A Virginia think tank report may shape our next SAFETEA-LU.

By John Latta

I f there is to be a new surface transportation bill sometime in 2011, or even if it comes months, or years, later, it is probable that a new report entitled Well Within Reach, America’s New Transportation Agenda may provide its blueprint

The Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia hosted a policy conference to encourage discussions and formulate a comprehensive set of proposals for the reauthorization of America’s transportation programs. It was co-chaired by Norman Mineta and Samuel Skinner, both former secretaries of transportation.

The conference drew upon the collective experiences of more than 80 transportation experts, as well as previous studies of the issue undertaken by the Brookings Institution, the Bipartisan Policy Center, and two national commissions established under SAFETEA-LU. The conference’s intent was to build upon existing scholarship and canvas the various opinions to identify the best and most practical solutions to be incorporated in SAFETEA-LU legislation.

The director of the Miller Center, former Virginia Governor Gerald L. Baliles, who came up with the idea for the conference, said of its recommendations that, “They were formulated with the guiding principle that they can be adopted without a complete overhaul of the traditional structure of the legislation in mind. They are predicated on the conviction that, unless federal transportation law and policy address the country’s current needs in a more relevant, more effective, and sustainable way, deficiencies in our transportation system will seriously compromise both the near-term prospects for economic recovery and our long-term economic productivity.”

The report notes that the emphasis throughout the conference was on long-term, sustainable changes instead of short-term “stop-gap” measures. Participants wanted to avoid the fragmentation that so often exacerbates our transportation challenges — thus, their recommendations extend across different transportation modes and issues.

The report’s recommendations will not surprise many people, they are well-thumbed ideas. But they are presented broadly, from a largely apolitical, bipartisan expert pool without being vague, and pragmatic without being overly specific. There is room for interpretation and compromise, and they can be done. There is a clear need for a blueprint for bipartisanship in developing, and passing, a new transportation bill and the care with which these recommendations have been crafted and delivered, and the neutral gravitas of the men and women who did the work, suggest it may fill the need.v

The recommendations (using the report’s own titles) are:

1) Stop the Bleeding

Congress, says the report, must address the immediate crisis in transportation funding. This comes dangerously close to stating the obvious.

All parties concede that without a higher gas tax, there will simply not be enough money in any version of the HTF to expand, repair, rebuild and maintain a bold new highway system. There may be enough money to choose one of those options (except expansion). Which perhaps is what led the Miller reporters to make this significant observation: “The suggestion that there be a moratorium on new transportation construction in favor of first maintaining our existing infrastructure can no longer be dismissed. The logic is simple: if available resources are inadequate to maintain the systems we’ve already built, then we certainly should not be developing more systems that we cannot sustain. In other words, our national dollars should be directed first to protecting and maintaining past investments.”

2) Beyond the Gas Tax

The report backs the idea that users should pay for the transportation system, a principle enshrined in the HTF when it was set up and backed by virtually all stakeholders pushing for a new surface transportation bill. Conceding that a gas tax hike alone would be inadequate in the long term, the report calls on Congress to “adopt legislation laying out a clear plan for transitioning, over the next decade, from the per-gallon fuel tax to a highway-use fee based on vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) … A fee of just one penny per mile would equal the revenue currently collected by the fuel tax; a fee of two cents per mile would generate the revenue necessary to support an appropriate level of investment over the long term.”

The Miller plan also addresses the need to balance privacy issues with another necessity — the need to know a lot about where a vehicle goes, and when, so that it pays more in rush hours on busy thoroughfares than it does on Sunday morning out in empty country.

3) Jobs for the Future, Not Just Today

Here the Miller report quietly suggests some fundamental change to the old way of funding transportation infrastructure. “Future Stimulus spending should be directed to those transportation projects that will deliver the greatest returns in terms of future U.S. competitiveness, economic growth and jobs. Building a foundation for sustained prosperity and long-term job creation is more important than boosting short-term employment in road construction.”

It is possible to read into this that any long term bill should have the goal of investing primarily in projects that can deliver broad, long terms advantages. No more ARRA, they seem to be saying.

“Investments in transportation must be approached as investments in the nation’s long-term economic health, not primarily as short-term fixes for unemployment or other problems… Congress should show leadership in directing any remaining or additional Stimulus funds to those investments that do most to strengthen the foundation for long term economic growth.”

4) Pass the Power, Please

The report calls for Congress to “clarify decision-making power and enhance the effectiveness of states, localities and metropolitan planning organizations.” This is something both the incoming and outgoing chairmen of the Houses Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (John Mica [R-Fla.] and Jim Oberstar [D-Minn.] respectively) and a number of bureaucratic reports have supported. The fault, says the Miller report (and a number of other stakeholders), is that the current process is muddy, unwieldy, poorly defined, policed and operated, and basically a very confusing conglomeration of money- and opportunity-wasting machinery.

5) Adopt a Capital Budget

The federal government should adopt accounting methods that (a) recognize expenditures on transportation infrastructure as investments (rather than consumption) and (b) take into account future returns on those investments, says the report.

“Specifically, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should score the anticipated return on investment when it evaluates transportation spending proposals. This is an incremental step, but it would allow the government to begin evaluating projects based on their long-term benefits and to prioritize those projects that deliver the largest future returns.”

The report is by no means alone here. The idea that our highways are investments we put funds into and manage and monitor to bring us long-term returns is a popular one. It is an attitude adjustment that would not only change accountants’ bookkeeping methods but the way we perceive our highways and bridges, and what we expect of them, especially in elected bodies.

6) Connect the Dots

Adopt an integrated approach to transportation planning that includes freight and goods movement and stresses intermodal connectivity, says the report.

