer price index; that appropriations be procured from general treasury funds, revenue bonds, and tax-exempt financing; and that alternative funding sources be established at the regional, state, or local level. Furthermore, the federal budgeting process should include a capital budget mechanism that separates long-term investment decisions from daily operational costs, provides innovative financing mechanisms to properly distribute funds, and eliminates the diversion of transportation funds to unrelated purposes.
Womack incorporated much of Herrmann’s testimony into his own when he appeared before the House Committee on Science and Technology on September 19, but his primary focus was on bridge design and research and the distribution of funds to those areas. He affirmed that the Highway Trust Fund has been a crucial part of transportation research and technology funding for many years and that it has led to bridge improvements in the areas of materials and design methods and approaches, as well as in the application of intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies. Nevertheless, funding for these areas through SAFETEA-LU was “completely programmed or earmarked and overauthorized,” Womack said. Because of this, he maintained, the fhwa does not have sufficient discretionary funds for supporting such core research facilities as the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center laboratories.
Several aspects of bridge design and bridge research must be funded, Womack asserted. The research should focus on load resistance factor design, durable concrete, high-performance steel, fiber-reinforced polymers, bridge and tunnel security, and the ways in which bridges age and deteriorate and respond to such extreme weather as hurricanes. Moreover, funding is needed to properly maintain not only the deck of the bridge, often the focus of repairs, but also the structure itself.
Womack cited the Minneapolis bridge collapse in explaining why bridge inspection procedures must be reformed. Referring to the collapse, he said, “It was inspected appropriately, issues were discovered, and then there were no strict guidelines as to what to do next.” As a result, he noted, it was decided to undertake visual inspections of the bridge, whereas it is more likely that analyzing the bridge with the aid of mechanical devices would have detected critical problems. Womack also said that research is needed to more clearly define inspection procedures that draw on the benefits of mechanical devices. “Whether or not this would have picked up the impending failure is something we cannot know, but chances would have definitely been better.”
In view of their increased cost and risk, many contractors are reluctant to use new bridge technologies, methods, or materials. Contractors also have very little financial incentive to develop and implement innovations. “The federal government should do more to [encourage] states to use new technologies without requiring the states to assume all the risk,” Womack said. Moreover, he contended that innovations should receive greater consideration during the bidding process: “Civil engineers, for example, are under increasing pressure to eschew innovation and to be conservative in their judgment because of lawsuits, rules, regulations, legislation, standards, budget expectations and restrictions, and a desire for financial predictability.”
But this approach to constructing bridges may impose a heavy price in the future, Womack warned. Bridge failures will continue or may increase, and the long-term consequences could be disastrous. Therefore, to maintain, rehabilitate, and replace deficient bridges, a risk management approach should be adopted that focuses on public safety, even though that could mean “that the bridges in the worst shape do not necessarily get the money for repairs if they have a low potential loss of life and economic impact,” Womack said.
“ASCE supports efforts to foster research and development related to infrastructure facilities. The goal is to enhance support of economic vitality while assuring public safety and disaster resilience through increased innovation, productivity, and security in design, materials, construction, rehabilitation, maintenance, and operations as applied to America’s infrastructure facilities,” Womack said. To realize this vision, ASCE would promote infrastructure innovation and research in the following ways: support legislation; provide incentives to develop new technologies; combine federal funding with local efforts; disseminate information on every level; limit risk and liability so that innovation is not discouraged; and develop strategies and technologies that mitigate the effect of disasters on the nation’s infrastructure. Federal research and development funding is imperative, and ASCE supports a research and development program for civil engineering research to improve the infrastructure.
With respect to surface transportation research, ASCE recommends that state planning and research programs be continued to support state activities and that university research continue with support from the university transportation centers established as part of SAFETEA-LU. It also supports continuing the Strategic Highway Research Program beyond the existence of SAFETEA-LU and recommends that sufficient funding be provided to the Federal Transit Administration’s research program.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s new Research and Innovative Technology Administration needs to have a “well-defined scope and responsibility and appropriate funding,” Womack asserted.
Herrmann and Womack used the same language in concluding their testimony: “For the safety and security of our families, we as a nation can no longer afford to ignore this growing problem. We must demand leadership from our elected officials, because without action aging infrastructure represents a growing threat to public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to the economic well-being of our nation.”
The testimony provided by Herrmann and Womack was well received, and Oberstar gave the Society high marks for its work on infrastructure issues. He called ASCE “the watchdog” that provides lawmakers with badly needed information and advice and singled out for special praise the Society’s 2005 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure.
—Brett Hansen