delivering the goods: public works technologies

Delivering the Goods: Public WorksTechnologies, Management, and Financing

April 1991

OTA-SET-477NTIS order #PB91-197939

Foreword

Traffic jams and bridge lanes closed for maintenance create headaches for travelers andtransportation officials, and public works directors would give their eyeteeth to find a way tosolve leaking water pipe and storm water overflow problems. Such vexing difficulties are thelegacies of years of neglect and underfunding for the infrastructure that provides vital publicworks services. In 1988, following a number of national studies calling in vain for moreinvestment in public works infrastructure, the Senate Committee on Environment and PublicWorks and the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation asked OTA to identifyways to change Federal policies and programs to mobil ize management, f inancing, andtechnology efforts to make public works more productive and efficient. The Senate Committeeon Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Subcommittee on Transportation of theSenate Committee on Appropriations both expressed their interest and concern by endorsingthe study.

OTA identifies several immediate steps the Federal Government could take. First, newenvironmental s tandards, populat ion shif ts , and industr ial changes have transformed thenature of many public works problems, and Federal programs must be refocused to fit the newcircumstances. Second, if we expect to maintain our economic health, the Nation mustincrease its investment in public works, despite budget dilemmas. As it stands now, criticalinfrastructure, such as bridges, Interstate highways, sewage pipes, and water systems, arebreaking down or wearing out faster than we can repair or replace them. The toll on nationalproductivity is already substantial, and, because infrastructure investment has been decliningfor at least a decade, the situation is likely to get worse before it can get better.

Reauthorization of the Federal highway program is the first piece of major public workslegislation to reach the top of the Federal agenda for the 102d Congress. The priorities thatOTA has identified should help Congress in its deliberations on this and other transportationand environmental legislation and lead to actions that will ensure the continued vitality of ourcountry’s infrastructure.

Members of the advisory panel, workshop participants, and a host of government,industry, and private citizen reviewers for this study provided an invaluable range ofperspectives and information. OTA is grateful for the substantial commitment of time andenergy given so generously by each. Their participation does not necessarily representendorsement of the contents of the report, for which OTA bears sole responsibility.

/J’z?&# df4@-- >JOHN H. GIBBONSDirector

Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and FinanceAdvisory Panel

Carol Bellamy, Panel ChairPrincipal, Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.

Jon Lee CraigChief, Water Quality ServiceOklahoma State Department of Health

David Davisl

Executive DirectorNew Jersey Highway Authority

Siro DeGasperisVice President, Public AffairsUnited Parcel Service

Daniel DudekSenior EconomistEnvironmental Defense Fund

Hazel Gluck2

PresidentPublic Policy Advisors

Anthony Hall, Jr.3

.ChairmanHouston Metropolitan Transit Authority

Austin V. Koenen4

Managing Director for Public FinanceMorgan Stanley & Co., Inc.

IFom= fiwutive Dhctor, ~Wort%3rmer Conunis sioner, New Jersey Department of Transportation*ormer Memher, Houston City Council4Foma -ging Director, Shearsom bk ‘Umm ‘C”5Fom@ fiWutive Dir~tor, Chicago Regional TqrtAion Autho@’

Jerome KrugerDepartment of Materials Science and EngineeringThe Johns Hopkins University

Fred MoavenzadehDirector, Center for Construction Research and EducationMassachusetts Institute of Technology

James PoirotChairmanCH2M Hill

Harry ReedPlanning DirectorArizona Department of Transportation

Burton StallwoodTown AdministratorLincoln, Rhode Island

Michael UremovichVice President of MarketingAmerican President Companies

Theodore G. Weigle, Jr.5Vice President and Manager,Surface Transportation-East, Bechtel Corp.

NOTE: OTAappreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members.The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full nxponsibility for thereport and the accuracy of its contents.

iv

Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and FinanceOTA Project Staff

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTAScience, Information, and Natural Resources Division

Nancy Carson,Science, Education, and Transportation Program Manager

Edith B. Page, Project Director

Jonathan Atkin, Analyst

Julia Connally, Analyst

Walter Diewald, Senior Analyst

Kevin Dopart, Analyst

Sharon Burke, Research Assistant

Karen Mathiasen, Research Assistant

Daniel Broun, Research Assistant

Marsha Fenn, Office Administrator

Gay Jackson, Administrative Secretary

Tamara Cymanski, Secretary

George Branyan, Research Analyst

Ian Freed, Research Analyst

Ketan Patel, Summer Intern

Miriam Roskin, Summer Intern

Andrew Scott, Intern

Contractors

Analytical Services Thomas D. Hopkins

Apogee Research, Inc. Rochester Institute of Technology

Sarah Campbell Rizwan SalimRobert Gordon Associates Heywood Sanders

Government Finance Research Center Porter Wheeler

L.E. Haefner Enterprises, Inc.

Other Contributors

Federation of Materials Societies, National Association of Corrosion EngineersPacific Northwest Laboratory/Battelle through the Department of Energy

ContentsPage

Chapter 1: Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Chapter 2: Institutional Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Chapter 3: Transportation Management and Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Chapter 4: Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Chapter 5: Cross-Cutting Technologies for Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

Chapter 6: Research and Development for Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Appendix A: Fiscal Capacity and Effort Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Appendix B: List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

Appendix C: Workshop Participants and Other Reviewers and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

Appendix D: Contractor Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

vi

CHAPTER 1

Summary and Conclusions

CONTENTSPage

Intergovernmental Framework ... .*, *., .*. ,., ... *.. *., .*. .*. ***, ***, +,**, **, ,@**e, m, 6Federal Decisionmakers .**. ... ... .*. ..*. ... .*. ... ... *.. ... **. .a**. .. **.*4+..*** 7States ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .*. m.. ***. ..** .*. .$** *+*. ..*. **+eq+. ..+* .* c.- 9Local Governments **. .*. .*. ... ., *..**.,...*..,*...*..*...,**.*.,..*****,,*,**,*+ 9

Federal Public Works Management . .,,**,.*,..*,..**..*...*..,*@*,,+***,,*,,*,,*,, 9Transportation .*. .*. ... ... ..** .*, ... ... ... ... d.. ... *,*. .*4, **, ,***, **+*, **, *.+m, 9Environmental Public Works *.. *.*. ..*. *.. ... ... ... ... ... *., .**, ***, ,,, ,, @****, +4 12Congress ..*. ... .**. ... ... .*. .,*. .,. *.*. **. .,c***, *a** ***o, **++, **** *6, *,, *6 **# 14

Investment and Financing: Who Pays and How ● ... .*, ,., ,**, ,****** ***4, **, *e+*, *e+* 14Investment Issues ... ... ... .., ... .*. .,+. ..+. ,.*. .+. ,**. **. **o * * 4 * * . * * * * * ***,+*.*+ 15Financing Transportation .*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Financing Environmental Public Work .*. *.. **. **. ..*. ,*. ,.**, +*40 ****, r,, **q, **q 27

Technologies and R&D-Making Public Works Work Better . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Maintaining a Healthy Infrastructure . , . . . . . . . . . + . . . . . , . . + . . . . . . , . , . . . . . , . , , . , , , , . 29Technologies To Increase Capacity . .*..,,..,..,.***..****,....***..***,,*,*,.**,, 33Technology Priorities *.. ..** ... .,. *., .*. .., ... ... ... .,`, .., *, *****o,***,**,,*,,@ 35Technology Management in the Public Works Arena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Public Works R&DAlmost an Oxymoron ● **..,*.*,.*,...,..,,**..*.,,**..*+**@ 36

BoxesBox Pagel-A. Trends Affecting Public Works Infrastructure ● *.*. ..*, ,,**. *.. ..*. ,*, e#**, *,e #** 6l-B. Predicaments of an Older City .*. *.. ..*. .o. .*, ... .*, *., .., ,****** .,. **, ,* *****4 17l-C. Keeping Up With Growth .*. ... *.. ... ... ..*. ... *.. ... **. .**. ..a***. e **.4$*.**, 181-D. Small Towns and Big Public Works Problems .**. .+ e, *, . + * . * * * * . *, ., * .,,+...*. 30

FiguresFigure Page1-1. U.S. Department of Transportation ● *+. .*. .*. ..**, ... ... ,.**4, ,*****, *. .*4,,*** 101-2. Projected Impact on States of Reduced Federal Aid for Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

TablesTable Page1-1. Federal infrastructure Expenditures, 1980 and 1989 ● **+.*.**..,...**..,**+.,***. 31-2. Traffic Congestion Increases in 15 Major Cities .*** **** **. ..*, ,. ****#*,*,****.* 41-3. Public Works Management ... ... ... +.. ... ... ... ... ... ... q+.. .*. . .**.+ +** . . .**** 81-4. Federal outlays, 1960-90 .**. . , .*.*. , . . .*. . , . . . . .**, . .*. . . . .*****..**,*,**,, , , 151-5. State Fiscal Summary ... .*. .*. *., ... ,.. ... .., .*. ... *.*. 4*. *.** ., *****#+,****, 201-6. Priorities for Increased Annual Federal Infrastructure Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221-7. Major Issues and Problems in Transportation Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241-8. Federal Expenditures and User-Fee Revenue for Transportation, 1988 and 1989.,.261-9. Policy Choices for Transportation . ..*.....,*,*....,*,**,.*,,*,*****,*,*,*****,* 281-10. Options for Federal Environmental Public Works Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321-11. Technology Priorities for R&D for Maintaining Infrastructure Condition . . . . . . . . . 331-12. Environmental Protection Agency Laboratories . ., . ., . . . * * * * *,, * . *,, . . *,*.,..,* 361-13. Department of Transportation Public Works Research and Development .,,..,,.. 37

CHAPTER 1

Summary and Conclusions

When we try to pick out anything by itself, wefind it hitched to everything else in the universe—John Muir

Smart cars and highways, high-speed trains andtiltrotor aircraft, drinking water treatment at the tap,low-flush toilets, and computer-directed sewer in-spection robots—how these exotic-soundingtechnologies contrast with the traffic jams, potholes,sewer system overflows, and air pollution thatregularly plague residents in major cities! Most of ustake the services provided by public works forgranted-until they malfunction at our expense.However, such complacence is foolish, consideringthe staggering size of our country’s investment inpublic works infrastructure. The value of the capitalstock represented in the Nation’s roads, bridges,mass transportation, airports, ports, and waterways;and water supply, wastewater treatment, and solidwaste disposal facilities is estimated to be about$1.4 trillion, slightly over 20 percent of the coun-try’s total public and private capital stock. l Federal,State, and local governments currently spend about$140 billion annually on building, operating, andmaintaining these facilities.

If the infrastructure is so valuable, and technolo-gies have such promise, why are so many publicworks systems across the United States outdated,inadequate, or poorly maintained? A combination ofthree factors is largely responsible. First, most of thebasic infrastructure has been in place for at least20 years (some is a century old) and needs eithermajor rehabilitation or replacement. Second, shiftsin population and transportation patterns haveoverburdened infrastructure in the major urban areasand left small, rural jurisdictions and rural States.struggling to provide adequate services from shrink-ing economic resources. And last, but perhaps mostimportant, Federal, State, and local governmentsface major budget problems.

The Federal Government has always played a keyrole, through financing and promoting new capital

programs for public works, in spurring economicdevelopment. In 1989, Federal contributions totaledjust over $24 billion (in 1982 adjusted dollars), 2.5percent of total Federal outlays, down from about$30 billion, closer to 4 percent, at the start of the1980s. Environmental public works programs, rail,and mass transit have borne the brunt of the cuts inFederal infrastructure support; aviation and high-ways have fared better (see table l-l). State and localgovernments have increased their expenditures forpublic works, but not enough to makeup for the dropin Federal contributions, and nowhere near enoughto cope with their problems.

Economists have expressed concern that slowlyebbing investment in public infrastructure over aperiod of years has caused a portion of the decline inproductivity growth in the United States.2 OTA’sresearch indicates they are right. Delays due tohighway congestion in major urban regions alreadytake a toll of more than an estimated $30 billionannually (see table 1-2), almost one-half of theroughly $65 billion total spent by Federal, State, and

Table l-l—Federal Infrastructure Expenditures,1980 and 1989 (in millions of 1982 adjusted dollars)

1980 1989

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $29,863 $23,609Transportation infrastructure:

Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,584 11,392Mass transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,732 2,838Rail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,531 483’Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,334 5,378Ports, harbors, waterways. . . . . . . 1,365 1,137

Environmental infrastructure:Water supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,017 284b

Wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,300 2,097a~rop ~ ~&nditure reflects sale of Conmil.

b spending figures for water supply in 19S9 reflect repayments ofFarmer’s Home Administration water supply loans.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991. Based on preliminaryCongressional Budget Office estimates, Office of Managementand Budget historical data, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineersestimates.

10’IX es~tes, b~ed On ~icia H. M~el~ “why Has Productivity Orowth Declined? Productivity and Public hNeStLUent,’ New EngladEconomic Review, January/February 1990, p. 14.

21bid.

–3-

4 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table 1-2—Traffic Congestion Increases in 15 Major Cities

Annual cost of congestion

Congestion indexa Percent change Total b Per capitaCities (1987) (1982-87) (in billions of dollars) (in dollars)

Los Angeles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .San Francisco-Oakland . . . . . . . .Washington, DC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Phoenix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Houston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Atlanta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Seattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Detroit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .San Diego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Philadelphia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dallas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Minneapolis-St. Paul... . . . . . . . .Milwaukee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.471.311.251.231.191.161.141.111.111.101.081.061.030.970.94

20%2931

61

3020

411- 23817222410

$792.42.20.91.51.10.96.82.51.90.62.11.00.50.2

$730670740510550650580430340480280520530240190

Whecongestionindexisaweighted measureofurbanmobilitylevels, andcitieswithvaluesgreaterthan l.Ohavecongestionproblems.Roadsearrylng morethan 13,000 vehicles per freeway lane per day or 5,000 vehicles per arterial lane per day are considered congested.

bcongestion cost is the estimated cost of travel delay, excess fuel consumed, and higher insurance premiums paid by residents of iarge, con9$st$d ur~nareas.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Aeseesment, based on Texas Transportation Institute, “Roadway Congestion in MeJor Urban Areas, 1982to 1987,” Research.-Report 1131-2, 1989.

local governments for highways in 19876 (the lastyear of the congestion study), and overcrowding onthe roads has increased every year since. However,reversing the downward trend in public worksoutlays will not be easy. It will require fundamentalchanges in governmental policies and spendingpriorities, and these do not happen quickly.

The 1990s thus loom as a pivotal decade forpublic works. Squeezed by demands for everyconceivable type of public service, State and localofficials have postponed routine maintenance andrehabilitation of vital infrastructure systems foryears. For example, lining the aged water supplypipes of a major city could have prevented a leakagerate of almost 40 percent of treated drinking waterover the past several decades, more than enough tomake up shortages during dry spells. The city,however, has only recently allocated money for theproject, for decades finding expenditures for police,schools, and caring for elderly and homeless morepressing.

But many factors other than fiscal woes keep newmanagement solutions and technologies that couldbring greater productivity and efficiency from beingintegrated quickly into public works. Major popula-

Photo credit: American Society of Civil Engineers

Delays caused by highway congestion cost the publicat least $30 billion annually.

tion shifts and industrial and technology changeshave occurred over the past 15 years (see box l-A),creating new public works needs far faster than theslow movements in corresponding public attitudesand government policies and institutions. Becausepublic works programs are easy targets for budgetcuts and wage scales are low, officials are faced bycritical shortages of expert management and techni-cal personnel to plan for, implement, and manage

6u.s. Dep~ent of Transpo~on, FCXJWSI Highway Administratio~ “Selected Highway Statistics and ChartS 1989,” November 1990, P. 19.Federal experts unofficially state that the costs of congestion may now equal or exceed total highway expenditures, which were $72 billion in 1989.Anthony R. Kane, associate administrator, Engineering and Program Development Federal Highway Administration personal ccmununicatioq Jan. 28,1991.

Chapter 1—Summary and Conclusions ● 5

new technologies. Liability concerns in both thepublic and private sectors about the consequences ofa new program or equipment that does not performwell are further barriers to new technologies.

Even if such obstacles were to be overcome,reaching consensus on the best approach and choiceamong new technologies is a Herculean task. Whilemost people agree on the importance of protectingthe environment and the quality of life, they do notagree on how to do this in a way that nourishes ratherthan saps economic vitality. Ironies resulting fromattempts to address these divisive concerns can beseen across the country. Although the Nation hasbeen a world leader in developing and implementingenvironmental protection policies, residents of manyof the largest cities confront air quality problems tiedto traffic congestion that threaten the quality of lifein their communities. Los Angeles, for instance,installed new computer-managed traffiic signalequipment, improving traffic flow by 10 to 20percent: at significantly lower cost than construct-ing new highway lanes. But the city still has theworst traffic congestion and air quality in thecountry, and public debate continues to rage overwhat to do next. Californians (and residents of otherStates with large, urbanized areas) must reachagreement on land-use requirements, travel altern-atives, and funding for new transportation options,and will probably have to accept major changes inpriorities and lifestyles to resolve environmentalconcerns.

Finding solutions to such complex problems ishard enough, even when known technologies can dothe job, but choosing among new technologies (thatmight do better) is even more difficult, because solittle is known about how they will actually perform.Only the Federal Government has the resources tosupport large-scale, applied research and develop-ment (R&D) programs for public works, and thesehave been cut drastically or neglected in recentyears. Now, no significant, comprehensive, Federaltechnology research and support programs exist forState and local governments seeking advice aboutsolutions to long-range problems. Until appropriatenew technology choices are obvious, governmentswill do well to give priority to upgrading andrehabilitating existing facilities to keep them func-

tioning as efficiently and productively as possible,while the search for abetter answer continues.

Although budget dilemmas make dramatic in-creases in Federal spending for public works un-likely, if more investment in certain crucial areas isnot ensured soon, the negative impacts on transpor-tation efficiency, industrial productivity, and na-tional competitiveness will cost the country dearly.OTA concludes that changes to Federal programmanagement, investment policies, and R&D areneeded now, if the opportunities that technologyoffers for public works are to be fully utilized.Immediate attention should also be given todeveloping programs to determine the mostpromising new technologies for public works andlong-term strategies for implementing them. Inbrief, the most important steps for Congress to takenow to make public works more productive andefficient are to:

●

revise Federal investment policies and programmanagement to address today’s concerns bymaking current systems more productivethrough available technologies, by maintainingexisting infrastructure, and by planning andbudgeting for future needs, using a comprehen-sive systems approach to both transportationand environmental problems;increase Federal public works funding selec-tively and use Federal programs to leverageState and local spending, so as to boost the totalannual national investment in public works byup to 20 percent initially and to ensure regular,subsequent, annual increases;5 andcollect information that will enable the govern-ment to refocus support for short-term R&D totarget applied technologies that will improvethe condition, extend the life, and increase thecapacity of existing public infrastructure; then,using the data as abase, develop and implementlong-term systems R&D programs to addressfuture needs.

Recognizing that Federal policies for publicworks urgently need review, Congress asked OTA toassess infrastructure problems across the countryand to pay special attention to the problems of smallsystems and the opportunities for privatization and

6 ● Delivering the GOOdS: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Box 1 -A—Trends Affecting Public Works Infrastructurel

Demographic TrendsThe U.S. population is projected to increase by 32 million people between 1990 and 2010, with middle-age

categories showing the most growth. The South and West accounted for 90 percent of population growth in the1980s. These regions will continue to expand the fastest, and California and Florida will grow the most, Populationin the Midwest is projected to decline. Almost all new population growth is expected to occur in the suburbs of majormetropolitan areas, where almost two-thirds of the metropolitan population already lives. One-quarter of thepopulation now lives in the seven largest metropolitan areas. Of new metropolitan area jobs, three-quarters will bein the suburbs.

Implications for Public WorksStrong demand for transportation services by the growing numbers of middle-aged baby boomers and growth

in vehicles per household will cause travel to outpace both population and economic growth, and increase trafficcongestion, particularly in and between suburbs and in newer cities built without consideration of mass transit.Demand will rise for mass transit and more efficient intercity travel. Already deep, the divide will widen betweenservice needs and fiscal capabilities of urban and rural jurisdictions. Environmental dilemmas will intensify,particularly air quality and waste disposal problems in metropolitan areas and water supply issues in Florida andthe Southwest.Economic Trends

The shift from goods production to service delivery will continue, with production employment dropping 16percent by 2000 and service employment increasing 13 percent. The Nation’s labor force growth rate will slow,

rimarily because the supply of younger workers is shrinking. More flexible manufacturing technologies willPencourage decentralized manufacturing and just-in-time delivery. Demand for transportation of industrial rawmaterials will drop, but overall transportation demand will expand, especially for lightweight, high-value products.This will put a premium on speed and reliability-values likely to favor air and truck transport, although rail canbe competitive in certain corridors. Changes in communications and transportation will accelerate economicglobalization, encouraging growth around selected deep-water ports and major airports.

Implications for Public WorksHighway travel is expected to double over the next 30 years, putting an enormous burden on existing roadways,

To compensate for the adverse economic impact of slower labor force growth, both public and private sectors mayinvest more heavily in transportation to improve the speed and efficiency of travel and transport. Economic

IT~~~& @ ~ysis in this box me based on rnateri~ in U.S. Department of Transpomtio% Natio?lul fi@SpW&@I’0~ $*@@Pt@W@#W.@ (Washington DC: March 1990), ehs. 1-5, and OTA research. I

public-private partnerships. Building on the conclu- lntergovernmental Frameworksions reached in OTA’s special report to Congresson State and local public works ,6 this report exam-ines the public works decisionmaking frameworkand suggests changes in management, financing,and technology that could lead to both robusteconomic development and environmentally soundtransportation and environmental public works sys-tems. This chapter identifies short-term tacticaloptions and long-term strategic goals for Congressto consider, and points to ways to set priorities formore productive and efficient public works services.Additional background and supporting details andfindings appear in chapters 2 to 6.

Public works provide environmental and health-related services and underpin productive transporta-tion networks, and they must function efficiently oreconomic vitality and the quality of life will decline.Strong, mutually supportive intergovernmental part-nerships and continuous interchange with industryand other concerned groups are essential to shapingappropriate policies and programs. The Federal formof government has long served the country well,because it provides multiple opportunities for debateand discussion before decisions are taken. However,the present intricately complicated intergovernmen-

6u.s. CoWess, Offlce of Twkology ASSeSSrnen& Rebukiing the Foundations. A Special Report on State andhcal Public wOrk5 Financing andManagement, C)TA-SET-447 (Wa.shingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1990).

Chapter l—Summary and Conclusions ● 7

globalization means west coast ports and intermodal connections will become increasingly important as Pacifictrade grows. The need to expand capacity and improve intermodal connections will intensify around internationaland domestic airports.Environmental Trends

The economic and political importance of environmental preservation and restoration issues will accelerate.While pollution from heavy industry may decrease as a result of economic restructuring, the challange to controlnonpoint sources of air and water pollution will grow.

Implications for Public WorksCommunities will continue to invest heavily in air and water pollution control and drinking water system

improvements and in complying with Federal and State standards. Collection and disposa1 of solid waste and facilitysiting are becoming dominant issues. Environmental service needs already place a heavy burden on most localbudgets, and as more regulations are implemented the fiscal burden is very likely to worsen (see table A-1). As thelink between transportation and the environment is better understood, the environmental impacts of all proposedpublic works projects will be scrutinized carefully by public and private groups. Air quality issues are likely to bemajor determinants of public policy on transportation and land use. If worst-case projections are correct, globalwarming and rising of water 1evels will affect infrastructure in coastal areas.Energy Use Trends

Transportation accounts for approximately two-thirds of all petroleum use, an amount that equals imports, andof that over 70 percent is consumed by highway transport. Substantial increases in world energy and petroleumdemand and uncertainty of supply are expected to lead to much higher energy prices. Fuel efficiency of new carsdoubled between 1973 and 1988, and many see thepotential for further improvement. Table A-l—Public Works Cited as Having

Major Cost Impacts on CitiesImplications for public WorksDespite rising petroleum costs, major modal Percent of cities

shifts are unlikely, although the cost-effectiveness of Public works requirement citing Impacts

transit and other nonhighway transport will increase. Solid waste disposal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7W0Traffic improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Higher gas priC&S may limit discreti~~ trips ad ~eqemilection a~dt~ea~~”t 66

58Over the long run encourage I’nore Compact develop- o~”kl”~ ~atw ~uP#Y ~~ trea~n~ 111 42ment, but unless costs are radically higher, h@way SOURCE: Nat/0~1 ~Que cf (xt~~, city FXWA COMWM h mxI

travel demand will continue to increase. (Washington, DC: July 19%)).

tal framework (see table 1-3) frequently overtaxes oped policy options for each. Over the longer term,the decisionmaking process and impedes new policydevelopment in public works as effectively as amajor accident stalls rush hour traffic.

A word about OTA’s approach to analyzing thebroad scope of public works infrastructure is appro-priate before beginning more detailed discussion. Atevery governmental level, environmental publicworks are managed and financed differently fromtransportation programs and operations. Long-standing and disparate methods of funding andFederal/State/local institutional relationships foreach type of service are major roadblocks tointegrating environmental with transportation infra-structure management and programs. Moreover,successful improvements seem more likely in theforeseeable future, with continued separation.Consequently OTA addressed environmental andtransportation public works separately and devel-

incorporating both systems within a comprehensiveFederal infrastructure policy could be useful, butattempting such a step now would involve too manychanges to existing conditions.

F e d e r a l D e c i s i o n m a k e r s

The constitutional separation of powers requiresthat the executive branch, Congress, and the courtsshare responsibility for developing and implement-ing Federal policy. For example, to ensure that theU.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) carryout its intent, Congress may write detailed require-ments and standards into legislation. This veryspecificity may ensure that complex standards findtheir way into the courts. (Further information aboutthese Federal checks and balances of power as theyaffect public works will be found in chapter 2.)


Table 1-3-Public Works Management

Players Public works role●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Executive agencies controlling publicworks construction and regulations:EPA, DOT Army Corps of

Engineers, and Bureau ofReclamation

Other executive agencies:Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OMB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Private sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Interest groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Congress authorizes programs, appropriates funds, and sets regulations. Multiple committee andsubcommittee functions hamper comprehensive policymaking, and may delay change.

Agencies assign, instruct, regulate, and finance public works facilities. Modal and media-basedadministrative structure hampers integrating programs; implementation of regulations domi-nates EPA activities.

Treasury sets revenue policy, including criteria for arbitrage and tax exempt bonds, which affectscost of raising capital for some public works projects.

OMB reviews agency budgets and regulations and has a strong influence on regulatory andspending policies.

Courts interpret and enforce legislation and regulations pertaining to public works programs.Judges set program requirements and standards. Litigation lengthens rulemaking process andimplementation, but resolves disputes.

States fund and construct public works and set and enforce regulations. Activities vary by Stateaccording to philosophy and fiscal capability. States play a major role in highways and enforcingenvironmental regulations, and are enlarging their role in other public works areas.

Local governments design, construct, operate and fund public works, set Iocal policy, and deliverservice within Federal and State program regulations. They have full responsibility forfunding and operating most environmental programs. States limit fiscal options of localgovernments.

Private firms are major users of public works. Also, they construct (e.g., highways and treatmentplants) and operate facilities (e.g., drinking water and solid waste disposal facilities).

Groups influence legislative and executive branch policies through lobbying, and pursue specificobjectives through litigation.

The public creates service demand, but their resistance to taxes and service charges limits publicworks spending and allows maintenance and improvement to be deferred. Individual lifestylepreferences determine land-use and transportation patterns.

KEY: EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; DOT - Department of Transportation; OMB. Office of Management and Budget.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991-.

Executive branch management is critical in shapingthe emphases of Federal regulatory programs, whichin turn play a major role in affecting State and localapproaches.

Executive Branch

Executive branch responsibility for public worksis shared by a major department (DOT), an importantindependent agency (EPA), and parts of three otherCabinet departments. These are the Department ofDefense (DoD), through the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, which is responsible for flood control,harbors, and inland waterways; the Department ofthe Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation,which has built a number of dams, mostly for powergeneration, but some of which supply water; and theDepartment of Agriculture, which includes the SoilConservation Service, whose water programs affectboth water supply and wastewater treatment.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)uses its authority to mod@ the budget and regula-tory proposals of executive departments, a power it

has used extensively to hold down spending forpublic works in recent years. Enormous departmen-tal effort must be expended and extraordinarycongressional unity must exist to alter the effects ofOMB review.

Congress

Congress is a key player in public works deci-sions, with almost one-half of its 304 committeesand subcommittees having jurisdiction over someaspect of public works. This widespread oversightauthority provides fertile soil for intercommitteeconflicts, discourages good communication betweencommittees on common issues, and enables execu-tive branch agencies and industry interest groups toplay committees off against each other. An interestgroup that has been unsuccessful in making its casefor a special cause to one authorizing committee, forexample, can lobby another committee with relatedresponsibilities or go directly to a friendly memberin the hope of having a special clause inserted into

Chapter 1—Summaryanci Conclusions ● 9

an appropriations bill after the authorization processis over. “It’s done all the time.”7

The Courts

The courts are the final participants in the Federalpolicymaking arena. Their impact may be gauged bynoting that about 80 percent (see chapter 2) of EPA’sstandards and requirements go through litigationbefore becoming effective. Thus the courts’ deci-sions balance private property and individual rightsagainst public health and safety in areas of greatscientific uncertainty.

States

Driven by the slump in Federal financing andstagnation in Federal management and by thepressing needs of local communities, many Stateshave developed their own public works strategies.These include regulatory and land-use managementcontrols as well as funding partnerships with localgovernments. For example, California has moved tocontrol the environmental consequences of explo-sive growth, enacting State air quality requirementsmore stringent than Federal standards. New Jerseyand Washington State, among others, have createdState support programs to help local jurisdictionsfund public works improvements (see boxes 2-A and2-B in chapter 2). Florida has enacted a requirementthat local jurisdictions develop long-range land-useplans tied to capital budgets and regional and Stateplans. Oregon has developed land-use guidelinesencouraging high-density housing and developmentalong local mass transit corridors. Other States mustfollow their lead before long, for most have numer-ous local jurisdictions with the same critical infra-structure concerns.

Local Governments

Responsibility for managing, operating, andmaintaining over 70 percent of all public worksfacilities and services is borne by the Nation’s83,000 local governments. Each worries aboutfunding schools, jails, and the aging and homeless aswell as potholes, collapsing bridges, leaking watermains, stormwater-caused sewer overflows, trafficgridlock, siting a new landfill, or expanding theairport according to the jurisdiction’s geographiclocation, population, economy, natural resources,

and a host of other factors. Most of the fiscal andpolitical tools that local officials may use to addressthese problems are determined by the States.8 Sincethe bulk of Federal financial aid goes to States, localofficials, who must face angry constituents directly,often feel they are being held responsible forpolicies, service failures, and other events that areoutside their control.

Transportation arteries and pollution do not stopat political boundaries, and despite their power overlocal jurisdictions, no State, not even large andrelatively prosperous California, can solve all itspublic works problems alone. OTA concludes thatthe interlocking nature of Federal, State, andlocal responsibilities for public works servicesmakes a compelling case for strong Federalleadership. It is time for the Federal Governmentto acknowledge the broad impacts of its role inpublic works and to work aggressively to createa policy framework that addresses current prob-lems and shapes the future.

Federal Public Works ManagementAt its best, the system of Federal checks and

balances ensures thoughtful, comprehensive ac-tions. At its worst, it can result in contradictorypolicies and stalemate. Federal public works man-agement provides examples of both the best and theworst; however this document focuses on the latterto indicate where change is needed most. Althoughcomprehensive reviews of transportation and envi-ronmental issues preceded legislation creating theagencies, few substantive alterations have beenmade to the management framework of either DOTor EPA since the agencies were formed.

Transportation

Legislation creating DOT in 1966 establishedindependent administrations for each transportationmode, a departmental structure that remains un-changed (see figure l-l). Although virtually all ofDOT’s offices have some impact on public works,those with direct responsibility include the FederalAviation Administration (FAA), the Federal High-way Administration (FHWA), the Federal RailroadAdministration FRA), the Urban Mass Transporta-tion Administration (UMTA), and the MaritimeAdministration (MARAD). FHWA, FRA, and

T~C~el Ure~OViC4 ~iw ~residen~ Wketing, Ameriean President Companies, personal commtimtio~ Apr. 18, 19~.8For more dewed ~omtiom See office Of Tw~OlOgy Assessment, op. cit., fOO@lOte 6, ChS. 3 ~d 4.

Figure 1-1—U.S. Department of Transportation

Secretary

Deputy SecretaryI

Office of Board ofCivil Rights Contract Appeals

L I I I

c1Assistant Secretaryfor Policy &

International AffairsrAssistant Secretaryfor Budget and

Programs

J

I I I 1

Assistant Secretaryfor Governmental

Assistant Secretary

Affairsfor Administration F==

iI I

Office ofInspector General

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1990.

Chapter l—Summary and Conclusions . 11

UMTA collect data, set standards, and administergrant programs for highways, railroads, and masstransit, respectively, but have no operating responsi-bilities. Unique among the modal agencies, FAAregulates, manages, and operates the air trafficcontrol system, the basic electronic infrastructure forthe aviation right-of-way. MARAD is primarilyconcerned with the commercial aspects of oceanports and the shipbuilding industry.

The Secretary of Transportation and his officewere given responsibility for coordinating andmanaging the modal administrations to create amultimodal, national transportation system. How-ever, no deputy or assistant secretary position wascreated to support a systems management approach,and the authority given to the modal administratorshas effectively prevented every secretary to datefrom carrying out this charge.

In any case, DOT management of a folly multi-modal system is impossible, because responsibilityfor the harbor and inland waterway infrastructuresystem rests with the Corps of Engineers. The Corpsbuilt and continues to operate and maintain theNation’s waterways and to maintain the ports. Inthese respects, management of the infrastructure forwaterborne commerce is largely Federal.

Systems Management

Industry shippers moving goods from factory orfarm to market need fast, smooth trips, whiletravelers of all types want safe, easy journeys. Yettraffic jams on urban roadways, often made worse bymaintenance projects, cause hours of frustration andcostly delay, and have become major contributors toair pollution problems. Important segments of theNation’s transportation system are overcrowded orworn out (sometimes both) and need renewal. Yet noFederal programs collect information relevant to ortarget intermodal system improvements that wouldmake modal transfers faster and easier for eitherpeople or freight.

Finding ways to increase system capacity andhandle greater demand without constructing newrights-of-way poses enormous challenges. New tech-nologies can marginally increase the capacity ofinfrastructure, but they are often expensive andeventually reach structural limits. A systems mana-gement approach that makes full use of all modes

and encourages carrying the same volume of passen-gers or cargo on fewer vehicles could addresscongestion, air quality, and energy use problems.

Intermodal Transport

DOT agencies still manage each mode as aseparate, independent system, rather than a contribu-tor to an integrated system that has complexintermodal connections in large, metropolitan areas.The steps taken by Secretary Samuel K. Skinner inearly 1990 to develop a national transportationstrategy and improve systems management byfocusing on intercity movements and the impacts ofeconomic, social, and environmental factors ontransport are moves in the right direction.9 However,the Department has missed out almost entirely on themajor industry shift to multimodal transport, whichrequires intermodal transfers. DOT has no datacollection or management mechanisms in place touse in analyzing or resolving the resulting issues-such as that of overweight maritime containers,which cause severe highway damage when trans-ferred to trucks.

While recognizing that reorganizations often donot change longstanding attitudes and behavior,OTA concludes that unless steps are taken toinstitutionalize an integrated, multimodal ap-proach within DOT, the existing strongly seg-mented modal structure will continue to prevail.One way to effect change would be to create surfacetransportation programs that support intercity pas-senger, urban, and freight transportation, and con-nections to ports and airports. Over the longerterm, DOT could be restructured in divisions bybroad mode—aviation, surface, and water trans-portation-or by function, such as metropolitanpassenger and intercity freight transportation.Separating any of the current modal responsibili-ties from DOT would be counterproductive tolong-term national transportation policy goals.Reforming congressional oversight, by consolidat-ing responsibility for transportation authorizationunder fewer committees, could support a restruc-tured DOT.

One way to integrate management of watertransportation into the national system would beto shift civilian water transportation authorityfrom the Corps of Engineers to DOT, as wasoriginally envisioned when DOT was created. The

W.S. Depar&nent of Transportatio~ Moving America: New Directions, New Opportunities (Washington DC: February 1990).


rationale that the system is necessary for defensepurposes is no longer any more applicable towaterways than to aviation. Consolidating the water-related agencies already in DOT would also makegood management sense.