Better freight-transportation facilities and better intermodal connectivity between them and our roads and airports would result in a more efficient supply chain and reduce business costs, and there would be environmental and congestion pluses as well. In this point the commission is echoing ideas that have come from the White House and both houses of Congress, and it seems inevitable a new surface transportation bill will address this need.

7) Getting Americans Home in Time for Dinner

The Miller call for finding more effective ways of reducing urban congestion is another certain focus for the next long-term iteration of SAFETEA-LU. The costs of congestion are well known. They are staggering for business and individuals alike and steadily getting worse.

Says the report: “Congress should set aside funds to support programs specifically targeted to reducing urban congestion. This would include research to develop and implement better traffic management practices as well as other policies — such as zoning practices — that would reduce congestion and promote more efficient use of existing transportation systems. It is worth noting that such incentives could be coordinated with performance measures, such as the performance measures required to be implemented by MPOs larger than one million people under the Oberstar bill.”

One way or another, performance measurement will be in any new bill. How it will be defined is unclear.

It’s All About Leverage

The Miller report here must be music to John Mica’s ears. It calls for Washington, and in effect state capitals, to encourage public-private partnerships and other forms of private investment in highways and bridges, while at the same time improving oversight of such joint ventures to protect the public. But, the report goes on, “In this context, it is important to recognize that private investment in transportation infrastructure will not replace the need for public investment and that efforts to expand the private-sector role should not distract from efforts to grapple with immediate funding gaps while developing new public funding mechanisms.”

It is inevitable that more private money will flow into infrastructure and a new bill will invite it, but both sides will treat it so carefully that it will take some time.

9) Deliver Transportation Investments on Time

Reform project planning, review and permitting processes to speed actual implementation, says the report. “Private-sector builders and contractors in the transportation sector often view deficiencies in these agencies and processes as the biggest obstacle to meeting infrastructure needs.” Once again John Mica will be turning cartwheels. He has loudly pushed his “437-day” agenda, a reference to the fact that the fallen I-35W bridge in Minneapolis was replaced (a monster undertaking) in 437 days, “proving,” he says what can be done when red tape is overcome. Mica will go after this one, big time.

10) Build a Foundation for Informed Policy

The report says that, “Better and more timely data are essential to measure progress toward defined goals and objectives, and to improve the performance of the nation’s transportation systems.” We know from recent reports and surveys that the American public is woefully informed on the status of our infrastructure, its needs and problems, and what is needed to fix them.

The Miller report argues basically that if governments effectively inform and educate the public about what is going on, they will be better able to present and find support for the necessary moves to keep our future infrastructure up to date. A number of major projects across the country that have gone out of their way to keep the public in the loop with transparent, easily accessible, daily reporting, are testimony to the effectiveness of this.

Editor’s Note: Find the entire Miller report at http://www.millercenter.org/policy/transportation

The Stimulus Runs Dry

No more ARRA funds for new projects (but payouts still going).

It’s over.

All of the $27 billion in Stimulus dollars destined for highways has been obligated. But billions still have to find their way to contractors.

The Stimulus legislation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), required that all highway improvement funds be obligated by September 30 this year. According to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) data, nearly every state met that requirement. And only one state – California – gave back Stimulus money, with $1.67 million of it redistributed to Arizona, Michigan, New York and South Carolina according to the American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) analysis of that data.

Only one tenth of a billion remained unobligated at the end of September.

With the deadline passed, states can’t obligate ARRA funds for new projects or transfer funds among projects. Any funds not obligated must now be returned to FHWA. If a Stimulus project runs over its budget, the state can ask FHWA for more ARRA funds. But if approved, those funds have to come from another in-state project, which of course has to have its funds cut to provide the transfer. But as ARTBA points out the over-budgeted existing project must experience “a legitimate cost increase not related to a disputed contract claim or an increase under an escalation clause.”

Because September is the peak of the highway construction season, FHWA outlayed a monthly record of $1.49 billion of ARRA highway funds during the month, bringing total outlays to $13.99 billion for construction work performed, according to ARTBA.

With all ARRA highway investment funds now obligated, ARTBA’s analysis shows state and local government recipients have obligated just under $26.4 billion for 12,932 projects, including 5,322 that have been completed and 6,229 that are under construction. When projects on federal lands and TIGER 1 projects are included, the grand total comes to $27.0 billion obligated for 13,351 projects, says the analysis. At the September deadline, state and local governments in Texas continue to lead in outlays, at $945.2 million, with California second at $847.4 million and Illinois third at $676.1 million. Twenty other states, up from 18 at the end of August, have paid out more than $250 million.

Breaking down the $13.994 billion of ARRA funds by year, ARTBA says $5.612 billion was outlayed during calendar 2009 and $8.382 billion so far during calendar 2010. ARTBA estimates that if outlays during the final three months of 2010 equal the same months of 2009, then total Stimulus fund outlays this calendar year should be about $11.5 billion, which is slightly higher than expected according to data from the Congressional Budget Office. v

Despite the positive impacts of the economic stimulus law, a fundamental challenge remains, Ruane said. “America needs a new comprehensive and integrated vision, and a robustly-funded national transportation program for the 21^st century,” he said in a press statement reporting on the IBC.

“Many politicians in Washington are saying that we need to get more innovative and creative in passage of a new bill,” the ARTBA CEO said.  “Unfortunately, ‘innovative’ is usually a code word for ‘we can’t raise user fees,’ and simply reflects their lack of political will.”

Ruane lamented the “land of the lost, inertia, inaction and downright ineptitude” on Capitol Hill as it relates to the transportation bill, saying, “partisanship and dysfunction are the rule, not the exception.”

