the fhwa bridge and tunnel programssp.bridges.transportation.org/documents/2015 scobs... · 2015....
TRANSCRIPT
-
The FHWA Bridge and Tunnel Programs
A presentation to the AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and Strcutures. April 22, 2015
Joseph Hartmann
Director, Office of Bridges and Structures Federal Highway Administration
-
• Funding
• National Tunnel Inspection Standards
• National Bridge Inspection Standards
• Changing the language of the Federal-aid bridge program
• Transportation Performance Management – Bridge Performance Measures
Contents
-
Funding Highway Trust Fund
As of today, $8.1B balance
Based on current spending and revenue trends, projected to be out of funds in July
When it gets below $2B, “cash management procedures”
Highway Bridge Program Final year to obligate funds or they will expire
Currently nearly $470M in unobligated funding
MAP-21 Expired September 30, 2014
Current extension expires on May 31, 2015
Reauthorization
-
Reauthorization and MAP-21 Avg. Annual Funding at FY12 Levels (+ inflation)
NHPP $21.8 STP $10.0
HSIP $2.2
Railway-Highway
Crossing $0.2 CMAQ $2.2
Transportation Alternatives
$0.8
Metro Planning $0.3
$37.7 billion/year in
formula funding
Note: Amounts in $ billions; individual
program amounts do not add
exactly to total due to rounding
-
Reauthorization
Administration’s Proposal: GROW AMERICA Act
Generating Renewal, Opportunity, and Work with Accelerated Mobility, Efficiency, and Rebuilding of Infrastructure and Communities throughout America Act
-
GROW AMERICA Act
Proposal originally transmitted to the Congress on April 29, 2014.
Authorizes total of $478 billion for surface transportation programs for FYs 2016-2021.
Funds for highways, highway and motor vehicle safety, motor carrier safety, public transportation, rail infrastructure and safety, and surface transportation research.
Stabilizes the Trust Fund for 6 more years and provides funding certainty.
Advances project delivery efficiency, improves planning, and offers innovative finance options.
-
GROW AMERICA Act $261.1B in apportioned funding over 6 years ($43.5B/yr)
Surface Transportation
Program ($54.8)
National Highway Performance Program
($140.8)
Highway Safety Improvement Program ($14.1)
Cong. Mitigation/Air Quality Improvement($14.7)
Transportation Alternatives ($5.3)
NEW: Critical Immediate Safety Investments ($29.4)
Metropolitan Planning ($2.0)
6-year funding in billions of dollars
-
Critical Immediate Safety Investments Program
– $29.4B for 3 Initiatives
– Interstate Bridge Revitalization Initiative
– 25% to 75% for SD on the IHS
– Systemic Safety Initiative
– 25% to 75% for safety improvements on local roads
– State of Good Repair Initiative
– Up to 50% for NHS state of good repair
– Match can come from any eligible program
-
Bridge to Sustainable Infrastructure Act
• Bi-Partisan House Bill – Renacci (R-Ohio)
– Pascrell (D-N.J.)
– Ribble (R-Wis.)
– Lipinski (D-Ill.)
• T&I or Ways and Means
• Temporarily patches the HTF
• If Congress doesn’t find a permanent solution in 3 years, a gas tax hike is automatically triggered and indexed to inflation
• If no solution after another 3 years…another hike
-
National Tunnel Inspection Standards (NTIS)
2008 ANPRM
2010 NPRM
2012
Final Rule was prepared
MAP-21
2013 SNPRM
“Current” expected publication date 06/26/2015
TOMIE Manual and Specification for the National Tunnel Inventory (coding guide) will be published concurrent with NTIS
-
NHI Tunnel Safety Inspection Training
• FHWA will sponsor – 2 from each State DOT – 1 from each Division Office
• Each State will be assigned to a session
• Possible locations – Baltimore – Atlanta – Matteson, IL (Chicago) – Boston – Lakewood, CO (Denver) – Seattle – Sacramento – Richmond
-
National Bridge Inspection Standards (Risk-Based, Data-Driven)
Establish and maintain risk-based, data-driven inspection standards
Establish risk-based, data-driven frequency of inspections
Establish procedures for reporting critical findings and monitoring
corrective actions
Requirement to conduct annual compliance reviews
Maintain a bridge inspection training program
Nationally Certified Bridge Inspectors
“Currently” expected to be published September 6, 2015
-
• FHWA will likely address more than just the MAP-21 required elements once the rule-making process “opens up” the NBIS regulation
• Please comment on what you like in addition to what you don’t like…also, offer us solutions
Opportunity!