The Corps of Engineers: Time for a Change

As its defense-related responsibilities dwindle,the role of the Army Corps of Engineers deserves afresh look. The Corps has a vast reservoir of technicalexpertise and research and engineering capabilitiesthat could supplement other Federal resources, forboth environmental and transportation public works.One possibility is to create, based on the civilfunctions of the Corps, a semiautonomous nationalengineering agency analogous to, but different from,the National Institute of Standards and Technology.Such an agency could undertake public engineeringprojects, such as the wetlands restoration activitiesthe Corps is now doing under its agreement withEPA, and programmatic activities as well. With itsnationwide network of regional and division offices,the Corps is well suited to develop more effectiveapplications and transfer programs for technologiesinitiated in the national laboratories and technicalassistance programs targeted at public works engi-neers. The new civil Corps could be an independentagency or function under the auspices of either theDepartment of Commerce or DoD.

The engineering capabilities of the Bureau ofReclamation overlap to a certain extent with those ofthe Corps, occasionally creating competition overprojects. As the roles of these agencies are reexam-ined, consideration could be given to merging theduplicative aspects of their respective missions andredefining the remaining activities to improve gov-ernmental efficiency.

Environmental Public Works

EPA’s responsibilities are spelled out through thespecific requirements of a number of laws, such asthe Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and thenumerous laws affecting pesticides, fertilizers, andwastes. Standard setting and enforcement activitiesfor “drinking water, wastewater treatment, and solidwaste disposal are each overseen indifferent offices,headed by associate administrators. Although itscomplex standards affect public services providedby every local government and many private entitiesand used by every citizen, the Agency has never

Photo credit: Army Corps of Engineers

The Army Corps of Engineers has effective technologydevelopment programs for its engineers across

the country.

been given a substantial budget for planning, techni-cal assistance, or public information and education.

The statutes determining EPA’s activities haveled to creation of an organizational structure underwhich each section of the agency pursues separateactivities (see chapter 4 for further details). Theseprogrammatic divisions are reinforced by courtdecisions related to specific laws and by State lawsor programs, making setting priorities for overallenvironmental protection a daunting challenge.

Standards and Enforcement

EPA has been required by legislation to set andimplement standards for drinking water contami-nants, wastewater treatment, municipal solid waste,and other environmental protection activities simul-taneously with a reduction in Federal contributionsfor State and local construction grants. The Agencyis thus in the position of having to enforce compli-ance with standards for public works, which may ormay not provide a jurisdiction with additional healthbenefits commensurate with the costs of the facilityand technology. The question must be raised ofwhether it is responsible government to take en-forcement action for noncompliance with new stan-dards that impose unreasonable costs relative to thehealth benefit, if no Federal assistance is available.


Figure 1-2—Projected Impact on States of Reduced Federal Aid for Public Works*

I

Relative fiscal impact

I Low to average High72 percent of the U.S. population 8 percent of the U.S. populationlives in these States Iives in these States

Average and above Very high

17 percent of the U.S. population 3 percent of the U.S. populationlives in these States Iives in these States

established an arbitrary 50-percent reduction in Federal aid to evaluate the impact on each State.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on information provided by Apogee

At a minimum, given the widespread gaps infinancial abilities, technical information, andmanagement know-how, Congress will want toaddress the issue of environmental enforcementpolicy for public systems facing severe fiscalstress imposed by Federal mandates. As figure 1-2indicates, over one-quarter of the States and 11percent of the population potentially fit this cate-gory. One option is development and implementa-tion of a formal strategy and program for stagingcompliance requirements. This could be coupledwith stepped up Federal development and fielding of

lower cost technologies for compliance. Adequatefunding for outreach and information programs,research, and evaluation of enforcement priori-ties is called for.

Systems Management

The current EPA administrator is attempting toheighten the awareness of the interactions within theenvironment and to take steps to incorporate theseinto the Agency’s programs, but it is far too early totell whether the efforts will have any effect. Clarifi-cation of enforcement policy and the need for


environmental systems management could be in-cluded as part of legislation to make EPA a Cabinetdepartment to bolster his efforts. However, whetheror not the Agency becomes a department, legislativedirection could help the EPA administrator (orsecretary) to improve policy coordination and com-munications between the sections of the Agency andensure that environmental public works require-ments reflect the ways natural systems interact.Congress could enact legislation requiring EPAto protect and manage the environment as acomplex system and to clarify the role of theAgency in assisting public jurisdictions in com-plying with environmental standards. Such amandate would not guarantee improvement; asdiscussed elsewhere in this chapter, DOT has sucha mandate for transportation, which it has notfulfilled. Nonetheless, such an action would provideadditional leverage for broadening the presentmedia-specific programs. Consideration could alsobe given to establishing formal mechanisms forregular review of cooperative programs for EPA, theCorps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Reclamationto avoid duplication and maximize resources.

OTA concludes that the fragmented congres-sional and executive branch responsibilities forpublic works impede setting policy goals thatcould lead to better investment decisions, moreeffective management, and better use of technolo-gies. Research for this study showed that better datacollection and program management changes areneeded now, to address the needs of State and localgovernments and industry and ensure adequateinvestment and wise policy and technology deci-sions.

Difficult as management changes are, it would beunrealistic to assume that efforts made now toupdate Federal activities would continue to beappropriate for the indefinite future. Rather, thereverse is true; Federal public works programs andpolicies must be understood as dynamic and subjectto rigorous periodic review and revision to keepthem relevant and focused appropriately.

Congress

The current, atomized congressional oversightstructure for public works is both inefficient andcounterproductive. To cite a recent example, during

the course of research for this study, OTA searchedin vain for staff members on the committees withauthority for financing or tax matters who hadconsulted with staff on public works committeesabout the impacts on States and municipalities ofchanges to the tax requirements for municipal bonds.The response from every committee staffer con-tacted was the same, “No, we didn’t look at that.”It took more than 2 years of sustained effort on thepart of local officials to reverse sections of 1986 taxlegislation that severely hampered their revenueraising ability .10 Financing, budget, and appropri-ations committees need to take into account thebroad impacts of Federal tax and fiscal policieson the other governmental levels responsible forpublic works operations, areas in which authoriz-ing committees have expertise.

More thoughtful consideration of the complexi-ties of public works issues and better policymakingmight occur if Congress chose to review andconsolidate widely dispersed committee responsi-bilities and develop better communications betweencommittees of jurisdiction. If a complete overhaul ofcommittee responsibilities is too daunting a task,special or ad hoc committees could be established todevelop legislation on system problems-for exam-ple, to clarify EPA’s mandate and identify importantfuture directions for the agency.

Congressional oversight and responsibility fortransportation needs reevaluating, with the goalof diminishing modal rivalries and developinglegislation that leads to integrating the modesinto an effective, national transportation system.At a minimum, mass transit responsibility could beconsolidated with that for highways in the Senate,and the committees responsible for railroads coulddevelop close working relationships with those withjurisdictions over highways and ports. Annual jointauthorizing committee meetings and more frequentjoint staff meetings to hammer out legislation thatreflects the actual intermodal connections of thetransportation system are other options.

Investment and Financing:Who Pays and How

[the State’s duty includes] . . . erecting and main-taining certain public works and certain publicinstitutions . . . because the profit could never repay

10A de~~ &mssion may be fo~ in Of&e of Technology Assessment, op. cit., fOotQOte 6 p. 49.


Table 1-4-Federal Outlays, 1960-90 (in percent)

1995d

1960 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990d (projected)

National defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 42 26 23 27 25 22Human resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 39 52 53 50 51 56Physical resourcesb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8 11 11 6 7 4Net interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7 7 9 14 15 9Otherc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 4 4 3 2 9Total Federal outlays

(in billionsof current dollars) . . . . . . . . $92 $196 $332 $591 $946 $1,197 $1,477a[nd~es Medbare, income security, and social SSdty.bl~~e$ tran$wrtation, natuml r=our~, and environmental and community development.clnducfea general government and undlstributsd offsetting IWeipt$.d~timat~.

SOURCE: Office of Technology ksessment, 1991, bassd on Office of Management and Budget data.

the expense to any individual. . . though it mayfrequently do much more than repay it to a greatsociety.14

Federal infrastructure programs have developedover many years to meet the concerns of the period,usually for purposes of national defense and eco-nomic development. As industrial and societalpatterns have changed, the Federal Government has,with a few exceptions, found it far easier to addprograms and requirements than to refocus oreliminate the existing ones. (Presidents Carter andReagan were among the exceptions; each was quitesuccessful in reducing the number of Federal supportprograms.) Although the importance of modem,well-maintained public works systems to National,State, and local economies should be a powerfulimpetus for changing outdated Federal policies,tremendous unmet needs accumulate well beforeFederal programs can be restructured to take accountof them.

While several national studies over the pastdecade have recommended substantially greaterinvestment in public infrastructure,15 no sense ofemergency has developed to spark the kinds ofchanges in social and fiscal policies and politicalattitudes that could make this happen. Over the last30 years, Federal budget priorities have emphasizedpayments to individuals for social and health pro-grams (see table 1-4) over investment in infrastruc-ture. To ensure that some support for public workscontinues, dedicated trust funds fed by Federal user

fees have been developed for transportation projects.Despite these funds, however, the overall trend inFederal policy and budget decisions has been to turn,slowly but steadily, to greater cost sharing by Statesand local governments.

Investment Issues

Federal programs have long supported economicdevelopment by providing capital support for con-struction of new facilities and heavily subsidizingsome types of infrastructure while leaving States andlocal governments responsible for others. Neverrobust, Federal support for environmental publicworks, has dropped steadily, while at the same time,numerous strict environmental requirements affect-ing suppliers of municipal service providers havebeen enacted. Laws mandating Federal standardsfor environmental public works that dramati-cally raise local government costs while simulta-neously phasing out most remaining Federal aidseem perverse. Moreover, the emphasis on capi-tal construction and the prohibition of assistancefor improving operations in most Federal trans-portation programs is outdated. Lack of space,high costs, and environmental considerationssharply limit the opportunities to build new high-ways or airports in urban areas where more capacityis most needed. Other solutions are called for. AsCongress considers refocusing Federal investmentpolicies for public works, the following issues areimportant to keep in mind.

14A&In srni~ The Wealth ofNations (Bungsy, hffo~ ~~d: Tk ~~$rpr$$s, 1979), P. 379.15N~ti~~ comcfi on mbfi~ wor~ ~provaen~ F’@/e FO~~~O~: A ~eporf on A~riCu’S p~zic wor&s (wsshiI@~ ~: February 1988)

is the most recent. The Council called for up to a doubling of public works expenditures, a general guideline which has since been supported by severalstudies of special segments of public works, particularly the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Municipal Pollution Control, 1988 NeedsSurveyReport to Congress (Springfiel& VA: National Technical Information Service, February 1989).


Photo credit:Ameffcan Consulting Engineers Council

As communities in the South and West, such as LasCruces, NM, grow at a rapid rate, expansion of

environmental public works becomes necessary.

Fiscal Capabilities

State and local governments must balance theirbudgets annually, and right now, many face seriousbudget problems, exacerbated by the economicslowdown in late 1990 and early 1991.13 Competi-tion for revenue is keen among State agencies, withcosts for Medicaid consuming a full 30 percent ofsome State budgets—in New York and Massachu-setts, for example. Major population shifts andeconomic changes, such as the growth in the sunbeltStates and the losses in some “rustbelt” cities andfarm and prairie States, mean that some States willhave much greater difficulty than others increasingtheir support for public works.

State fiscal problems can have a devastating effecton local governments, although some jurisdictionsare in more vulnerable positions than others. Financ-ing public works improvements is difficult for majorurban areas, where public funds must meet otherurgent demands, such as adequate housing, policeprotection, and schools. For some older cities wherepopulations and tax bases are declining, mainte-nance has been deferred because of tight funding,causing serious decay in public works. As a conse-quence, public facilities provide inadequate service

or function inefficiently, and are very costly torehabilitate (see box l-B). These cities need help,but not every State is willing or able to provide it.

In other large urban areas, particularly in theSouth and West, rapid suburban growth and weakplanning and land-use requirements have madedeveloping an efficient transportation network seemimpossible. In many such cities traffic congestionhas slowed rush hour highway travel to 10 miles perhour averages. While their infrastructure needs aregrowth-related, they are likely to be as great as thoseof older cities. However, the economic base they cantap for funding is both broad and deep-and itincludes private sector firms eager to participate ina growing market (see box l-C).

Another type of problem marks the poorest Statesand those with many small, rural systems. Thesebarely have the resources to maintain existingsystems and will find new construction to meetFederal environmental requirements prohibitivelycostly. (States in this category are indicated in figure1-2 shown earlier.) Because Federal transportationgrants have targeted capital construction and be-cause of population and economic changes, someStates have more of some types of public works thanthey can afford to maintain-such as the miles ofInterstate highways in large Western States likeMontana. Both small and large jurisdictions in ruralStates and large, older jurisdictions with huge publicworks backlogs and inadequate economic basesneed more financial and technical aid.

As it reexamines public works investment poli-cies, Congress could consider giving more Federalsupport to those States (and cities) where economicresources are limited and service needs are veryhigh. How high a tax burden a State already placeson its citizens (see table 1-5 for a summary) isanother factor that could be considered. O T Aconcludes that Federal investment in selectedsegments of public works must be increased toleverage State and local investment in growthareas and supplement resources in economicallyweak areas. Otherwise, the gap between localjurisdictions’ ability to provide essential publicservices and the need for the services will con-tinue to grow, with potentially serious conse-quences for the National, State, and local econo-mies. The most important targets for higher Federal

ls~ce of Toclmo]o~ Assessment, op. cit., foolnote 6, pp. 57-61.

Chapter 1—Summary and C-occlusions ● 17

Box I-B—Predicaments of art Older City

The condition of public works in Philadelphia epitomizes the predicament of many large, older central cities.Capital outlays needed to replace and upgrade its public works contrast starkly to the city’s fragile fiscal condition.

Water and Sewer Needs-Parts of the city’s drinking water and wastewater treatrnent systems are over 100years old and need extensive restoration and replacement. The City Water Department has proposed a $456-millioncapital improvement program for 1991 -96.1 Although drinking water currently satisfies U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency regulations, officials are concerned about the feasibility and costs of meeting anticipatedFedmalstandards for byproducts of corrosion (lead arid copper) and disinfection. Under court order since 1979 to improveits wastewater treatment system, the city has rebuilt and upgraded treatment plants and eliminated ocean dumpingof sludge, but the system, especially the supply piping, still needs major rehabilitation.

To finance the sewer and water improvement package, the Water Department must raise an additional $44million annually beginning this year. The department initially proposed a 56-percentrate hike on top of a 20-percentraise in 1986, but recently adopted a plan to raise $27 million through increased rates and to cut expenditures by$16 million.2 The department’s high percentage of low-income customers makes covering all improvement coststhrough rate increases practically impossible. In fiscal year 1990, department collections fell $20 million belowexpenditures.

Transportation Needs—The capital cost to maintain and improve the regional highway and transit systemand build some additional capacity is estimated at $14 billion spread over the next 20 years.3 Projected operatingcosts, which include maintenance, are $4 billion for highways and $19 billion for transit. The city must bear mostof the cost because many central city highways and subway facilities are in poor condition, exacerbated by yearsof inadequate maintenance. A 1985 study showed the city investing only 35 percent of the funds needed annuallyfor street and highway maintenance and rehabilitation and 62 percent of those for mass transit’s capital andmaintenance needs. Comparing current outlays for regional transportation with recent needs estimates, the regionwill have a 40-percent investment shortfall.4

Fiscal Status--Philadelphia’s fiscal problems are as serious as its infrastructure deficit. While employmentin Center City Philadelphia continues to expand the jobs are increasingly for high-level executives, managers, andtechnical support personnel, many of whom live and pay their taxes outside the city. The city’s tax base is eroding,and fully 60 percent of all work trip travel is now intrasuburban.s In August 1990 the city’s chief accounting officerwarned that in 9 months the city might not have enough money to pay its bills, despite plans to borrow heavily.6

The city’s bond rating has been downgraded to junk-bond level, precluding new long-term borrowing and forcingofficials to put together short-term credit packages to avoid insolvency.7 To reduce expenditures, officials have cutoperating programs; the police force is down 2,200 officers from its high in 1977,8 for example. For help, localofficials are looking for State and Federal aid and authority to raise local taxes and fees.

7-2.

spending for infrastructure are indicated in table 1-6; for transportation by about that amount in the 1990those with stars need the largest relative increases. budget, which should raise State expenditures, since

most Federal appropriations require State matches.Although budget negotiations are always arduous, Moreover, State and local public works administra-

a 20-percent increase in total national infrastructure tors should be able to spend 20 percent more withoutinvestment seems both achievable and relatively being overwhelmed, as they might be by a sudden,modest. Congress increased Federal appropriations giant leap in funding.

18 ● Delivering the GOOdS: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance— —

Box 1 -C—Keeping Up With Growth

Population in the Houston metropolitan area more than doubled between 1960 and 1980 and now totals about3.2 million, although the rate of growth has moderated. Houston has no zoning regulations, and unregulateddevelopment and unswerving devotion to private automobiles have created a low-density land-use pattern hard toserve efficiently with public transportation and sanitary facilities and have overloaded local streets and highways.

Highways and Public Transit—In 1980 voters approved a l-percent sales tax to support the struggling MetroTransit Authority (METRO). Now 10 years later, METRO is spearheading a voter-approved metropolitan‘‘mobility plan,’ that includes purchase of new buses to replace the existing, aging fleet, completion of a systemof transit ways to speed bus service, and a $600-million roadway improvement package to widen and resurfaceexisting streets and build overpasses and underpasses at congested intersections. The roadway improvements werestarted first, and over 70 of 200 street projects are complete or under way, financed by the dedication of 25 percentof the sales tax revenues.l

Development of a rail transit system is the most controversial plan element. Critics complain that a rail systemis not needed in Houston and that ridership can never justify the $1 billion investment, but METRO officials pointto Los Angeles’ freeway gridlock and air pollution problems as an example of what happens when a growing cityrelies exclusively on automobiles and highways for too long. The alignment for the rail line is still under discussionbut a decision is expected in spring 1991; the financing package includes Federal funds ($115 million has alreadybeen committed), private sector contributions, and METRO funds.2

Drinking Water—During its years of rapid growth, Houston relied heavily on developer-built groundwater-based systems, but when subsidence (a sinking of the earth caused by groundwater loss) problems became acute,the State stepped in, setting up a regional authority to regulate water withdrawal from aquifers. Houston must switchto drawing its drinking water predominately from local lakes and rivers and is investing millions of dollars, in newfacilities, including a new treatment plant and miles of additional pipelines to transport water to the city.Furthermore, costs for electrical power for treatment plants and chemicals used in treatment are expected toincrease,3 In addition, the city is replacing lead paint-lined storage tanks and 2,500 miles of small (less than 6-inch)pipe with larger more reliable lines.4 To finance these improvements, Houston has increased user charges steadily:

l~~ony w. ~ jr., “we Don’t N4 Another Vote onktil,” Houston chronicle, WY 27, IW) P. 1P”

@unter Koetter, “W Can Help Houston Avoid Los Angeles’ Mistake,” Hozmon Chronicle, June 24, 1990, p. 5F.sci~ of HOw@ T=w, “~lx Off3cial Statement” regarding Water and Sewer System Revenue Bond Issue, Aug. 15, 1990.‘%ity of Houston Public Utilities Departmen~ “Water Production” August 1990.

Regulations and Compliance ever, the legislation gives little flexibility for respon-

EPA estimates that total annual costs for theNation’s municipalities must rise from about $33billion in 1987 to at least $54 billion (in 1988dollars) by 2000 to meet some, but not all, of the newand proposed solid waste, water supply, and com-bined sewer overflow standards.14 Small systems,serving fewer than 10,000 people, will be required tofund $6 billion in capital improvements to meet justone set of requirements, those of the 1986 amend-ments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. Many willneed financial assistance to do s0,15 and meeting thestandards or deadlines may be impossible.l6 How-

sible Federal, State, local, or private sector officialsto develop innovative or cost-effective ways tocomply. Policies that make local governments re-sponsible for meeting Federal environmental man-dates without commensurate Federal investmentraise questions of fairness.

User Fees

Policy makers at all levels of governments mustcontinually balance the objective of user pays withdevelopment goals and issues of ability to pay. Toencourage development and because public worksare regarded as a necessary service, user charges

ldApOgeeReSe~h ~c., The COSr OfEnvlrOn~nta/Pro(eCtlon (Washingto~ DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wlce of tie ComP~olleLJanuary 1990), p. 14.

W.S. Environment~ Protection Agency, Ofllce of Drinking Water, republished s~ data based on the Regulatory Impact Analyses preparedin accordance with Executive Order 12291, Nov. 27, 1989.

160ff1ce of Technolo~ Assessment, op. cit., footnote 6, p. 11 ‘7.

Chapter 1—Summary and Conclusions . 19——

t

21 percent in 1987,9 percent in 1988, and 6 percent in both 1989 and 1990. The typical residential customer uses7,000 gallons per month.5

While the scale of Houston’s water system requires enormous capital investment, its size also supports thescientific and management capability to cope with Federal and State compliance requirements, which canoverwhelm smaller systems. After finding that local laboratories could not provide the sophisticated water qualitytests required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at a reasonable price, the city expanded its ownlaboratory, increased staff, and invested in automated equipment to do the testing. A special research and regulatoryevaluation group evaluates the effects of proposed regulations on Houston’s system, investigates technologies, anddevelops new treatment schemes. City officials maintain the staff work has paid off, because their unit costs aredown,6 but they remain concerned about complying with proposed standards for contaminants such as radionuclidesand disinfection byproducts.

Wastewater Treatment—In 1987 the Texas Water Commission issued an administrative order fining the city$500,000 for permit violations and sewer overflows and establishing a compliance schedule for operational andcapital improvements to meet Federal effluent discharge limits.7 Since then, Houston has invested about $800million in plant upgrading, consolidation, and new construction, and extensive sewer expansion and rehabilitation.8

While the system now meets all EPA and State standards, the city plans to spend an additional $1.1 billion between1991 and 1995 to replace narrow, worn-out lines and rebuild lift stations. These improvements are being financedby EPA grants, revenue bonds, developer impact fees, and user charges. As part of its financing package, the systemwill issue approximately $174 million in low-interest revenue bonds through the EPA-financed State RevolvingFund in 1990. User charges, which back the bonds, are set annually by the city council and currently average $19a month.9 Rates climbed 22 percent in 1985 and 1986 and more recently have risen about 8 percent a year-a trendthat is expected to continue unless new Federal environmental regulations for cyanide, pesticides, and toxic metalsrequire larger increases.

sci~ of Ho~to~ op. cit., fOOtnOte 3.

61bid,7~d.

8Ci~ of HouSton ~blic Ufities Departm@ “Improvements in the City’s Wastewater System 1982- 1990,” AUWt 19W.%or to 1974, Houston charged a flat household rate of 75 cents for wastewater treatment.

have traditionally been set below full capital, companies, for instance, have long flourished inoperating, maintenance, and replacement costs. 17

General revenue subsidies are usually necessary tocover capital costs, although in growth areas,beneficiaries may contribute land or cash to capitalprojects, reducing government costs. While userfees can be increased by every level of govern-ment to correct existing underpricing, Federaland/or State financial assistance for local govern-ments will be essential for most capital projects,especially for those jurisdictions with low per-capita incomes and large public works backlogs.

Privatization and Private Sector Financing

Under circumstances where demand for certainservices is likely to be high, private entities findinvestment in public works, particularly environ-mental services, attractive. Private water supply

many jurisdictions, as have private solid wastedisposal companies. If private companies providingenvironmental public services can meet EPA andState standards, overcome public opposition onissues such as siting for waste disposal facilities, andmake a reasonable return on investment, they canfind multiple market opportunities.

However, private firms succeed in providinglow-cost services primarily in situations where themarket is large, and stable or growing. Manycommunities that must make major investments inpublic works are simply unable to generate adequaterevenue from user fees to attract private capital. Inother areas, private firms capture the lucrativesegments of the market, leaving the less profitableones for public agencies.

17u.s. Conmss, con~essjo~ Budget OffIce, New Directions for the Natiom’s Public Works (WashingtoIL W: U.S. Government Mting Hl%September 1988).


. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . :: : : : : ; :. . . . . . . .. .. . := : : : : : :. . . . . . . .3 8. . . . . . . .. . . . . .j ~ ~ : ~ .#j ; .; 4.-

-& o ~ ~ 3 g=MMOG ax =—=—

. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .

. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .

.O : . .

% : ‘. :

~ z ; g ~% $ij g ~ “g~

i %. - c “ a.- .- .-2X2;;

Table 1-5-State Fiscal Summary-Continued

Fiscal a effort Personal Number ofPer-capita rank, 1988 income tax Gas tax Interstate

income, 1989 (1 = highest revenue per Sales tax rate, 1990 miles rated WastewaterState (in dollars) effort) capital 1987 rate, 1988 (in cents) deficient, 1988 needs, 1988

L -—

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New Hampshire . . . . . . . . .New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . .New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . .New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . .North Carolina . . . . . . . . . .North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . .Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . .

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . .South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . .Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . .Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Washington . . . . . . . . . . . .West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . .Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$15,44619,26920,26723,77813,40121,07315,19813,563

16,37314,15415,91917,26917,950

13,65413,68514,69415,70213,079

16,37118,92717,64912,34516,44914,508

1250513417

13911

2533163623

20324245

9

21401341

614

AverageNo taxNo taxAverageLowHighAverageLow

AverageLowHighAverageAverage

AverageNo taxNo taxNo taxAverage

AverageAverageNo taxAverageHighNo tax

Lowb

Highb

No taxHighAverageb

Lowb

Lowb

Highb

Averageb

Lowb

No `taxHighHigh

Averagelowb

Highb

Highb

Average b

LowLowb

Highb

Highb

Averageb

2 2 )181611168

2217

2016181220

161821151916182220219

LowHighLowLowLowAverageLowHigh

HighHighHighAverageLow

LowLowHighHighLowLowHighLowLowHighLow

lowHighAverageHighLowHighHighLowHighLowAverageHighLow

LowLowAverageHighLow

LowLowHighAverageHighLow

b~lo~bn=lsstaxpermittd.C ~imat= ~ the relative sate -t t. build all ne~sd pu~~~ oti wastewater tr~tierlt facilities to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.

SOURCE: Offios of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on variety of Federal and State data summaries.


Table 1-6-Priorities for increased Annual Federal Infrastructure Spending

(*) Star indicates priorities for largest increases.

20-percent increase in1989 Federal spending’ spendingb (in billions

(In billionsofdoilars) . Priorities of dollars)

Mass transit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rail (passenger) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Airports and airways total . . . . . . . . . .

Ports and waterways total . . . . . . . . . .

3.5

0.6

6.6

1.0

Surface transportation total . . . . . . . . . $17.9

Highways and bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.8 *Maintain and improve condition of existingfacilities.

*Expand system capacity throughimplementation of existing traffic managementtechniques, HOV and smaller lanes,signalization, and automated toll facilities.

R&D on advanced teohnologies, e.g., intelligentvehicle/highvvay systems.

improve intermodal connections.

Expand transportation system capacity andefficiencybyadding transit ways and improvingintermodal connections, stations, terminals,and parking facilities.

Modernize equipment and rehabilitate rails.

Modernize oapital equipment.*implement high-speed rail in overcrowded

corridors.

Complete National Airspaoe System Plan.Expand system capacity through other

advanced surveillance, guidance, andcommunications technologies.

Expand system capacity with airport and runwayconstruction.

*improve intermodal connections.

Continue to maintain and rehabilitate existingfacilities.

Expand capacity on a selective basis.improve landside (intermodal) connections.Address environmental issues

Transportation total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.5Environmental public works,

Including wastewater and drlnkingwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 *Construct, rehabilitate, and upgrade treatment

facilities and collection and distributionsystems, especially in large, eider cities andsmall communities.

*R&D of low-met technology and technicalassistance for small communities and toovercome widespread resistance toinnovation.

Data collection and analysis of environmentalsystem risk and assessment of regulatoryconsequences.

$21.5

1.2

30.6

3.4C

7.9

Total Federal spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.3 34.0

Total all levels of government. . . . . . . 140.0 168.0

a F~eral spending totals include some nOnlnff8StrUOture 8Xp817ditUrSS, SUCh x for safety.b A2&pe~fi i~re~ is hypotheti~l. However, for$ufl= t~nsportation, itappmxi~tes the impaot Ofspndlng the current Highway Trust i%d b$ho$

over a 5-year period.C -we F~~~l b~g~ pmj~iom for~t~e=~ fu~lng forenv]~nmental pb]]cwo~, the $3,4 billlon Wwld b more than a 20-pSil128nt k10rM8

over current plans for Federal spending.SOURCE: Office of Twhnology Assessment, 1991.


The”. . . potential advantages of privatization areprobably slightly greater in solid waste disposal thantoll roads, . . .“18 and transportation may or may notprovide equally appealing private investment oppor-tunities. The elapsed time between project concep-tion, approval, and completion of construction isoften a matter of years; work has just begun onpublicly funded highway reconstruction projectsthat have been on the drawing boards for more thana decade, for example. This lengthy and uncertaintimeframe poses difficulties for private investors. Inaddition to acquiring a site or right-of-way, thechallenges facing private entrepreneurs wishing toparticipate in the large public works market includemeeting Federal environmental requirements andobtaining approval of State supervisory bodies.Developers seeking to build a private toll road inVirginia, for instance, encountered numerous de-lays, first, in acquiring State permits, and subse-quently in the Federal environmental impact assess-ment process. In addition, a real estate slowdownmade some land owners, who had been eager todonate land for the highway hoping to reap returnson future development, much less interested in thedeal, and some have held out for payment.l9

Nonetheless, California plans four private trans-portation projects for construction on State-ownedrights-of-way; arrangements permit return on invest-ment from tolls and the value added by the privatelydeveloped transportation facilities.20 Time will tellin both States whether the returns will be adequateto satisfy the private investors and also acceptable toState administrators charged with protecting thepublic interest.

Financing Transportation

The Federal trust funds for highways, masstransit, aviation, and waterways provide States andlocalities with more substantial Federal support fortransportation projects than environmental publicworks enjoy. However, the variety of ways thatFederal aid supports each transportation mode hasled to different modal infrastructure problems (seetable 1-7). When the Federal Government takesfinancial responsibility for maintenance and opera-

tions as well as assisting with capital costs forconstruction, transportation infrastructure has gen-erally been kept in good condition. Infrastructure forharbors, inland waterways, and aviation falls intothis category. While delays occur on the mostheavily used portions of these (basically Federal)systems, more active demand or traffic managementtechniques can eliminate most of these capacityproblems.

Surface Transportation

Surface transportation has drastically differentcharacteristics, because Federal financing and in-vestment have shaped actions taken by the State andlocal governments and some private entities (in thecase of railroads and transit) that are responsible forinfrastructure. State governments provide slightlymore than 50 percent of highway funds, with about22 percent coming from the Federal side, and theremainder from local governments. The emphasis inFederal programs on capital construction has madethe State and local governments the owners of a farflung road system and a number of bridges, all ofwhich need regular maintenance if they are toprovide acceptable service. However, operationsand maintenance are left almost entirely to the Stateor local owner (for further details, see chapter 3), andfiscal constraints have caused almost universalcutbacks and deferrals for maintenance and rehabili-tation programs.

Because their revenue raising options are limitedby State laws, many local governments have notbeen able to fired road and bridge maintenanceprograms adequately. Many systems need operatingimprovements, too, to relieve delays caused byincreases in traffic. But most large cities simply havenot invested adequately in basic operationalimprovements, such as advanced traffic signalsystems, largely because Federal grants are notavailable for the purpose.

Intercity passenger rail (Amtrak) receives Federalsupport for capital expenditures and about 30percent of its operating costs. Intercity freight railreceives virtually no Federal support, except for

18JO= A. Gomez-Ibanez and John k MeYti, “The Prospects for Privatizing Infrastructure: L%sons From U.S. Roads and Solid Waste,” paper-~ *the titi~em on The Third Deficit: The Shortfall in Public Investment sponsored by the FoderalReserve B@ of Bostou HanvichPo@M& June 27-29,1990.

%villiatn H. All- vice presiden~ Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, k., ~b~ed remarks at the OTA Workshop on TransportationInfrastructure Technologies, July 25, 1989.

%~Oti Departmmt of T~“OQ Office of Privatization ‘Cprivatizatiou” unpublished document, October 1989, P. 1.

Table 1-7—Major Issues and Problems in Transportation Public Works

Transport mode Condition Capacity Environment Management and investment

Highways and bridges . .

Mass transit . . . . . . . . . . .

Rail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ports and waterways . . .

Airports and airways . . . .

10 percent of roads and Congestion and delays Air quality; land use; noise42 percent of bridges rated increasing in many urban anddeficient. suburban areas; excess

capacity in rural areas.

Structural deterioration of rail Excess capacity available in Bus emissionssystems in older, urban areas. most rail and bus systems.

Generally good for large Excess capacity on most lines. Waste disposal on Amtrak trains;railroads; problems due to for high-speed trains: noise,deferred maintenance on land usesome regional and shortlinerailroads.

With a few exceptions, locks, Locks are the bottlenecks on the Dredging and dredged materialdams, protective works, and inland waterways; delays can disposal; noise, land use, andchannels are generally in good exceed 2 days at a few locks. surface traffic problems atcondition. ports

The condition of airport and The number of available Aircraft noise in communitiesairway facilities rarely runways at the busiest airports surrounding airports; surfaceimpedes traffic. is the greatest capacity traffic congestion due to

constraint. The staffing levels airportsand technological capabilitesof certain airway sectors canbe sources of delay.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

Life-cycle management needed; largecapital investment would be required toexpand urban roadways to meetdemand-a temporary solution, atbest.

Roadway management enhancementneeded to improve bus transit; life-cycle management and financing forrail transit; little recent R&D investment.

Federal operating subsidies are neededfor Amtrak to ensure reliable commuterrail services. Adequate, stable capitalequipment funding could beestablished to help modernize the fleetand to expand capacity.

Transportation users, especially on theinland waterways, require muchgreater General Fund subsidy thanother transport modes; no cost sharingby non transportation beneficiaries ofnavigation projects.

Constructing new airports or physicallyexpanding existing airports will bedifficult for most immunities.Technology advances could effectivelyexpand existing capacity by up to20 percent.


small amounts to construct safety improvements atgrade crossings and intermodal transfer facilities,where highway monies have been used for someconstruction. Services provided by both Amtrak andfreight railroads help relieve road congestion inmajor metropolitan areas.

Federal Grant Programs-Existing categoricalgrant programs for highways, which require only a10 percent match for Interstate highway constructionand up to a 25 percent match for other types ofprojects, have made States target capital construc-tion and Interstate projects in particular, even whenthese may not be their most pressing requirements.To ensure that States also increase their own fundingand that Federal funds are used for projects that arelocal priorities, Congress could establish largerand more uniform match requirements forgrants. For example, if the State and local matchwere set at 70 percent for all projects, fromInterstate highways and railroad improvementsto mass transit and airports, local prioritieswould not be skewed by the availability ofFederal money for capital construction or for onemode over another. A slightly higher Federalmatch could be made available for States with thefewest resources. Still a further possibility is torecognize the level of effort expended by each Stateto fund public works programs. For a profile of Stateresources and expenditure levels, see table 1-5 again.Some economists suggest that significantly higherState match requirements should be accompanied byopen-ended Federal grants to provide maximumleverage for State spending; however, such a pro-gram would be politically very difficult to shape.21

User Pays v. General Fund Subsidies

Many major capital projects could never be builtwithout Federal support, but the wide variation inFederal support for transportation modes has meantthat some projects have been constructed that willnever bring adequate financial return on investmentmeasured in strict economic terms. Some of theseprojects, especially mass transit, commuter rail, andintercity passenger rail, bring transportation systemand other societal benefits that justify even greaterpublic subsidies. However, users of heavily subsi-dized systems that have excess capacity, such as

many ports and waterways, and those that providepremium service, such as peak-hour aviation andcommuter expressways, could pay more of their ownway.