He pointed to a steady stream of research and think tank studies, and two congressional chartered finance commissions that have completed reports highlighting the nation’s surface transportation investment challenges and the need for timely action.  He also said there is unified business, labor union and construction industry support for new user fees. 

“Objective research, sadly, has not carried the day or spurred congressional action.  We are in limbo and face threats from many directions,” Ruane said at the IBC. He was referring to the ongoing precarious financial condition of the Highway Trust Fund, the end of stimulus highway and transit funds in late 2010, a possibly divisive battle over investment levels among the various transportation modes, and efforts to pass a Senate climate change bill that that includes a “de facto gas tax increase” that could preempt and maybe doom the passage of a new reauthorization bill. 

He told the IBC participants that these threats and the continued delays would have negative impacts on the future health and stability of the bridge market.

Ruane says the inertia can be overcome with “vocal and sustained” grassroots activity by transportation design and construction firms, public agencies, unions and the business community. 

He urged industry executives to take advantage of the upcoming July 4 and August congressional recesses and invite their members of Congress and staffs to their offices and jobsites.  

“Show them the real-world job and economic impacts, and safety benefits of strong transportation investment,” Ruane said. “Tell them to take action now on passage of a robustly funded highway and transit bill. Strong grassroots pressure is the key to creating the political will for Congress and the President to take action.”.

By Audrey Dutton, Washington Bureau, The Bond Buyer newspaper

For cash-strapped state and local governments that have critical transportation infrastructure needs, but no money to pay for them, the coming year will be bittersweet.

Federal aid from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and possibly another job-creation bill will provide some transportation funding relief to municipal bond issuers, and some high-profile grants are expected to be announced this winter. But it probably will be another year before Congress takes up new multi-year authorization bills for the sector, sources said in recent interviews.

Governments and other muni bond issuers earlier this year began chasing ARRA funds after the new law was enacted in February, flooding the U.S. Department of Transportation and its various sub-agencies with applications for surface transportation and high-speed rail projects. The application pool was so large that states and cities face miniscule odds and are ­competing with their neighbors.

But market and industry participants are now speculating that the ARRA initiatives may be models for, or springboards into, longer-term ­programs.

Meanwhile, ­surface and air transportation groups have pushed for Congress to dedicate a large portion of funding in any new job-creation bill to transportation infrastructure.

But more permanent programs and revenue overhauls that would be instituted by much anticipated multi-year transportation bills have been hampered by a ­prolonged congressional battle over health care and climate-change legislation, the coming midterm elections, and reluctance by some lawmakers and the White House to broach the subject of user fees while unemployment remains high.

After the Senate returns from its winter recess this month, it is expected to take up a new job-creation bill.

The bill had not been proposed in the Senate as of late December, but the House-approved Jobs for Main Street Act of 2010 would provide federal transportation grants and attempt to solve some cash-flow problems that have plagued the highway trust fund.

The House bill would provide $27.5 billion for highways, $8.4 billion for transit, and $500 million for airports.

Rumblings in the Senate have suggested lawmakers there might support transportation funding in the area of $23 billion to $30 billion split between highways and transit,an industry source said late last month. The House bill also would lift a ban on the trust fund’s ability to earn interest on its cash balances — providing it with $500 million to $1 billion more per year, according to House estimates — and would restore $19.5 billion of foregone interest payments.

The jobs bill also could prolong the wait for a new multi-year transportation law. The bill passed by the House, for example, would extend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users SAFETEA-LU) through the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, 2010, or one year after the law expired. The programs under SAFETEA-LU were extended through the end of February by a military appropriations bill to give Congress time to approve the longer extension.

Recovery Programs

In the meantime, new programs created by ARRA may be laying groundwork for lengthier federal investments in state-administered transportation projects. State transportation officials want the Build America Bonds program created by ARRA to be extended beyond its current expiration date of Dec. 31, said Joung Lee, senior analyst for finance and business development at the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who introduced BAB legislation in February 2005 and is considered a key supporter of the bonds, plans to work toward an extension.

“I think that we have seen that Build America Bonds have been an incredible success, providing prompt infrastructure investment in an efficient way. For that reason, I want to continue working to extend the program before it expires at the end of next year,” he said. “But I also think that Congress needs to refine the program, so that there isn’t just one type of Build America Bond that can be used for any type of project.

“I would like to see different flavors of BABs created. That would allow us to adjust the subsidy and give, for example, transportation infrastructure investment a larger subsidy than other types of projects because transportation projects typically create more jobs and other public benefits.”

“I would like to see different flavors of BABs* created.”

— Sen. Ron Wyden, D – Oregon

Currently, state and local governments can issue an unlimited amount of BABs to finance capital expenditures with the option of receiving direct federal payments equaling 35% of their interest expense. By mid-December, only eight months after ARRA’s enactment, issuers had sold more than $64 billion of direct-pay BABs, according to Thomson Reuters.

Airports want Congress to extend the temporary alternative-minimum tax exemption for private-activity bonds, saying the AMT exemption saved airport bond issuers millions of dollars and kept some projects from being halted. Issuers had sold $5.4 billion of AMT-exempt airport PABs as of Dec. 11, according to Jane Calderwood, vice president for government and political affairs at Airports Council International-North America. The debt supported projects at 35 different airports, she said. McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas was in the midst of a $2.5 billion project and “would have had to close the door” on it, but the AMT exemption enabled them to sell $550 million of debt to keep it alive, Calderwood said.