-
Goal…Eliminate Federally instituted but sometimes confusing, unclear, alarming or misleading terms from the language of bridge engineers!
This is language that has served us well and we have “owned” it, but recognize it does not translate well in a transparent world.
Changing the Language of the Federal-Aid Bridge Program
-
• Sufficiency Rating
• Functionally Obsolete
• Fracture Critical
• Structurally Deficient
The Guilty
-
Changing the Language of the Federal-Aid Bridge Program
View of the I-5 Skagit River Bridge looking west…May 24, 2013.
-
Sufficiency Rating
The Sufficiency Rating (SR) for the Skagit River Bridge was 53.8. Was that unsafe?
-
• 4 Components (Appendix B) – Structural Adequacy and Safety (55%)
• Items 59, 60, 62 and 66
– Serviceability and Functional Obsolescence (30%) • Items 28, 29, 32, 43, 51, 53, 58, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72 and
100
– Essentiality for Public Use (15%) • Items 19, 29 and 100
– Special Reductions (up to -13%) • Items 19, 36 and 43
• So….was 58.9 unsafe?
Sufficiency Rating
-
• Legacy Term (MAP-21)
• Used as a means to apportion Highway Bridge Program Funding to States
• An early attempt at performance(?) management
• Still in many of our programs, guidance, etc. (SI&A) but the Federal-Aid program will soon no longer use it
• Not a measure of structural safety
Sufficiency Rating
-
Functionally Obsolete
The Skagit River Bridge was Functionally Obsolete (FO). Was that unsafe?
-
• An appraisal rating of 3 or less for – Item 68, Deck Geometry; or – Item 69, Underclearances; or – Item 72, Approach Roadway Alignment
OR • An appraisal rating of 3 for
– Item 67, Structural Evaluation – Item 71, Waterway Adequacy
• Is a FO bridge unsafe?
Functionally Obsolete
-
• Legacy Term (MAP-21)
• Used to incorporate some of the functional parameters of a bridge into the allocation decision on funding
• Still in many of our programs, guidance, etc. (SI&A) but the Federal-Aid program soon will no longer use it
• Not a measure of structural safety
Functionally Obsolete
-
The Skagit River Bridge was Fracture Critical (FC).
Was that unsafe?
Fracture Critical
-
• Rooted in two bridge failures
• Reliability v. redundancy – Material standards
– Fabrication standards
– Hands-on inspection
• (No FC members on I-5 failed!)
• Need to retain the notion, but not a measure of structural safety
Fracture Critical
-
• The I-35W Bridge was Structurally Deficient (SD). Was that unsafe?
Structurally Deficient
-
• A condition rating of 4 or less for – Item 58, Deck; or – Item 59, Superstructures; or – Item 60, Substructures; or – Item 62, Culvert and Retaining Walls
OR • An appraisal rating of 2 or less for
– Item 67, Structural Evaluation – Item 71, Waterway Adequacy
• Is a SD bridge unsafe?