A comparison of the transportation problemssummarized in table 1-7 with the funding patterns intable 1-8 highlights the need for revising Federaltransportation investment and program policies. Oneoption is to raise waterway user fees, particularly forrecreational boaters, who are not now subject to theFederal marine fuel tax. Imposing a Federal axle-weight tax on heavy trucks is an equitable way torecoup the costs these vehicles impose for highwaymaintenance and rehabilitation above the amountthey pay in fuel taxes.22 Other options includeeliminating restrictions on highway tolls and otherforms of user funding for public works constructedwith Federal funds. Tax treatment of parking andmass transit subsidies for employees could beequalized.

A Federal transportation pricing policy reflectingthe full spectrum of system costs would incorporateoperating and maintenance costs, as well as calcula-tion of pollution and other indirect costs. It wouldencourage higher capacity passenger transport oper-ations, such as car pooling, mass transit, andcommuter rail, and mechanisms to reduce totalenergy use and environmental damage.

Fuel Taxes-are the major source of Federalrevenues for transportation. Ideally, raising theFederal gasoline tax would encourage higher vehicleoccupancy and more efficient use of the highwaysystem, help address traffic congestion and airpollution problems, and reduce the need to build newhighways. However, politically the Nation does notseem ready to accept fuel tax hikes of the magnitudenecessary to make these sorts of impacts. Slow,steady, annual increases are more acceptable politi-cally than large, sporadic escalations, especiallywhen coupled with plans to raise appropriationsyearly. Furthermore, annual Federal fuel tax in-creases could assure States of a more reliablefunding stream and enable them to do betterlong-range transportation planning. For example, a4-cents per gallon increase in Federal motor fuelstaxes could be followed by increases of 2 cents per

21~wmd Mo&~ich, ~tF~c@ h&iS&UCtUE Investment: Should Money Be l’htown at the Third Mficit?” paper ~sen~ at ~ CO~er~on The Third Iktkit: The Shortfall in PubIic Investment sponsored by the FederaI Reserve Bank of Bosto~ Harwich Por6 MA, June 27-29, 1S90, p.5.

22Ke~eth A. Sti et ~., l?OCUJ Work (WashingtO~ DC: The Brook@ htitutioQ 1989), P. 21.


Table 1-8-Federal Expenditures and User-Fee Revenue for Transportation, 1988 and 1989

Federal expenditures User-fee revenuesa

Revenues as percent(in millions of dollars) of expenditures

1988 1989 1988 1989 1988 1989

Highway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14,424b $13,898 b $14,288 $15,856 99% 11470Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,316’ 3,595’ 1 ,019d 1 ,017d 31 28Rail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570” 594” NA NA NA NAAviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,1921 5,748 f 3,189 3,664 61 64Ports and waterways . . . . . . . . . . 1,3839 1,4369 203h 223h 15 16a DO~ not induds interest reoeived on trust fund bdanCSS.b lml~= fu~s o~lay~ for F~~al Highwq Administration, National Highway Traff~ ~fety AdminiSt~tion, Forest service for forest roads and trolls, and

Bureau of Indian Affairs for road construction.c Indud~ ~~tal and operating grants and limited research and development (RaD) spending.d Revenue ~ur~ is 1 -oent per gallon from motor fUd t-.e Amtr~ funding and limited Federal RaD spending.f ~=notim[udeexpenditures fOrNational Aemnauti=and S~~AdrniniStmtiOn, NatiOnalT~nSportatiOn ~fetyward, or Department of Transportation

Office of the Secretary.9 Corps of l%gineersout[aysforharborswat~ays. Does not include Maritime Administration, Federal Maritime Commission, CoastGuard, or Panama Canal

Company outlays.h 1~1~= Inland Wateway Trust Fund, Harbor Maintenan~ Tmst Fund, and St. Lawrenm seaway Tok.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Economics, Federa/ Transportation F/nanA/StatMcs, Rwa/ Years 1979-1989 (Washington, DC: May 1990).

year until the amount dedicated to transportationdoubles the current 14 cents.

Because user-pays policies can adversely affectsome classes of users, Federal decisions aboutraising user fees may require complementary actionsto ensure that transportation is available to all. Forinstance, if an axle weight or other special tax wereenacted for heavy trucks, this should be consideredwhen other surcharges affecting trucks are evalu-ated.

Trust Fund Balances

Regardless of other steps taken to equalizenational transportation support, Congress will needto find a way to address the issue of the transporta-tion trust fund balances. Set up to be reliablemechanisms for financing highways, mass transit,aviation, and ports and waterways, transportationtrust funds currently have large balances that areconstant irritants to State and local officials facingmassive project backlogs. Simply stated, Federalbudget problems have so restricted expenditures thattrust fund revenues (user fees paid for transportationservices) have substantially outpaced allocations fortransportation programs. Congress took a step to-ward addressing this issue when it raised 1991spending ceilings for transportation programs; high-way appropriations for 1991, for example, are closeto 20 percent higher than those for 1990. Bysustaining Federal spending for transportation at alevel above trust fund revenues, fund balances canbe effectively eliminated over 4 or 5 years. However,the overall domestic spending limits set in the 1990

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act require trans-portation to compete with other domestic programsfor increased dollars. Thus, continued controversyseems inevitable unless a new budget agreement isforged.

Spending Priorities

The biggest problems for transportation infra-structure are inadequate capacity in major metropol-itan regions and substandard conditions in manyfacilities across the country. For the short term, thetop priorities are to redirect Federal investmenttoward programs for maintaining, upgrading, andextending the lives of existing systems and forincreasing system capacity through technologiesand management techniques. Under some circum-stances, capital construction may be the best option.Broadening categorical grant programs to per-mit greater flexibility for State and local govern-ments in using trust fund monies, especially formaintenance programs, is probably the best wayto ensure that short-term capacity and conditionneeds are met.

Next in importance are reshaping Federal policiesso that they encourage fair pricing and efficientinfrastructure use and increase State and localspending, thus raising the total national investment.Making more Federal monies available for passen-ger and commuter rail and mass transit are optionsfor improving the efficiency of transportation sys-tem use. Although commuter rail and transit havelong been considered primarily regional or localservices, a compelling case can be made for their


importance to interstate commerce, since eachrepresents an alternative way to increase highwaycapacity in urban areas. Congress could also permitStates and jurisdictions to use surface transportationgrant funds for mass transit and passenger andfreight rail improvements, if doing so is a priority totheir regional or State transportation system plans.Because Amtrak provides an invaluable alterna-tive in heavily urbanized regions that havecrowded highways and airports, a portion of anincrease in Federal surface trust fund moniescould be allocated to Amtrak for capital expendi-tures to enhance rail service. Surface accessimprovements that smooth connections to portsand airports and intermodal connections andtransfers are other potential projects. Trafficsignal improvements using some of the advancedvehicle and highway technologies reviewed inchapter 3 could reduce surface traffic congestionsomewhat in urban areas. For rural areas, specialattention could be paid to the mobility and freighttransport needs of small communities, where noalternatives exist to private vehicles. Table 1-9shows the trade-offs associated with the choices.

For the longer term, an intensive Federal effortshould be started now aimed at developing andimplementing a strategic policy and applied researchagenda for transportation to evaluate the trade-offsof alternative ways of addressing overcrowdedintercity corridors and urban traffic congestion. Thisprogram must have funding support and participa-tion from all the transportation modal administra-tions and from the industries that will benefit.

Financing Environmental Public Works

As Federal support for environmental publicworks has declined and new environmental require-ments have become effective, many local govern-ments will be hard pressed to meet the costs ofupgrading their systems (see box l-D). Costs willmore than double for about 20 percent of small, ruralsystems and some older, urban areas, the veryjurisdictions that are least attractive to privateinvestment and are hardest hit by declining Federal

funding. 26 Under these circumstances, such citiesare likely to find the aggregate fiscal impacts ofcombined sewer overflow control, solid waste dis-posal, and hazardous waste requirements more thanthey can handle in the immediate future. Funding forprograms to comply with the new standards willcompete with higher costs for schools and mandatedsocial programs.27 Moreover, real interest costs for

public infrastructure have more than tripled over thelast two decades, creating a bias toward short-lived,lower cost alternatives, which may cost more overthe long term.28

OTA concludes that EPA has not come to gripswith the compliance issues likely to occur becauseof the fiscal impacts of multiple new require-ments on public works providers. Furthermore,widespread noncompliance with the new regula-tions is likely, especially among small systemsand the Nation’s oldest and largest cities, unlessState and Federal financial and technical assist-ance is increased.29 Options for technical assistanceinclude development and field demonstrations ofnew, durable, and cost-effective technology optionsfor both small and large systems and developmentby EPA of guidelines, based on addressing the mostserious health and safety problems first and stagingthose projects where no unreasonable health riskexists (see chapter 4 for further details). Suchguidelines could be useful for EPA, States, and localjurisdictions alike for setting priorities to schedulecompliance and avoid enforcement actions.

Dedicated Revenue

Federal budget constraints notwithstanding, OTAconcludes that the costs of compliance will be soburdensome that a congressional effort to addressthe issue is warranted. Congress could considerestablishing a dedicated source of Federal reve-nue to support State programs that assist locali-ties in complying with EPA standards. The sourcecould be a broad-based tax, such as a dedicatedincome tax surcharge, or a special-purpose fee, suchas a carbon product or waste generator surcharge. If

=Policy Pltinning and Evaluation, k., “Municipal Sector Study: Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Municipalities,” unpublished reportprepsred for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 1988, p. ii.

zv~lce of Technology Assessment, op. cit., f~~ote 6.~Accordingto estimates by the U.S. Army Corps Of ~s. L. George Antle, chief, NavigationDivisiou Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, personal communicatio~ July 20, 1990.%vironmental Protection Agency offlciala consulted by OTA are concerned about potential noncompliance, but warn of the difllculty of making

accurate predictions. One agency expert estimated that the number of jurisdictions in noncompliance might quadruple.


Table 1-9-Policy Choices for Transportation

Goal Action Trade-offs

Coordinate national “ ‘“- “ ‘- -- “ - “ ‘ “transportation policiesand treat transportationas a system.

Encourage propermaintenance andmanagement of existingand future publicinfrastructure. improvecondition and ensure lon-gevity of systems.

Ensure that futuretransportationinvestments reflecteconomic and socialneeds but are cost-effective.

Reduce congestion anddelay, and increasecapacity.

Institutionalize a multimodal system by restructur-ing the Department of Transportation (DOT).

Consolidate policymaking along broad modallines (aviation, surface, and water) or functionalcategories (metropolitan passenger and inter-city freight).

Make commensurate changes to congressionalcommittees.

Transfer fiscal and management authority forwater transportation from the Army Corps ofEngineers to DOT.

Modify spending restrictions on Federal funds tofavor maintenance over new construction,where appropriate; establish incentives for im-plementation of systematic maintenance pro-grams.

Give State and local authorities flexibie options forgenerating revenues for transportation.

Link Federal General Fund payments for transpor-tation more dosely to national transportationbenefits and needs.

Tie Federal capital investment to long-term plan-ning and financial support of system.

Encourage physical expansion of infrastructure.

Support technology development and implemen-tation to increase capacity of existing systemswith technologies.

implement market policies that change transpor-tation demand patterns, such as congestionpricing, access restrictions on low-occupancyvehicles, and eliminating tax bias in favor ofparking lots and employee parking.. .


Could reduce the number and extent of conflicting Federalpolicies and encourage decisions that address bothcompeting and complementary aspects of transporta-tion systems. But Structural change is difficult and canbe disruptive in the short term. No guarantee ofeffectiveness.

Would consoilidate all civilian transportation authority withinDOT. Problems in integrating Corps functions shoulddisappear overtime. But: Water resources aspects mustbe considered.

Would encourage local authorities to give priority tomaintenance. Using Federal funds for operations andmaintenance, training, and supporting technologiescould reduce total infrastructure costs over the longterm.But Does not address capacity issues.

Could elicit substantial funds from tolls on federally fundedhighways, passenger facility charges at airports,congestion pricing, direct charges for infrastructurewear. But Programs would require dose oversight toensure that new charges are equitable and that themonies are invested in transportation.

Would provide Federal incentives for more effident systemuse. But would require new revenue sources to keepaviation and water systems operating. Service forhardship communities depends on continued generalsubsidies.

Should encourage transportation system constructionappropriate to the financial resources of users and othernon-Federal interests. But Requires State and regionalplanning and funding.

Could be a cost-effective option for increasing capacity.But Environmental concerns, land-use restrictions, andhigh capital costs limit this option. in congested areas,delay reductions maybe temporary as latent demandfills the new capacity.

Can provide marginal (generaly less than 20 percent total)gains in infrastructure capacity. But in most cases,users would need to invest in new equipment.

Could shift traffic to underused times and locations andcarry the same passenger or cargo volume on fewervehicles. But Complementary actions and Federaloversight to ensure affordable transportation options toall users would be necessary.

financial assistance is not feasible, a search for other gress could double the remaining authorization tosolutions should be undertaken. $7 billion and expand the programs eligible for

State Revolving Funds funding from SRFs to include drinking water andsolid waste management. Although both water

Short-term options include expanding funding supply and solid ‘waste have traditionally beenand functions for EPA’s State Revolving Fund financed locally, the scale of investment needed to(SRI?) program. Rather than phasing out Federal meet new standards is beyond the capacity of manycontributions by 1994 as currently scheduled, Con- communities and their State governments.

Chapter I—Summary and Conclusions ● 29

Planning and Training

OTA’S research also indicates that environmentalpublic works planning for facilities and resourcemanagement is inadequate in most localities, andthat many States and localities have difficultyattracting adequately trained personnel. Without afirmer commitment by States to planning and toimplementing a coordinated land-use planning andcapital budgeting requirement, local environmentalproblems are likely to worsen. Ensuring adequateand safe water supplies and providing wastewatertreatment capacity in fast growing regions areamong the types of issues that must be addressed. AFederal requirement for State funding support forplanning and training is one option. If agreement isreached on a dedicated source of funds forenvironmental public works, a requirement foreach State to use a certain percentage for thesepurposes could be included. Table 1-10 summar-izes a variety of legislative options and theirtrade-offs.

Technologies and R&D—MakingPublic Works Work Better

Countless new technologies, such as systemcondition assessment and maintenance tools, com-munications, navigation, and information systems,and field construction techniques and better materi-als, have been developed in national laboratories,universities, and industry research departments.Many of them, with some adaptation, could helppublic works officials address both condition andcapacity problems, do their jobs more productively,and make their systems operate more efficiently (seetable 1-11). However, the technologies are oftenexpensive to acquire, require expertise and specialprograms to implement and educating and trainingpersonnel to use them, and inevitably will bring newand unforeseen difficulties with them.

Despite the costs of purchasing and implementingnew technologies, over the long term, they can playa major role in extending the lives of public worksstructures and provide substantial cost savings. Forexample, electronic control and data acquisitionsystems installed in water and sewer facilities permitoperators in a central location to monitor remote

flows and distribution system conditions in realtime. Operators can use the electronic systems tooptimize pumping operations and bring additionalfacilities online to avoid overloading the system andcausing damage. (For further information, see box4-D in chapter 4.)

Maintaining a Healthy Infrastructure

Although technology needs vary dramatically bypublic works category, common factors ensurehealthy infrastructure across environmental servicesand transportation modes. The essential elements arerigorous approval standards from the outset ofplanning to the beginning of operations, regularinspection, quality workmanship and materials,preventive maintenance, and timely repairs. Meetingthese requirements, even using current technologies,can save substantial sums of money; indeed, con-structing quality facilities and maintaining themmay provide the highest return on infrastructureinvestment. 27 If construction quality is poor andrepairs are needed constantly, or if repairs towell-constructed facilities are postponed until majorreconstruction is needed, the costs of providingalternate service or of traffic diversion and delayscan equal the capital costs, doubling the totalexpense of a given project.

Calculations by the Army Corps of Engineers onthe cost-effectiveness of maintaining and rehabili-tating locks and dams indicate that regular mainte-nance and structural repair have effectively doubledthe lifetimes of these large structures. “Barring acatastrophic event, these structures could last for-ever with good maintenance. ”28

Management Information andCommunications Systems

Cost-effective public works management is basedon accurate, current information about the locationand condition of the basic infrastructure. Environ-mental public works managers need to know wherethe leaks are and must understand the contaminantsin local drinkin“ g water, the contents of landfills, andthe chemical components of industrial wastewater.State transportation officials must have similarinformation about highway and road systems andbridges, so they can plan and budget properly.

~u.s. CO~SS, Congressional Budget Offke, op. cit., footnote 17, PP. l~ls.2sJ~a E. MCDOIM& rcwarch ci~ engineer, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Watenvays Experimental StatiorL U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, personal communication% Oct. 10,1989.

30 ● Delivering the GoodS: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance——

50X I-D—Small Towns and Big Public Works Problems

Rocksprings, Texas, is a remote agricultural community (population 1,350) 80 miles north of the Mexicanborder. i The average per-capita income of residents is under $6,000, and the city’s annual budget is $221,000. Howto provide wastewater treatment and solid waste disposal facilities that meet new Federal standards are pressingdilemmas for Rocksprings.

Rocksprings has no community wastewater collection and treatment system, and residents are trying to financea $3.5-million wastewater treatment plant to meet State and Federa1 requirements. The city applied for a $2-millionwastewater treatment plant construction grant (representing 55 percent of the project’s costs) from the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The rest of the $3.5 million would be financed with a Farmers HomeAdministration (FmHA) grant for 20 percent of the remaining costs, and an FmHA loan for the balance. However,FmHA will not anounce grant and 1oan recipients until after the EPA decision is made. If Rocksprings does notreceive the FmHA funds, it will not be able to proceed with the project and will have to return the EPA grant money.Worse, the city will have spent $43,000 on preliminary engineering work and will have no source of funds to paythe bill. The alternative to constructing a major wastewater treatment facility would be to continue to permitindividual treatment systems, but require upgrading to meet State standards at a cost to each homeowner of $12,000to $15,000-more than the value of the average Rocksprings house.

Since 1931, Rocksprings has maintained a landfill just inside the city limits where waste material is burnedweekly and the remaining garbage covered with dirt whenever possible. These procedures became illegal inSeptember 1989, when Texas terminated all burning permits. Because of its unusual geology--solid rock 1,500 to2,500 -above sea level-the city does not have enough dirt to cover the waste, and if it complies with the order notto burn, its landfill will be little more than an open dump-equally illegal. The town does not have enough garbageto incinerate efficiently or to recycle in saleable quantities, nor are private companies available to provide disposalservice. The area’s Council of Governments is trying to develop a regional plan, but the great distances betweencities, and differing standards between communities make this solution unlikely.

1~~ ~~-~~ ~m % SimOM, mayor, Rocksprings, Texas, at OTA Workshop on State and Local _@UC_FklC@and I!&lag- July 7,1989.

However, since many infrastructure systems are oldand were constructed in sections over long periodsof time, much of this data must be collected andstored now. Many factors complicate the collectionof good data about infrastructure condition, includ-ing the sheer size of many large systems, thefragmentation of management responsibilities, andinadequate personnel and technical expertise inmany jurisdictions.

Technologies to acquire, sort, file, store, andanalyze condition assessment information includerobotics and television for remote and long-distancescanning, photologging and computer imaging ofthe results, and management information and com-munications systems. A host of nondestructiveevaluation technologies can provide informationabout system condition, and when tied to computer-ized management information systems, permit tar-geting repairs, maintenance, and reconstruction to

areas of greatest need. (See chapter 5 for furtherdetails.) Managers find these management toolsinvaluable; indeed recent calculations indicate that40 percent

32 of State capital budgets are spent on

information and communications technologies.33

Yet few Federal grant programs directed at publicworks permit monies tohardware and technology

Field Construction

Field construction and

be used for purchase ofequipment.

rehabilitation techniques,such as casting large segments of a facility near thesite, then placing them at night so as to minimizedisruption of normal service, are usually developedon a project-specific basis, often by the contractor.Public sector research into this vital segment ofpublic works is almost nonexistent, and industryexpenditures, estimated at less than 0.3 percent of

—— — —-. ——.——.—.3WhiS does not include co~~ction; tie fi~e falls to 25 percent of capital equipment expenditures when construction costs me ~corpOrat~.33Br@ey S. Dugg~, “Technology as a Management Tool, ” unpublished remarks, Governor’s Infmstructure Conference: Managing for

Environmental Quality, Nashville, Tennessee, Jan. 17, 1991.


Rocksprings could solve the problem by unincorporating. State law mandates that all counties with apopulation of 30,000 or more and all cities, no matter how small, must provide for the disposal of solid waste withintheir jurisdictions. Because Rocksprings’ county has fewer than 30,000 people, the city could un incorporate, close its landfill, and be in compliance with State regulations. However, the cost of closing the landfill is $400,000, almostdouble the city’s annual budget. Rocksprings is a stunning example of the dilemmas associated with establishingappropriate national environmental standards.

Ionia, Michigan, a rural community of 6,000 located midway between Grand Rapids and Lansing, was servedby two rail lines until about 10 years ago. However in the early 1980s the Grand Trunk Western Line sold out toits competitor, Central Michigan Railway (CMR), and now local officials and businesses are fighting to retain theone remaining line and the two trains a day that connect Ionia to Owosso, a regional center 41 miles to the east. Lastyear CMR, a small class III railroad petitioned the Interstate Commerce Commis sion (ICC) for permission toabandon the segment of track connecting Ionia to Owosso, including six stations along the way. The railroad claimsthe line’s high operating costs and low projected revenues make service uneconomic and that local businesses canship by truck; when the company offered to sell the line to the State on a leaseback basis, the State declined.

Ionia and its surrounding townships boast close to 1,000 industrial jobs. Local industries produce tires andautomotive components on a contract basis for major automobile manufacturers, most of whom require theircontract suppliers to have access to rail service as an option to truck transport-”no rail; no contracts.” Ownersof the lumber companies, the fertilizer plant, and grain elevator claim they cannot switch to truck transport becausespecialized trucks and equipment needed to handle their products are not available locally.2 Many of the town’s jobscould be lost and the prospects for modest growth in the region changed dramatically by the proposedabandonment; 3 towns east of Ionia fear the proposed abandonment would eventually cut off their rail service.

Local governments are already borrowing to finance a regional wastewater treatment plant, and while the area’sbusiness community has formed an alliance to fight abandonment, they cannot afford to buy the line. The region’seconomy is currently too good for it to qualify for hardship aid from Federal or State sources, because several Statecorrections facilities in Ionia provide stable service jobs. Civic leaders do not know whereto turn for help.

zy~~ M~~~~~, ~r~~id~t Of ~ Ke~ Iofia & Chton ~ As$oc~f.@ s~mt pm-for the ktt@13tlt& ~ODMllOll% (!OIWkShk

Mne 11,1990,3Ru~ He~~ ~~utive ~tor, Iofi ~r of co~ p(X’SOlld COIJIMOi@iOn Aug. 14,1990.

gross annual sales in 1987, have continued to drop.3l millions of dollars in repair and maintenance costs.32

Keeping any facility operating in as close to normal Using cathodic protection and protective coatingsa manner as possible during repair is a top priority and controlling stray electrical currents help preventfor public works officials. Consequently, more corrosion and prolong lives of public works struc-systematic attention to techniques for in situ work is tures. (For further information, see chapter 5.)warranted in public sector research programs. Preliminary results from the Strategic Highway

MaterialsResearch Program (SHRP) indicate that pavingmaterials perform differently in diverse parts of the

Materials selection, both for new construction and country, and assumptions about the long-term per-for rehabilitation, can make a major difference in formance of many concrete and asphalt pavementlong-term facility condition and costs, if adequate additives are premature (for further details, seecorrosion protection is ensured. Corrosion problems chapter 5). Research on the effect of tire wear onaffect both concrete and steel, the two most com- highway pavement life is ongoing, and beforemonly used construction materials. Attention to conclusions are reached about changing truckcorrosion in the design, materials selection, and weight limits, the long-term effects of different tireconstruction phases of a project and investment in configurations and truck weights on pavement mustprotection up front at small additional cost can save be analyzed. Economists have begun to note the

31u.s. conge.~, ~lw of Te~~~lo~ A~~e~~~en~ “Com~ction ~d ~t~~s Res~ch ~d Development for the Nation’s Public works, ” Std.f

paper of the Science, Education and Transportation Program and the Energy and Materials PrograQ Jw 1987, p. 1-11.s2Natio~ B~eaU of S(andx&, Ec~n~~”c Effecls of Alpkzllle Corrosion in the United States: A Report to congress @ the Natio~l Bureau of

Standards, NBS Special Publication 511-1, SD Stock No. SN-003-003-01926-7 (Washington DC: 1985).

32 ● Delivering the GOods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table I-l O-Options for Federal Environmental Public Works Policies

Goal Action Trade-offs

Increase national investment Extend and fully fund SRF (State Revolving Loan Helps States meet local needs, provide expectedand assist communities in Fund) authorization past 1994 (current expira-meeting costs of complylng tion date).with Federal environmentalpublic works standards.

Amend Clean Water Act or enact other legislationto expand SRF project eligibility to drinkingwater and solid and hazardous waste facilities;increase appropriations.

Increase State match to leverage more Stateinvestment.

Develop and implement a risk management ap-proach for environmental public works to guideenforcement, and permit local immunities toaddress most serious risks first.

Earmark a Federal revenue source for financingenvironmental public works-a share of anexisting tax or a new tax (e.g., carbon or otherproduct related to environmental pollution).

Combine Federal community environmental loansand grants into a State block grant programadministered by EPA.

Establish Federal bond guarantee program forsmall communities for environmental facilities.

Encourage greater use of tech- Combine scattered Federal technical assistancenologies to bolster efficient op- efforts and form an Environmental Technicaleration of facilities. Assistance Program, administered by the

States.Provide financial incentives or regulatory require-

ments that communities initiate and adhere tofacility maintenance programs and provide ad-ditional funds for facility planning in conjunctionwith regional planning organizations.

Use market Incentives in addi- Impose charges or taxes on pollutants to discour-tion to regulations to address age use and to raise revenue (e.g., taxes onenvironmental problems. carbon products or waste generation).

Reward local effort to impose user fees that coverfull cost of service as a means of financingfacilities and limiting demand.

Encourage EPA to develop risk Develop policy statement for Inclusion in pendingmanagement guidelines for legislation to elevate EPA to Cabinet status.public works and systems ap-proach to environmental andhealth issues.

ands, and ease planning. But: Requires addi-tional Federal outlays. These could be raised bynew broad-based or special-purpose taxes.

Increases local access to funds for facilities requiredby new Safe Drinking Water Act, wastewatertreatment and solid waste regulations; could buildon existing SRF program structure. But: Requiresmore outlays and intervention into area of tradi-tional Iocal government and private sector control.

Encourages larger State commitment; gives incen-tives for better State program management. ButPoor States may be unable to meet higher match;may discourage program participation.

Makes local compliance more likely because com-munities can adapt solutions to local needs andrenditions. But Success depends on local riskassessment and planning, and availability ofState supervision and technical assistance.

Ensures financing for resolving long-term environ-mental problems that are not suitable for annualbudgeting. But Reduces Federal flexibility byearmarking funds.

Increases efficiency by combining administration ofprograms now scattered throughout agencies;reduces Federal administration of detailed projectrequirements and cuts local costs. But: Addsresponsibility for EPA, which is already overburdened. Eliminates most Federal control overspending; agencies often resist losing programs.

Provides many communities with access to privatecredit market; limits Federal role. But: Programcosts due to defaults hard to estimate; requiresnew administrative entity.

Fills a pressing need for engineering, planning, andfinancing expertise, especiallyamong small com-munities; cost-effective.

Increases efficiency and performance by encourag-ing maintenance and attention to life-cycle costs.Efficiency gains from planning environmentalfacilities on a regional basis.

Offers alternatives to achieve environmental goalsmore flexibly and at lower cost than traditionalregulations; a logical extension of the polluterpays philosophy. But: Unpopular with the produc-ers and users.

Addresses current undercharging for environmentalservices. (EPA requires full cost fees for waste-water facility loans program.) But: Provisionswould need to be made for low-income users.

I Gives EPA a clear legislative directive to evaluateenforcement priorities for public entities and topursue cross-media regulatory programs, re-search, and planning, with potential to breakdown program barriers and reduce conflicts. But:Media-segmented bias will be hard to change; noguarantee of success.



Table 1-1 l—Technology Priorities for R&D for Maintaining Infrastructure Condition

Technology Uses Status Comments

Nondestructive evalu-ation equipment;sensing and meas-urement

Information and deci-sion systems

Communications andpositioning systems

Field constructiontechnologies

Materials and corro-sion prevention

Measure various physical propertiesfor monitoring and control; exam-ine physical or mechanical prop-erties of equipment or structurewithout affecting it permanently.

Providesdatabaseorganization andmanipulation capabilities for thewide range of data and informationneeded for public works man-agement.

Traffic management and control andremote infrastructure monitoring.

Improve ease and speed of con-struction or minimize disruption indeveloped areas.

Improve durability and resistance tooperating stress and protect againstpremature deterioration and failure.

- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Developed for industrial use; public

works market is secondary formany suppliers, often tied to pre-ventive maintenance programsand automated inspection sys-tems.

Many database systems are readilyavailable.

Technology exists for nearly everyneed; private sector use is in-creas-ing. Well established in avi-ation; crucial to future air trafficenhancement.

Numerous technical opportunities.

Many new materials and techniqueshave been tested and applied;their use and use of corrosionprevention is increasing but still isnot widespread.


importance of materials and to calculate user chargesthat could offset the costs of thicker, more durablepavements, for example.36

The key for policymakers in making technology-based decisions is to remember that any technologychange must be accompanied by the appropriatepolicy change, or the benefits may not be realized.Furthermore, changes in operations by any in-dustry segment, such as airlines or the truckingindustry, to optimize its operations within a newpolicy and technology framework may alter thelong-term impacts of any new technology-basedstandards and policies. Federal and State decision-makers would do well to keep in mind the need torevisit policies on a regular basis because of thedynamic nature of the way public works services areused.

Many private sector users; cost andexpert interpretation of results limitlocal government use; harsh publicworks environment and cost ofhigh-tech equipment are limitingfactors. Most useful for highwaysand bridges, ports and waterways,water, wastewater treatment, railsystems.

Cost and technical capabilities arelimiting factors; value of good datais difficult to evaluate. Useful forhighways and bridges, transit, rail,water, wastewater treatment, solidwaste.

Microprocessor improvements haveincreased reliability and perform-ance and lowered costs. Great po-tential in all fields. Most useful forports, water, air, highways.

Industry is slow to adopt new meth-ods; some methods require newtechnical skills. Useful for high-ways, transit, rail, water, waste-water systems, solid waste dis-posal.

Industry is slow to adopt new materi-als and methods; designers arereluctant to consider approachesthat are not well established. Usefulfor highways and bridges, ports andwaterways, water, wastewatertreatment systems, solid waste.

Technologies To Increase Capacity

While the poor condition of the physical systemis the dominant problem for public works in manyurban and most rural areas, highways, airports, andwastewater treatment systems in large, urban juris-dictions also have capacity problems. These mani-fest themselves in restrictions on development andin traffic congestion and delay. Perhaps the mostdifficult aspect of capacity problems is that technol-ogy can make relatively little long-term impact,increasing capacity by between 10 and 20 percent atmost. In many cases, any capacity created by newtechnology is likely to be consumed immediately byusers who had been finding other means of meetingtheir needs. The policy and political decisions tomanage or shift demand, which must accompanytechnologies to ensure adequate capacity, are farmore problematic.

%Uifford Winsto~ TheBrookingsInstitutio~ “TheCaseforEfflcientInfrastructure Policy,” paperpresentedat the Conference on The Third Deficit:The Shortfall in Public Investment, sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Harwich Por$ ~ June 27-29,1990.

34 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

.


As water shortages of the magnitude now felt in southernCalifornia become more widespread, conservation is likely

to become a more attractive choice.

larger commitment to resource conservation in alluser segments. If water shortages of the magnitudenow felt in southern California become more wide-spread and the cost of new technology-based facili-ties increases (desalinization is again under discus-sion in California), conservation is likely to becomea more attractive choice, and the technologies will beunderstood as being cost-effective.


Attention to corrosion protection in the design, materialsselection, and construction phases of a project can savemillions of dollars in maintenance and repair costs-and

help ensure safer infrastructure.

Environmental Public Works Capacity

For environmental public works, the most promis-ing technologies to address capacity issues are thosethat detect leaks and permit repair without disruptingservice, those that can prevent water loss to evapora-tion, and those that reduce demand. Among technol-ogies applicable to these needs are a variety oftrenchless technologies (see chapter 5); low flushtoilets; dual water supplies that provide separatehousehold and outside water; and recycling, reuse,and source reduction for municipal solid waste.

Although available now, most of these technolo-gies are not in widespread use, because Federal andState public policy decisions that would make themcost-effective options have not yet been taken.Policy tools include full cost of service pricing, withappropriate consideration of ability to pay, and a

Transportation System Capacity

Technologies that can increase transportationsystem capacity, such as radar, improved traffic flowprocedures and signal equipment, computers, andelectronic communications systems, are availablefor waterways, mass transit, and highways, but arenot yet widely used, except in aviation. Moreover,the expansion possibilities they offer (20 percent atmost) are not likely to be large enough to meetdemand for long in fast growing regions. Nonethe-less, the short-term benefits in reducing conges-tion make improving traffic flow a top priority.

Where construction of larger facilities is impossi-ble, planning and land-use controls and pricing orother incentives to shift demand will also be requiredto cope with the expected growth in both highwayand air travel. While substantial investment insystem analysis, equipment, and personnel trainingwill be necessary, these costs will be offset byreducing the need for acquisition of expensive,additional land and construction. Some intermodaltechnologies are under research in the private sector,


but the work does not address the broader needs ofa national transportation system.

Technology Priorities

Safety and public health concerns and the impactof a major facility, such as a large, new harbordevelopment project, on land transportation, on theenvironment, and on community life are majorissues that affect public works. The technologiesoffering the most potential for shedding light onthese and other complex public works problemsare management information and condition as-sessment tools, maintenance-related technolo-gies, and techniques for increasing capacitywhere new construction is not feasible. O T Aconcludes that these are top priorities for imme-diate attention as Congress considers how toreshape infrastructure programs. As a practicalfirst step, Federal grant programs could be expandedto permit the purchase of management equipment,including hardware and software. However, with-out investment in complementary programs (nowmissing in almost every public works program) toensure a sufficiently prepared work force, notechnology will fulfill its potential role. Anychanges to Federal programs must take these indis-pensable adjuncts into consideration.

Education and Training

Technologies are useless without an adequatelyeducated and trained work force to manage, operate,and maintain them, and the scarcity of trained publicworks managers and technicians was a recurrenttheme throughout the course of this study. Managersand officials hold that the public works sector islosing its best-trained people to the private sector,with its higher salaries, and to retirement much fasterthan they can be replaced. Moreover, new tech-nologies often require skills that are not taught invocational or high schools, and in some cases, noteven in universities. In fact, most university civilengineering departments, the training grounds formany public works managers, do not teach coursesin nondestructive evaluation or maintenance man-agement, which will eventually be basic tools forpublic works departments. Every level of govern-ment needs to give more attention to theseproblems. The Federal Government could targetfunds to support university research for public works

to attract students back to civil engineering. Federalprograms that support university engineering pro-grams (such as that of DOT’s University Centers)could require courses in maintenance managementand capacity enhancing technologies and manage-ment technique.

States, too, can play larger roles through theiruniversities and public works agencies. To cite onemodel, Tennessee uses the University of Tennessee,a land-grant school, as an effective public workstechnology-sharing arm for its local governments.34

Technology Management in thePublic Works Arena

Exciting as new technologies are, OTA con-cludes that better system management and mak-ing good use of existing technologies can also helppublic works managers improve the efficiencyand productivity of their operations. For instance,the procurement processes used by public agenciesat all levels of government are generally rigid andinflexible. Developed over time to ensure honestyand fairness, they have become very effectivebarriers to adoption of new products and procedures.The low-bid procurement process does not alwaysensure the most cost-effective or highest qualitypurchase, especially if prequalification requirementsare lax. Federal grant requirements need to bereexamined and reshaped to encourage publicofficials to make greater use of procurementapproaches, such as competitive negotiations andconcurrent design-build, which have proven suc-cessful for private projects. States may need torevise their requirements as well. (For furtherdetails, see chapter 5.)