Another ARRA program will result in one of the most-anticipated announcements of the winter: the Federal Railroad Administration’s choice of a state or states to receive $8 billion in high-speed rail funding that was authorized under the law. The FRA received 259 applications for projects totaling $57 billion. Already, lawmakers are appropriating funds to build the high-speed rail network, which the U.S. High Speed Rail Association recently said will cost $600 billion to complete. Tacking onto the initial ARRA investment and following the designation of 11 high-speed rail corridors, Congress last month approved $2.5 billion for high-speed rail projects in its fiscal 2010 transportation appropriations bill.

The FRA’s administrator Joseph C. Szabo said recently the Obama administration is evaluating high-speed rail proposals in keeping with its “desire to lay the groundwork for a truly national high-speed and intercity passenger rail program.”

No Consensus

But the lingering, crucial problem for transportation officials — how to generate revenue for federal and state transportation trust funds — is not likely to be solved soon, according to sources.

Only one multi-year surface transportation authorization has been introduced so far, by House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman James L. Oberstar, D-Minn. It does not yet include a tax title establishing a revenue source for the program. The bill would establish a bond-related metropolitan mobility program for metro areas with more than 500,000 residents, including the establishment of metropolitan infrastructure banks.

Oberstar said that $1 billion of federal funds would be provided for the metro mobility program.His bill also would merge more than 100 federal transportation funding categories into four major programs, and create a federal P3 office to oversee and approve state and local governments’ tolling of highways financed with federal aid.

Transportation advocates have all but placed bets on the nation moving toward a mileage tax to replace the current revenue source, gasoline and diesel fuel taxes and vehicle-related fees. But White House officials have stated emphatically that they will not consider a new transportation tax in a struggling economy.

The delay in finding a new revenue source could spark more participation from the private sector and more public-private partnerships. If Congress does not raise fuel taxes significantly, states and localities will look more and more to the private sector for capital to support their needs, said Jack G. Finn, senior vice president and national director of toll services of HNTB Corp. But commenting on prospects for a gas tax increase, Finn said, “I think that’s doubtful.”

One potential mechanism to pay for infrastructure is a national infrastructure bank, which has been proposed by congressional lawmakers and the White House, among others. However, the current multi-year transportation proposal does not yet include such a bank, and Congress voted not to appropriate any money for it this fiscal year, opting instead for the bank to be created under the authorization process. Additionally, transportation experts have warned that a bank would not be a cure-all for funding woes.

“An infrastructure bank is not a substitute for money,” said Joshua Schank, director of research for the Bipartisan Policy Center’s National Transportation Policy Project, which is pushing for a performance-based federal policy and wants tolling — particularly congestion pricing — to play a larger role in transportation finance.v

Editor’s Note: Bond Buyer is a SourceMedia publication. SourceMedia is owned by Investcorp, which also owns Randall-Reilly, the parent company of Better Roads.

www.bondbuyer.com

Good Expectations

— by Daryl Delano, Contributing Editor

As 2009 drew to a close things were finally looking up for the U.S. economy. The final economic indicator report released last year was from The Conference Board, and it showed the Consumer Confidence Index (CCI) rising for the second month in a row during December.

The overall CCI reached its highest level in three months – but thanks entirely to a sharp upturn in the “Expectations” component. And therein lies the source of some concern as we enter the New Year.

The “Present Situation” component of the CCI actually declined by more than 10 percent between November and December, and remained at its lowest level since February of 1983. Thus, although consumers were concerned at the end of 2009 about persistently high levels of unemployment and low/no growth in household income, they expected economic conditions to improve between then and the middle of 2010 (the “Expectations” component of the CCI measures consumer’s assessment of economic conditions 6 months in the future).

Consequently, economic developments in the real (vs. “expected”) economy during the first few months of this year will be critical in establishing momentum for economic growth – or for fueling concerns about a “double-dip” recession. At year’s end, of course, we didn’t yet have a reading on how economic growth (as measured by the change in Gross Domestic product [GDP]) had fared during the final quarter of 2009. Most indicators were positive, however, including consumer confidence, manufacturers’ new orders, and initial reports of retail sales during the Christmas-Hanukah-New Year’s Holiday period. We did, though, have final numbers for the third quarter of the year. Third-quarter 2009 GDP grew at an annual rate of 2.2 percent – the first positive move for GDP since the second quarter of 2008. Nevertheless, last year’s third-quarter gain in GDP was much lower than the 3.5 percent increase initially estimated by the U.S. Commerce Department — a worrisome development were this to become a pattern of economic reality falling short of expectations.

Expectations for the final quarter of last year were high – GDP growth should have been as good (or better) than that recorded during the third quarter of the year.

More important, however, will be the U.S. economy’s growth during the first three months of 2010. How strong – and how sustainable – will economic growth prove to be as we move through the New Year? Construction-wise there are plenty of positives – the bounce-back from depressed levels for the new residential and residential remodeling sectors of the market, and the ARRA-stimulus-funding-fueled momentum for highways, bridges, and most other sectors of infrastructure construction. But there are significant negatives, as well – cash-strapped state and local government funding authorities, on top of demand-challenged and funding-starved private developers of retail, office, hotel and warehouse space.