Structurally Deficient
-
• Condition and physical adequacy parameter for SR • No longer needed for funding apportionment, but unfortunately
still in MAP-21 (bridge penalty provision) • Performance Measures Rule-Making…Good/Fair/Poor • Structurally Deficient vs. Poor
– A condition rating of 4 or less for • Item 58, Deck; or • Item 59, Superstructures; or • Item 60, Substructures; or • Item 62, Culvert and Retaining Walls
OR – An appraisal rating of 2 or less for
• Item 67, Structural Evaluation • Item 71, Waterway Adequacy
• Not a measure of structural safety
Structurally Deficient
-
• SR and FO => will you keep them?
• Fracture Critical => need to retain in some form
• Structurally Deficient => Poor?
• What else do we need to tell our story?
• A decade of effort?
• What bridges are unsafe?
Changing the Language of the Federal-Aid Bridge Program
-
Open bridges are safe, unsafe bridges are closed.
Safe. Unsafe!
-
Title Subtitle
Meeting Date
Office of Transportation Performance Management
Pavement and Bridge Condition Performance Measures Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
-
Transportation Performance Management
NHS Bridge Condition Performance Measures (490.407)
31
Bridge Condition Performance Measures
Percentage of NHS Bridges Classified as in “Good” Condition
Percentage of NHS Bridges Classified as in “Poor” Condition
Subpart D (490.400s)
-
Transportation Performance Management
Data Sources and Components of a Bridge
32
DECK
SUBSTRUCTURE SUPERSTRUCTURE
Subpart D (490.400s)
Bridge NBI Items
Item 58- Deck
Item 59- Superstructure
Item 60- Substructure
Culvert NBI Item
Item 62- Culverts
-
Transportation Performance Management
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
NBI Bridge Condition Rating Thresholds for NHS Bridges
33
≤4 5 or 6 ≥7
Poor Fair Good
≤ 4 5 or 6 ≥ 7
≤ 4 5 or 6 ≥ 7
≤ 4 5 or 6 ≥ 7
Deck (Item 58)
Superstructure (Item 59)
Substructure (Item 60)
Culvert (Item 62)
Subpart D (490.400s)
Bri
dge
NBI Rating Scale (from 0 – 9)
-
Transportation Performance Management
Deck Superstructure
Bridge Classification Example
34
Example for bridge
G: >=7; F: 5 or 6 P: =7; F: 5 or 6; P: =7; F: 5 or 6 P:
-
Transportation Performance Management
Calculating NHS Bridge Condition Performance Measures (490.409)
35
Structure Type
Bridges Culverts
Overall Bridge
Condition Rating
3 metric classification (58-Deck,
59-Superstructure, 60-Substructure)
1 metric classification (62-Culverts)
Measures
Good All metrics rated
“Good” Metric rated
”Good”
percentage of deck area classified as in “Good” condition
Poor Any metric rated
“Poor” Metric rated
“Poor”
percentage of deck area classified as in
“Poor” condition
Fair Minimum rated
metric “Fair” Metric rated
“Fair”
Subpart D (490.400s)
-
Transportation Performance Management
Minimum Condition and Penalty for Structurally Deficient Bridges (490.411 and 490.413)
Minimum condition level: ≤ 10% of total deck area of NHS bridges classified as Structurally Deficient
Penalty: If for 3 consecutive years the minimum condition level is not met, State must set aside and obligate NHPP funds for eligible
projects on bridges on the NHS
36 Subpart D (490.400s)
100.0 x 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑘 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑁𝐻𝑆 𝐵𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑠 𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑘 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑁𝐻𝑆 𝐵𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑎 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒
Calculation:
-
• Docket closes May 8, 2015 (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highway)
• www.federalregister.gov and search “bridge performance measures”
Performance Measure Comments
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttp://www.federalregister.gov/
-
Shay Burrows, Team Leader – Safety, Preservation and Management Team
– [email protected] or (202)366-4675
Brian Kozy, Team Leader – Structural Engineering Team
– [email protected] or (202)493-0341
Samantha Lubkin, Senior Bridge Engineer
– Safety, Preservation and Management Team
Recent Staff Changes at FHWA HQ
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]
-
Q and A
Thank you!
mailto:[email protected]