Operational Testing and Demonstration

Public works services are expected to be reason-ably priced and reliable; they do not lend themselvesto trial-and-error methods of selection. heal offi-cials use tried and true technologies, because they donot have the analytical resources to assure theperformance of a new technology and cannot affordthe political or operational risk of failure. Thus,liability concerns haunt suppliers, manufacturers,and public officials as well, and manifold difficultiesconfront the developer of a new technology forpublic works. Many a technology entrepreneur isfrustrated by rejection of numerous attempts to have

36 ● Delivering the Goods: public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table l-12—Environmental Protection Agency Laboratories

Number of Number of 1989 budgetOffice laboratories staff (in miliions of dollars)

Office of Modelling, Monitoring Systems, and Quality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . 3 441 $84.0Office of Environmental Engineering and TechnoIogy Demonstration . . . . . . . . 2 282 78.5Office of Environmental Processes and Effects Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 407 59.3Office of Health Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 286 46.2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 1,416 $268.0SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

a development tested so a track record can beestablished.

Cooperative, joint efforts between private sectorsuppliers and government to demonstrate and evalu-ate new technologies for safety, durability, andlong-term costs are excellent ways to spread the riskand overcome some of the difficulties of theprocurement process for new technologies. OTAconcludes that supporting such development andevaluation programs is an essential Federalfunction that has been inadequately supported inevery public works field except aviation andwater transportation. Increasing DOT invest-ment in such programs for highways, masstransit, and passenger rail by 50 percent anddoubling or tripling EPA’s spending would bringsubstantial returns in improved public worksperformance. SHRP'S cooperative approachprovides a model.

Public works R&D—Almost an Oxymoron

Although the total dollars spent by the FederalGovernment on research for public works aresubstantial, a closer look reveals that some areashave been grossly neglected. Federal R&D hasalways targeted specific problems identified by thefunding agency; consequently, research in federallyfunded laboratories and institutions is orientedtoward the concerns of the sponsor and usuallyinvolves numerous, disparate projects. For example,the Department of Defense has supported develop-ment of artificial intelligence systems for defensepurposes, and the Corps of Engineers has done agreat deal of work on maintenance for waterways.(See chapter 6 for further details.) EPA researchlaboratories each focus on providing technicalsupport for apart of the regulatory process (see table1-12); even the technology demonstration programsdo not target the needs of public works providers(see chapter 4 for further details). Finally, each DOTagency funds studies to carry out its mission (as

shown in table 1-13). No agency has focused onR&D programs to make public works services morecost-effective and productive.

Moreover, State and local public works officials,those who stand to benefit most from the results ofFederal R&D, do not utilize research products untilthey have been through a long process of develop-ment, evaluation, and modification. This length oftime and the lack of investment in technologydevelopment and evaluation have made publicworks an unattractive target market for both publicand private research facilities, leaving large gaps.

The Federal Role

The Federal Government is the one entity withsufficient scope and resources to fund additionalpublic works R&D, an especially important role forit to fill since State and local governments are theprimary service providers. However, Federal in-vestment in R&D to address the condition andcapacity problems faced by public works provid-ers across the country is inadequate. Commit-ment of substantial additional Federal resourcesfor R&D is called for, with the focus on bothimmediate problems and long-term alternatives.

Some additional funding could be provided byprivate sector beneficiaries through assessment pro-grams. Care is needed, however, when pursuingprivate funding for R&D, and private funds cannever substitute completely for public support. TheR&D agendas for private entities are different thanthose of public agencies, and finding the appropriateways to capitalize on private sector interest andresources without skewing public goals presents achallenge.

Furthermore, to enable even small jurisdictions tobenefit from R&D results, technology transfer andtechnical assistance efforts must be stepped up. Toincrease financing for R&D, Congress couldrequire that recipients set aside a percentage ofFederal grant monies to be used for R&D into


Table l-13—Department of Transportation Public Works Research and Development

FY 1991 fundingAgency (millions of dollars) Funding source Comments

Federal Highway AdministrationHighway Planning and $51’ A portion of 1.5 percent set-aside of Supports State and local planning,

Research Program Federal-aid construction funds traffic measurement, and other re-from the Highway Trust Fund search

National Cooperative Highway 8 5.5 percent set-aside of HP&R funds Contract research managed byResearch Program Transportation Research Board

(National Research Council)Staff research 18 Highway Trust Fund 30 percent in-house research; bal-

ance in contractsStrategic Highway Research 30 0.25 percent set-aside from High- Contract R&D focused on highway

Program way Trust Fund construction; 5-year program

Federal Railroad Administration 15 From appropriated budget In-house and contract R&D (does notinclude $6.15 million for magneticlevitation rail initiative)

Urban Mass Transportation 2 From appropriated budget Development projectsAdministration

Research and Special ProgramsAdministrationVolpe National Transportation 115b Fee-for-service reimbursements Two-thirds of research is for DOT

Systems Center coming out of other administrations’budgets; one-third is for extramuralclients

Federal Aviation Administration 205 From appropriated budget 63 percent of budget for in-houseR&D

Total $444c

a Total fun~ f~rthe High~a~ planning ad Resear& (Hp&R) ~gr~ are a~ut$153 million, m~tofwhi~ ~ u$4 for planning. The pOrtiOn USdfOrre~arOhis $53 million.

b Es~imate for Department of Transportation (DOT) research.C Total does not include the one-third of Volpe National Transportation system cente~$ total bdget that comes from other SOUrMS.

SOURCE: Office of Technolomf Assessment, 1991, based on information from the Federal Highway Administration. Volpe National Transmutation SystemsCenter, and the U%. Department of Transportation.

technologies, with an emphasis on those applica-ble to maintenance. Resources are also needed forlong-term planning (with a stipulation that plansbe based on a system needs analysis and tied to acapital budget), and for technical assistance,education, and training. The amount of Federalmoney currently available for environmental publicworks projects is too small to provide for any ofthese priorities. If a decision is made not to increaseFederal environmental grants, special attention tothese needs is warranted during the next legislativeauthorization cycle.

Large, Complex Systems Research

A closer look at the research programs of EPA andDOT highlights the woeful neglect of data collectionand systems-level research for public works prob-lems, especially on the impacts of transportation onthe environment. These are important subjects forFederal attention, and Congress could considerrequiring both DOT and EPA to develop andimplement comprehensive system data collectionand research programs. Because transportation and

environmental problems are so tightly intercon-nected by government planning and land-use re-quirements, the two agencies could also be asked todevelop and fund jointly an interagency researchprogram through the Volpe National TransportationSystems Center and one of EPA’s existing laborato-ries.

Some efforts to integrate research are currentlyunder way in both agencies. Rigorous top-levelreview of long-range research plans developed bysections of each agency is called for to ensure thatnew goals encompass more than a reshuffling ofexisting research and address top-priority currentproblems. A broad-based outside advisory commit-tee including State and local government andindustry officials could be formed to review anyinteragency programs.

R&D for Environmental Public Works

Over the long term, EPA could develop andimplement a comprehensive, strategic approach tosetting standards and facilitating compliance, based


on addressing the most serious risks first. A vigorousresearch, development, and technology transferprogram is needed into alternative technologies formeeting standards, particularly for small systems,where there is “no unreasonable risk to health. ”35

Transportation R&D

Transportation R&D has its own noteworthyshortcomings. First, with the exception of someDOT programs under FAA and FHWA sponsorship,only limited Federal investment has been made inresearch into alternatives to existing technologies.Field construction and maintenance techniques,high-speed trains of several types, and longer lastingsurfaces for highways are among the many possibletechnology alternatives already available in othercountries. However, evaluating the case for a majorshift to a new technology, intelligent highways,tiltrotor aircraft, or magnetic levitation rail forexample, requires strategic planning for technologydevelopment and careful thought as to the appro-priate Federal role, if any. Such a change in asubstantial part of an already large transportationsystem would require commitment of Federal fundsand consideration of how to tie new infrastructurefacilities in with existing system components. Suchtasks cannot be undertaken quickly or lightly (orcheaply).

It is time for Federal officials to think seriouslyabout the best ways to capitalize on technologyoptions for addressing public works problemsand develop research and action programs. Whenalternatives become essential in this country, theUnited States may find it cost-effective to purchaseforeign technologies and adapt them to domesticneeds. The long-term costs and trade implications ofR&D policy decisions could be very large and seemto warrant a greater investment now in R&D.

Huge discrepancies characterize R&D fundingamong the DOT agencies; FAA and FHWA have theonly research budgets worth mentioning. FAA’sR&D appropriations have held steady becausemodernizing air traffic control equipment has beena top Federal priority, and most of the agency’sexpenditures have been for that purpose. The agencyhas a well-structured R&D program that is regularlyreviewed by an outside advisory committee.

Although the FHWA research budget looks large,a closer look shows that most of the funds come outof the Highway Trust Fund and are funneled throughthe States via the Highway Planning and Research(HP&R) Program. State DOTS use HP&R fundsprimarily for a variety of planning analysis andevaluation projects; a tiny amount of incrementalR&D and some demonstration programs also benefitfrom these funds in some States.

Finally, much more must be done in the area oftransportation systems research. R&D expertise isnarrowly focused in the modal areas. The FAA R&Dprogram and perhaps SHRP (for highway research)are two efforts that are somewhat more systems-oriented than any others. However, SHRP reflectsthe concerns about pavement durability of thehighway engineers who developed the program, anddoes not address traffic engineering, construction, orother crucial highway performance issues. A trulystrategic program would need to incorporate exactlysuch items and address intermodal issues as well.

Using Federal Resources Efficiently

Considerable duplication of research into com-mon public works problems exists in Federal agen-cies. For example, the Corps of Engineers has majorpavement test facilities and scale models and com-puter programs that address water scour and erosionproblems of the types that concern FHWA engi-neers. Under ideal conditions, these could supple-ment FHWA’s much less extensive facilities. How-ever, OTA found that with few exceptions, if anagency such as FHWA requests another entity, suchas the Corps, to undertake R&D, the requestingagency ends up dissatisfied, regardless of the qualityof the technical expertise and facilities, because itsresearch is given low priority. The requestingagency often finds itself with project results that arelate and over budget. To stretch Federal dollars,Congress could require Federal operating agen-cies to develop better mechanisms to avoidduplication and to coordinate and carry outcooperative research. Including as part of anagency’s formal mission the responsibility tocarry out R&D for other agencies is one way to dothis. No matter what coordinating method ischosen, ensuring stable funding by the requestingagency for a project is a priority.

ss~e s~emwatm~~ in S=tiom 141s and 1416, allows for such alternatives. David Schnare, Office of Drinking Water, U.S. Envim.unentrdfiotection Agency, personal communicatio~ July 15, 1990.

Institutional

CHAPTER 2

Framework

‘~multiplied by the double the usual clip at the EXXOI

ation of millions, station on North Henry Street il billion a year to Alexandria. earmarked for “Everyone wanted to grab h(construction and gas before the nickel hits,” said at:ion. tendant Steve “Tattoo” Avis, whose: don’t seem to namesakes covered his expose(

forearms and neck.said Alexandria A Chevron station on Lee High

- 1

)ert Johnson. way in Arlington sold 4,800 gallon:unintended side of gas Friday instead of the usuaeople are using 3,200 or so. “The busiest day I’ve

. . . . . . . . . . lower-priced regular unleaded ever seen in here;’ attendant Jefral gas tax gas yesterday 20 cents less than Basham said.

Southern California Ordered to Save Water J&W%$&?as a whole,” Skinner sai lon increase;” in the fede

as Gas Tax Rises

- — - - - — — - - — — — — - —really sell In two dayS,’

Tucker , W h O ‘ ---

ConservationPlan, First Since 1976 Droughtf ImA” ---

By Jill WalkerSpecial toTk Washington Peat

ContentsPage

Federal Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Department of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Federal Highway Administration . ..........46Urban Mass Transportation Administration . 47The Federal Railroad Administration . . . . . . . 48Federal Aviation Administration . . . . . . . . . . . 48Maritime Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50U.S. Coast Guard ● ..• ● ● . ● . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . ● 50Saint Lawrence Seaway Development

Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) .,.. 50

The Corps and Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Environmental Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51The Corps’ Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Department of the Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Office of Management and Budget . . . . . . . . . . . 55The Courts . . .,, * *,, , . . . . .,, ,, . . * . * *.,..,..* 56

Impact of Court Activism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Congress . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . . , , . 0 . . . . . . , . , , , . , , . 57

Evolution of the Committee System . . . . . . . . 57Interest Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Industry and Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Public Interest Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Governmental Interest Groups .............64

The State Role . . . * * * * . . . . * . * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64States and Public Works Financing . . . . . . . . . 65Benefit and User Charges .................65Importance of the Federal Partnership ....,.67Administration and Planning . . . . . . . . . . . .

Local Government Service Providers . . . . . .Local Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Management and Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conclusions and Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . .

BoxesBox2-A. Highways: From Postal Roads to

Interstate ., . * * . . . . . ., .,, * . . . . . . . . . . .2-B. Mass Transportation: The Youngest

Federal Transport Assistance Program

● ✎ ✎ 67. . . 68+*. 69● *, 71.*. 73

Page

,. 46

. . 47

Page2-C. Railraods and Government: A Difficult

Relationship .,, ... ... .., .. s ., . ..,,,.... 492-D. Government and Aviation: A Close

Marriage . . , . . . . , .*. . . . . . ,**.+.*.. . .**. 502-E. Anatomy of Recent Congressional

Reforms . . . . . . , . , * . . . . . . . , * . . . * . . * . , . . 602-F. New Jersey Infrastructure Financing ,.,. 672-G. Washington State Public Works

Trust Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702-H. Growth Management and Planning in

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722-I. SANDAG: Financing Means Planning

Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

FiguresFigure Page2-1. Projected Impact on States of Reduced

Federal Aid for Transportation . . . . . . . . . . 682-2. Projected Impact on States of Reduced

Federal Aid for Environmental PublicWorks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

TablesTable Page2-1. Public Works Legislation Landmarks . . . . 422-2. Federal Infrastructure Expenditures,

1980-89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442-3. Partial List of Congressional Committees

With Jurisdiction Over Public Works . . . . 582-4. Congressional Committees and Their

Roles in Public Works Programs . . . . . . . . 612-5. Number of Committees With Jurisdiction

Over Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 632-6. A Selection of Major Industry Interest

Groups . . . . . ., . * . . . * . . . . . . ., * *...*..+. 632-7. Selected Public Interest Groups Concerned

With Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642-8. Major Infrastructure Financing Mechanisms:

Advantages and Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . 662-9. State Gas Tax Rates and Yields, 1990 . . . 71

CHAPTER 2

Institutional Framework

. . . it is very hard to get your hands on this interface between transportation policy andenvironmental policy. ..1

Public works stakeholders include individualcitizens, public officials, and politicians at everylevel of government; congressional committees, atleast five major Federal agencies; environmentalorganizations; and industry, trade, and professionalgroups of every stripe. Their number and diversitymake developing a coherent framework for eithertransportation or environmental public works seeman unattainable dream.

Moreover, the task of coordinating transportationand environmental concerns to address their com-bined impacts on lifestyles and economic vitality isclearly staggeringly difficult. The year-long processinitiated by Transportation Secretary Samuel K.Skinner in 1989 of developing a national transporta-tion policy 2 did create fresh dialog about issuesbetween transportation interest groups, such as theautomobile and highway lobbies and mass transitagencies, which had traditionally clung to theirindividual views. Discussion of elevating the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) to Cabinetstatus could provide an opportunity for the sametype of dialog about environmental public worksissues. This chapter describes the actors and thesetting for the complex theater of public workspolicy development.

Federal RoleFederal authority for public works—roads and

bridges, mass transportation, ports and airports,waterways and water supply, wastewater treatmentand solid waste disposal-has been evolving sinceshortly after the Nation was born, when a body ofnational engineers was formed. (See table 2-1 forFederal legislative benchmarks.) Responsibility isnow distributed, often with considerable overlap and

conflicting missions rooted in history, among anumber of departments and agencies. The majorplayers are the Department of Transportation(DOT), EPA, the Department of Defense, throughthe Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Bureau ofReclamation (BuRec) in the Department of theInterior, and the Soil Conservation Service in theDepartment of Agriculture. Some of these agenciesissue regulations with which State and local officialsmust comply; others have tiding, programmatic, oroperating functions; still others have all or somecombination of these responsibilities. Other execu-tive branch agencies also have an impact, and courtsplay a role as well. Congress shapes policies andprograms through the legislative authorization andappropriations processes and regulatory mandates.

Many of the Federal entities responsible formanaging the Nation’s vast collection of publicworks infrastructure have recently experienced orare about to undergo major shills in their missions—from development and growth to management andpreservation. This fundamental change is evident atthe Corps, which is undertaking more environmentalrestoration projects than flood control projects, andBuRec, which announced in 1987 that it would nolonger be a construction-oriented organization andwould become a water resources managementagency. 3

The Federal role shifted in other ways, too, in the1980s, with the transfer of a number of programs tothe States and reductions in Federal support for mosttypes of infrastructure (see table 2-2). For example,EPA’s construction grant program for wastewatertreatment plants is scheduled to end in 1994, with theStates slated to takeover responsibility.4 At DOT, asthe Interstate highway system nears completion and

IJO c~g potter, fomer A~~i~~t Atitrator for & @ ~~tio~ U*SO ~v~o~~~ prot~tion Agency, k National Transportation Pohy

Alternatives, Proceedings oja CRS Congressional Senu”nar (WMhin@oq DC: Congressional Research Service, June 12, 1990), p. 25.me process culminated in the release of the first national transportation policy and strategies document. See U.S. Department of Transportation

Moving America: New Directions, New Opportunities (Washington DC: Fe- 1990).%J.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Assessment ’87, New Directions for the Bureau of Reclamation (WashingtorL DC: U.S.

Department of the Interior, September 1987), pp. 1-2.dFor ~= d&WSioQ s= u-s. Co=ss, ~ce of T~~olo~ ~ses~en~ Rebuilding the FO&tiOnS: A Special Report on State a?ldbCd

Public Wor&s Financing and Management, OTA-SET417 (Washington, DC: U.S. Govermnent Printing Office, March 1990), chs. 2 and 3.

4 1 –


Table 2-l—Public Works Legislation Landmarks

1824

1850

1887

1916

1925

1938

1941

1944

1946

1956

1963

1964

1966

R!flib

B@

Rivers and Harbors Act authorized the Army Corps of Engineers to improve navigation by clearingchannels and constructing harbors.

Federal land grants to the Illinois Central-Mobile Ohio Railroads allowed the companies to expandwestward. This was the first of massive grants to railroads seeking to reach the Pacific.

Interstate Commerce Commission (lCC) established with limited authority to set rail rates. Legislationpassed in 1903, 1906, and 1910 strengthened ICC’S regulatory powers.

Federel-Aid Road Act authorized grants to States from the general treasury, through the Departmentof Agriculture, to help construct postal roads.

AirMall Act authorized the Post Office Department to contract for air mail service with private operators.The 1926 Air Commerce Act gave aviation regulation authority to the Department of Commerce.

Civil Aeronautics Act created the Civil Aeronautics Authority.

Defense HighwayAct appropriated $200 million for the construction and rehabilitation of roads neededfor the national defense, including access roads to military and defense industry sites.

Federal-Aid Highway Act authorized the construction and building of a secondary and urban systemof roads. The act also designated a national system of Interstate highways.

Federal Airport Act initiated Federal financial assistance to States and municipalities for aviation.

Federal-Aid Highway Act and Highway Revenue Act authorized completion of the Interstate system.The acts also established the Federal Highway Trust Fund to finance improvements in Federal-aidsystem roads. Truck weight and size limits were also set for Federal-aid roads.

Clean Air Act asserted Federal interest in controlling air pollution.

Urban Mass Transportation Act established the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA)within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In 1968, UMTA was placed under thejurisdiction of the Department of Transportation (DOT).

*,@ M+

?ml%l Department of Transportation Act created DOT from 35 transportation-related programs.

%.~%~ Continued on next page

Chapter 2— Institutional Framework ● 43

Table 2-l—Public Works Legislation Landmarks-Continued

1967

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1976

1977

1978

1980

Clean Air Act amendments authorized Federal standards and enforcement.

National Environmental Policy Act required impact statements on all major Federal actions.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) formed to administer numerous media programs.

Airport and Airway Development Act expanded Federal support and established the Airport andAirways Trust Fund.

Amtrak formed as a Federal corporation to provide passenger service. In 1973, the Regional RailReorganization Act established the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) for freight service.

Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) set minimum wastewater treatment standards andestablished construction grants.

Federal-Aid Highway Act increased the federally funded portion of transit capital projects and allowedexpenditure of Federal-Aid Urban Systems highway funds for qualifying transit projects.

Safe Drinking Water Act set standards for water quality.

Mass Transportation Assistance Act expanded Federal support for transit.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) supported recycling and discouraged landfills.

Clean Air Act Amendments strengthened EPA enforcement.

Airline Deregulation Act abolished the Civil Aeronautics Board and its authority over domestic faresand mergers,

Staggers Rail Act deregulated rail with the goal of improving the economic health of the railroads.

Continued on next page


Table 2-l—Public Works Legislation Landmarks-Continued

1980

1981

1982

1984

1986

1987

1990

Motor Carrier Act deregulated the trucking industry.

Northeast Rail Service Act required DOT to look at ways to return Conrail to the private sector and tosell it if it achieved profitability. It was sold in 1987.

@

@

Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) boosted the gas tax, giving 1 cent to a Mass TransitTrust Fund. Truck weight and size limits were also raised, forcing States to permit all trucks meeting sizestandards to operate on Federal-aid roads.

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of the RCRA targeted hazardous waste management.

Safe Drinking Water Amendments strengthened Federal requirements.

Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act provided the necessary funds tocomplete the Interstate system.

@

@

Clean Water Act Amendments required that wastewater construction grants be phased out by 1991and replaced until 1994 by capitalization grants to State Revolving Loan Funds.

Clean Air Act reauthorization with additional controls on autos, buses, and trucks.


Table 2-2—Federal Infrastructure Expenditures, 1980-89(in millions of 1982 adjusted dollars)

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1989

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $29,863 $24,473 $24,425 $26,237 $24,328 $23,609Transportation:

Highways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,584 8,284 10,438 12,934 12,188 11,392Mass transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,732 3,930 3,639 3,007 2,754 2,838Rail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,531 2,199 1,405 798’ 486 483Aviation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,334 3,526 4,145 4,722 5,048 5,378Ports, harbors, and waterways . . 1,365 1,242 1,262 1,046 1,140 1,137

Environmental;Water supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,017 1,033 700 650 573b 284b

Wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,300 4,259 2,836 3,080 2,139 2,097aDrop in expenditure refkcts de of -n~il.kow spending figures for water supply in 1988 and 1988 reflect repayments of Farmer’s Home Administration water supply loans.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates from the Budget of the United States Government,

various years, and from unpublished Office of Management and Budget data. Estimates for ports, harbors: and waterways based on Army Corpsof Engineers data.


urban traffic congestion makes intermodal transfersever more difficult, further changes are likely.

Department of TransportationThe regulatory and programmatic reach of DOT

extends over the Nation’s vast network of roads andrailroads, ocean shipping, airways, and pipelines.DOT policies and regulatory actions affect State andlocal governments directly, influencing land-useplanning, transportation facilities and servicechoices, energy conservation, environmental qual-ity, and technological developments.

Formed in 1966 from 35 transportation-relatedprograms spread throughout the Federal Govern-ment, DOT was envisioned by then PresidentJohnson as a single unifying entity for managing thewater, rail, airway, and road networks.5 The newagency’s five operating divisions included the fol-lowing: the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),an amalgamation of the Bureau of Railroad Safety,the Alaska Railroad, and the Office of High SpeedGround Transportation; the Federal Highway Ad-ministration (FHWA), formerly the Bureau of PublicRoads and Federal-Aid Highway Programs; theFederal Aviation Administration (FAA), formerlyan independent agency; the Saint Lawrence SeawayDevelopment Corp from the Commerce Depart-ment; and the U.S. Coast Guard, from the TreasuryDepartment. In 1967, the Urban Mass Transporta-tion Administration (UMTA) was transferred fromthe Department of Housing and Urban Developmentto DOT. Later additions include the National High-way Traffic Safety Administration, the MaritimeAdministration (MARAD), and the Research andSpecial Programs Administration (RSPA), the onlyintermodal agency within DOT. RSPA managessome DOT research and regulates hazardous materi-als transportation, oil pipelines, and emergencypreparedness.

Despite President Johnson’s goal, the DOT Act, apolitical compromise, created strong modal admin-istrators, as Congress wanted, thus maintainingseparate programs for each transportation mode.

However, it also established a strong office of thesecretary, as the President had proposed.6 Modaladministrators have authority to regulate and man-age their organizations, extending from budgetformulation to field operations. This independence,the fact that authority over inland waterways wasretained by the Corps, and the regional administra-tion of key modal programs have worked to preventintermodal coordination. To this day, congressionalcommittee and subcommittee structure and industryand carrier interests have helped keep the autonomyof the modal or operating administrations intact.

Situated on top of the DOT organizational chart,the secretary’s office recommends the department’sbudget to the Office of Management and Budget(OMB), formulates national transportation policies,evaluates programs, and attempts to coordinate theactivities of the modal administrations. Assistantsecretaries serve primarily as staff officers inter-posed between the secretary and the modal adminis-trators. Since its formation, DOT has had 10secretaries, several of whom tried to restructure thedepartment along functional lines to facilitate inter-modal strategies and establish a means for disburs-ing funds more equitably among modes. However,their average tenure of 2 to 4 years was too short toleave a permanent mark. Thus the agency has neverimplemented a multimodal national transportationpolicy requiring a high degree of cooperationbetween the separate operating branches. The cur-rent DOT initiative to implement the nationaltransportation policy statement7 seems unlikely tomake a permanent impact on deeply entrenchedmodal interests unless the intermodal cooperationstressed by Secretary Skinner is somehow institu-tionalized so it survives under succeeding execu-tives.

With a 1990 budget of $28 billion and 64,000civilian employees, DOT administers user-sup-ported trust funds of considerable size, including thehighway and transit trust funds and the airport andairway trust fund.8 At present the management ofeach mode rests firmly with the Federal Highway

“’Message From the President of the United States, Transmitting a Proposal for a Cabinet-Level Department ofTrampWion Consolidating VariousExisting Transportation Agencies, ‘‘ in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Operations, Creating a Department ojTransportation, Partl: HeanngsBejore aSubcomnu”ttee of the Committee on Government Operations (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing OMce, 1966), pp. 38-39.

6t4Dep~ent of Tr~po~tion ~~$~ co~e~nce Report No. 89, House Report No. 2236, Wt. 12, 1966 to aCComPanY ‘“R” 15963”

~.S. Department of Transportation op. cit., footnote 2.8TW0 ~d~tio~ ~mpo~tion ~st tids, tie Itdmd Waterway Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintemncs Trust F~d, f~ ~der tie P~i~ of tie

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.


Photo credit: Tom Burke

The Federal Highway Administration in conjunction withState officials develops safety standards for the design,construction, and maintenance of bridges and highways

on the Federal-aid system.

Administration, the Urban Mass TransportationAdministration, the Federal Railroad Administra-tion, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Mari-time Administration, the IJ.S. Coast Guard, and theSaint Lawrence Seaway Development Corp.

F e d e r a l H i g h w a y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

FHWA has primary jurisdiction over highwaysand bridges in the Federal-aid system and sets safetystandards for their design, construction, and mainte-nance and for motor carriers engaged in interstatecommerce. It has divisions responsible for engineer-ing and traffic operations; safety and traffic engi-neering; research, development, and technology;planning and policy development; right-of-way andenvironment; administration; and motor carriersafety.

FHWA also administers the Federal-aid highwayprogram (see box 2-A), which distributes funds tothe States to construct and rehabilitate the 843,000-mile Federal-aid highway system. Through theHighway Trust Fund, the government pays 90percent of construction costs for Interstate high-ways; 75 percent for primary, secondary, and urbanroad construction; and 80 percent for bridge replace-ment and major rehabilitation. Federal funds cannotbe used for highway or road operation or mainte-nance, and responsibility for these and the remainderof the road system rests with States and localgovernments. The Highway Bridge Replacementand Rehabilitation Program, also administered

Box 2-A—Highways: From Postal Roadsto Interstate

Systematic Federal assistance for highwaysbegan in 1916, with grants to States for constructionof roads used to deliver the mail. Roads receivingFederal highway aid were to be free of tolls, and allproposed roads and methods of construction had tobe agreed on by the Secretary of Agriculture andState highway departments.

Federal and State investment of more than $8billion in the 1920s and 1930s boosted total mileageof paved roads from 387,000 in 1921 to 1.4 millionby 1940. During World War II, appropriations forroads needed for national defense, including accessroads to military sites, funded hundreds moreprojects totaling more than 2,200 miles.l

In each of the first 3 postwar years, $500 millionin Federal funds was authorized for constructionand funding of secondary roads to connect farmsand small communities to the highway network andan urban system located in and around major cities+An Interstate highway system was designated forconnecting principal cities and industrial centersand connecting with routes in Canada and Mexico.Today’s highway system, while retaining marks ofall this history, is overlaid by legislation passed in1956 authorizing completion of the Interstate sys-tem under the direction of the Department ofCommerce and State highway departments, Tospeed travel, the system was to have no railroadcrossings, traffic signals, or stop signs. In 1988, thesystem was 99 percent complete and consisted of44,590 miles.2 The cost of the system, intimated at$25 billion in 1956, will exceed $100 billion (incurrent dollars) before completion, expected in1991.

IBob Carpenter, “b the Early Days, Evwyono WW aRoughrider,” Windows (Texas Engineering Exptwimm StatimTeJKM A&M University), summer 1988.

Zptiw ~~way A_@tiou Highway i$t@#stks 1~~(W@@@U~: U.S. Department of Trarqortatio~ ~9%%p.132.

through States, is the major funding source forrepairing and rehabilitating ‘deficient bridges. Statesdevelop program needs and set priorities based oninformation from State bridge inventories and bien-nial inspections. Although States and communitiesthat receive Federal matching funds must followFHWA rules and regulations, flexibility permitsnonuniform practices among the States. For furtherdetails, see chapter 3.

Chapter 2— Institutional Framework ● 47—.——..-.-.—..-—— . . .— . . . --- —-- — —

BOX 2-B—Mass Transportation:The Youngest Federal Transport

Assistance ProgramFederal capital grants for mass transit began with

the Housing Act of 1961,1 which provided fundingfor demonstrations ($25 million) and loans ($50million) for mass transit projects to bolster theprivate transit industry. The Urban Mass Transpor-tation Act of 19642 established the Urban MassTransportation Administration (UMTA) within&@Department of Housing and Urban Development toadminister capital grants to transit systems on atwo-thirds Federal, one-third local matching basis.This sparked a rapid conversion of failing, privatelyoperated mass transit firms into public properties.The fraction of publicly owned transit systemincreased from 5 percent in 1960 to 55 percent in1980, with the share of publicly owned vehiclesrising from 36 to 90 percent over that period. In1968, UMTA was moved to the newly createdDepartment of Transportation, and the Urban MassTransportation Assistance Act of 19703 authorizeda $3. l-billion capital grants program Highway andtransit legislation in 1973 and 1974 increased thefederally funded portion of transit capital projectsfrom 67 to 80 percent, allowed expenditure of somehighway funds for qualifying transit projects, andincreased authorizations for discretionary capitalfunding. A population-based, formula grant pro-gram for cities was created, which could be used foreither operations or capital projects. Increases inFederal transit funding came to an end in the early1980s, reaching a peak of $4,7 billion in 1981.4

175 Stat. 149 et seq.z“r’i~~ 49, ~~. 1601.1611.384 s~t, 962.dur~~ss finspOr@mA-@ati~ Jg#$tUtiSi’iC#l

sum?M ries: GrantAssistance Programs (U%Shir@oQ DC: V,&Department of Transportation% 1990), p, 11.

vehicle-miles operated by transit systems and 96percent of all passenger trips by transit,12 but transitagencncies have never realized the promise offered bya dedicated revenue source; most trust fund revenueremains unallocated.

-— .


T h e F e d e r a l R a i l r o a d A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

FRA has primary jurisdiction over the Nation’srailroads, promulgating and enforcing safety regula-tions, administering limited financial assistanceprograms (see box 2-C), and conducting researchand development (R&D) for improved railroadsafety. FRA’s Office of Safety implements regula-tions covering railroad track maintenance and in-spection, equipment signals, railroad locomotives,safety appliances, power brakes, hours of service,transport of hazardous materials, and operatingpractices. The office also directs FRA’s R&Dprogram and investigates accidents. FRA’s safetyjurisdiction does not apply to light rail or rapidtransit systems in urban areas. In fiscal year 1988,FRA spent about $40 million on safety activities.About one-half of this amount was used for regula-tory enforcement-providing salaries for about 325Federal rail safety inspectors and assistance for some104 State inspectors-and about one-third of thisamount went toward R&D.13

Through its Office of Passenger and FreightServices and Office of Northeast Corridor Improve-ment Project and Engineering, FRA administers aprogram of Federal assistance for national, regional,and local rail services that includes: rail freightservice assistance programs, rail service continua-tion programs and State rail planning, labor/management programs, and Amtrak.

In 1980, Congress passed the Staggers Rail Act toimprove the economic health of the railroads andensure effective competition. Some freight rateregulation was retained in consideration of captiveshippers,14 but carriers were given greater flexibilityto react to market forces15 and greater freedom toabandon track. This has spurred significant growthin the number of shortline and regional freightrailroads, most of which operate as private entities.(For further information, see chapter 3.)

Passenger Rail

The Federal Government now dominates intercitypassenger rail through Amtrak; it even owns most ofthe track and structures along the northeast corridorbetween Boston and Washington. In other parts ofthe country, Amtrak’s agreements with freightrailroads permit its trains to use their track in returnfor fees based on miles traveled and other considera-tions, including upkeep of the track, bridges, andsignals.

The Federal Government owns all of Amtrak’spreferred stock, controls the appointment of itsboard of directors, and has a lien on most of itsassets, including all locomotives and rolling stock.Amtrak generated over 5.86 billion passenger-milesin 1989.16 The corporation receives yearly Federalgrants of about $500 million from the FederalGovernment through FRA to cover its operatingdeficit.

Federal Aviation Administration

FAA has regulatory authority across the entireaviation system-airports, airways, aircraft, indus-try, and people, and FAA itself owns and operatesone of the most complex transportation networks inthe world, the U.S. National Airspace System.Industry participation in regulatory activities has along history (see box 2-D) and has continued to growsince the 1950s, when Congress authorized Federalaviation agencies to designate part of the certifica-tion and inspection processes to the private sector.

While Federal aviation regulatory enforcementactivities are relatively decentralized, with regionaland district offices having considerable autonomyand independence, FAA is currently consolidatingsome activities in its Washington headquarters.17

Although aviation maintains an enviable safetyrecord, dramatic growth in air travel, turmoil associ-ated with the firing of air traffic controllers in 1981,major changes in technology, and Federal budgetconstraints have left FAA scrambling to modernize

lqcongressio~ Re~ch Service, Railroad S@ety: Selected Options That Might Promote Sajety, issue brief (w~~toq DC: Feb. 29 1988), Pp.1-4.

14ScMtor Ernest F. Hobgs, opening statemen~ hearings before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, ~d ~~po~tio% SubCo*t*on Surface Transportation@ Oversight of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, July 26, 1983.

lsFede~~oadA*~tioQ DeferredMainte~ nceandDelayed Capital Improvements On Class IIand Class ZIIRailroads (Washington% DC:U.S. Department of Transportatio~ 1989), p. 14. ‘ 9;

IGW.@_C~~or,Jr., President and Chairman of the Bo&dj NationalRsih-oadPassenger Corp., testimony athearingsbefore the House Committeeon Appropriations, Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies, Mar. 22, 1989, p. 1.

IT~c~el zmo~e, proj~t ~ag~, Engineering, Federal Aviation Administratio~ ~rsond Communication% J@ 12, 19N.


Box 2-C—Railroads and Government: A Difficult Relationship

Federal assistance to railroads began as the industry sought to expand westward. Starting in 1850, land grantswere made to railroads as they attempted to reach the Pacific. Federal regulatory power, however, was notestablished until 1887, when the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was created and given authority to setsome rail rates. Between 1893 and 1921, Congress passed several rail safety acts and gave ICC responsibility forimplementing and enforcing the regulations. Little important railroad legislation was passed during the next 40years, and railroad dominance in transportation declined, as Federal aid spurred expansion of the highway systemand growth in the trucking industry.