The Great Recession of 2007-2009 has fundamentally changed the economic landscape and has at least temporarily altered the behavior of U.S. consumers and businesses. The impact of these behavioral changes on spending and investment decisions – and thus on overall economic growth – will become clearer as we move through 2010. At present, most economists are cautiously optimistic that the “tailwinds” of monetary and fiscal policy stimulus, improved financial conditions and pent-up demand will be enough to offset the continued “headwinds” of unemployment, foreclosures and limited credit availability. If so, the nascent economic recovery – while slow to develop strength and momentum – should prove to be sustainable, and should become self-reinforcing as we move into 2011.v

TRB Watch

by Russell Houston, Senior Communications Officer, Transportation Research Board

Quality Management of Pavement Condition Data Collection

www.TRB.org/Main/Blurbs/162632.aspx

Although the concepts of quality management, control, and acceptance have been extensively used in manufacturing industrial processes, these same principles have not been systematically applied to pavement data collection. This is partially because in these services the “product” is not clearly known and the reference value often is difficult to determine. To help address this issue, TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 401: Quality Management of Pavement Condition Data Collection explores the quality management practices being employed by public road and highway agencies for automated, semi-automated, and manual pavement condition data collection and delivery using in-house staff and contracted services. The review focuses on the collection of distress data at the network level, as well as on smoothness, friction, and structural capacity data collection processes. A downloadable PDF of the report is available at both the Transportation Research Board Website and at www.BetterRoads.com.

Pavement Management 2009

www.TRB.org/Main/Blurbs/162607.aspx (No. 2093)

www.TRB.org/Main/Blurbs/162159.aspx (No. 2094)

www.TRB.org/Main/Blurbs/162614.aspx (No. 2095)

TRB’s Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board (TRR), Nos. 2093, 2094, and 2095 include 45 papers that explore a wide variety of issues related to pavement management systems; pavement monitoring, evaluation, and data storage; full-scale and accelerated pavement testing; and strength and deformation characteristics of pavement sections. These issues also examine pavement friction, skid resistance, and pavement – vehicle interaction; rigid pavement design; flexible pavement design; and pavement rehabilitation. Individual TRRs, which are published on an irregular basis throughout the year, consist of collections of peer-reviewed papers on specific transportation subject areas and modes. TRB’s TRR Online service (http://trb.metapress.com/home/main.mpx) allows all visitors to identify papers of interest and review abstracts of those papers. Access to the full papers is available to service subscribers and employees of TRB sponsors.  Papers also may be purchased on an individual basis.

Russell Houston edits a weekly e-newsletter for the Transportation Research Board, a division of the National Academies, available at www.TRB.org. This column is not an endorsement of any of the contents of Better Roads. Contact: rhouston@nas.edu.

The Better Roads Bridge Inventory is an exclusive, award-winning annual survey that has been conducted since 1979. Bridge engineers from every state and Washington, D.C., are set a survey with both qualitative and quantitative questions. The Federal Highway Administration, in consultation with the states, has assigned a sufficiency rating, or SR, to each bridge (20 feet or more) that is inventoried. Formula SR rating factors are as outlined in the current Recording and Coding Guide for Structures Inventory and Appraisal SI&A of the Nation’s Bridges. The qualitative data is gathered through a questionnaire about major issues concerning bridge conditions and maintenance.

Shockingly high number of bridges remain sub-standard.

There are 597,787 bridges in America, 288,920 interstate and state bridges and 308,867 city/county/township bridges.

But 21.6 percent – or 62,504 – of the interstate and state bridges are structurally deficient (SD) or functionally obsolete (FO). And 25.7 percent of the city/county/township bridges – or 79,394 – are SD/FO.

Maintenance, personnel, training, age, environmental restrictions, a need to minimize traffic disruption, capacity and corrosion issues remain major barriers to lowering the rate of bridges becoming deficient, despite some respite coming from stimulus fund money.

Texas leads the nation with the most combined structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges. The state has 9,564 — 19 percent — of its total 50,316 bridges as SD/FO. Of the total 32,862 interstate and state bridges, 4,182, or 31 percent, are SD/FO. Of the 17,454 total city/county/township bridges, 5,383 or 13 percent are SD/FO.

Pennsylvania is second with 9,130 of its total 23,562 bridges, or 39 percent, as SD/FO. The state has 16,668 total interstate and state bridges, with 5,971 — 36 percent — reported as SD/FO. Forty-six percent, or 3,159 of all the state’s 6,875 city/county/township bridges are considered SD/FO.State officials note that funding is the greatest challenge to lowering the state’s rate of bridge deterioration, but corrosion, heavy salt use and more traffic than bridges were designed to carry cause the greatest damage.

But, Lance Savant, P.E., with Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Design, says his state expects to be able to lower its rate of its structurally deficient and functionally obsolete in the coming year. “Pennsylvania has its accelerated bridge program which focuses on replacing/repairing SD bridges,” Savant says. Nonetheless, bridges could certainly be improved if the state could “devote more funds to bridge preservation…to keep the good bridges good,” he says. Many of the other states’ agencies echo the same sentiment.

Following Pennsylvania, in order,the other top five states with the highest number of combined total SD/FO bridges are Missouri, Ohio, and Oklahoma.

Missouri has 24,096 total bridges, a combined total of 7,103, or 29 percent, which are SD/FO. There are 10,249 total interstate and state bridges, 2,838, or 28 percent, of which are SD/FO. Of the 13,847 total city/county/township bridges, 4,265, or 31 percent are SD/FO.

Ohio has 6,993 — 23 percent — of the total 30,617 in the state being SD/FO. Of the total 11,639 interstate and state bridges, 2,475, or 21 percent, are SD/FO. Of the total 18,978 city/county/township bridges, 4,518, or 24 percent, are SD/FO.

Finally, 6,904, or 29 percent, of Oklahoma’s 23,646 total bridges are SD/FO. Of its 7,660 total interstate and state bridges, 1,639, or 21 percent, are SD/FO. Thirty-three percent, or 5,265, of the state’s 15,986 total city/county/township bridges are SD/FO.