Starting in 1965, legislation gradually transferred all safety responsibility from ICC to the Department ofTransportation, including responsibility for regulations, inspection, enforcement, accident investigation andrecordkeeping, and some hazardous materials functions. However, ICC retained authority for railroad accountingand costing procedures, construction and abandonment of rail lines, mergers, acquisitions, and issuance ofsecurities. ICC also enforced the ‘common carrier obligation,” which requires a carrier to provide service to anyonewho seeks it and is willing to pay the charge shown on rate schedules filed with the commission.l

ICC requirements constrained railroads’ abilities to compete economically with trucks and played a crucial rolein declining rail economic performance. By the early 1970s, seven railroads that had provided freight and passengerservice in the Northeast and Midwest were bankrupt. From their remnants, Federal action created the ConsolidatedRail Corporation @mi.ii), a private freight railroad company with government financing and oversight. At thesame time, the quasi-public National Rail Corporation (Amtrak) was created to provide passenger service on theroutes served by the bankrupt railroads; Amtrak, however, also incorporated the passenger service of other majorrailroads serving the rest of the country, to ensure a nationwide passenger system.

Federal funds compensated the bankrupt carriers, rebuilt track and equipment, and covered operating losses.Subsequent legislation allowed Conrail to make the changes necessary to make a refit, which it did in 1981 andsucceeding years. Conrail was sold in 1987 through a public offering of its stock, 2

lu.s. @Der~ Acco_ Gffiee, problem in Implementing Regulatory AccOWing and CosCfng SySt@?tSfOr Rai!ro@ ~m-~%~: July 17, 1980), p. 1.

2Nmq Heiser, cO~sSiO~ Resewch Serviee, “Rxkrsl Aid to Domestic Trmspor@tiom A Brief History From tie 1800s to the1980s,” Report 88-574, Aug. 16, 1988, pp. 5-7.

the system. Ongoing concerns center on whether most of the responsibility for land-use planning andFAA has the institutional capability and resources to coordinating the surface transportation links tocarry out its operating, standard setting, rulemaking, airports. The Airport and Airway Trust Fund pro-and technology development functions effectively vides about one-third of the capital for public airportand to guarantee compliance through its inspection improvements. 19

programs. l8

To provide support for air traffic control (ATC)facilities, an Airport and Airway Trust Fund, fi-nanced mostly from taxes imposed on airline ticketsand aviation fuel, was created in 1970. Economicderegulation in 1978 removed Federal controls overroutes, fares, and new entries and transferred allremaining economic functions to DOT.

Non-Federal organizations, primarily local gov-ernments and regional authorities, own and operatemost public airports, and local governments bear

International agreements establish minimumstandards for aviation systems to ensure compatibil-ity throughout the world. Historically, U.S. require-ments, with the exception of security items, havebeen adopted worldwide. However, future commu-nication, navigation, and surveillance technologieswill permit precise traffic monitoring and controlwell beyond domestic borders, possibly worldwide.These advances may require new forms of interna-tional coordination, such as satellite system proto-cols, and require negotiation of sensitive issues such

18u.s, conWe55, of fIce of TeCho@y Assessmen~ Safe Skies for Tomorrow: Aviation Safety in a Competitive Environment, OW-SET-381(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1988), p. 45.

lgFor tier details on fiincing and management see Oftlce of Technology Assessmen4 op. cit., footnote 4.


Box 2-D—Government and Aviation: A Close Marriage

The Air Mail Act of 1925 authorized the Post Office Department to contract for airmail service with privateoperators, greatly stimulating the growth of commercial air carriers, some of which evolved into today’s majorairlines. However, despite strong industry support for Federal aviation safety legislation, Congress was unable toreach agreement on a statute until 1926, when the Air Commerce Act was passed. The legislation charged theDepartment of Commerce with both regulatory authority over aviation and responsibilities aimed at promoting thefledgling industry. The major provisions of the act authorized the regulation of aircraft and airmen in interstateandforeign commerce, provided Federal support for airways and weather services, authorized aeronautical research anddevelopment (R&D) programs, and provided for the investigation of aviation accidents. Airport development wasleft to local governments.

During the 1930s, industry expansion and increasing traffic prompted a group of airlines to establish an airtraffic control (ATC) system, which was transferred to the Department of Commerce in 1936. Economic regulationbegan in 1938, with the creation of the Civil Aeronautics Authority, responsible for safety programs, routecertificates, airline tariffs, and air mail routes. Federal responsibilities for airway and airport development grewtremendously during World War II and came to include Federa1 financial assistance to States and municipalities.Surplus military airplanes and pilots and higher performance passenger transports brought enormous commercialaviation growth during the next decade. However, Federal support for ATC and airport development did not keeppace; some control towers and communications facilities were abandoned and R&D efforts curtailed.

The impending introduction of jet aircraft and a 1956 midair collision between two airliners led to the creationof the Federal Aviation Agency in 1958, with responsibility for fostering air commerce, regulating safety, ATC andnavigation systems, and airspace allocation and policy. In 1966, the Federal Aviation Agency became the FederalAviation Administration and was transferred to the newly formed Department of Transportation.

as whether U.S. ATC should monitor U.S. carrier S a i n t L a w r e n c e S e a w a v D e v e l o p m e n t C o r p .traffic overflying other countries.

M a r i t i m e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

Established in 1950 and made a part of DOT in1981, MARAD administers programs to support thedevelopment, promotion, and operation of the U.S.merchant marine. It administers programs to subsi-dize U.S. shipping and shipbuilding costs, fundstraining for seafaring personnel, and supports indus-try efforts to develop ports, facilities, and intermodaltransport. In addition, MARAD maintains a Na-tional Defense Reserve Fleet of U.S. ships that itoperates when required for national defense.

U . S . C o a s t G u a r d

The U.S. Coast Guard has a dual role; it is at alltimes a branch of the military services, operating aspart of the Navy in wartime, and it is an operatingagency of DOT during peacetime. Its responsibili-ties center on the safe and orderly operation of theNation’s waterways and ports, including sea searchand rescue operations, law enforcement (e.g., sup-pression of smuggling and drug trafficking), pollu-tion control, and aids-to-navigation and boatingsafety programs.

y I I

The corporation was established in 1954 as anoperating division of DOT responsible for thedevelopment, operation, and maintenance of thatpart of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between Mon-treal and Lake Erie. Coordinating its activities withCanadian authorities, the corporation administers allphases of Seaway daily operations as well asplanning and capital improvements. Its goal is toencourage traffic through the seaway and fullydevelop its commercial potential.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(the Corps)

Responsible for operating and maintaining theNation’s waterways and born during the AmericanRevolution, when army engineers built bridges andharbor fortifications, the Corps is one of the oldestFederal agencies. The need for a permanent cadre ofmilitary engineers led to legislation in 1802 creatingthe Corps, which has evolved continuously over theensuing years to meet national engineering needs.Since 1977, the Corps has been a major militarycommand of the U.S. Army, overseen by theassistant secretary for civil works. The Civil WorksProgram directs public waterways infrastructure


activities, hydroelectric power generation, floodcontrol, and water supply.

The Corps’ field organization, one of its mostimportant groups for public works, consists of 9division offices, which supervise geographic areasbased on river basins, and 36 relatively autonomousdistricts responsible for operations, maintenance,construction, preparation of design studies, and realestate acquisition. The Corps produces nearly 30percent of the Nation’s hydropower and 3.5 percentof the total electric energy; 115 Corps’ lakes storewater for agricultural, municipal, and industrialuse.20 The agency supports some work of otherFederal organizations, providing design, evaluation,and construction management assistance on a feebasis when its schedule permits.21

The Corps and Public Works

The Corps’ involvement in water projects beganin 1824, when it was charged with clearing channelsand constructing harbors. Subsequent legislationexpanded Federal water transport management andfunded the Corps to deepen and widen inlandwaterways, ports, and harbor channels. In 1899, theCorps was authorized to issue permits governingdischarge into navigable waterways, a power itretains to this day, although now the permits mustcomply with EPA regulations.22

Because most Corps undertakings have promotedlocal and regional economic growth and largeprojects were heavily federally funded23 its agendahas always been warmly received by Congress.Throughout the 19th century, the Corps constructedflood control facilities, including dams, where theywould not interfere with navigation, but the impor-tance of water transport for freight declined signifi-cantly in the late 19th century, as railroads expandedtheir networks. In 1917, Congress permitted theCorps to build hydropower facilities at Federal damsand authorized a Corps flood control program in the

mid- 1930s. Corps authority for navigation improve-ments was modified in 1944 to include recreation,erosion control (especially for beaches), water sup-ply, and water quality.

Environmental Concerns

The Corps traditionally used structures such asjetties and groins to fortify harbors, and levees andflood walls to control rivers. However, followingpassage of the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) in 1969, Corps’ activities came under acutescrutiny. Environmentalists charged that the Corps’construction-especially the massive flood-controldam projects-caused irreparable ecological dam-age and destroyed wildlife habitats. Nonstructuralsolutions were made eligible for Federal funds in1974 24 (although costs have prohibited most com-munities from exploring such options), and CleanWater Act Amendments in 1972 and 1977 extendedthe Corps’ responsibilities to include all wateraffecting the commerce chain.

Nonetheless, new project starts ground to a haltbetween 1976 and 198625 because of growingFederal budget difficulties, concern about environ-mental degradation, disputes about cost sharingbetween Congress and the Administration, anddemands from the public and local governments forparticipation in the formulation of projects. Legisla-tion in 1978 established modest user fees for bargeoperators in the form of a marine fuel tax, and moneybegan to accumulate in the Inland Waterway TrustFund to help pay for lock and darn construction.

Passage of the Water Resources Development Actof 1986 finally allowed new construction to resumebut increased cost sharing for non-Federal projectsponsors, a provision that scaled back projects26 andtransformed project planning and implementation.Cost-sharing requirements depend on project type,ranging from 100 percent for hydroelectric projectsand municipal and industrial water supply from

~.S. Army Corps of Engineering, Secretary of the Army’ sReport on Civil Works Activities, Fiscal Year 1987, vol. 1 (Washgto@ DC: 1987).Z1l’bid+

ZU.s. ~y Covs of Eq@eer& Digest of Water policies and Authorities (wx~to~ DC: Fe- 1989)”

23Histofi~y, lwgefl~ ~n~ol ~d~nd Mvigationprojwts were f~er~ly wed, while water supply ~d hydropower facility COStS were repaidby users. Local contributions of land, easements, and right-of-way provided a share of small, local flood control project costs. The 1986 Water ResourcesDevelopment Act revised the Corps’ cost-sharing policy.

~Jean Nie~er and David ~“arL Can Organizations Change? (Washington+ DC: The Brookings InstitutiorL 1979), p. 13.%awrence Mosher, “The Dwindling Federal Role,” Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, vol. 2, winter 1987, p. 44.~Steve Hughe.s, Congressional Research Service, “WaterResources Development Act: Implementing the Omnibus Project Reforms,” updated Aug.

15, 1989.



Harbor maintenance costs are partially paid from a trustfund supported by an ad valorem tax for operators of

tankers and seagoing vessels.

Corps managed reservoirs, through 25 to 50 percentfor flood control, to 10 to 50 percent for harborconstruction. The Inland Waterway Trust Fund iscurrently sufficient to support replacement of fromfour to six projects each decade, only a smallpercentage of the construction projected as neces-sary to improve the fuel-taxed waterway system.

The only water-related user fee that can be usedfor maintenance is a tax established in the 1986 acton the dollar value of the commodities shippedthrough a port. The tax feeds the Harbor Mainte-nance Trust Fund, which covers about one-third ofdredging costs. Virtually all operating and mainte-nance expenses for the Inland Waterway System arepaid from the Federal General Fund. This contraststo operations and maintenance for airports, highway,and mass transit, which State and local user feescommonly support.

The 1986 act also required that the Corps mitigateagainst fish and wildlife losses for each project,provided for wetlands preservation, and reaffirmedEPA’s authority to review Corps’ permits in naviga-tional waters and wetlands. The divergent agencymissions make EPA vetoes of some Corps’ permitsinevitable. Construction on new projects can beginonly after provisions of the NEPA, Clean Water Act,Coastal Zone Management Act, Endangered Species

Act, Fish and Wildlife Act, and National HistoricPreservation Act have been satisfied.

The Corps’ Future

Over the years the Corps has successfully meta-morphosed to address changes in national priorities,and today represents a rich and valuable civilengineering resource. Nonetheless, Federal budgetconstraints and the national shift to reconditioningfacilities rather than constructing new ones havedramatically reduced its civil works efforts.27 Thesefactors and environmental difficulties with manymajor water projects mean that the agency mustagain look toward change. Drawing on its in-housetalent to assist other Federal agencies is one elementof the Corps’ strategy. It considers its support ofEPA’s hazardous waste disposal (Superfund) andwastewater treatment plant construction grant pro-grams to be its most significant cooperation effort.28

The Corps also assists States and territories incomprehensive water resource planning by provid-ing land-use planners with information on floodhazards and technical assistance for dealing withfloods. Agency officials have offered the Corps’assistance for the Department of Energy’s radio-active waste cleanup program.

Environmental Protection AgencyAlthough local governments manage most of the

Nation’s environmental public works, EPA’s guide-lines and standards affect Cabinet departments(DOT, the Corps, and the Bureau of Reclamation),every sector of the U.S. economy, and virtuallyevery category of public works managed by Stateand local officials. An independent agency headedby an administrator, EPA’s activities include re-search; standard setting; monitoring and enforce-ment for safe drinking water, air quality in largeurban areas with air pollution problems, and opera-tion of wastewater treatment plants; and hazardouswaste disposal. EPA, a White House initiative, wasestablished by an executive order in 197029 t o“organize rationally and systematically” the Fed-eral Government’s many disparate pollution-relatedactivities. States had shown reluctance to enforce

27RO&~ w. fige, A~~i~~~t sm~ of ~ ~y (Civil wo~), ~s~ny at h- before he Semk (Jommittee on Appropriations,Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, May 3, 1989.

~Ibid.~.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganizatio~ Reorganization P/an

Number 3 of 1970 (Environnwntal Protection Agency) (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing OfIice, 1970).


pollution control regulations against industry,30 andFederal agencies, like the Department of the Interiorand the then Department of Health, Education andWelfare (HEW), with longstanding environmentalprograms, had not actively enforced their ownstandards.

EPA was established by bringing together nineprograms, including the National Air PollutionAdministration and the bureaus of Solid WasteManagement, Water Hygiene, and Radiology fromHEW, and the Federal Water Quality Administra-ion from the Department of the Interior. Whencreating the new agency, the Nixon Administrationdebated whether to organize it into functionalprograms such as research, monitoring, abatement,and compliance, or to keep intact the disparatemedia-specific pollution control programs inheritedfrom other departments. The administrative need tocreate a single agency out of a number of existingFederal programs and the political urgency ofvigorous enforcement against polluters pointed toretaining specific control programs, an organiza-tional decision with results that persist today.

EPA’s role as a guardian of environmental qualityincludes both determiningg regulatory guidelines andenforcing compliance with the regulations, knownas the ‘‘command and control’ approach. TheAgency initially monitored the air and water con-tamination by a small number of pollutants, but asthe health effects of chemicals in the environmentbecame better understood, Congress passed lawsrequiring EPA to regulate more organic and inor-ganic pollutants, in soil, water, and air (see table 2-1again). In addition, the 1972 Clean Water Actauthorized EPA to make wastewater treatmentgrants to finance local plant construction.

Today the Agency administers 10 major laws,including the Clean Water Act, the Safe DrinkingWater Act, the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conser-vation and Recovery Act, and the National Environ-mental Policy Act, and the environmental provisionsof a number of other statutes. EPA’s regulatory

actions follow directly from the many laws it mustenforce (with sometimes inconsistent results). Airquality standards, for example, are established bythe need for protecting public health; Clean WaterAct guidelines are linked to the technology capableof removing trace contaminants from wastewater.31

EPA’s divisions include Water, Air and Radiation,Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and Pesti-cides and Toxic Substances, each monitoring pollu-tion control efforts in air, water, or soil. Although thedivisions are not autonomous, their programs andactivities are highly compartmentalized. Little effec-tive coordination occurs between divisions,32 de-spite a statement in EPA’s fiscal year 1990 budgetbook that the Agency’s interdisciplinary R&Dprogram cuts across programmatic lines to considerenvironmental problems affecting several media.

Debate about EPA continues as a move to elevateit to Cabinet status gathers steam. As far back as1970, proponents of a reorganization plan hadargued that for the effective control of pollution," . . . the environment must be perceived as a single,interrelated system. ’33 But Congress never passed alaw giving EPA statutory authority to view theenvironment as a whole, and recent administratorspoint out that each division devotes itself to remov-ing toxic chemicals from a single medium, diminish-ing the Agency’s effectiveness enormously. “Thesingle medium approach is setup like concrete in thepractical day-to-day administrative operations ofEPA. . . . We have to accept the fact that this generalenvironmental strategy may be flawed."34 Pollut-ants migrate from air to water and from water to soilor follow any number of other routes among theseparate media. Municipal wastewater treatmentplants generate air pollution as well as create sludgecontaminated with toxic chemicals, and the cross-media impacts pose often serious compliance prob-lems for municipal public works officials.

Studies released by the Agency in 1987 and inSeptember 1990 assert that EPA is not adequatelyconcentrating on problems of long-term threats to

%ouncil on Bnviromnental Quality, Environmental QuuZiry, The 16th Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Qual.ily (Washington DC:1985).

31JW= Q. Wfion (~.), The politics of Regulation (New York NY: Basic BOOICS, kc., 1980), P“ 277.

32Lee h-f. ‘X%OIMS, “Systems Approach: Challenge for BFA” EPA Journal, Sqtdti 1985, p. 22.SSHOUW Committee on Government Operations, op. cit., footnote 29.

Xmou, op. cit., footnote 32, p. 21.

54 ● Delivering the Goods Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

sider the environmental consequences of their ac-tions, and Federal agencies must file an environ-mental impact statement with EPA before approvingmajor projects. NEPA has had significant impact onDOT’s operations,37 and Clean Air Act Amend-ments of 1990 increase the requirements for environ-mental sensitivity in DOT programs.

Bureau of Reclamation

Federal reclamation activities were established byCongress in 1902 as part of the U.S. GeologicalSurvey in the Department of the Interior to turnlarge, arid Western States into rich farmlandsthrough large irrigation projects. The ReclamationService was renamed the Bureau of Reclamation in1923, and by the 1930s, as expertise was gained froma number of irrigation dam projects, the agencybegan supplying municipal water. Eventually theBureau’s tasks came to include hydroelectric power,flood control, municipal and industrial water supply,recreational uses of lakes and rivers, and fish andwildlife conservation. The agency’s golden agecame during the Roosevelt Administration,38 whenhuge river basin projects, combining irrigation,water supply, hydroelectric power generation, andflood control were conceived and built. The Bu-reau’s largest projects—Hoover and Grand Couleedams-required solutions to complex engineeringproblems (a steady water flow for navigation andpower production, periodic and seasonal waterreleases for both irrigation and flood control) andestablished world records.

As the number, size, and geographical reach of theBureau’s water projects increased, so did theirenvironmental impact, and criticism grew on thebasis of safety, doubtful economic benefits, destruc-tion of historic and scenic areas, and harm to fish andwildlife habitats. Conservationists began to workactively against project authorizations, succeedingfor the first time in 1956 with the prevention of Echo

1987); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Board, Reducing Risks: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection

DC: September Advisory op. Cit., footnote

37Martin “Transportation and the Current in Transportation Policy, Alan (cd.) MA:Lexington BooIs, 1979).

of &X2@,


Park Dam.39 Similar activism blocked constructionof two dams in the Grand Canyon section of theColorado River in the 1960s.40 Congress respondedby requiring consideration of water quality, wildlifeand endangered species protection in project plan-ning, and the filing of environmental impact state-ments. Nonetheless, recent assessments have showngroundwater degradation and surface water pollu-tion from fertilizers and pesticides as byproducts ofBureau projects,41 problems that can affect drinkingwater quality and complicate the tasks of State andlocal public works officials.

Recognizing that the Bureau had met its originalobjectives of harnessing the major rivers of the Westto meet water demands, its officials undertook aninternal assessment culminating in 1987 with aradical reordering of priorities.42 Henceforth, waterconservation, environmental protection and restora-tion, and improving system reliability and projectoptimization would take precedence over construc-tion of large water projects. Future activities wouldbe smaller in scale or designed to obtain maximumefficiency from existing projects and involve non-Federal partners. The new mission includes manag-ing resources, promoting water conservation, re-moving legal and institutional barriers to waterconservation, and creating more usable water sup-plies from existing projects. Still under way are twomajor water projects—the Central Arizona and theCentral Utah-which will absorb a major portion ofthe Bureau’s budget in the coming years. Butbeginning in the mid-1990s, the Bureau’s task willincreasingly be operations and maintenance ofexisting projects, with possible transfer of theseresponsibilities to local beneficiaries.

Department of the TreasuryAs the executive agency that formulates tax

policy, including rules for tax-exempt municipalbonds, the Department of the Treasury has a majorinfluence on the availability of private capital forlocal public works projects. Treasury’s Office of TaxPolicy prepares tax legislation to support executive

branch fiscal goals and protect Federal revenues. Toreduce Federal revenue losses attributable to tax-exempt bonds, Congress passed Treasury-sponsoredlegislation, as part of the 1986 and 1988 Tax ReformActs, to tighten eligibility and reporting require-ments for tax-exempt financing and restrict opportu-nities for arbitrage.43 Passage of the acts undercutefforts by other executive branch agencies to shiftpublic works financing from Washington to Stateand local governments. However, OTA could findno evidence of communication over probable im-pacts on transportation or environmental publicworks investment between the tax lawyers at Treas-ury and program administrators at DOT and EPA, orbetween congressional tax-writing committees andthose with jurisdiction for public works.

The immediate impact of the tax code changeswas a dramatic drop in tax-exempt financing forprivate purpose projects such as civic centers andparking garages and a reduction in local use ofarbitrage. Traditional governmental-purpose, mu-nicipal bond sales for water treatment plants andstreet improvements have returned to their pre-1986levels after an initial drop,44 indicating that results ofthe tax code changes were not as disastrous totraditional public works financing as local officialshad at first feared.

Office of Management and BudgetThrough its responsibility for preparing the Presi-

dent’s budget and its oversight and review of theorganization and operations of executive branchdepartments and agencies, OMB wields enormousinfluence over the Federal role in public works.Specifically, the office has authority to negotiatewith departments over their budgets, to reviewproposals that Cabinet departments and agencieswant included in the President legislative package,and to enforce spending cuts agreed to in the 1990deficit reduction package.

OMB in recent years has played a major role inadvocating governmental policies and in restraining

3?Ibid., p. 93.‘%Miarn Warne, The Bureau of Reclamation (Boulder, CO: Westview Encore Reprin4 1985), p. 99.dlMosher, op. cit., footnote 25, p. 45.42BWW of I&ckuI@o~ op. cit., footnote 3.

@f’he term arbitrage refers to the practice of investing bond issue prOCWX@ mti~y= n~~ ~ securities with interest rates higher than the bondissue.

44@vmmat F~we Res~ch Center, ‘$F~e~ ~ policy and _~ctureF~c~g,*’ ()~ contractor reporg Sept. 13, 1989, p. ~-4.


Federal spending. In addition to recommendingFederal Program cuts in most areas, OMB has gainedvirtual veto power over regulations. In 1981, Presi-dent Reagan issued Executive Order 12291 thatrequired departments to prepare cost/benefit analy-ses for all proposed Federal regulations and that theybe submitted to OMB for review and approval.OMB’s hand was further strengthened in 1985 byExecutive Order 12498 requiring agencies to submita calendar of significant regulatory actions theyplanned to take during the following year, therebygiving OMB more time to shape the development ofregulations.45

OMB can refuse to consider or accept legislativeproposals and departmental policies that do notconform with the Chief Executive’s fiscal or policypriorities. Although DOT has a Cabinet officer toadvocate its budget and programs, OMB’s perspec-tive stimulated modifications in the Federal financ-ing recommendations in the department’s long-range policy plan, Moving America.% As a regula-tory agency lacking Cabinet representation, EPA iseven more subject to OMB influence.

The CourtsDuring the last three decades, the Federal judici-

ary has heard thousands of administrative law casesdealing with the environment and issued a multitudeof rulings affecting national health and environ-mental policies. This judicial activism has affectedhow Congress drafts legislation, the manner inwhich department rules are written, and the way theFederal bureaucracy functions. The threads of envi-ronmental policy are contained innumerous Federalstatutes, rules, and the multitude of orders andrulings of Federal and State judges, making programadministration and coordination difficult. EPA, as aregulatory agency, is profoundly affected by courtactivism, 47 but judicial rulings have an impact onDOT, BuRec, and the Corps, too.

While judicial oversight offers vital legal protec-tions and opportunities for interest groups to beheard, it also lengthens and further fragments the

Photo credit: Dan Broun, OTA staff

Court rulings have become an almost inescapable part ofthe Federal regulatory and enforcement processes.

policymaking process and complicates enforcement.Between 1%8 and 1978, Congress passed moreregulatory statutes than it had in the Nation’sprevious 179 years. EPA was established specifi-cally to administer the environmental laws.48 Theselaws included the NEPA, the Consumer ProductSafety Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act,and a number of the environmental protection laws(see table 2-1 again). This wave of legislation, aimedat protecting the environment and shielding citizensfrom the risks of all kinds of pollutants, brought thecourts into abroad and contentious arena character-ized by scientific uncertainty and conflicting values.

In most regulatory laws passed in the 1970s,Congress authorized citizens to file suit againstadministrators either for taking unauthorized actionor for failing to perform “nondiscretionary’ duties,so as to protect against bureaucratic foot-draggingand industry control.49 This liberalization of ‘stand-ing,” or who could sue, gave environmental andother interest groups new power and guaranteedcourt intervention. Moreover, the regulations gavethe courts oversight of a wide range of activities.Statutes stipulated that every highway project usingFederal funds must include a detailed environmentalimpact study; public facilities were mandated to

45Norman J. Vig and Michael E. I@@ Environmenta/Policy in the 1990s (Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1990), p. 42.46~yWn ~~, ‘~BW Tqotition Policy Is Non-Starter in COIWWS,” Congressional Quarterly, MaT. 10, 1990, p. 746; and David 33rodeq

“Skinner’s Moving America: A CopOu4° The Chicago Tribune, Penpective section, Mar. 11, 1990, p. 3.47@er 80 Pmcent of we 300” ~e~tiom & ~~mn~ ~o~tion Agency ~sues ~~y ~d up in the CO-. See Rochelle L. Stani3eld,

“Resolving Disputes,” National Journal, vol. 18, No. 46, Nov. 15, 1986, p. 2764.4$R. Shep Melnick Regulations and the Courts (Washington DC: The Broolcings kstillltiO1’1, 190, P. s.4~id., p. 8.


provide access to disabled persons; and everybusiness and facility that produced air pollution,wastewater, and solid waste was regulated to someextent. To counter criticism that it failed to provideenough guidance, Congress wrote detailed statutesrequiring specific standards, procedures, and dead-lines-creating fertile ground for potential litigants.

Impact of Court Activism

The expanding role of the courts has reduced thediscretion of program administrators, lengthened therulemaking process, expanded the scope of manyregulations, and widened the gap between statedprogram goals and enforcement. Following thecongressional lead, agency lawyers have learned tocraft very specific regulations”. . . for litigation andpolitical reasons, [which] say what they must inorder to satisfy those concerns. ’ ’50 However, suchspecificity deprives Federal agencies of manage-ment latitude; the deadlines written into the CleanWater Act, for example, give EPA officials noflexibility to work with communities that havespecial compliance or fiscal problems.

Judges, removed from the daily operation ofadministrative agencies and exposed to a variety ofscientific advice, often have difficulty adjudicatingthe complexity and ramifications of specific issues.In response to legislation and court rulings, particu-larly at the appellate level, agencies have expandedregulatory programs beyond the limits contemplatedby administrators and scientific experts and seem-ingly without regard for the costs and the feasibilityof enforcement. Setting standards has turned out tobe easier than administering and financing aneffective enforcement program, such as recent drink-ing water regulations that require local testing for 83contaminants, many of which occur in amounts toosmall to measure. The result is a widening gapbetween program requirements and what agenciescan reasonably expect to accomplish, a difficultycompounded by shrinkin“ g budgets for administra-tion and implementation. Adjusted for inflation,EPA’s operating budget has increased from only$1.4 billion in 1975 to $1.5 billion in 1990,51 but itsprogram responsibilities have burgeoned.

Court intervention has multiplied the time andmoney required to prepare regulations. Agenciesthat face frequent court challenges become risksensitive and institute complex, time-consumingrulemaking procedures, diverting resources fromresearch and enforcement. Furthermore, when op-posing groups are focused on creating a record forlitigation, negotiations are difficult. Although agen-cies pursue informal, negotiated rulemaking onthose rules amenable to negotiation, and somedisputes are settled out of court, the likelihood oflitigation is a deterrent to negotiating hard issues.

CongressAlmost one-half of the 303 committees and

subcommittees of the 10lst Congress claimed juris-diction over some aspect of public works, inhibitingdevelopment of coordinated public policy and en-suring continuing Federal program gaps and con-flicts for State and local governments. (See table 2-3for a list of committees.) This fragmentation hascharacterized the long history of Federal involve-ment in public works. It continues because trans-portation and environmental infrastructure underpinand affect a wide range of activities essential to theeconomy and public health of every district. Further-more, congressional history shows that, in mostcases, Congress has chosen to decentralize andspread decisionmaking, rather than to consolidateand coordinate the Federal legislative process.

Evolution of the Committee System

Originally established in 1789 on an ad hoc basisto draft specific legislation, congressional commit-tees have evolved into permanent bodies withauthority to propose legislation, an independencethat has given committees almost unassailablepower over legislation in their specialized areas.52

During the 19th century, standing committees prolif-erated, gaining more independence from chamberand party control and acquiring most of their presentday powers; by 1913, the House operated with 61standing committees and the Senate with 74. Com-mittee chairs wielded enormous power after the“House revolution of 1910” decentralized leader-ship, limiting the role of the Speaker by establishing

~James Q. Wilson, Bureaucracy (New York, NY: Basic BOOkS, 1989), P. 285.Slvig and fiaf~ op. cit., footnote 45, p. 19.52Judy SC~eider, ~p~tedby@-olfidy, The Co~greSSionalStanding co~”tteesyxte~nzn~oducto~ Guide (w&$h@oIl, w: CO~eSSiOIld

Research Service, May 1989), p. 2.

58 ● Delivering the Goods Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table 2-3-Partial List of Congressional Committees With Jurisdiction Over Public Works

Jurisdiction over Jurisdiction overenvironmental transportation

legislation legislation

House committees:Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, and Rural Development. . . .Appropriations Subcommittees:

Energy and Water Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .interior. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs Subcommittees:Housing and Community Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .General Oversight and investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Policy Research and Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Economic Stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Budget Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Energy and Commerce Subcommittees:

Energy and Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Health and the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oversight and Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Transportation and Hazardous Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Government Operations Subcommittees:

Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Government Activities and Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Government Information, Justice, and Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittees:Energy and the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .General Oversight and Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Water, Power, and Offshore Energy Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Merchant Marine and Fisheries Subcommittees:Coast Guard and Navigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oceanography and Great Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public Works and Transportation Subcommittees:Economic Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .investigations and Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Surface Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Science, Space and Technology Subcommittees:Natural Resources, Agriculture Research, and Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Science, Research, and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .investigations and Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .Transportation, Aviation, and Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Senate committees:Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittees:

Agricultural Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rural Development and Rural Electrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appropriations Subcommittees:Agriculture and Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .Energy and Water Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Interior. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Housing andUrban Affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Budget Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittees:

Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Merchant Marine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Science, Technology, and Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .National Ocean Policy Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Surface Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

x

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx——

xxx—

x.

xx—xx

xx——xx—

x

xx—xx

x—x

x

—xx

xx.

———

x——

xxxxx

—xxx

—x

xxxxx

xx

xxx—x

(Continued on next page)

Chapter 2— Institutional Framework . 59

Table 2-3-Partial List of Congressional Committees With Jurisdiction Over Public Works-Continued

Jurisdiction over Jurisdiction overenvironmental transportation

legislation legislation

Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittees:Energy Regulation and Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x —

Energy Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . x —

Water and Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x —

Environment and Public Works Subcommittees:Water Resources, Transportation, and Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xEnvironmental Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x —Superfund, Ocean, and Water Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x —Toxic Substances, Environmental Oversight, Research and Development. . . . x

Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Trade,—

Oceans, and Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x —

Government Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management . . . x —

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on material from Congressional Ye//ow Book (Washington, DC: Monitoring Publishing Co., fall1989).

seniority as the major criteria for determiningcommittee chairmanship and moving up in theranks.53

Largely because the decentralized committeesystem hampered efficient policy development dur-ing World War II, Congress eliminated minorcommittees and merged many with related functionsunder the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.The act defined for the frost time the jurisdictions ofeach committee and established uniform procedures,including hiring of permanent committee staff.These committee jurisdictions, as they have beenmodified since 1946, are part of House rule X andSenate rule XXV.

Responding to the upsurge of socioeconomic,environmental, and foreign policy issues in the1960s and 1970s, Congress gradually expanded thepower of committees and their chairs and created anumber of specialized subcommittees. The Legisla-tive Reorganization Act of 1970 opened committeework sessions to the public, permitted committeechairs selection based on factors other than seniority,authorized subcommittees to hire separate staffs,and set the stage for further organizational reforms(see box 2-E).

Congress’ internal party organizations in eachhouse assign members to committees, consideringtheir preferences, party needs, and the geographicaland ideological balance of each committee. In the10lst Congress, the Senate had 16 standing commit-tees and 87 subcommittees; the House operated with

22 committees and 146 subcommittees.54 The aver-age Senate committee had five subcommittees,compared with seven in the House. Every Housemember, except top party leaders, served on at leastone standing committee, and Senators served on atleast two committees.

Committee Functions

Committees propose and review legislation, in-cluding bills to raise and spend public funds. Mostbills are referred by the House or Senate leadership,in cooperation with the Parliamentarian, to onestanding committee, but the complexity of publicpolicy issues means that major bills are often sent tomultiple committees with overlapping jurisdictions.Individual committee rules determine a bill’s sub-committee assignments, which also can overlap. Seetable 2-4 for those committees with importantlegislative jurisdiction over public works.

Committees and subcommittees are also responsi-ble for overseeing Federal agencies and programsunder their jurisdiction. As part of oversight activi-ties, agency officials are called to Capitol Hill totestify. EPA and DOT officials annually testifybefore numerous committees, each with a uniqueperspective and objective.

Authorizations and Appropriations

Authorizing committees in both houses reportannual or multi-year authorization bills for Federalprograms under their jurisdiction, thereby setting themaximum amount of money an agency may spend

‘31bid., p. 3.~h addition, the lolst Congress has 9 special or select committees with 11 subcommittees and 4 joint COIIMIIMt%S w’ifi 8 m~o~tis who=

functions are prirnarily investigative.


Box 2-E—Anatomy of Recent Congressional Reforms

The most recent broad changes in House committee jurisdiction and procedures occurred in 1974, under theauspices of the House Select Committee on Committees, The committee’s preliminary proposal called for cuttinginto the broad jurisdictions of Ways and Means, Commerce, and Education and Labor, while adding to thejurisdictions of Foreign Affairs, Public Works, Science and Astronautics, and for eliminating severalnarrow-purpose committees. The proposal also suggested a mechanism for referral of bills to multiple committees.The recommendatiom drew immediate fire from committee members, staff, and interest groups, who saw years ofaccumulated seniority or political connections threatened by committee dissolution or jurisdictional reduction.Responding to this pressure, the House chose not to eliminate any committees but required committees with 20members or more to form subcommittees; it retained provisions for multiple referrals and for increased committeestaffs. 1 Power, particularly in the House, shifted from full committees to subcommittees.

A year later, additional reform measures were adopted, primarily reducing the power of committee chairs.Election of Appropriations subcommittee chairs was shifted from the committee to the party caucus, anacknowledgment of their status as tantamount to full committee chairs.2 In 1977 and 1979, the House rejectedfurther attempts to reform committee organization, such as the consolidation of energy jurisdictions into onecommittee, although the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce was broadened and itwas renamed Energy and Commerce.

Senate committee reorganization has been somewhat more successful. In 1977, the Temporary SelectCommittee to Study the Senate Committee System recommended a reduction to 12 standing committees organizedalong functional lines. The proposal Called for anew Energy and Natural Resources Committee, consolidating mostenergy-related functions. Although the proposals required substantive committee restructuring and dissolution ofseveral committees, the reorganization plan was carefully orchestrated by Senate bipartisan leadership andpassed--with compromise amendments-by an overwhelming margin.3

Political muscle blocked several key consolidations, however. A recommendation to shift jurisdiction over thecoastal zone management program from the Commerce Committee to the new Committee on Environment andPublic Works was eventually rejected by the Rules Committee after strenuous objections by Commerce; jurisdictionover oceans, weather, and atmosphere was also retained by Commerce.4 In addition, special interest groups lobbiedsucessfully to preserve the Veterans’ and Select Small Business committees and stopped plans to consolidatetransportation legislation into one committee.5 This 1977 realignment has not been changed.

lstevens. smith and Christopher J. Dmring, Co~”ttees in Congress (Washingto~ DC: CO~ssioti Quarterly, kc. 1984), P. *.

%id., p. 47.31bid., p. 49.%onglwssional Quarterly, Inc., How Congress Works (Wasb@to~ DC: 1983), p, 84.

‘Ibid., p. !)%

on a specific program. The exceptions are entitle-ment programs, such as social security and Med-icaid, which operate under permanent authorizationand are effectively removed from the authorizingprocess. Authorizations are also linked to a budgetresolution, prepared by House and Senate committ-tees on the budget, establishing an overall ceilingand limits for major spending areas, like health ortransportation. Authorizing, or legislative, commit-tees and subcommittees are influential through theiroversight functions when major new legislation isfirst passed, when an agency is created or itsprogram substantially modified, and in settingfunding authorizations. During the 1980s, deficitreduction laws and trends restricting spending,

shortcomings in the budget process, and new pro-grams greatly expanded the roles of the “money”committees-Appropriations, Budget, and Waysand Means on the House side and Appropriations,Budget, and Finance in the Senate-at the expenseof authorizing committees.

Appropriation bills originate with the HouseCommittee on Appropriations and its 13 subcom-mittees and effectively control spending, sinceauthorized funds may not be spent unless they arealso appropriated. EPA’s State Revolving LoanFunds are authorized at much higher levels thanhave been appropriated, for example. Although, intheory, program policy and oversight is reserved for

Table 2-4-Congressional Committees and Their Roles in Public Works Programs

[Ap = appropriations, Au = authorizes major program areas, a = authorizes specific programs, b = sets funding guidelines, o = oversight of programs, t = jurisdiction overfunding sources such as trust funds]

Mass Water Drinking Solid andHighways transit Aviation Railroads resources water Wastewater hazardous waste

Senate committees:Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Banking, Housing, Urban

Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Commerce, Science and

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . .Energy and Natural

Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Environment and Public Works. .Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Governmental Affairs. . . . . . . . . .

House committees:Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Banking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Energy and Commerce . . . . . . . .Governmental Operations . . . . . .Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Public Works and

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . .Science, Space and

Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ways and Means . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Joint Economic Committee . . . . .

a/o a/o a/o

Ap/o

a/o

Ap/o

a/o a/o

Ap/o Ap/o Ap/o Ap/o Ap/o Ap/o

Au/ob/o

—b/o

—b/o

—b/o

—b/o

—b/ob/o b/o

Au/o Au/o Au/o Au/o — — —

a/oAu/o—o

a/oAu/o—o

a/oAu/o—o

—Au/ot/oo

— —Au/ot/oo

Au/o—o

Au/ot/oo

—t/oo

+:0b/oa/oo

a/o /$:—b/o

Au/oo—

a/oAp/oa/ob/o

Au/oo

—

/$;Ob/oa/oo

—

a/oAp/oa/ob/o

Au/oo—

—Ap/oa/ob/oa/oo

Ap/o—b/o—o

—

Ap/oa/ob/oS/o

A/o

Au/o Au/o Au/o Au/o Au/o Au/o a/o

a/ot/o

a/ot/o

AU/Ot/oo

a/ot/o

Au/o—

Au/o—

o

Au/o—

o

—o0 0 0 0



authorizing committees, appropriations committees,which have parallel subcommittees, frequently in-sert legislative provisions and funding for specialprojects into bills. Members, responding to districtand constituent interests, direct appropriations topublic works such as flood control dams, parkinggarages, and airport or mass transit facilities. Theenvironmentally controversial Tennessee-Tombig-bee Waterway in Alabama and Mississippi, builtduring the early 1980s with Federal funds, wasfinanced in part with appropriations added by theHouse Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy andWater Development.55 The appropriations commit-tees’ control over spending and tendency to add topreviously authorized legislation creates tensionsand intensifies intercommittee rivalries, particularlyin the House where a smaller proportion of membersserve on the Committee on Appropriations.

Jurisdictional Fragmentation

In Congress, jurisdiction or turf can mean addi-tional staff, publicity, and power, prompting com-mittees to seek broad jurisdictions and resist movesto narrow them, and perpetuating conflicts andoverlaps. Transportation and environmental issuesare particularly susceptible to fragmentation andcompetition because, while they cut a broad swathacross national life, the concept of system integra-tion is relatively new. Historically, each segmentdeveloped independently based on different goalsand objectives and established supportive commit-tee connections and constituencies that are hard toalter. For example, at least five House authorizingcommittees have responsibility for water pollutionpolicy, regulation, and support programs, whileauthority over transportation is spread among threeSenate committees and numerous subcommittees(see table 2-4 again). In addition, House and Senateappropriations, budget, and governmental opera-tions committees have broad authority over mostgovernmental programs.

Because of jurisdictional fragmentation and com-petition, committees have difficulty dealing compre-hensively with either transportation or the environ-ment, much less treating them as interrelated sys-tems. Policy and funding levels are set separately for

highways, aviation, mass transit, ports and water-ways, and railroads and applied to each environ-mental medium, i.e., drinking water, wastewater, air,and solid waste (see table 2-5). Carefully targetedlobbying by special interest groups reinforces thispattern. Furthermore, executive branch bureaucra-cies that have grown up with each mode or mediumfiercely protect their independent power. Congresshas not found a good legislative mechanism to bucktraditional allegiances and promote needed linkages,both physical and institutional, among rail, highway,and water transport, and lacks incentive to fundresearch, planning, or demonstrations for intermodaloperations.

Overlapping committee jurisdictions can slowand even stall policy development and send mixedsignals to the executive branch and lower levels ofgovernment. In 1989, EPA officials testified at 150committee hearings and responded to 5,000 commit-tee inquiries, enabling executive agencies to playone committee off against the other and in manycases maintain an independent path. Committeesthat try to develop comprehensive public workspolicies are frustrated by the vested interests of theirsister committees, executivepowerful industry lobbying.

branch agencies, and

Interest GroupsInterest groups play major roles in the formulation

of Federal public works funding and regulatorypolicy. Of an estimated 6,000 public and specialinterest groups active in Washington, at least one-third probably have a stake in some aspect of thediffuse public works activities56 They employtechnical experts and lawyers to press their cases toCongress, testifying at hearings, providing privi-leged information, drafting model legislation, pub-lishing and distributing reports,57 and meeting withcongressional members and staff. Political ActionCommittees (PACs), the political arm of privateinterest groups, make campaign contributions. Thenumber of interest groups increased dramaticallyduring the 1970s and 1980s, at least in part becauseof the expansion of congressional subcommittees,which provided more opportunities for lobbying,

sSDi~e -t, “Sp~~ Report: House Appropriations COhttee,” Congresm”onal Quarterly, June 18, 1983, p. 1216.~Debofi M. Burek et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia ofAssociazions, vol. 2 (Detmi6 m: Me RMXUC4 ~c., 1989).~Atl~t~~~tio~ ~t=e~tWoups, ~clu~ the~eficm~s~~tion of S~te~@way~d Tr~~~tionOfflci~s, the AmelicanPublic -it

Association and the Anerican Transportation Advisory Council, have published policy plans for transportation in preparation for the renewal of theSurface Transportation Act in 1991.


Table 2-5-Number of Committees With JurisdictionOver Public Works

Functions Number of committees

Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mass transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Railroads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Water resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Drinking water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Solid hazardous waste . . . . . . . . . . . .

1615141016141414

SOURCE: Office Office of Technology Assessment 1991.

and greater public participation in executive agencyrulemaking.

An established, well-financed interest group canbe very effective in presenting its case to Congress.However, the diverging points of view representedby interest groups concerned with public worksdivert policymakers from long-range, comprehen-sive governance issues and reinforce the existingpolicy framework. Executive agencies like EPA and

DOT have become accustomed to the tenaciousoversight of interest groups and to their activeparticipation in rulemaking hearings-and to thelawsuits that ensue when interest groups are dissatis-fied with Federal legislation or agency regulations.

Industry and Labor

The most numerous interest groups are industryand labor associations, representing public worksequipment manufacturers, builders and contractors,facility owners and managers, professional andemployee groups, suppliers, and users. (See table2-6 for a partial listing.) In addition, a growingnumber of corporations employ their own lobbyists.

Industry clearly has an enormous stake in Federalpublic works spending and regulatory policies. Atthe most basic level, industry relies on public workssystems for essential facilities (water supply andsewer service), and for transportation (highways,transit, airports, railroads, ports, and waterways) ofworkers and materials and the distribution of goodsand services. International competitive position and

Table 2-6--A Selection of Major Industry Interest Groups

Highways RailroadsAmerican Association of State Highway Association of American Railroads

and Transportation Officials American Short Line Railroad AssociationHighway Users Federation Regional Railroads of AmericaAmerican Trucking Association United Transportation UnionNational Private Truck CouncilAmerican Road and Transportation Builders

Associationinternational Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike

Associationinternational Brotherhood of Teamsters,

Chauffers, Warehousemen, and Helpersof America

Mass transportationAmerican Public Transit AssociationUnited Bus Operators of AmericaAmerican Bus AssociationAmalgamated Transit Unioninternational Brotherhood of Teamsters,

Chauffers, Warehousemen, and Helpersof America

international Mass Transit Association

AirportsAmerican Association of Airport ExecutivesAirport Operators Council international, Inc.National Association of State Aviation

OfficialsAir Transport Association of AmericaAircraft Owners and Pilots AssociationNational Business Aircraft AssociationAir Line Pilots AssociationAllied Pilots AssociationNational Association of Air Traffic Specialists

Ports and waterwaysAmerican Association of Port AuthoritiesAmerican Waterway OperatorsNational Waterway ConferenceAmerican Bureau of ShippingInland Rivers, Ports, and TerminalsPropeller Club of the U.S.Rivers and Harbors Congressinternational Longshoremen’s Association

Drinking waterAmerican Water Works AssociationAmerican Public Works AssociationAmerican Society of Civil EngineersAssociation of State Drinking Water

AdministratorsAssociation of Metropolitan Water AgenciesAmerican Academy of Environmental

EngineersAmerican Clean Water AssociationWater and Wastewater Equipment

Manufacturers Association

Wastewater treatment Solid wasteWater Pollution Control Federation National Solid Wastes ManagementAmerican Public Works Association AssociationAssociation of State and interstate Water Association of State and Territorial Solid

Pollution Control Administrators Waste Management OfficialsAssociation of Metropolitan Sewerage Governmental Refuse Collection and

Agencies Disposal AssociationAmerican Recycling Association



profit levels are tied to manufacturing and distribu-tion speed, efficiency, and flexibility, all of whichare dependent on high levels of infrastructureservices. Second, the construction of roads, bridges,sewer treatment plants, and other public worksfacilities, and the manufacture of construction andoperating equipment, are pivotal segments of thenational economy, employing millions and generat-ing contracts worth billions of dollars. Finally,Federal safety and environmental regulations haveprofound impacts on industry operations and profits.

Associations less frequently initiate action thanwork to influence and shape prospective govern-mental policy changes. Although their positionsvary on specific issues, their representatives uni-formly work to increase benefits to their ownindustries and to minimize the impacts of Federalactions on their members. Trucking groups, forexample, support increases in truck size and weightlimits as a trade-off for fuel tax hikes, and contrac-tors opposed the 1986 Tax Reform Act because theyfeared it would curb construction of quasi-publicprojects like parking garages and civic centers.Some accommodation must be reached betweenopposing industry and user groups if major legisla-tion is to pass. Thus, while many industries engagein and benefit from intermodal transportation, onlya handful support intermodal improvements.

Public Interest Groups

Special public interest groups are fewer in numberand organize around issues rather than an industry.While some are long established, like the NationalWildlife Federation or the Sierra Club, others roseout of the political ferment of the 1960s. Groups likethe Environmental Defense Fund and Center forAuto Safety focus on public welfare issues such asenvironmental protection and motor vehicle safety.(See table 2-7 for examples of these groups.) Theyare vigorous and often effective advocates forincreased Federal support for environmental andsafety programs and for enforcement of antipollu-tion and public health regulations, positions thatoften put them at odds with industry groups.

Governmental Interest Groups

State and local governmental organizations, likethe National Governors’ Association, the NationalLeague of Cities, the National Association of Townsand Townships, and the National Conference ofState Legislators, forma small but influential group

Table 2-7-Selected Public Interest GroupsConcerned With Public Works

Airline Passengers Association of AmericaAviation Consumer Action ProjectCenter for Study of Responsive LawCenter for Auto SafetyCenter for Concerned EngineeringCitizens for Reliable and Safe HighwaysEnvironmental Defense FundEnvironmental Policy InstituteEnvironmental ActionNational Association of Rail PassengersNational Audubon SocietyNational Wildlife FederationNatural Resources Defense CouncilNature ConservancyProfessional Drivers Council for Safety and HealthSierra ClubSOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

on Capitol Hill. Busy with their own agendas, theyare often less assertive than industry in pressing theirviews in Congress. However, recently they haveargued effectively for changes to the 1986 Federaltax law and for grant and regulatory flexibility.These groups have a major common concern: theimpact on State and local governments of unfundedFederal mandates coupled with rising social serviceresponsibilities and costly infrastructure needs.

The State RoleAlthough for much of this century, the State role

was limited to financing and constructing roads andhighways, the States have assumed both greaterprogrammatic and technical leadership and morefinancial responsibility for public works in recentyears. To encourage economic development andcompensate for Federal program cutbacks, Stateshave invested heavily in transportation-fundingabout 50 percent of highway needs and, in manycases, transit, air, rail, ports, and harbors as well. Asrequired by Federal legislative and regulatory ac-tions, all States have expanded their participation indrinking water and wastewater treatment programs,and some have assumed a role in addressing solidwaste disposal problems.

At present, State governments admini“ “ster a vari-ety of State funded and Federal-aid programs forpublic works and enforce a myriad of Federal andState regulations; many offer substantial financialand technical assistance programs as well (seechapters 3 and 4 for further details). In fact, manyState officials and some experts contend that duringthe 1990s, institutional and financial innovations are

Chapter 2— Institutiona/ Framework ● 65

more likely to be found at the State and local levelthan in the Federal Government.58

States and Public Works Financing

In general, States have increased their fiscalautonomy, generating revenues for expanded pro-grams by broadening general tax bases and increas-ing benefit and user fees. (Table 2-8 shows the majorfinancing mechanisms.) Furthermore, States havelearned how to negotiate public-private partner-ships, and most have aggressive economic develop-ment programs. They have adopted new financingand management mechanisms, such as State revolv-ing loan funds that leverage seed capital to multiplyfunds for financing environmental public works, todeal with increasingly complex public service is-sues. Most States now operate under the guidance of5-to 6-year capital improvement programs that rankand schedule expenditures for major projects.Backed by well-researched data and with carefullyconstructed public information programs, States likeNew York and Iowa have won voter support forlong-term transportation improvement plans tied totargeted tax increases. Some States are helpinglocalities to finance public works improvementprograms with carefully selected packages of Statefees and taxes.59 Box 2-F describes New Jersey’sassistance programs.

However, each State’s financial status and fiscalstrategies differ, shaped by its unique geographic,political, and economic characteristics (see chapter1, table 1-10 for a fiscal summary of the 50 States).Large, rural States and others dependent on agricul-ture or mining did not share the economic expansionof the second half of the 1980s. Their ability to payfor public investments-a capability grounded ineconomic factors such as per capita income, indus-trial production, and retail sales-is low, and theseStates rely on Federal assistance programs. Statesmost dependent on Federal aid for transportation andenvironmental public works programs are shown infigures 2-1 and 2-2. In contrast, some States withstrong, diversified economies have the fiscal capac-ity to generate additional revenue but elect to keeptheir tax structure narrow and rates low. (See

appendix A for further information on fiscal capacityand effort.) At least 20 States, responding totaxpayer protests, have limited their own fiscalauthority to spend and borrow, and many States holdlocal governments to strict bonding, taxing, andspending limits. Where feasible, they have alsomade local projects self-sufficient by offering loansrather than grants. (See box 2-G for a profile of theWashington State Trust Fund which offers loans tocommunities that have made strong self-help ef-forts.)

The Federal focus on individual transport modesand environmental media is replicated in well-established, independent State bureaucracies andstrong industry groups. Local officials must dealwith the results of this program segmentation andcomply with a variety of specific Federal regula-tions, some of which may conflict. In addition, localmanagers must find ways to utilize Federal fundingprograms that do not mesh for interdependentfacilities like highways and airports. Narrow cate-gorical Federal funding programs afford little flexi-bility for integrated solutions to pressing problems,and programs that promote intermodal transporta-tion are major casualties of these conditions. Al-though new State levies and tax rate increases areraising more funds than ever before, expendituresare climbing even faster, and the number of Statesstruggling to balance their budgets is rising.60 Inparticular, the growth rate of education costs and theState share of entitlement programs are outstrippingrevenue, necessitating program cutbacks. Medicaidcosts already consume as much as 30 percent ofsome State budgets and are expected to rise to almost50 percent during the 5 years between 1989 and1994. 61

Benefit and User Charges

Because general revenues must be used forentitlement programs, States have turned increas-ingly to benefit charges, such as user fees, developerimpact charges, tolls, and special assessments forfinancing public works capital. Benefit charges areattractive and effective strategies because of theirrevenue potential, voter acceptability, and service

S8D~vjd os~me, ~oratone$ Of Democracy (Bosto~ MA: Fkvmd BUSkM’ School ~~s~ 1989).

-or further informatio~ see Offke of Technology Assessment op. cit., footnote 4, ch. 3.@National Governors’ Association and National Association of State Budget Officers, Fiscal Survey of the States (WashingtorL DC: 1989), p. 3.61~wof ~mgement ~dB~dget, B@et o~the UnjtedStates Gover~~t ~~~gto~ ~: U.S. ~v~~tw~ ~lCe, 1989), hktOriCd

tables, p. 293.

66 ● Delivering the Good Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table 2-8--Major Infrastructure Financing Mechanisms: Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages Disadvantages

General fundappropriation . . . . . . . .

General obligationbonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Revenue bonds . . . . . . . .

State gas tax . . . . . . . . . .

Other dedicated taxes . . .

State revolving funds . . . .

Administrative: appropriations reflect current legisla-tive priorities.

Equity: all taxpayers contribute to capital projects.Fiscal: no debt incurred, so projects cost less during

periods of inflation.

Equity: capital costs shared by current and futureusers.

fiscal: bonds can raise large amounts of capital;general obligation bonds usually carry lowestavailable interest rates.

Administrative: do not require voter approval and arenot subject to legislative limits.

Equity: debt service paid by user fees, rather thanfrom generaI revenues.

Administrative: established structure allows tax in-crease without additional administrative expense.

Equity: revenues are usually earmarked for transpor-tation, so users pay.

Fiscal: revenues relatively high compared with otheruser taxes.

Administrative: voters prefer dedicated taxes.Fiscal: provides relatively reliable funding source not

subject to annual budgeting.

Administrative: promote greater State independencein project selection.

Fiscal: debt service requirements provide incentivesfor charging full cost for services; loans canleverage other sources of funds; loan repaymentsprovide capital for new loans.

Administrative: infrastructure must compete with otherspending priorities each year; cannot plan long-termprojects around uncertain funding.

Equity: no direct link between beneficiary and whopays, and current generation pays for capital projectsthat benefit future generations.

Administrative: States often impose debt ceilings andrequire voter approval.

Fiscal: adds to tax burden, especially if interest ratesare high.

Administrative: require increased reporting and re-stricted by Tax Reform Act limitations.

Fiscal: usually demand higher interest rates thangeneral obligation bonds.

Administrative: revenue fluctuates with use of gas.Equity: fiscal burdens are not evenly distributed be-

tween urban and rural areas.Fiscal: revenue does not reflect differences in infra-

structure use which can determine capital needs.

Administrative: reduces districts’ ability to meet chang-ing needs.

Fiscal: major economic downturns can reduce reve-nues significantly.

Administrative: States bear increased administrativeand financial responsibility.

Equity: poor districts cannot afford loans.Fiscal: repaying loans will mean increases in user

charges or taxes.


management opportunities. However, these chargeshave major socioeconomic trade-offs, includingadministrative issues, equity, and revenue reliabilityin the case of a political backlash, an economicdownturn, or real hardship. For example, States withlow economic bases and/or small populations havegreat difficulty developing sufficient capital solelyfrom user fees and other benefit charges.62

Because of the acceptability of financing trans-portation with State user fees (gas taxes and vehicleregistration fees, primarily), States can provide morefinancial support for transportation improvementsthan for environmental public works programs. (Seetable 2-9 for State gas tax rates and yields.)Highways, aviation, and, to some extent, transit, relyon user-fee financing, while State revenues ear-marked for water supply or wastewater treatmentprograms are unusual. However, inflation haseroded the purchasing power of per-gallon gas andfixed vehicle charges, and more fuel efficient

Photo credit: Dan Broun, OTA staff

Charges for vanity plates such as this one area popularform of State user fees. Drivers can tailor their own license

plates for an extra fee.

62SSS Hlce of TectioIo~ Assessment, op. cit., footnote 4, pp. 114-116 for a more deti~ dis~ssion.


Box 2-F—New Jersey Infrastructure Financing

The New Jersey State Legislature enacted three infrastructure financing programs in the mid-1980s. The NewJersey Transportation Trust Fund, established in 1984, uses revenue bonds backed by dedicated motor vehicle fueltaxes to fund a $320.3 -million program. The trust fund undertakes direct spending programs and finances State aidto counties and municipalities for transportation system improvements.

The Resource Recovery and Solid Waste Disposal Program, first established in 1980 and substantiallyexpanded in 1985, authorizes grants and low- or no-interest loans to local governments to cover 10 percent of projectcosts for the development of resource recovery facilities and environmentally sound sanitary landfills. The StateDepartment of Environmental Protection manages the program, which is backed by $168 million ($135 in generalobligation bonds and $33 million transferred from the general fund). The loans are secured by rate covenants orrevenue bond letters of credit. Local payback of the loans commences 1 year after the plant begins operations.

The New Jersey Wastewater Treatment Trust Fund, established in 1985, is an independent financing authoritywith the power to issue bonds backed by the trust’s loan agreements with borrower localities. These agreements,in turn, are secured by user-fee covenants, a State-appropriated reserve fund, and municipal bond insurance. Fundsto localities come from the Wastewater Treatment Trust, an independent authority, and the Wastewater TreatmentFund, administered by the State Department of Environmental Protection. This program highlights two issuesassociated with the substitution of loans for grants, First, when a fiscally troubled jurisdiction considers thealternatives of environmental noncompliance and exceeding its debt capacity by applying for a loan, rather than agrant, polluting may well appear the lesser of two evils. Second, although grant allocation decisions are based onenvironmental priorities, local financial solvency is a major consideration, and a high credit rating often outweighsa top spot on the Federal Clean Water Act priority list.

l~tti on New J~s~ infraawcture financing is based on the following reports: Council OXI New Jersey A.f%irS, NeW~erst’Y Z$wf:Puprxs From the Council on New Jersey Aflairs (Rineetom NJ: Princeton Urban and Regional Reseamh Center, WoodtOW Wilson SChOOl ofPublic and International Affairs, March 1988); and Sophie M. KomzylL “State Finance for Local Public Works: Four Case Studies,” OTAcontractor repofi Dec. 19, 1988 (available from NTIS, see app. D).

vehicles reduce the taxes received per mile traveled. Administration and PlanningOver the last 15 to 20 years user-fee revenues permile have dropped about 50 percent.63 Most States play an active role in administering

highway arid bridge programs and in enforcing

Importance of the Federal partnership

Public-private partnerships and higher benefit anduser charges are part of the answer for States inmeeting their backlogs of public works improve-ments. However, their contributions are necessarilylimited by their rates of local growth and by equityconsiderations. These limitations and steady growthin social program costs for States underscore theimportance of reliable Federal financial support.Although Federal funds contributed less than 20percent of public works capital investment duringthe late 1980s, compared with almost 30 percent inthe 1960s,64 this support was essential in assistingStates and their local governments to upgrade publicworks and meet Federal requirements.

Federal and State health and safety regulations.Generally, State officials accept the need for Federalregulations and enforcement to protect public healthand safety. However, the sheer number of regula-tions and the frequency with which they change,their inflexibility, and the time and costs complianceadds to the project create administrative difficultiesand frustrations.

State successes in achieving public works effi-ciency through effective land-use planning havebeen uneven, and most Federal grants that supportedState planning efforts ended in the early 1980s.Some States do not have an official State planningprogram and offer no support for regional or localcomprehensive planning. However, a few States,especially those with sustained growth, such asFlorida, Georgia, and New Jersey, have taken steps

63Jefifa wiS~, vice ~reSident, ]~es F. mc~~g -gernent consultants Ltd., testimony at hearings kfon we House cornfi~~ on Ba**Finance and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on Policy Research and Insurance, May 8, 1990.

~Office of Tectiology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 4, P- 36.


Figure 2-1—Projected Impact on States of Reduced Federal Aid for Transportation a

Relative fiscal impact1 1

I Low to average72 percent of the U.S. populationIives in these States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average and above17 percent of the U.S. populationlives in these States

High9 percent of the U.S. populationlives in these States

Very high3 percent of the U.S. populationlives in these States

of effort each State would have to make to replace a hypothetical 50 percent in aid.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on information provided by Apogee Research, inc.

to require coordination between regional land-usepolicies and infrastructure development. Floridarequires planning and development reviews at theState, regional, and local level (see box 2-H).

Pollution and natural resource issues transcendpolitical boundaries and clash frequently with eco-nomic development goals. State administrators oftenmust coordinate plans for and mediate disputes overenvironmental, development, and transportation is-sues among local jurisdictions, interest groups, Stateagencies, and other States. Interstate compacts, suchas the one among Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania,and the District of Columbia to clean up theChesapeake Bay, and State-supported regional plan-ning programs like Florida’s are promising institu-tional changes.

Local Government Service Providers

Rapidly growing counties, old central cities, andsmall towns are all caught in the squeeze betweenunfunded Federal and State environmental andsocial service mandates and escalating servicedemands on the one hand and budget constraints,weak institutions, and enforcement policies on theother. Direct links to Washington for grants orrevenue sharing have disappeared, and while thebest solutions are often local, the most difficultissues are frequently interjurisdictional. The oppor-tunities for dispute have multiplied as communitieshave become more interdependent and interestgroups more vocal and narrowly focused. Localofficials must mediate conflicts between economicdevelopment and environmental interests (for exam-

Chapter 2—lnstitutiona/ Framework ● 69

Figure 2-2—Projected Impact on States of Reduced Federal Aid for Environmental Public Works a

Relative fiscal jmpact

Low to average63 percent of the U.S. populationlives in these States

Average and above23 percent of the U.S. populationlives in these States

High9 percent of the U.S. populationlives in these States

Very highS percent of the U.S. populationIives in these States

the relative of each State would have to make a in

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on information provided by Apogee Research, Inc.

pie, airport noise and expansion) and betweenneighborhoods and other communities over thesiting of new highways and landfills. If institutionalsolutions to disputes are not available, stalemate willaggravate problems of congestion or public health.Even the threat of losing Federal funds or of freesmay not be enough to trigger action.

Local Financing

Traditionally, the Nation’s 83,000 local govern-ments have financed most capital investment and allof their operating budgets locally, but their custom-ary broad-based taxes, principally on property, nolonger produce sufficient revenue to finance essen-

tial services. Local officials push property taxes ashigh as they can, and increase targeted (earmarked)sales, income, and other taxes. Economically strongcommunities have raised user fees for sewer andwater service, established special improvement dis-tricts, and charged developers fees for roads andsidewalks (see box 1-C in chapter 1). But communi-ties with weak economies or a large backlog ofdeficiencies have had to defer upgrading theirsystems to cut expenditures-about 37 percent ofthe Nation’s cities in 1990.65 Communities thatappeal to their State governments for new orexpanded tax authority may be frustrated by Statelimits on local borrowing and tax rates, and Federal

199@” Cities, 1990),p. v.


Box 2-G—Washington State Public Works Trust Fundl

The Washington State Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) is an example of a successful multipurposeinfrastructure funding program. It emphasizes project self-sufficiency, comprehensive planning, and allocationaccording to ability to pay as well as severity of need.

The PWTF grew out of a 1982-83 statewide survey of Washington State infrastructure needs that pointed toserious gaps in the State’s management of infrastructure. Capital spending for public works was at its lowest in 20years and was expected to continue declining, while projected needs would require at least a 250 percent spendingincrease. These findings prompted the legislature to direct what is now the Washington State Department ofCommunity Development (DCD) to prepare a plan for replacing and repairing local public works holdings.

As required by its mandate, DCD surveyed over 600 local jurisdictions about their needs and availableresources. DCD found that total projected needs reached $4.3 billion, but that local resources could only meet 53percent of this. The legislature responded by working with DCD to set up a new loan program and reaching out tolocalities, including them in the program design process, and linking the program directly to local needs andresources. DCD’s subsequent report, Financing Public Works: Strategies for Increasing Public Investment,provided the design for the Public Works Trust Fund.

Annually DCD invites all Washington cities, counties, and special-purpose districts to apply for low-interest(1 to 3 percent) loans from the PWTF. The PWTF draws its funds from three sources: water, sewer, and garbagecollection taxes; a portion of the real estate excise tax; and ultimately, loan repayments. A 13-member Public WorksBoard evaluates the applications. The Association of Washington Cities, the Association of Washington Counties,and associations of water, public utility, and sewer districts nominate elected officials and public works managers.Three members from each of the lists as well as four members of the general public with special public worksexpertise are appointed to the board The Governor selects one of these latter four to chair the board.

The board passes its annual project recommendations onto the State legislature. After approving a project listbased on the board’s list of priorities, the. legislature passes an appropriation from the Public Works AssistanceAccount to cover the cost of the loans granted. The Governor then signs the appropriation into law.

An important goal in the design of the PWTF was to discourage localities from deferring maintenance andrepair, a side effect of traditional grant allocation systems, which dole money out to the neediest localities. ThePWTF program calls for the Public Works Board to base less than one-half (40 percent) of a locality’s score onneeds, and a full 60 percent of the score on the jurisdiction’s demonstrated commitment to help itself. The boardevaluates local effort by reviewing the jurisdiction’s maintenance strategy, the percentage of local funds dedicatedto public works, and the overall system of financial management. Since 1986, the PWTF has provided 194 loanstotaling $100 million. Local jurisdictions have matched this amount with about $128 million in local funds for thecompletion of the projects.

Before it can be considered for a loan, a locality must levy at least a 0.25-percent real estate excise taxearmarked for infrastructure spending. It also must develop a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the specificinfrastructure category (i.e., roads, bridges, water systems, storm sewers, and sanitary sewers) for which the loanis being sought.2 For the 1991 loan cycle, DCD will require a comprehensive CIP covering all of the five categoriesof infrastructure for which loans are offered. To compensate for potential bias in favor of large, wellfundedjurisdictions, DCD offers zero-interest loans of up to $15,000 for the development of local, long-range CIPs.Without comprehensive CIPs, not even small jurisdictions will be able to apply for regular PWTF constructiongrants after 1991.

Loans are available only to projects that address existing needs; the funds may not be used for growth-relatedprojects, allowing the board to avoid the touchy issue of determining where growth ought to occur. The effects ofpolitical interests are further muted by the stipulation that in reviewing the Public Works Board’s list, the legislaturemay delete projects but not add any. This helps preclude pork barrel projects and ensure program integrity.

IM[- On the Washington State Public Works Trust Fund is based on Isaac Huang, Washington state DepSrtMmt Of COMMW@Development, interview, June 1989; and Sophie M. Koxzy~ “State Finance for Public Works: Four Case Studies,”’ OTA contractor -Dec. 19, 1988 (available tim National Techuical J.nfonnaa“on Service, see app. D).

2~e mblie Works Board defines tie minimum elements of an acceptable Capital Improv ement Plan as: 1) needs assessrnen~ 2)prioritization of major capital improvement projects for the coming 5 years, 3) project cost estimatio~ 4) proof that the plan has been updatedin the past 5 yem, 5) proof that the plan was developed with some general public input, and 6) formal adoption of the plan by a local legal entity.


Table 2-9-State Gas Tax Rates and Yields, 1990

Gas tax Yield per penny Gas tax Yield per penny(cents per gallon) ($millions) (cents per gallon) ($ millions)

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 21 Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 8Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 17 Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 12 New Hampshire. . . . . . . . . 16 5California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 125 New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 34Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 15 New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 15 New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 55Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4 North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 22 39District of Columbia.. . . . . 18 2 North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 61 Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 44Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 35 Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 16Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4 Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 14Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5 Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . 12 46Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 44 Rhode Island... . . . . . . . . 20 4Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 27 South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 16 18Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 14 South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 13 Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 25Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 19 Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 85Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 23 Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6 Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 24 Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 34Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . 17 28 Washington 22 22Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .15 42 West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . 20 10

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 18 Wisconsin... . . . . . . . . . . . 21 20Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12 Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 26

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on data from The Road Information Program, 1989 State HighwayFundl~Methti(Whingtin,DC: 1990); and Sally Thompson, analyst The Road information Program, personal communication, Oct. 24,1990.

tax reform legislation increased the cost of borrowedcapital for some types of local projects. The limits oftheir fiscal choices make it likely that many commu-nities will be unable to comply with Federalenvironmental standards (see chapter4).

Management and Planning

Local officials must coordinate and administer astaggering variety of transportation and environ-mental public works programs. When Federal aid isavailable, it comes with many strings (environ-mental impact study and wage rate requirements,forexample) that add years to project timelines andraise costs dramatically.66 Most large android-sizecommunities use a 3- to 5-year capital improvementprogram (CIP) to schedule and identify financing formajor capital expenditures, a concept introducedthrough the Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment’s planning grant program during the1960s and 1970s. However, most small jurisdictions

operate without CIPs, and Federal grants to supporttheir use have been severely cut.

Although most communities are part of regionalplanning organizations and Federal programs usu-ally have a comprehensive regional planning re-quirement, these organizations have not been effec-tive in achieving economic and operating efficien-cies for public works.67 Effective regional coordina-tion in highway planning is rare and each jurisdic-tion fights to maintain its autonomy over land-usedecisions. The most successfull regional planninggroups have reliable funding,68 needed to maintaincore staff and technical and service capabilities, andclear authority from local governments and Stateagencies. In California, San Diego’s Association ofGovernments has a major impact because it plays akey role in both transportation planning and financ-ing (see box 2-I), Although local managers recog-nize their need for more efficient ways of doing

~Heqt Hujme, former director of Public Works, Arlington COuIIty, VA PCZWti COmm@C*OU -h 1989.~SSS Mice Of Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 4, ch. 4 for* tio-tion.*~tbac~inF~~fi@ forhousingand environmental progrsmahave lefiDepsrtrnentof Transportationfunding $s the primary Fcderalsupport

for regional planning.


Box 2-H—Growth Management and Planning in Florida

Florida grows by an average of 900 new residents each day, and the State endured a fierce political and financialstruggle over growth management after enacting one of the Nation’s strongest land development regulatoryprograms in 1985 and taking a stand in favor of comprehensive planning at all government levels. Having survivedrepeated special interest attacks to weaken the law, the State has completed the required State and regional planningand is halfway through the first phase of the local government planning process. Although State and local officialsare having problems finding the funds to implement the new planning and public works requirements, Florida’sprogram can be instructive to other States that are considering a stronger role in growth management.

The State’s role in planning began in 1975 with passage of the Local Government Comprehensive PlanningAct, which required all local governments to prepare, adopt, and implement local comprehensive plans that includedtransportation and environmental public works. The initial results of the act were disappointing; most local planscontained only vague goals and policies that made implementation difficult. In 1982, a State study committeeidentified the absence of strong State and regional planning as a major reason the local plans were ineffective andrecommended overhauling the 1975 legislation.1

Convinced of the need for strong State and local controls, the legislature adopted the local GovernmentComprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985. The keystone provision is therequirement that each of the State’s 67 counties, in conjunction with their respective cities, submit a comprehensive10-year development plan to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for approval. The plans must beconsistent with the State comprehensive and regional plans and must spell out in detail what types of developmentare allowed and where, and where public works systems will go and how they will be financed. Each district mustadopt a 5-year capital improvement program and an annual capital improvement budget. The teeth in the legislationis the “concurrency” requirement stipulating that a specified service level for highways, sewers, and other publicfacilities must be available at the time of the impact accompanying any new development. During the 12 monthsafter a plan is submitted, a local government may not issue a development permit that will result in a reduction inthe level of service for any facility identified in the plan.2 In effect, the State is requiring local governments toprovide services according to a comprehensive plan that is tied to a capital improvement budget. Twice a year, localdistricts may adopt comprehensive plan amendments and submit them to DCA for review. The penalty fornoncompliance is a cutoff of State funds, primarily revenue sharing.