Like Pennsylvania, Oklahoma also expects to be able to lower its number of SD/FO bridges within the coming year. Bob Rusch, bridge division engineer for the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, says this is the fourth consecutive year the number of bridge projects in the state’s eight-year Construction Work Plan has increased and represents the largest increase in bridge work ever incorporated into the plan.

“The department’s Federal Fiscal Years 2010 -2017 Construction Work Plan enumerates priorities for highway and bridge construction during the next eight years and includes more than $4 billion in improvements to the state’s bridges and highways,” Rusch says. “The plan continues the agency’s focus on bridges with an increase of more than 100 bridges over last year’s plan for a total of more than 560.” In addition, he adds, “The department is also continuing to make strides in our State Bridge rehabilitation Program which provides significant repairs to existing bridges.”

The actual number of bridges doesn’t always paint the most accurate picture of deficiency or obsolesence. A state with fewer bridges could have a higher percentage of bridges that are SD/FO, but the numbers of SD/FO bridges could actually be relatively low.

The highest percentage of SD/FO bridges in the nation – 55percent – is in the District of Columbia. By percentage, Rhode Island** comes in second with 53 percent SD/FO bridges, followed by Pennsylvania at 39 percent, Hawaii at 38 percent and New York at 37 percent.

Regardless of what the official statistics show about the number of bridges that are SD and FO, some bridge engineers say that we should look at the square footage of SD and FO bridges to get a true picture of the situation. Ray Mumphrey, highway bridge program manager with the Louisiana Department of Transportation, says that while the number of SD/FO bridges may have decreased, the square footage may actually be increasing. “It may look like we’re making progress [in the nation] with the number of deficient bridges, however larger bridges are becoming deficient which increases the square footage of deficient bridges,” Mumphrey says. “There are a lot of interstate [bridges] becoming deficient, although the numbers of deficient structures may have gone down.”

Adds John Jones, M.S., P.E., Bridge Manuals, Modeling and Policy Engineer with the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT): “In all cases, square footage is the best indicator of [their] status.”

Clearance and capacity concerns

Even after the August 2007 collapse of I-35W Mississippi River Bridge in Minnesota, bridge needs are still not being seen as “critical,” says Dan Holderman, P.E., a bridge management engineer with the North Carolina Department of Transportation. “Even after the I-35W collapse, [there is still] very little emphasis on bridges and other infrastructure.”

Investigators found that the Minneapolis bridge, which killed 13 people when it collapsed into the Mississippi River failed because of a flaw in its design, when it announced its findings on Jan. 14, 2008. The designers had specified a metal plate that was too thin to serve as a junction of several girders, investigators say, according to a New York Times report immediately following the findings.

The bridge, which was designed in the 1960s, lasted 40 years. However, like most other bridges, the Times reported, it gradually gained weight during that period, as workers installed concrete structures to separate eastbound and westbound lanes and made other changes, adding strain to the weak spot.

This is when the bridge problem becomes more than a structural issue. It also becomes a capacity and a clearance issue. Although bridges can be functionally obsolete (e.g. geometrically deficiencies such as waterway openings, width, clearance issues, etc.) they are still considered safe to the motoring public even if they aren’t up to the standards – such as the current-day recommended width – for modern-day standards and commerce.

“We have so many oversize and overweight vehicles that go through Indiana, [and] we have to route vehicles all over the place because of structurally deficient, low-capacity or low-clearance bridges,” said Bill Dittrich, state bridge inspection engineer for the Indiana Department of Transportation. “In the early to mid 1980s, we [the state of Indiana] didn’t allow permitted vehicles on our interstate highways. Now, we are letting trucks go over them.”

Mike Clements, Georgia Department of Transportation state bridge engineer, says that’s part of the problem in his state, too. “Increased weight limits” is Georgia’s major cause of bridge damage, he says.

Because structurally deficient bridges can also be a safety concern to the public, Indiana DOT’s Dittrich says, highway agencies, the media and political people have keyed in on that term, “structurally deficient.” But that is not where the money is being spent. “We’re spending a ton of money on adding capacity, but not addressing structurally deficient the way we should. Many of our existing bridges are reaching the point where they are now becoming structurally deficient.,” he says.

Bridges can be neglected for a while and their condition won’t change a great deal. But all of a sudden, Dittrich says, “there will be a whole lot of structurally deficient bridges and there just isn’t the money to address them all at once.”

The training and retention predicament

Training and retention is a major concern when it comes to bridge inspection and repair. It’s no secret that the construction industry faces a shortage of qualified workers, and it carries over into bridge repair and inspection. “Bridge inspectors aren’t given the respect they should be,” Dittrich says, adding that a mindset exists that “anyone can do the work.” But it’s to the contrary. “The qualifications keep increasing,” Dittrich says, “and you need training.” He likens it to an untrained paramedic showing up to an emergency scene. “You don’t want to have a guy to show up in an ambulance who hasn’t had CPR training in 10 years,” Dittrich notes. “Half of my inspectors aren’t engineers, but they are expected to know things an engineer would know…and we don’t have adequate funds for training and travel to training. If I can’t keep them up to date, how can they be expected to see the problems they need to see? Or, they may see them [problems] but not understand what is significant and what isn’t.”

The growth of virtual training tool such as Webinars has helped somewhat with the lack of funds for training. However, when there are a limited number of inspectors this training takes time away from fieldwork regardless whether it’s on a computer or in person traveling to a training site. Dittrich points out that one of his inspectors just completed a Webinar on gusset plates but that employee said he ended up working for what seemed like 24 hours if he counted in virtual training and completing paperwork on bridge inspection reports. “You can inspect all you want, but it doesn’t do any good if you don’t have enough personnel or enough funding to address the problems that are found,” Dittrich said. There is enough work to keep his inspectors busy all the time, he says, but it’s still a major problem if they aren’t properly trained or if there aren’t enough of them to get the job done and done well. “Not having enough personnel is our No. 1 problem. The work keeps increasing therefore everyone has to do more.”