Since DCA began compliance review of local plans in April 1988, of the 248 plans received, 119 have beenapproved. Of the 128 plans currently not in compliance, 80 can be approved once changes agreed to in negotiationswith the State have been made.3 Despite some builders’ claims that all development will be stymied unless localstandards are lowered or the State substantially increases funding for public works, no county or city has adevelopment moratorium.

Although local and State officials agree on the need for comprehensive planning, local governments want theState to take a bigger and more responsible role in financing needed public works, estimated to cost at least $1.6billion annually through the year 2000. The State has resisted local pleas for an increase in the State gas tax rate.Local governments frequently have not included transportation projects, funded by the State Department ofTransportation (DOT), in their local comprehensive plans, because the funding schedule for the projects has beenunpredictable. 4 To remedy this, 1989 legislation enables local governments to count on State monies for the fist3 years of DOT’s 5-year plan and the State has begun to prohibit State funds to support transportation projects thatare inconsistent with local plans. The legislature has also given local governments authority to levy a l-cent localsales tax dedicated to infrastructure and a l-cent local gas tax for roads, although both levies are subject to localreferenda, which makes them unpopular with elected officials. Currently, 24 counties have passed the sales tax and10 have defeated it.5 Furthermore, Florida is establishing new funding mechanisms to help in local planimplementation, such as the Florida Communities Trust Act, which will provide State funds for local purchase ofland identified in comprehensive plans as needed for environmental protection.

IDtieI W. a’co~ell, ‘{~~ @vernment Comprehensive l%nning and Land Development Regulation Act,” Fforida Environmentaland Urban Zssues, vol. 13, No. 1, October 1985, p. 4.

2SQXe of Flori@ “senate smff Analysfi and Economic Impact Statement,” accompanying Senate Bill 2A, June 3, 1989, p. 1.3B&~r, le@lative ~tor, Flol-i& S&e Department ofCOmmti~ Aff&% p~sOfld co-ti~tion, NOV. 5, 19~.

4S~te of Florida, op. cit., footnote 2, P. 4.513&~, op. cit., foomote 3.


Box 2-I-SANDAG: Financing MeansPlanning Power

Although State and local districts are oftenreluctant to sham authority with a regional organi-zation, San Diego’s Association of Governments(SANDAG)is an exception. Designated as the StateMetropolitan Planning Organization (MPO),SANDAG plays a key role in both transportationplanning and financing. In 1987, San Diego votersapproved a general sales tax increase for capitalprojects identified in the Regional TransportationImprovement Plan (TIP), and the State designatedSANDAG as the chief administering agency incharge of allocating the $100-million annual taxrevenue. By virtue of its role as San Diego’s MPG,SANDAG prepares the TIP, and thus it can developand finance the implementation of its own plan-anunusually strong role for a regional agency.SANDAG’s financial independence has greatlyincreased its power within the region and may wellalter its other roles. Making financing options partOf the planning process ensures that SANDAGgives careful attention to setting priorities amongTIP projects, with the result that plans are realisticand likely to have public support. In addition totransportation planning, SANDAG has initiated aneffort to identify all regional public works needsand to develop a regional financing plan.

business, most lack fiscal flexibility to experimentwith innovative materials, technologies, or proce-dures. The lack of a technically competent workforce, particularly in small and mid-size communi-ties, further deters experimentation with advancedtechnologies.

Conclusions and Policy OptionsThe complex institutional setting for infrastruc-

ture makes it difficult for the Federal Government tofocus on either transportation or environmentalpublic works problems for the two constituencieswith the most pressing needs: small, low-density, orremote, rural jurisdictions and large, densely popu-lated metropolitan areas. Many of today’s Federalinstitutions were developed years ago to meet needsthat have long since evolved and changed.

During the last decade or more, Federal leadershipin public works policy has eroded. Recognizing theneed for system changes and new institutions (e.g.,for financing, delivering service, planning, and evenconflict resolution), States and local governments

are making independent plans and decisions. Whilethese may not always be congruent with nationalinterests, except for DOT’s recent policy plan,Washington has been passive at a time of enormouseconomic, technological, and environmentalchange. Federal transportation programs and stand-ard-setting have not kept up with industry, andtrucking companies are integrating with railroadsand shipping companies to form powerful newtransportation organizations. States and interna-tional committees are taking the lead and settingtheir own policies. This lack of leadership, coupledwith Federal spending cuts, has contributed substan-tially to the poor condition of the Nation’s publicworks systems.

OTA finds the Federal Government has fallenbehind industry, world credit markets, State,regional and local authorities, the courts, andinternational organizations in determining thenational public works agenda. Stronger Federalleadership is needed to develop integrated, long-range national water resources, transportation,and environmental policies that will direct andcoordinate intergovernmental and private activi-ties. This effort may result in new goals as well asinstitutional mechanisms for achieving them. Ofnecessity, new institutions that change the estab-lished decisionmaking processes step on the toes oftraditional governmental and private sector interestsand compromise local decisionmaking and individ-ual choice to some extent. But the alternative isstalemate, characterized by staggering increases inlitigation, and steadily growing inefficiency.

OTA concludes that the time is ripe to reviewthe Federal oversight structure and managementpractices for public works so that policies arebetter coordinated and more cost-effective, anddecisions about priorities are made wisely. Keyfactors contributing to fragmented Federal infra-structure policies are the splintering of responsibilityamong congressional committees and Federal agen-cies. OTA concludes that EPA’s and DOT’seffectiveness could be improved significantly inthe near term if Congress insisted that eachagency integrate its programs to reflect theinterdependent nature of transportation andenvironmental public works problems. One op-tion is to require this for EPA as part of legislationelevating the agency to Cabinet status. Another is todirect EPA and DOT to report to Congress annuallyon their program coordination efforts. Clearly better


advance coordination is required in both Congressand the executive branch to avoid such snafus as theconflict between Federal attempts to reduce revenueloss from tax-exempt bonds in 1986, which workedat cross-purposes with efforts to encourage localprivate investment.

Almost one-half of congressional standing com-mittees and subcommittees claim jurisdiction oversome aspect of public works. The overlappingjurisdictions and divisions of power among con-gressional committees engender divisive turfbattles, thwart coordination of Federal publicworks policy, and lead to the program conflictsand gaps that State and local governmentsexperience. At the same time the current committeestructure, crafted by Congress in the 1970s, hasdecentralized power, strengthened individual mem-bers, developed committee and subcommittee ex-pertise on specific topics, and provided multipleforums for the differing points of view of depart-ments, agencies, special interest groups, and constit-uents.

Congressional leaders could consider re-structuring committee jurisdictions. Commonlysuggested options for change include restructur-ing existing committees to consolidate environ-mental and transportation functions or establish-ing new committees that focus on metropolitan orrural infrastructure system issues, includingpublic works. One option is to move authorizingand oversight responsibility for mass transit intoCommerce, Science, and Transportation or Environ-ment and Public Works, the principal infrastructureauthorizing committees. The House may wish toconsolidate authority for environmental programs,providing a more unified environmental poli-cymaking structure. However, history shows struc-tural change is exceedingly difficult. A less radicaloption is the formation of a select committee or taskforce composed of fictional area subcommitteechairs to explore and report within 12 to 18 monthson the feasibility of developing an integrated na-tional policy on public works.

The Nation’s thousands of small communitiesmust construct, operate, and maintain public servicefacilities that impose high per capita costs, but theirfiscal resources are limited because their average percapita incomes are low and their populations aregenerally declining. Although modest Federal-aidprograms exist for small systems, most are targeted

Photo credlt:American Society of Civil Engineers

Older municipalities face traffic delays and massive costsfor repairs necessitated by years of neglecting publicworks. Many of these cities are particularly hard-hit

because the value of their tax base has declined.

for transportation. Expanded aid is necessary forthese communities, but large rural States andothers dependent on agriculture or mining lackthe ability to raise large amounts of capital toshare with local governments. The Federal Gov-ernment has a responsibility to consider financialand technical support for the States lacking thefiscal capacity to assist their small jurisdictions(see figures 2-1 and 2-2 again).

More dramatic in scale, metropolitan area issuesinclude airport and highway congestion, air andwater pollution, often deficient planning and coordi-nation of multimodal transportation facilities, andother growth-related problems. Older urban areasface massive costs for facility reconstruction causedby inadequate long-term maintenance and newFederal requirements; for example, the bill formeeting the EPA requirement to correct combinedsewer overflows in many cities will cost billions ofdollars. The fiscal burden is most severe in oldercentral cities where the value of the tax base isdeclining. Public works, especially maintenance thatcan be deferred, has a lower fiscal priority thanschools, new jails, and social welfare programs.Growing, economically healthy areas have a suffi-cient economic base to increase revenues fromgeneral taxes and benefit-based fees and taxes and toattract more private investment. However, oldermetropolitan areas in which major public workssystems are at the end of their design lives needspecial attention from State and Federal Govern-ments. States must allow local governmentsauthority to raise revenues, borrow capital,


spend for needed improvements, and pursue newfinancing strategies. Removal of Federal prohibi-tions on toll financing and restrictions on someforms of public-private ventures would allowjurisdictions to pursue a wider range of fiscalopportunities.

Despite mounting small system and metropolitanneeds, the Federal Government has reduced invest-ment in public works infrastructure. During the1980s, Federal outlays for all public works catego-ries decreased about 22 percent; and althoughenvironmental public works needs are driven di-rectly by Federal regulations, these programs tookthe largest cuts. While State and local govern-ments have accepted an increased share of thefinancing burden, they need a reliable financialpartnership with the Federal Government toensure the renewal and upgrading of their publicworks facilities.

Stronger State and regional planning organiza-tions and land-use controls tied to capital budgetingrequirements are needed to improve the efficiency ofpublic investment in infrastructure. But local gov-ernments resist sharing power, and planning organi-zations are typically underfunded and lack fiscal orstatutory authority to implement their plans. Cut-backs in Federal funds for housing and environ-mental programs have left DOT funding as theprimary support for regional planning, and Statecommitment to and support for planning varieswidely. OTA concludes that the Federal Govern-ment can use regulations coupled with financialincentives to encourage effective planning at allgovernmental levels and more efficient use oftransportation and environmental infrastruc-ture. Florida’s growth management plan and Wash-ington State’s Public Works Trust Fund (see boxes2-G and 2-H again) provide good models.

CHAPTER 3

Transportation Managementand Technologies

Photo credit:American Consulting Engineers Council

ContentsPage

Transportation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Intermodal Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Physical Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Environmental Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85System Management and Financing, . . . . . . 85Technology and Management Tools . . . . . . . 86

Surface Transportation Networks:Highways and Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Management and Financing: Who Owns,Pays for, and Operates What . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*.*.... . . . 88Technologies for Highways and Bridges. . . 91

Surface Transportation Networks:Mass Transit ● ....*.. ..*..*..* .*.,...** 97

Transit Management and Financing .,..... 97Issues +*..*.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*.,.. ,.. 99Technologies for Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Surface Transportation Networks: Railroads. . 103Railroad Management and Financing . . . . . . 103Rail Issues ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105Rail Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Federally Managed Infrastructure: Waterwaysand Airways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Ports and Waterways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11OFederal Infrastructure: Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Conclusions and Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . 129Financing and Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130Management Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132Transportation Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

BoxesBox Page3-A. Intermodal Transportation Improvements

in Southern California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843-B. Video Technology and Pavement

Management . .+,.,.*..,,*..*,..**.+,*. 923-C. Bridge Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933-D. The Automated Traffic Surveillance and

Control System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953-E. Fast ToII Collection in Dallas. . . . . . . . . . . 963-F. Oregon’s Growth Management

Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003-G. Magnetic Levitation Research . . . . . . . . . . 106

Box Page3-H. High-Speed Rail , ...... +..... +.....,... 1083-I. The Massachusetts Port Authority . . . . . . . 124

FiguresFigure Page

3-1. Passenger and Freight Travel, by Mode.. 813-2. U.S. Department of Transportation ....,. 873-3. Characteristics of the Nation’s Road

System .,, . * . ., * . ., * ., . * . . . * . ..***,.,. 883-4. Physical Condition of U.S, Bridges . . . . . 903-5. Federal Obligations for Interstate, 4R,

primary, Secondary, and Urban Programs,by Improvemtmt Type ... +.,..,.,.,.... 91

3-6. Amtrak’s National Rail Passengersystem ● ,.. *.+. ... **. *********+* 104

3-7. The Navigation Systems of theContinental United States .......... +.... 112

Table Page

3-1. Transportation System Characteristics.. 803-2. Major Issues and Problems in

Transportation Public Works . . . . . . . . . . 823-3. Federal Transportation Trust Fund

summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853-4. Highway Mileage and Funding

Statistics ., *,**.****,.*..**.+,*,,.,., 893-5. Characteristics of Mass Transit . . . . . . . . 983-6. Traffic and Operations and Maintenance

Costs on Inland Waterways, 1986 . . . . . . 1143-7. Federal Port Operations and Maintenance

Outlays per Ton of Cargo, 1974-84 . . . . 1143-8. Passenger Enplanements at 25 U.S.

Airports, 1988 .......,.,.,..., . . . . . . . . 1193-9. Congested Airport Rankings and

Expansion Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1213-10. Enhancing the Performance of Existing

Airports and Airways . . . . . . . . . . + ...,,, 1263-11. Traffic Congestion Increases in 15 Major

Cities . . . . . . 4 . . . . . , , . . . , . . . , . . . , , . , . , 1293-12. Federal Expenditures and User-Fee

Revenue for Transportation, 1989 . . . . . . 1313-13. Impacts of Surface Transportation

Measures , . + . . . . . , . . . . , . . . . . . , , . . . , . , 134

CHAPTER 3

Transportation Management and Technologies

We’re repairing everything at once because they all need it.1

Passengers and goods can move virtually any-where on the transportation networks in the UnitedStates. But much of the basic transportation infra-structure has been in place for at least 20 to 40years-long enough to need substantial repair orrehabilitation, especially in heavily traveled corri-dors. In jurisdictions where maintenance has beenneglected, deteriorated and congested rail, highway,water, and air facilities slow travel, hinder nationalproductivity, and increase costs. In many metropoli-tan areas, complete corridor reconstruction or majormodification will be required to ensure safety,alleviate congestion, and improve intermodal con-nections.

Federal responsibility for transportation rests onthe government’s constitutional mandate to supportinterstate commerce and provide for the publicsafety. Transportation infrastructure includes high-ways, bridges, rail and bus transit systems, freightand passenger railroads, ports, waterways, airports,and airways. Federal assistance for this infrastruc-ture has always been modally oriented, with separateprograms providing assistance for intercity passen-ger rail; mass transit; bridges, highways, and high-way safety; water; maritime shipping; and aviation.The Federal agencies that oversee transportationprograms are, for the most part, in the Department ofTransportation (DOT), although the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers has primary responsibility forharbor dredging and the condition of inland water-ways.

Most State DOTS were originally formed toadminister Federal highway programs during the1960s. During the 1980s, State DOTS expanded anddiversified, taking on additional responsibilities asFederal infrastructure programs shrank. State spend-ing for transportation rose from $22 billion to $39billion,2 and many DOTS took on some responsibil-ity for airports and mass transportation; some Statesnow aid ports and railroads as well. (See table 3-1 for

the major transportation components and figure 3-1for the share of passenger and freight transportationfor each mode.) However, highway departments stilldominate State DOTS, and almost all administer andfinance transportation programs by separate modesto be compatible with Federal grant programs.Counties and local governments are also importantplayers in operating, managing, and financing trans-portation infrastructure, particularly roads and air-ports. Finally, quasi-public, independent, regionalauthorities operate many major ports and airports.

With so many different entities responsible fordifferent aspects of transportation infrastructure, it isunderstandable that the transport system does notalways function smoothly. This chapter outlines theissues and problems that characterize the presentnational transportation system and describes thestatus of management and technologies specific toeach transportation mode. It also identifies changesto Federal programs and other approaches that couldmake the system work more efficiently and produc-tively.

Transportation IssuesFast, convenient travel for passengers and cargo

depends on a well-maintained, smoothly functioningintermodal system with the capacity to handle mostof the demands placed on it. Yet, historically,Federal planning, funding, regulation, and policysupport in the United States have fostered competi-tive, modal systems. Modal interdependence, ine-qualities in maintenance practices, and traffic bottle-necks (capacity problems) that affect total systemperformance are not addressed in Federal grantprograms. Intermodal data collection, planning, andcoordination are largely ignored, and successfulefforts to integrate land-use planning and transporta-tion requirements are rare.

Because institutional frameworks and fundingpolicies vary for each mode, substantially different

ILucius J. Ricc@ New York Civ transportation commissioner, ss quoted ~ An&eW L. Y~ow, “Late Repairs Increase Tmfllc Jams in Regionj”New York Times, Sept. 24, 1990, p. A-1.

%J.S. Department of Transportation Economic Studies Divisioq Federal, State and Local Transportation Financial Statistics, Fiscal Years1978-1988 (Washington, DC: March 1990), p. 24.

–79–

Table 3-l—Transportation System Characteristics

Traffic volume

Passengers (billions of InterCity freightMode Major components Facilities Vehicles passenger-miles) (billions of ton-miles)

Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Airports and airways . . . . .

Mass transit systems . . . .

Railroads . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waterborne . . . . . . . . . . . .

InterStatesPrinciple arterialsTotal public roads

Public airportsPrivate airportsAirwaysMotor busRapid and light railCommuter railDemand response

class IRegionalLocalSwitching/terminal linesAmtrak

Ports

HarborsInland waterways

43,000 miles 144,375,000 cars and taxis 1,445 712138,000 miles 42,524,338 trucks

3,874,000 miles 615,669 buses

5,680 airports 5,028 commercial aircraft 351 911,647 airports 209,500 private aircraft

384,691 miles2,671 systems 60,388 buses 41

27 systems 11,370 railcars12 systems 4,649 raiicars

2,582 systems 16,100 vans, minibuses, etc.141,000 miles Freight: 13

16,000 miles 1,239,000 freight cars15,000 miles 19,647 locomotives4,000 miies Amtrak:

700 miiesa 1,742 passenger cars312 locomotives

177 deepwater ports 754 U.S. flag vessels175 shallow pOrtS 5,188 tows and tugs757 commercial harbors 31,089 barges178 loals

25,777 miles

N/A

N/A

1,048

a~r~ ~SO indties 23,000 miles of based t-.b~m=t~ ton-mi~ only; about 2 billion tons of cargo transfer through U.S. PO*.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on a variety of data summaries.

Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies . 81

Figure 3-l-Passenger and Freight Travel, by Mode

Intercity passenger travel(passenger-miles)

.3%

1.1%

Truck 60

Intercity freight transport(ton-miles)

Freight revenue by mode

— R a i l 2 6 . 0 %

)Water 1.0%

Oil pipeline

Air 7.0%

6.0%

21.2%

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, baaed on information provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Eno Foundation.

infrastructure problems characterize each modelportion of the transportation system (see table 3-2).Details relating to these difficulties are providedlater in this chapter in the appropriate modalsections. However, a number of issues are applicableto the system as a whole.

Intermodal Transport

Efficient intermodal operations have becomecritical to shippers, many of whom rely on ‘just-in-time” deliveries made possible by speedier andmore consistent door-to-door service. Freight trans-fers between ship, truck, rail, and barge involvephysical challenges, such as loading, unloading, andstorage of cargo, as well as complex intercompany,interjurisdictional, and even international agree-ments. Industry has addressed many of these chal-lenges through innovations. Containers permit cargotransfer between modes without repackaging, andautomatic equipment identification, electronic datainterchange, electronic fund transfers, and com-puter-aided operations all speed freight movements.

Intercity travelers and urban commuters also usemultiple modes for daily commutes, business trips,and vacations. Because passengers and freightmoving through airports, marine ports, and railstations rely on trucks and automobiles for mostconnections, traffic jams on local roads are often keysources of delay.

Congestion problems increase personal trip times,hurt productivity, and add to industry and individualcosts. However, the fractured transportation man-agement framework makes successful programs tocombat congestion extremely difficult to developand implement. To a large extent, surface trafficcongestion problems are products of decisions madeby governments and individuals and are outside thecontrol of a single industry or level of government.During the 5-year period from 1982 to 1987, trafficcongestion in our major cities, as measured byvolume of traffic per lane of travel, increased by anaverage of 17 percent.3

More effective, comprehensive regional transpor-tation and land-use planning spanning modes andjurisdictions is essential to efficient intermodal

3oT.q ~c~ation based on lkxas Transportation hMhute, “Roadway Congestion in Major Urban Areas 1982 to 1987,” Research Report 1131-2,1989.

Table 3-2—Major Issues and Problems in Transportation Public Works

Transport mode Condition Capacity Environment Management and investment

Highways and bridges 10 percent of roads and 42 per-cent of bridges rated defi-cient.

Mass transit Structural deterioration of railsystems in older urban areas.

Rail Generally good for large rail-roads, problems due to de-ferred maintenance on someregional and shortline rail-roads.

Ports and waterways With a few exceptions, locks,dams, protective works, andchannels are generally ingood rendition.

Airports and airways The condition of airport and air-way facilities rarely impedestraffic.

Congestion and delays increas-ing in many urban and subur-ban areas; excess capacity inrural areas.

Excess capacity available inmost rail and bus systems.

Excess capacity on most lines.

Locks are the bottlenecks on theiniand waterways; delays canexceed 2 days at a few locks.

The number of available run-ways at the busiest airports isthe greatest capacity con-straint. The staffing levelsand technological capabilitesof certain airway sectors canbe sources of delay.

Air quality; land use; noise.

Bus emissions.

Waste disposal on Arntrak trains;noise and land use for high-speed trains.

Dredging and dredged materialdisposal; noise, land use,and surface traffic problemsat ports.

Aircraft noise in communitiessurrounding airports; surfacetraffic congestion due to air-ports.

Life-cycie management needed; largecapital investment would be requiredto expand urban roadways to meetdemand-a temporary solution, atbest.

Roadway management enhancementneeded to improve bus transit; life-cycle management and financing forrail transit; little recent R&D invest-ment.

Federal operating subsidies for Amtrak;Amtrak capital equipment needs.

Transportation users, especially on theinland waterways, require muchgreater General Fund subsidy thanother transport modes; no cost shar-ing by nontransportation beneficiariesof navigation projects.

Constructing new airports or physicallyexpanding existing airports will bedifficult for most immunities. Tech-nology advances could effectively ex-pand existing capacity by up to 20percent.


t ravel . Using double-deck ra i lcars or increasingvehicle frequency to expand mass transit capacity isuseless unless intermodal connections, such as busfeeder l ines and suburban park-and-ride lots, areprovided. The program described inbox 3-A typifiesthe kinds of major improvements needed to facilitateintermodal transportation.

P h y s i c a l C o n d i t i o n

T h e cond i t i on o f any pa r t o f t r anspo r ta t i oninfrastructure reflects management and investmentdecis ions-p lanning, design, construct ion, opera-tions, maintenance, and rehabilitation--that span asystem’s lifetime, or “life cycle. ” The waterwayand airway systems are generally in good conditionbecause the Federal Government has primary re-sponsibility for them and manages and maintains thesystems as investments. Systems for which a numberof separate governmental or private entities shareresponsibility, such as highways, bridges, and rail-roads, are much more likely to have major segments

in poor condition, usually because of neglect due tofiscal constraints felt by one or more of the owners.

C a p a c i t y

The present transportation system in the UnitedStates has plenty of excess capacity-but it is n o tavailable on the busiest routes and at terminals at thetimes most people want to travel. Transportationdemand fluctuates across time and location, andperiods of heavy demand create what are called“peaking” problems. To ensure adequate capacity,infrastructure must be designed and built to accom-modate t raf f ic volumes somewhat greater thanaverage, However, since facilities can rarely be builtto be both cost-effective and large enough to handlesmoothly the greatest “peaks, ’ designs ref lect atrade-off between costs of delay and congestion andcosts to build, operate, and maintain the infrstruc-ture.

Most infrastructure for transportation is suppliedand managed by the public sector. When demandexceeds supply, delays and safety problems occur

84 . Delivering the Goods Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Box 3-A—lntermodal Transportation Improvements in Southern California

The proposed Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) project in southern California is a$500-million program1 of highway and railroad improvements that will facilitate freight movement between thePorts of long Beach and Los Angeles and downtown Los Angeles, where rail yards of three major carriers--theUnion Pacific, Southern Pacific, and Santa Fe Railroads-are located TIM project is intended to improve port accessand mitigate the impacts of port-related traffic on highway congestion, air pollution, grade crossing delays, and trainnoise in residential areas. It will involve construction of double tracks for the main rail line between the ports anddowntown, grade separations, and street widening along a route running parallel to the rail line. On-dock,ship-to-rail container loading facilities will be expanded to reduce truck traffic out of the ports. ACTA officialsestimate that the rerouting of trains of all three carriers onto a single double-track corridor and the elimination ofgrade crossings will bring a 90-percent reduction in train-related traffic delays, or a total of about 6,300vehicle-hours per day.

The improvements will be carried out under ACTA, a joint powers authority that consists of representativesof some 13 local, regional, and State agencies. Over $300 million of the total cost will be sought from Federalhighway funds. State contributions, totaling $80 million in bond issues, and funds from the Los Angeles CountyTransportation Commission, the railroads, and the ports will cover the balance of the cost of the project.2

The Port of Long Beach’s $80-million Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF), whose sole operator isthe Southern Pacific Railroad, provides a fine example of technology’s role in making freight transport moreefficient. The ICTF brings together elements of electronic data interchange and computer control of rail yards toexpedite the movement of containers and the makeup of stack trains, and nearly every facet of the facility’soperations is overseen by computers. Computers in the control tower are linked with those of ocean vessels, so thatthe yard’s computer receives information about each container before it arrives at the Long Beach or Los AngelesPorts. As containers are trucked into the yard from the ports, drivers are directed to the proper areas for containerinspection and parking. Yard tractors are equipped with mobile computer units to allow location and status updatesfor containers and ensure that time-sensitive stack trains are efficiently assembled and dispatched.

IMuchof the information on the Alameda Corridor Transportation AuthotitY~ k derivedfrom “SouthemCalifomia ConsolidatedTransportation Corridor” informational dooment, May 1990.

2~~d R. ~, mana~ dilIXt~, R- & “~g~ Pofi of ~% B*h personal communication Nov. 16, 19$)().

and congestion (especially on highways) is likely tocreate air quality problems. If the delays worsen andpersist, officials look for a way to expand capacity.Building new structures to meet growing demandhas been an attractive cost-effective option, in termsof direct costs for land, materials, and labor.However, this is no longer true in many of thecountry’s largest urban areas, where congestion ismost severe. For a variety of reasons-large upfrontcapital expenses, insufficient land where the need isgreatest, and community opposition to the expectedimpacts on the environment and quality of life—States and localities plan to build few new highways,airports, or waterways.

About 20 percent more traffic capacity could besqueezed out of the existing roadways, airports, andwaterways 4 by implementing near-term technologydevelopments, discussed later in this chapter. How-ever, traffic demand at many busy airports and

highways is expected to outpace the capacity gainspossible through technology.

Managing Demand

Better management is another way to increase thecapacity of the existing system. Reducing peak-hourtrips, minimizing the inefficient mixing of vehicletypes; and carrying more passengers or cargo per tripby increasing the average vehicle capacity are allpossibilities. These changes could be encouraged byenhancing alternative networks to draw traffic awayfrom busy facilities, by rationing access to over-crowded facilities during peaks, and by chargingdifferential prices to reflect more closely the fullcosts of congestion and delay.

Shifting demand away from peaks to underusedtimes, locations, or other transport modes is a firststep toward reducing delays due to overcrowding; incongested areas, where the network is close to

4~e -y COWS of E@=rs est~tes a ~ge of cq~i~ inmeases of 5 to 10 percent for small-scale improvements to 30 percent or more. ‘ee

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, “The U.S. Waterway System: A Review, ” unpublished report, April 1989, p. 26.

Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies ● 85

Table 3-3-Federal Transportation Trust Fund Summary

Trust fund Date established Revenue sources

Highway Trust Fund:Highway account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1956 Taxes on gas and diesel fuels and tire sales.Transit account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1982 A share of the Highway Trust Fund gas tax.

Airport and Airways Trust Fund . . . . . . . 1971 Taxes on airline tickets, way bills, aviation fuels, and international departures.

Inland Waterway Trust Fund. . . . . . . . . . 1978 Taxes on marine fuels.Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. . . . . . . 1986 Taxes on the value of vessel cargo.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

saturation, small reductions or shifts in demand canprevent many delays. Financial demand manage-ment mechanisms, such as quotas or differentialpricing, raise costs to users and create issues ofsocial and economic equity that are hard to resolve.These forms of demand management often generateheated protests when they are introduced, becausetravel patterns are closely coupled to home and worksites, normal working and sleeping hours, andestablished and familiar costs, such as parking fees.

Providing alternatives to conventional travel isanother possible way to change demand. Newtechnology possibilities include a system of tiltrotoraircraft that would not compete for conventionalairport infrastructure, and high-speed rail or mag-netic levitation rail, which could match airlineservice at distances up to approximately 500 miles.However, with the exception of high-speed rail,which is now operating successfully in severalforeign countries, alternative transportation technol-ogies are still under development. Even if shown tobe cost-effective, new technologies will not be readyfor public use for at least another decade.

Environmental Issues

The environmental impacts of transportation sys-tems, such as some forms of air pollution and aircraftnoise, freely cross political boundaries. Conse-quently, decisions about financing and managinginfrastructure projects, usually made by individualjurisdictions, often do not adequately address envi-ronmental concerns. Issues such as alternative fuelsfor reduced emissions, higher occupancy vehicles,and land-use planning conducive to environmentallysound transportation must be jointly debated anddiscussed by all the affected jurisdictions.

The financial trade-offs of improvements totransportation systems required for environmentalprotection are not easy to calculate, yet such

understanding is essential for long-term planning.Public transportation officials must soon makedecisions about alternative fuels for transit buses,because of the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) emission standards for diesel-powered, heavy duty buses. Concerns over theenvironmental effects of dredging and dredgedmaterial disposal already limit channel maintenanceand expansion options, especially for harbors andports in metropolitan areas. Noise is a problem fortransport operators across all modes, but is espe-cially serious for airports and airlines. Communitygroups fighting to curb the noise of airport opera-tions have restricted present operations and blockedgrowth in some instances, limiting airport develop-ment across the country.

System Management and Financing

Transportation networks provide enormous bene-fits to the national economy. However, Federal fisca1policies-general fired subsidies, grant matchingrequirements, trust fund spending restrictions, andother revenue options-are developed and appliedby mode and often work against economical systeminvestment and management. Much of the Federalcapital spending for transportation infrastructure ismanaged through trust fired accounts established byCongress for highways, transit, airways, harbors,and inland waterways (see table 3-3). To ensure thatfederally financed transportation programs are usersupported, trust funds are credited with revenuesfrom dedicated user fees and excise taxes, and thebalances serve as the basis for Federal spendingauthority. For example, in 1989 the Highway TrustFund was credited with $13.6 billion, raised primar-ily from gas taxes, and $14.3 billion was spent oncapital projects. Unlike mandatory entitlement trustfunds, such as social security, transportation firedbalances cannot be spent without being budgeted


and appropriated. 5 Thus the annual transportationspending agendas must compete with other Federalpriorities. Over the last decade, the highway, transit,and airways accounts have built up substantialbalances, which transportation supporters claimshould be appropriated now to address the Nation’slarge backlog of needs. However, despite recentincreases in Federal fuel taxes and other transporta-tion user fees, expenditures from these trust ac-counts, which are part of the unified Federal budget,will be limited by the domestic spending ceilingsimposed in the 1990 deficit reduction package.

Federal program management does little to pro-mote efficient use of transportation systems. In itsalmost quarter century of existence, DOT has neversuccessfully transcended the autonomy of its sepa-rate modal divisions (see figure 3-2) to establish aleadership or coordinating role for multimodal,system-based programs. System-based, State andlocal investment and management policies andinstitutions are lacking too. As one example of thetypes of problems that result, ports both contributeto and suffer from surface traffic congestion, airpollution, and disputes caused by oversize andoverweight container shipments. But ports are oftenindependent authorities, and their shipments usuallyinvolve interstate commerce, making it hard forState or local governments to affect them. Fewexamples of successful intergovernmental mecha-nisms for setting policies or developing and fundingprograms to address such problems can be found.

Technology and Management Tools

A number of technologies are available formanaging infrastructure maintenance and rehabilita-tion, alleviating traffic congestion and increasingcapacity, and prolonging structure life. Many ofthese technologies are described in chapter 5. Thosewith the most promise for transportation includecomputerized inventory management and decisionsupport tools, sensors for condition assessment andtransponders for communication and flow control,and a variety of materials for construction andrehabilitation and construction techniques. Despite

their availability, however, new technologies are notin widespread use in public works, and technicaladvances in equipment and software far outstrip theskills and financial resources available to most Stateand local public works operators.

Surface Transportation Networks:Highways and Bridges

Roads and bridges are key to moving people andgoods; indeed every traveler and freight item travelsby highway for at least part of almost every trip.Motor vehicles account for roughly 10 times asmany person-miles of travel as all other transporta-tion modes combined, and trucking accounts forover 80 percent of all domestic freight revenues and25 percent of all the ton-miles of domestic freight.6

Management and Financing: Who Owns,Pays for, and Operates What

Counties and local jurisdictions own and managethe lion's share of roads and bridges, while Statesown and administer Interstates, most arterial roads,and one-third of collector roads. The few Federalroads are almost exclusively on Federal property,such as national parks and forests.7 About one-halfof total national spending for roads (about $69billion in 1988)8 is provided by States and aboutone-quarter by local governments. More than three-quarters of the almost 3.9 million miles of publicroads that now lace the country had been built by1920, although less than 15 percent were paved.Even today, 1.7 million miles of road remainunpaved.

All Interstate miles and 97 percent of other arterialroute-miles are considered part of the Federal-aidsystem and are eligible for Federal funding aid fordevelopment and maintenance. See figure 3-3 andtable 3-4 for further information about funding androad characteristics. Federal-aid funding from theHighway Trust Fund, about $14 billion annually,represents around one-quarter of total road spending.Of the nearly 577,000 bridges in the United States,

SJOhKI Hom~~ Tra~o~tion Trust Funds: Econonu”c and Policy Issues (’wdlhlgtOIli m: Cowssioti R~~h S*CO, SCP* 19$@~p. 2.

6Natio~ COUnCiI On Public Works I.mprovemen~ Highways, Streets, Roads and Bridges (W_Or4 DC: WY 1987), P. 55.~.S. Department of llansportatio~ Federal Highway A&mm“ ‘stmtion, Highway Functional Classification-Concepts, Cn”ten”a, and Procedures

(%k@iX@OQ DC: March 1989).$U.S. Department of lkmspomtiom Federal Highway A6ministratiow Highway Statistics 1988 (WashingtoxL DC: 1989), p. 38.

Figure 3-2—US. Department of Transportation

Secretary

Deputy Secretary1

Office ofCivil Rights DBoard of

Contract Appeals

L25c_JBBSOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1990.

I

Assistant Secretaryfor Governmental

Assistant Secretary Assistant Secreta~ Office of

Affairsfor Administration for Public Affairs Inspector GeneraI

3National HighwayTraffic SafetyAdministration

I

~ r-----t! I Urban Mass Saint LawrenceFederal Railroad Seaway Maritime Research and

Administration Transportation Development Administration Special ProgramsAdministration Corporation Administration


Figure 3-3-Characteristics of the Nation’s Road System

Road mileage Vehicle-miles traveled(by road type) (by road type)

OtherIs

Iectors21%

Interstate1%

Minor

Collectors

- arterials19%

69%

Secondary11%

Primary

Other arterials28%

Road mileage(by funding classification)

7%

1%Federal

6%

te

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on information from the U.S. Department of Transportation,

almost 275,000 are on Federal-aid roads, with theremainder on off-system roads.9

State highway officials administer a wide varietyof State-funded programs and, with the FederalHighway Administration (FHWA), the Federal-AidHighway Program. States allocate about 60 percentof all highway outlays, construct and maintain about22 percent of the Nation’s highway mileage and43 percent of the bridges,l0 disperse Federal andState funds to local jurisdictions, and enforceconstruction standards and grant conditions. AllStates levy motor fuel taxes; in 1990, the average gastax was 16 cents per gallon. During the 1980s, 47States increased their levies—some more than once.Most, but not all, States dedicate this revenue totransportation purposes, and their officials view the

large balances in the Federal Highway Trust Fundwith anger, believing the Federal Government iswithholding these dedicated highway user fees forgeneral budget balancing purposes.