Though Congress and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved funds in the last highway bill — SAFETEA-LU — that were to be used for training and development and would cover travel, per diem, etc., the money ultimately comes off the top of the money a state gets for its bridge program, Dittrich says. “We’re caught in a situation. The federal government and Congress said, ‘We made money available,’ but the states need money for construction. That means we don’t have money to give to the guys for training. I think every state has this kind of issue. The regular money we get, we use the best we can. But we aren’t necessarily being effective with getting the structurally deficient bridges taken care of.”

Dittrich says to address the need for better training, his state inspectors have peer group meetings 4 to 6 times a year. Bridge inspectors from throughout the state get together to talk about ideas, inspection and repair methods that have and have not worked, creating a forum to share knowledge.

“Nothing frustrates a bridge inspector more than to see something that’s fixed and have it fail again in five years,” Dittrich says. “If you put a new deck down and it’s not cured properly, then it cracks, salt gets in, and it deteriorates. But decks and concrete can be made and cured right. It all starts with the mix and rebar…knowing where to stop the rebar.”

This is where the training comes in, Dittrich points out, because it can mean the difference between a bridge that lasts and a bridge that falls into disrepair before its time. “If you jackhammer off all the bad concrete, , you still have good with chlorides in it,” he points out. “You’ll have new concrete with no chlorides next to old concrete with chlorides. This difference in chloride concentration will set up a battery cell which will accelerate the corrosion of the rebars in the vicinity. Therefore testing should be conducted prior to making repairs to see if the choride levels are low enough to use zinc anodes, or if more advanced cathodic protection is required.

“That means you need to have a corrosion specialist go through it,” Dittrich points out. “But this is all new stuff — it’s not done on a widespread basis. We’d love to have our maintenance people be able to do this when they make a patch because they fix an area…when they come back a year later, it’s worse than ever. It all comes back to training, so when they start [on a project], they [know how to] do it right so it will last.”

Environmental challenges

Environmental restrictions continue to affect how well states and municipalities can replace and repair deficient bridges. These restrictions often slow down the process of repairing and replacing bridges, and sometimes, a less-appropriate structure type is used to replace the bridge, KDOT’s Jones notes. This just exacerbates the problem of structurally deficient bridges because more appropriate materials that would keep a bridge in better condition longer are not used.

“When a small span structure can efficiently be replaced with a standard box culvert, the environmental regulatory agencies providing oversight feel that culvert floor is considered ‘loss of stream length’ and has to be mitigated,” Jones points out. “Also, if there are threatened or endangered species present or perceived to be present, that also has to be mitigated.”

The process for reviewing this is complicated by the wide variations in what is considered “acceptable,” even to the point that it depends on who in the various agencies is conducting the review, he says.

“Additionally, we must develop a full set of plans, then send it in and wait,” Jones says. “The process is difficult, time consuming and expensive. The frustrating part is [that] some of the reviewers do not understand the bridge engineering principles involved. And some of solutions are not hydraulically feasible.”

Adds Steve Anderson from Nebraska’s Department of Roads, Bridge Division: “Environmental constraints hamper the swift programming and completion of projects.”

Time is ticking

Time constraints are also a major roadblock to repairing and rebuilding the bridges that need the most work, says Dittrich.

“When it came to using ARRA Funds, often the the bridges that needed the most work, weren’t the ones worked on,” Dittrich says. “I had a number of bridges that we proposed in the early part of the ARRA Program that we wanted to work on and do them right.” But as time progressed, he says, the deadlines were getting closer and closer so although the agency had money to spend, functionally obsolete or structurally deficient bridges weren’t the ones necessarily worked on. Basic maintenance was done to some of the bridges, but Dittrich says his agency will have to go back and do additional work on those where we couldn’t take care of all the problems. “To increase the vertical clearance under bridge to address the obsolescence can take a while unless a project is ready to go,” Dittrich notes.

And the time to finish a project once it does get underway is problematic. For example, he says, when it’s time to do a concrete pour, “instead of slowing down to do it right, as soon as concrete trucks get out there [on the jobsite], people just rush, rush, rush. Everyone is in a hurry.”

Richard Dunne, P.E., manager of structural engineering for the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), also feels the time crunch. He says if he could change any aspect of his department to improve the bridges under its jurisdiction, it would be “[a] willing[ness] to inconvenience motorists more.” Currently, Dunne says, “we do the majority of our work at night and/or in very small time windows.”

The Kansas Department of Transportation also identifies with this challenge. “It seems like no one wants to take the heat for detouring traffic, so we end up carrying traffic through construction, which requires the work to be phased,” says KDOT’s John Jones. “In some instances — like a rail repair — this is less of an issue. However, for deck repair or replacement, this becomes challenging.” v

Even with the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), better known as the stimulus, funding availability is still one of the biggest challenges in lowering the number of states’ deficient bridges, say respondents to the Better Roads survey. From The Midwest to the South to the Southeast to South Dakota and even as far-flung as Hawaii and Washington, D.C, agency officials still rank funding availability as one of the greatest challenges to repairing derelict bridges.

However, ARRA has provided some relief and has increased the level of funding for bridges. It has enabled maintenance and reconstruction of some bridges that would otherwise not be possible. The results of ARRA spending range from having no effect or a minimal effect to modest or significant impact. These responses are not unfamiliar to highway transportation official assessing the impact of the stimulus. Anwar Ahmad, assistant bridge engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation, tells Better Roads that the stimulus “was a much-needed booster for our bridge program.”

David Koenig, bridge structural service engineer with the Missouri Highway and Transportation Department, agrees, noting that the ARRA has had a very positive, “large impact” on Missouri’s bridge projects. “Many bridge projects have been moved up in the schedule and more have been addressed,” he says.

Minnesota has benefited from stimulus money. “Over 50 bridges on Minnesota’s state and local highways have been advanced with ARRA funding,” says Tom C. Styrbicki, P.E., bridge construction and maintenance engineer, Minnesota Department of Transportation Bridge Office. “The projects include everything from minor repairs to full bridge replacements. The ARRA program was a particular benefit to bridges in the local system.”

Steve Anderson, Nebraska Department of Roads, Bridge Divisions, says the stimulus “has accelerated a few projects [at the] state and local level.”

Don Cooney, infrastructure project management administration, Department of Transportation, Asset Management

Division, Washington, D.C., also notes that “the ARRA has increased the level of funding for bridges” in The District.

Chris Potter, Utah Department of Transportation, Bridge Design & Operations, says his state is using the money to replace several structurally deficient bridges and bridge decks. “In addition, we are using it to apply preservation treatment to several bridges,” he says.

A temporary funding frenzy

Kent Barnes, Montana Department of Highways, Chief Bridge Bureau, says that although the ARRA helped to fund a few additional short-span bridges, for the most part, it had a “low impact on the bridge program.”

Paul Santo, bridge design engineer, Hawaii Department of Transportation, says the stimulus also has “assisted in funding a couple of bridge projects, [but] it has not made a significant difference.” Benjamin W. Foster, assistant bridge maintenance engineer, Maine Department of Transportation, says in his state, “a modest amount” of money was used for bridges.

Kansas DOT’s John Jones says some bridges were “let” that otherwise would not have been, but “we’re still waiting on next year’s distribution.” Essentially, he says, some projects that were financially marginal became feasible. The same was true for Texas. Alan Kowalik, P.E., bridge inspection engineer for the Texas State Department of Transportation, says that bridges that were on the state’s “Five-Year List” were moved up to be replaced and repaired.

What major overhauls are needed to the systems of planning, building and maintaining bridges in the United States at the federal, state and local level? Why?

Wayne J. Seger, civil engineering manager 2, Tennessee Department of Transportation, Bridge Inspection/Repair Office: “Keep politics out of bridge replacement selection. Replacement selection should be need-based only. Do not divert bridge funds to other programs.”

Al Harris, resource management analyst, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Divisionof Maintenance: “Less money spent on architecturally pleasing details and more on maintenance friendly bridges.”

Anwar Ahmad, assistant bridge engineer with the Virginia Department of Transportation: “Adoption of a national ‘maintenance and preservation first’ policy supported by a reliable and sustained funding mechanism. Focusing on deficient bridges alone will lead bridge owners to focus on addressing or reacting to worst-condition first [bridges]. A successful bridge program should have three focus areas: 1.) Ordinary and preventive maintenance, 2.) Rehabilitation, and 3.) Replacement and new construction. In most cases, the most feasible treatment for a deficient bridge is replacement. The same or higher emphasis needs to be placed on preservation as placed on replacement and new construction activities and needs.”

Paul Santo, bridge design engineer, Hawaii Department of Transportation: “More funding at all levels.”

If you could change any aspect of your department to improve your bridges, what would it be?

Noel Clocksin, secondary road engineer for the South Dakota Department of Transportation: “A more streamlined federal aid process and state process for local structure so we can get deficient structures replaced more quickly.”

Paul Jensen, Montana Department of Highways’ Bridge Bureau: “Increased maintenance because repair is cheaper then replace[ment].”

Alan Kowalik, P.E., bridge inspection engineer for the Texas State Department of Transportation: “More bridge maintenance to keep them from becoming ’50.”

Dan Holderman, P.E., bridge management engineer with the North Carolina Department of Transportation: “Bridge funding [because] more bridges become deficient each year than are removed from the list, [and a] larger dedicated bridge maintenance fund.”

Don Cooney, infrastructure project management administration, Department of Transportation, Asset Management Division, Washington, D.C.: “Improvement in the promptness of funding and procurement.”

Lee Floyd, bridge maintenance engineer, South Carolina Department of Highways: “Prioritizing. [The] Commission took away a good system.”

Al Harris, resource management analyst, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Division of Maintenance: “Preventative maintenance costs less than waiting for a bridge element to go bad and then replacing it.”

Travis McDaniel, P.E., bridge engineer, Wisconsin Department of Transportation: “More focus on preventative maintenance.”

Charles P. Brand, bridge engineer with the Arkansas Department Highway Transportation Department: “Implement bridge management with a staff dedicated to only that function [to] stretch funding $$ more efficiently and cost effectively.”

Chris Potter, Utah Department of Transportation, Bridge Design & Operations: “Have dedicates structures staff to oversee bridge construction. Our construction inspectors don’t have the experience to oversee all aspects of a bridge construction.”

Mitchell K. Carrs, P.E., bridge engineer, Mississippi Department of Transportation: Reduce bottlenecks in project processes to expedite bridge replacements and rehabilitation, specifically environmental.

Tom C. Styrbicki, P.E., bridge construction and maintenance engineer, Minnesota Department of Transportation Bridge Office: “Increase funding for bridge replacement and repair to maintain a network condition level that is acceptable.”

Click here for a pdf version of the 2009 Bridge Inventory