Issues

Local governments design, construct, and main-tain the vast majority of the Nation’s roads andbridges,ll and virtually every jurisdiction has a largebacklog of road and bridge maintenance and repairneeds. These are particularly acute in large, oldercities where infrastructure is heavily used and manystructures have long since reached the end of theirdesign lives; in New York City, for example, moretraffic lanes will be closed for repairs than will bereopening under a rehabilitation program that will

p. 134.

of Counties, Linking America P. 8. Figures DC:

1987), p. 4.


Table 3-4-Highway Mileage and Funding Statistics

Capital MaintenanceRoad classification Miles Jurisdiction funding funding

Interstate Systema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44,000 State 90% Federal 1OO% State10% State

Federal-Aid Primary Systemb

(excluding lnterstate) . . . . . . . . . . 260,000 State 75% Federal 1OO% State25% State

Federal-Aid Secondary Systemc. . 400,000 State 75% Federal 100?40 State25% State

Federal-Aid Urban Systemd . . . . . . 125,000 State 75% Federal 100% State25940 State

Local roadse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,751,000 Counties, Not eligible for Local and Statemunicipalities, Federal aidand townships

Federal roadsf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226,000 Federal 100% Federal 100% Federala R~ut~ that~nn~t pfindpal metrop[itan ar~, serve the national defense, or~fln~t fith mutes of COntiflelltal

importance in Mexico or Canada (subsystem of the Federal-Aid Primary System).b Intemnn=ting roaa important to interstate, statewide, and regional travel.c Mqor ~ml ~l[a~rs that assemble traffic and feed to the afierials.d Urban ~~ena[ ad ~[leetors mutes, excluding the urban extensions of the major primary artedab.e Residential and [-l $tr$etsof ROa~ in national forests and parks; roads on military and Indian r$SenfatkmS.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 1988(Washington,

DC: 1989); and U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Our Nation’sHighways: Se/eoted Faots andl?gures (Washington, DC: 1987)

Over 10 percent of the Nation’s roads have enoughpotholes, cracks, ragged shoulders, ruts, and wash-board ridges to be classified as deficient; heavy axleweights, such as those of large trucks, and thestresses caused by freezing and thawing of harshweather are the major causes of pavement damage.13

Nearly 42 percent of the Nation’s bridges are ratedas unable to handle traffic demand or structurallydeficient (see figure 3-4); costs for repairing andreplacing these are estimated at $67.6 billion.14

Maintenance is an easy budget item to defer inevery jurisdiction when resources are low. However,if maintenance is put off for too long, simpleprocedures are no longer adequate, and more exten-sive and costly work becomes necessary. FHWAadministers five major highway grant programs(interstate, interstate 4R, primary, and urban andsecondary), which can provide up to 75 percent ofthe funds for construction/reconstruction andrehabilitation of Federal-aid highways. Despite thisavailability, less than 25 percent of Federal highwayobligations have been used for these purposes (see

12YSHOW, op. cit., footnote 1.

lsTr~ofitionRese~h Board, Truck WeightLimits: Issues and Options, Special Report 225 (Washington, ~: 1990), P. 27.ldu.s. Co-ss, House COmmittW on public work and Transportation, The Status of the Nation’s Highways and Bridges: Co?tditions ad

Pe~ormance and Bridge Replacement and Retibilitation Program, Report of the Seeretiuy of Transportation to the United States Congress~-ou ~: U.S. Govment Printing CMke, June 1989), p. 121.


Figure 3-4-Physical Condition of U.S. BridgesAll U.S. bridges

Functionally

1 0 8 , 0 0 0 deficient (19%)

135,000

Adequate (58%)-632,000

Bridges on Federal-aid roads

Adequate (195,00

Functionallydeficient (15%)

40,000

Structurallydeficient (13%)

36,000

Functionaldeficient (2

68,000

Off-system bridges

Structurally— d e d e f i c i e n t ( 3 3 % )

~ 100,000

Adequate ( 4 6 % )137,000

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, The Status of fhe Nation’s Highways and Bridges (Washington, DC: June 1989).

figure 3-5) over most of the past decade.15 In fact, ofall the money all levels of government spend onhighways annually, only about one-quarter goes tomaintenance and repair.l6

Costs for rehabilitation and maintenance fall mostheavily on large, rural States because of theirextensive mileage and low populations. They mustmaintain miles of lightly traveled roads and numer-ous bridges to standards that accommodate heavyagriculture loads, although such heavy vehicles mayuse the system only a few weeks a year.

To be eligible for Federal aid, local street andbridge projects must conform to categorical grantrequirements. With a few exceptions, Federal fundsfocus on capital projects, precluding their use to fundpreventive maintenance and traffic managementimprovements, such as upgraded signals, rampmetering, and real-time traffic monitoring, thatcould reduce congestion. Because Federal funds

contribute substantially to State and local highwaybudgets, it is not unusual for project priorities to betailored to fit Federal-aid categories or for recon-struction and maintenance to be deferred becausemoney is short or Federal aid is not available.

Hard pressed to finance road improvements, localgovernments have turned to dedicated portions ofState gasoline and sales taxes, seeking greater Stateand Federal support, and in some cases, privatesector partners. Denver’s limited access, circumfer-ential highway, E-470, now under construction,provides an example of the potential for non-traditional means of highway financing, such asright-of-way dedication, tolls, and earmarked vehi-cle registration fees. Such broad-based financingconcepts and public-private partnerships are likelyto be tried more often in the future, because of thekeen competition among government programs forfunds.

Investments: What Federal Grant Programs? E Congressional R 31, 1990), pp. 4-8.

calculations based on Federal Highway “ “ op. cit., footnote 8, pp. 40, 165-168.


Figure 3-5-Federal Obligations for Interstate, 4R,Primary, Secondary, and Urban Programs, by

Improvement100%

7 5 %

50%

25%

o%

Type

I I I I 100%

75%

50%

25%

o%80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89

~ New construction= Capital replacement

= Maintenance m Other

SOURCE: Congressional Research Service from Federal Highway Admin-istration. See Congressional Research Service, MaintainingHighway and Bridge Investments: What Role for Fe&al GrantPrograms? (Washington, DC: 1989.)

Loca1 roads serving regional needs frequently fallvictim to differing local, State, or Federal manage-ment goals and responsibilities, or their planningand financing become stalled by interjurisdictionalsquabbles.17 Furthermore, because Federal and Stategrants are allocated by mode, communities havelittle incentive to seek intermodal solutions toareawide transportation problems. Weak land-useplanning and development controls further com-pound congestion problems. While new technologycan bring some short-term solutions, changes inland-use management and development patterns,lifestyles, and institutional arrangements are likelyto be required for long-term solutions in regionswhere congestion problems are severe.

Technologies for Highways and Bridges

Technologies can make substantial contributionsto addressing congestion and capacity problems andto bringing the physical condition of the highwaysystem to a satisfactory level. If money is availableto purchase equipment, and personnel are trained tooperate and maintain them, the technologies de-scribed below can bring major benefits.

Keeping the System in Good Condition

Keeping pavements and bridges in good conditionrequires collecting information, careful manage-ment, investment in appropriate and durable equip-ment and materials, and adequately trained person-nel. Management and information systems areessential planning and resource allocation tools.Decisions about materials and construction are alsokey to maintaining a healthy road system.

Pavement and Bridge Management Systems-The essential components of any pavement or bridgemanagement system include data collection andprocessing, techniques or models for pavementperformance prediction, and setting priorities forresource allocation. Most current State pavementmanagement systems resemble that used in NorthCarolina and its municipalities. This includes visualpavement inspection by trained professional evalu-ators of the entire paved street system, from a vehicletraveling at about 10 miles per hour. Both State andlocal evaluators record pavement condition accord-ing to the same, well-defined levels of distress.18

Municipalities use the results to set priorities forengineering investigation, testing, maintenance, andresurfacing. The system helps to set priorities forlimited funds and facilitates exchange of technol-ogy, information, and training programs.

A somewhat more automated pavement manage-ment system, developed by the Army Corps ofEngineers, has the capability to store inventory andinspection data, analyze pavement condition, predictfuture pavement condition, compare costs of mainte-nance and repair, and plan budgets. It is available foruse by public works officials.19

Advances in electronic sensors and system man-agement software permit automated data collectionand analysis, and these technologies have greatpotential to speed up and standardize the conditionassessment process and help set priorities for repair.Several States have programs utilizing them (seebox 3-B). However, when more data are collected,more powerful data management tools and special-

lyJohII tiyOW ci~ fiice offixr, -eapolia, MN, personal communidom Jme 21, IWO.lSJSm= B. _ “pavement Management for North Carolina Municipalities,” Transportation Research Record1200 (Washington DC: National

Research Council, 1988).1~.s. ~y CoWs of m~~, Construction hgineering ~e-h LS~rStOIY* “Micro Paver Pavement Management System,” informational

document MSy 1989.

92 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance—

Box 3-B—Video Technology and Pavement Management

Since the early 1980s, the Connecticut Department of Transportation has used a pavement survey van equippedwith a movie camera to record images at regular distance intervals (100 pictures per mile) on all 7,600 miles ofState-maintained road. This process, known as photologging, produces a film of the entire road network which isthen developed, producing some 760,000 images, and transferred to videotape. Images from the videotape are thentransferred onto 15 double-sided laser videodiscs. Connecticut has developed an image retrieval system that allowsany desired stretch of road to be examined on a video monitor to determine pavement distress. When correlated withroad geometry and roughness data which is collected simultaneously with the same pavement survey van, thisinformation provides highway engineers with a complete database to use in setting priorities for road maintenance.

Connecticut’s surveys are conducted annually and take about 4 months to complete. The State has found thatphotologging saves gas, makes more efficient use of labor, eliminates much of the need for field inspections, andprovides better pavement ratings than its previous method, which consisted of 4’. . . two people riding in a seal@at 40 miles per hour jotting down general impressions. . .“ of pavement quality.1 Other States pursuing videodisctechnology for pavement data acquisition and retrieval include Minnesota, Iowa, Utah, Texas, and Wisconsin.Future efforts will focus on eliminating the need to use movie cameras or video cameras and writing data directlyonto disc.

IJohn Hudson, photolog supervisor, and Richard Hanky, transportation sefi~ W@=$ co-ti~t w-e~t of T’~~‘o%personal cwxummications, Nov. 8, 1990.

ized personnel and expertise become necessary,20 Thermal Mapping—An extension of pavementand these are beyond the resources of many StateDOTS.

Bridge lnventories—Investigations into the col-lapse in 1967 of the Silver Bridge between WestVirginia and Ohio, which killed 46 people, revealeda lack of uniform reporting standards for bridges anda need for a national inventory of bridges, improvedinspection standards, and inspection training proce-dures. While a national bridge inventory that in-cludes condition ratings is now in place, recentbridge failures have demonstrated that significantinspection, maintenance, and repair issues must stillbe addressed (see box 3-C).

Computerized bridge inventory systems can coor-dinate bridge condition analyses, set priorities, andbudget for maintenance and repair. For example, thebridge inventory for Texas is a database thatincludes 140 different entries for each bridge. Thedata help the engineers determine a sufficiencyrating for every bridge in the State, and those that areclassified as deficient are eligible for FHWAfunds.21

management for deicing and ice prediction applica-tions, thermal mapping requires mounting infraredthermometers on vehicles to measure pavementtemperatures along stretches of road. Thermal map-ping can be used to position permanent sensors in theroad, to determine how many sensors are needed toprovide adequate temperature profiles, and to rede-sign salting routes. Thermal mapping trials havebeen carried out in several counties in England.22

Paving Materials-Composites, ceramics, plas-tics, and higher strength cements, are graduallybeing used more frequently in bridges and highways.They can provide faster curing, weight, and durabil-ity advantages over steel and concrete when properlyused and in the right conditions. Quick-curingconcrete can produce a road ready for vehicle trafficinside of 24 hours, minimizing the need for reroutingtraffic, an inconvenience that can last for weeksunder traditional paving operations. Though fast-track construction adds $1 to $2 per square yard tothe pavement costs, the increase is offset by reduc-tions in traffic rerouting and liability .23 Extensivetests performed on U.S. 71 in Iowa showed promise

— — — — . . — — . — . — — — — ———.20~5 KOUWOp)UIOS, ‘‘Automated Interpretation of Pavement Distress Dat%’ Cofisruction, newsletter of the Center for Construction Research and

Educatio% Massachusetts Institute of Twhnology, winter 1989, p 10.

‘lJane Mills Smith, ‘‘Middle Age Crisis, Wirdowt, Texas A&M LTniversity, summer 1988.~~en~ Mapping IntC~tlu~~], Ltd.. Birmingham, England, informatioml brochure, n.d.

~M~lin K~utson ~d Rande]l Riley, ‘ ‘Driving m the Fast Track, ’ Civil Engineertn~, vol. 58, No. 9, September 1988, p. 56.

Chapter 3—-Transportation Management and Technologies ● 93-. -- —— —...... ——— —- —.— —

Box 3-C—Bridge Inspections

The 1989 failure of the Hatchie River Bridge in Tennessee highlights some of the inadequacies of presentbridge management practices. Four passenger cars and one tractor-semitrailer fell into the river when the bridgecollapsed during a flood. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) identified several contributing factors,including migration of the main river channel beneath the bridge and the failure of authorities to evaluate and correctthe resulting problems. A lack of redundancy in the bridge design also contributed to the severity of the accident,Channel migration and scour, or wear, exposed the bridge piles to as much as 10 feet of water, reducing their abilityto support the bridge. Although a 1987 onsite inspection identified the piles’ vulnerability to water, no settlementor leaning was noticed in the supports, and the bridge was given a “poor” rather than “critical” rating, thus notmaking it a priority for repair. NTSB determined that State officials did not recognize the potential for scour fromthe inspection report, and that overweight vehicles were frequently permitted to cross the bridge, further weakeningthe structure.1

After its investigation, NTSB issued 19 recommendations for improved inspection and maintenanceprocedures for the Nation’s bridges, stressing the need for dealing with the effects of channel migration and rivercourse changes, overweight traffic loads, and scour on the integrity of the bridge support structures. Therecommendations also highlight the need for raising qualification standards for evaluators of bridge inspectionreports and for the creation of a system to set priorities for bridge repairs.2

INatioml Transportation Safety BoMd, “Safety InfortnatioK” informational document, June 5, 1990.

21bid.

for quick-curing concrete technology. The StrategicHighway Research program (SHRP) has sponsoredfast-track. concrete pavement overlay experiments inMissouri on Route 67 with a pavement mixturedesigned to harden in 12 hours.24 (See chapter 5 forfurther discussion of advanced materials.)

Pavement additives for deicing, developed inEurope and tested in the United States, includeparticles of ground rubber or calcium chlorideparticles covered with linseed oil. These are mixedinto the material used for the road surface. Theseadditives can double or triple paving material costsand are not effective in all climates or under allhighway conditions. 25 Salt, currently the cheapestand most available deicer, has been widely used inthis country, although it causes extensive corrosionto unprotected pavement. (See chapter 5 for furtherdetails.) Laboratory and field tests have showncalcium magnesium acetate to be comparable to rocksalt as a deicer, while lacking many of the adverseside effects. However, its price, 15 to 20 times thatof rock salt, prevents extensive use.

loads and member strengths as if they were knownwith roughly equal certainty, rarely the case. LRFDrecognizes that some loads (the bridge’s ownweight, for instance) and material strengths can becalculated with a fair amount of certainty, whileothers (the wind load from a hurricane, for example)can only be guessed. LRFD takes uncertainty intoaccount by multiplying each load by a load factorand each member strength by a resistance factor,with both reflecting the probability that each particu-lar number is wrong. In many structures, LRFDallows the use of smaller members or lower strengthsteels, reducing the cost of the structure. Load factordesign (LFD) was adopted by the American Associ-ation of State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO) in 1969 as an alternative method forboth steel and concrete bridges. Most States nowrecognize LFD as an acceptable design method,26

and by 1992, AASHTO bridge design and construc-tion specifications will be revised in the LRFDformat. However, LRFD takes time to learn andrequires educating staff and converting or replacingcomputer programs that use conventional design

Design and Construct ion—bad and resistanceformulas.

factor design (LRFD) is a promising alternative to Primarily because they can be constructedstandard allowable stress design, which treats all quickly, segmental bridges minimize traffic disrup-— ——————— —————.—. —-.——— — —

24S@ate@ Highway Research ROW, ‘ ‘FO C U S, ’ :lWSktteI’, Auglist 1990, p. ~

~Kevfi Stew@ pavement RCsearC~ ~lvlslon, ~~~ra] H]gh~ay AdnlinistratiOn, persoml Commtication, Apr 24, 1990.

26’ ‘Steel Desl~’s Reluitfi~.t Revolution+ Lnxlneering A’tws Record. VOI 2?3, No 19, NOV . 9. 1989, pp. 54-60


tion, since contractors can place precast or cast-in-place segments from above or below.27 The behaviorof the joints between the precast segments involvescomplex interactions, however, and great care mustbe taken to ensure that shear forces are transferredacross the joints.

Two promising technologies for strengtheningexisting bridges are the reinforcing arch for trussbridges and the post-tensioning system for steelgirder bridges. If critical truss bridge members arereinforced with superimposed steel arches, chordsupports, and additional floor beams, the carryingcapacity and service life of the bridge can beincreased at a significant savings compared with thecost of a new bridge. High-strength steel tendonsbolted to the ends of the girders and tightened reducethe stress on the bottom of the girders. This processenables the bridge to carry heavier weights, mini-mizes traffic disruption because work is done abovethe roadway, and is significantly less costly thenreplacing single-span steel girder bridges.

Increasing Capacity and Managing Traffic:Smart Cars and Highways

Present strategies for overcoming congestioninclude building new roads, adding lanes to existinghighways, creating high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)lanes, and promoting car pooling and public trans-portation. However, no city, even those using all ofthese techniques, has achieved more than modestsuccess in solving its congestion problems. Intelli-gent Vehicle/Highway System (IVHS) technologiescan help reduce congestion and improve highwaysafety, and two of these-advanced traffic manage-ment (ATM) and automatic vehicle identification(AVI) and billing-are particularly applicable forpublic works and are available now for wider use.More advanced IVHS technologies—collisionwarning and avoidance, driver information and routeguidance, and automatic vehicle control-bothsteering and headway-are under development.28

Advanced Traffic Management—ATM sys-tems include urban traffic control systems, incident

detection systems, and freeway and corridor controlsystems. Hardware consists of sensors, traffic sig-nals, ramp meters, changeable message signs, andcommunication and control devices integrated intoa single system. Urban traffic control systemscoordinate traffic signal operations throughout agiven area, based on traffic patterns as measured bydetectors in the roadway. Freeway control systemsinclude sensors of all types to monitor congestionand transmit the data to driver-information signs andramp meters to control access. In the United States,freeway systems are almost always separate fromurban traffic control systems. Although several areplanned, only a few integrated systems are in place.One of these, Information for Motorists (INFORM),is a traffic monitoring and control system, sponsoredby FHWA, along a 35-mile east-west corridor onLong Island.29

Because current traffic detectors, usually embed-ded in the roadway, are susceptible to frequentfailure, more reliable methods of measuring trafficare being investigated, including infrared sensorsand machine vision systems (video cameras linkedto a computer that analyzes the images to generatetraffic flow and congestion information) .30

The Automated Traffic Surveillance and Controlsystem (ATSAC) in Los Angeles (see box 3-D) isone of the most advanced ATM systems presently inuse in this country. Pathfinder, an in-vehicle driverinformation and route guidance demonstration in theLos Angeles area, recently began preliminary test-ing, and TravTek, an Orlando-based project usingsimilar technology, will begin operation during1991-93.

Only about 6 percent of urban freeway mileage iscovered by ATM systems. While most large, urbanareas have arterial traffic signal control systems,many are old and inadequate for current needs, covertoo small an area, and do not respond well to

2-7ttcontioversid Bridges Scruti.tdz.txl at confer~ws “ Civil Engineering, vol. 60, No. 2, February 1990, p. 20.~For~erde~s, seeu+s. coges~, ~lce of ~~olog ~s=ment, “~v~~d vehicle~ghwaysystems ~dlJrb~T~lc Problems, ” S~

paper of the Science, lllucatio~ and Transportation Program, September 1989.Z%yle &mto~ assistant for advanced technical systems, FedersI Wghway ~“ “ tratio~ personal communication, July 24, 1989.30pmos ~c~opo~o~, professor, Dep~~t of Civil ~d ~er~ EK@ee@, University of -eSo@ ~d RoM Behuke, Research

Administration and Development, Minuesota Department of Transportation “’llsting and Field Implementation of the Minnesota Video DetectionSystem,” unpublished documen~ n.d.

Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies ● 95—-.———— —.... . . . . .- ————

.

Box 3-13-The Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) System

One of the more advanced urban traffic control systems in place in this country is the ATSAC system, acomputerized traffic signal control system installed in Los Angeles. It is based on the Urban Traffic Control System(UTCS) software package developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and was put into operationseveral weeks prior to the 1984 Olympic Games. Initial installation included 118 intersections and 3% detectorsin a 4-square-mile area centered at the University of Southern California and the Los Angeles Coliseum. It has sinceexpanded to include areas of the San Fernando Valley and central business district for a total of 371 intersections.The airport and Westwood areas are targeted for later implementation, and in 1991, the system is planned to include1,600 intersections. ATSAC is funded by a combination of FHWA monies, a traffic mitigation fired financed bydeveloper fees, and distributions from the Petroleum Violation Escrow Account fundi

From their workstations, ATSAC operators can monitor any portion of the surveillance area at any desired levelof resolution, from traffic flow data at intersections to traffic behavior over a region. ATSAC gives the current statusof any traffic signal in the network and gives traffic flow data for any loop detector in the network. Since it was firstinstalled, ATSAC has evolved into a signal timing system that automatically selects (and switches) timing plansby matching current traffic patterns against historical data Signal timing can be fine-tuned by manual override orautomated control to relieve local congestion. Figure D-1 depicts a typical system.

Closed-circuit television cameras,installed at important intersections assistin incident management and confirmincidents. ATSAC has improved trafficflow and economic benefits: travel time(-13 percent), number of stops (-35percent), average speed (+15 percent),fuel consumption (–12 percent), andvehicle emissions (–10 percent). Com-puterized signal control also providesrapid detection of faulty sensors andunusual traffic patterns due to incidents.Estimated cost savings to motorists(business and truck trips only) as a resultof lower operating costs and time savedrecovered the $5.6-million constructioncost of ATSAC after only 9 months ofoperation. The annual operating costs arerecovered within the first week of opera-tion every year.2

However, ATSAC relieves streetcongestion only, not freeway congestion,since freeway traffic falls under theauthority of CALTRANS. Recognizingthis limitation, the major transportationagencies in the Los Angeles area havebegun the Smart Corridor demonstrationproject, which integrates selected city-operated surface streets and State-operated freeways in a single trafficmanagement system.

Figure D-l—Typical Automated Traffic Management System

.7 Vehicle Signal

Qi\

)7I

~detector controller

Al- -—4—— – — – ~–

311L Two-way datatransmission network

. — — -Real-time computer

*

I +--- Input/output programs— —— ‘ - r — ——-– +----l

L On-line + Signal Signalopt imizers + timings

+ :::; yLJt communications Y

1

Display of traffic andsystem information

SOURCE: Ferranti Computer Systems, GEC Traffic Automation Ltd., and PlesseyControls Ltd., “Dynamic Urban Traffic Control,” SCOOT brochure, 1985.

1~~ Rowe, general maoager, Department of Transportation% City of Los Angeles, personal CtXM.llUtkiCZttiOm, Aug. 19 W 30, 1989.%Mwin Rowe et aI,, ATSAC Evaluation Study (3AM Angeles, CA: City of bs AWelf% ~P~ of Trmqmrtatiow M& 1987).

-— —.--.. .-- ——.——. .— . — . .-— .————— —.


nonrecurring congestion.31 Over one-half of allvehicle-hours of delay are caused by nonrecurringcongestion or incidents (vehicle accidents andbreakdowns that tie up traffic). Incident manage-ment programs use a variety of ATM tools to detectincidents, including conventional traffic surveil-lance, service patrols, closed-circuit television,roadside and mobile telephones, and citizens-bandradio.

Automatic Vehicle identification—AVI sys-tems are a promising option for automatic billing ontoll roads and bridges.32 Radio or microwave trans-ponders on a vehicle can be “read’ by equipmentplaced along a route or at a point where informationexchange or billing needs to occur, such as tollfacilities, weigh stations, and ports of entry. Addi-tional AVI technologies include optical and infraredsystems, inductive loop systems, and surface acous-tic wave systems.

Because AVI-equipped vehicles need not stop fordata transfer, widespread use would substantiallyreduce delay at these normal congestion points. AVIcould also be used to control access to facilities andto provide traffic data for travel flow and congestionmonitoring. Such systems are operating at theCoronado Bridge in San Diego, the MississippiBridge into New Orleans, the Lincoln and HollandTunnels in New York City (for buses), the Grosse IleBridge in Michigan, and the Dallas North Tollway.The Dallas (see box 3-E) and New Orleans systemsare the most heavily used, with 20,000 and 13,000subscribers, respectively .33

AVI also makes possible congestion pricing, orcharging automobile drivers for driving in congestedareas during peak hours. Congestion pricing pro-vides more funds for system improvements, and maycause some motorists to shift to public transit, makefewer trips, or plan their trips during nonpeak hours,thus reducing delays.

Weigh-in-Motion —WIM systems use road-mounted sensors to determine the weight of moving

Box 3-E—Fast Toll Collection in Dal!as

The Dallas North Tollway is one of the largestautomatic vehicle identification (AVI toll roads inthe Nation, Since August 1989, all of its toll laneshave been equipped with reading equipment capa-ble of interrogating transponders (toll tags) attachedto the inside of the windshields of subscribers’vehicles. The credit card-sized toll tags can bepurchased in $40 increments bymail or at a tag storelocated near the tollway. Tag users pay an extra5 cents per transaction over the usual toll as well asa $2 service charge for use of the transponder. Aftera successful transaction, a “valid tag-go” sign isflashed to the driver. If the toll tag credit is used up,a‘ ‘call tag store” sign is fIashed and the driver mustpay the toll in cash. Before the system beganoperation, an average of 350 vehicles per hourpassed through a toll plaza lane during rush hour.Now, 800 vehicles per hour pass through lanes fordrivers with toll tags or with exact change, andAVI-only lanes, which will be implemented in late1990, are expected to process 1,200 vehicles perhour, based on a vehicle speed of 10 miles per hour.At present, the tollway has some 30,000 AVIsubscribers, accounting for over 1 miIlion AVItransactions monthly.1

IKtXI ~C~, director of toil cO&XtiOn, Dallas No*‘IbIlway, personal commurdeatiom Nov. 7, 1990.

vehicles by taking into account axle weights, vehiclelength, and vehicle speed. By also calculating axlespacing, WIM devices can classify vehicles anddetermine their compliance with weight standards.Technologies used for WIM include piezo-electricsensors, load cell systems, shallow weighscalesystems, bending plate systems, and bridge systems.The most accurate WIM systems currently haveaccuracies within 10 percent of true vehicle weight,limiting their usefulness for enforcement purposes,34

although the information they provide about truckweights has proven useful for highway research andpavement design.— .

3*Gary Euler et al., ‘‘Final Report of the Mobility 2000 Working Group on Advanced Traft3c Management Systems (ATMS),’ unpublished report,March 1990, p. 2.

szAuto~tic vehicle idmtil~tion t~hnology is also sometimes referred to as electronic toll ~d ~~lc management.33Maureen Gallagher, director of research and member services, International Bridge, Tbnnel and Tbrnpike Association PrsO~ comm~~tio~

May 31, 1990.~Ned -OK ~~=r, Cufle Rock Consultants, personal communication Apr 28, 1989.


Automatic Vehicle Location—AVL systemscurrently have their primary application in commer-cial fleet operations, since they typically identifyvehicle location and transmit it to a central facilityfor monitoring or dispatch purposes. An AVLsystem consists of equipment to locate the vehicle-usually based on dead reckoning, map matching,proximity to roadside beacons, or radio determina-tion—and mobile communications equipment,which relays this information to the central location.AVL can provide real-time information on shipmentstatus and eliminates the need for time-consumingdriver-to-control-center communication.

Surface Transportation Networks:Mass Transit

Mass transit refers to regional and municipalpassenger transportation systems, such as buses,light rail, commuter rail, trolleys, and subways (seetable 3-5). Early mass transit service was providedby private horsecar in the mid-1800s, and cable carsand electric streetcars served numerous urban ridersbetween 1880 and 1920. The versatility brought bybuses and automobiles caused rail transit ridership todecline slightly during the 1930s. During the imme-diate postwar years, transit patronage and revenuesfell again, and local governments began to takeoverthe systems from private operators. The establish-ment of a Federal grant program for transit in 1964and substantial increases in Federal support in 1970(see chapter 2 for further details) brought a largeincrease in public takeovers of transit agencies.

Transit Management and Financing

Today, most cities and towns with populationsover 20,000 have bus systems, usually operated bya municipal transit authority; over one-half (58percent) of all systems are located in towns withpopulations of less than 50,000. Local governmentsmanage transit systems as operating departments orthrough a public transit authority. Transit buses,operating on established routes on set schedules,account for over one-half of all public transitvehicles, passenger trips, and vehicle-miles oper-ated. 35 Seattle, Philadelphia, Boston, Dayton, and

San Francisco transit agencies still operate someelectric trolleys. Rail transit, rapid rail, light rail, andcommuter rail systems are usually owned by munic-ipal transit agencies, although some commuter railservices are run by State governments or operated byAmtrak.

Paratransit operators maybe municipalities, spe-cial purpose agencies, or private entities. Servicesinclude dial-a-ride, van pools, subsidized taxis, andshared rides in minibuses or vans; paratransit canprovide more direct origin-to-destination service,and operates on demand rather than on a fixedschedule. The primary residential users of paratran-sit are the elderly, handicapped, and children; airportshuttles are heavily used by business people andtravelers.

Of total transit revenues in 1988,36 percent camefrom passenger fares, 53 percent from State and localassistance, and 6 percent from Federal capital andoperating assistance, which totaled $3.3 billion (incurrent dollars) in 1988,36 down about 40 percentfrom 1980 (see chapter 2, table 2-2). Quadruplingfrom about $1 billion in 1980 to almost $4 billion in1988, State aid to local and regional transit nowsurpasses Federal aid.37 At least 40 States providelocal mass transit with some funds from generalrevenues, a dedicated portion of the general salestax, or motor fuels and vehicle taxes. States supporttransit because it is one of the few options availablefor relieving auto congestion and air pollution inurbanized regions, and seven heavily urbanizedStates contribute 80 percent of total State aid.

Federal capital grants may be used to finance busand subway car purchases, rail construction, andother capital improvements, but these programshave been criticized for not meeting communityneeds. Some cities receive more capital funds thanthey can use, encouraging large construction bud-gets, which may cause them to shortchange mainte-nance. Others, often those with older rail systems,are substantially underfunded38 and in desperateneed of capital equipment and track rehabilitation.About 70 percent of transit operating costs are labor

“39 these are not eligible for Federal assist-expenses,

ss~en~ ~blic Transit Associatio~ J989 Transit Fact Book (W-~ ~: 1989), pp. 1~13.

%~d., pp. 24-27,74-75.

37u,s. Dep~ent of Transportation op. cit., footnote 2, p. 24.3SU$S0 COWSS, Cowessiod Budget ~lce, New Directiom for t& Nation’s P@lic Works (WMh@OU ~: Nov_k 1989), p. 37.

qg~efi~ Public Transit Association op. cit., footnote 3% P. 33.

Table 3-5-Characteristics of Mass Transit

Type Right-of-way Fare collection Maximum speed Power source Places in use Funding

Bus City streets anddedicatedbus lanes

Heavy rail Dedicated under-ground, sur-face, or ele-vated

Light rail City streets and/or fully grade-separatedtracks

Commuter Railroadsrail

In vehicle or 35 mph on city internal combus- Virtually all urban areasstation streets, 55 mph tion engine

on highways

75 mph

55 mph

Third railin station New York; Chicago; Boston; Philadel-phia; Atlanta; Washington, DC; SanFrancisco; Los Angeles (under con-struction)

In vehicle or Overhead New Orleans; San Francisco; Philadel-station catenary phia; San Jose; Portland, OR; Bos-

ton; Sacramento; Buffalo; Cleve-land; San Diego; los Angeles; LongBeach

In vehicle 100 mph Diesel/electric San Francisco Bay area; New York-Iocomotive New Jersey; Boston; Philadelphia;

UMTA discretionary grants (sec.3), formula grants for operatingand capital expenses (sec. 9),and operating and capital as-sistance for rural areas (sec.18)

UMTA formula and discretionarygrants (sees. 3 and 9)



Chicago; Washington, DC-Balti-more; Miami-West Palm Beach

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) information.

ance. Cr i t ica l to urban movement , publ ic masstransit is not a profitmaking venture anywhere in theworld. In the United States, farebox revenues coverless than 40 percent of operating costs on average,and service is usually subsidized locally from Stateor local general funds and earmarked taxes. Busesreceive substant ia l ly h igher subsid ies than ra i ltransit systems.

I s s u e s

Transit agencies are not typically an integral partof local and regional transportation and land-usedecisionmaking which undermines t ransi t ’s poten-tial role in solving local and regional transportationp rob lems . Wh i l e t r ans i t i s subs id i zed i n mos tcommunities, its competitive position as a transpor-tation alternative is reduced by municipally subsi-dized parking and by Federal policies that do not taxemployees for parking benefits, but do tax most

transit allowances. Furthermore, the costs of alterna-tive capital improvements (a new highway lane, forexample) are often underestimated.

Transi t systems are important a l ternat ives forincreasing surface transportation capacity in con-gested urban corridors. However, transit must com-plement strong growth management programs, suchas those applied in Oregon (see box 3-F), if transit isto be more effective at alleviating congestion.

Bus transit systems have made major efforts toupgrade their maintenance programs, because vehi-c les in poor condi t ion break down f requent ly ,making schedules hard to keep. However, manyoperators of smaller buses, such as those used insmall communities or in paratransit, encounterproblems with brake wear, corrosion, electrical andair conditioning systems, wheelchair lifts, and vehi-cle handling.40 Maintenance costs are thus high forthese small operators.

40Charles Dickson, director of training, Community Transportation Association of America, personal Communication, May 31, 1990.


Box 3-F-Oregon’s Growth Management Program

Oregon is using growth management to control urban sprawl and cut public works costs. All Oregon cities mustincorporate urban growth limits and public facilities plans into their State-mandated comprehensive plans and adoptconsistent zoning ordinances. State legislation, adopted in 1973 to protect prime agricultural land from haphazardurban development, requires that comprehensive plans show an urban growth boundary, which defines the extentof urban expansion permissible over a 20-year period. The boundary is based on forecasted land-use needs, physicalcharacteristics of the land and local growth policies.1 Although it took over a decade to achieve, all cities andcounties now have State-approved comprehensive plans. State actions, including those of the Highway Department,must be compatible with local plans.

In addition to comprehensive planning requirements and urban growth boundaries, State housing policy is animportant growth management tool, because it requires cities to zone for high-density development as a means ofstimulating construction of affordable housing. To a greater extent than in most other States, development in Oregonin recent years has followed high-density patterns; in 1989 Portland had the highest percentage increase inmultifamily construction in the country and from 1985 to 1989,54 percent of all residential construction in the Statewas multifamily.2 Developers generally support the high-density zoning policy because it reduces per-unitconstruction costs and because the mandated consistency between zoning ordinances and comprehensive planseliminates lengthy and unpredictable rezoning proceedings. Local officials find compact, highdensity developmentprovides the market needed for mass transit, reduces other municipal service construction and operating costs, andincreases affordable housing. Heightened interest in light rail transit, instead of more highways, is another benefitof this policy.3

While State officials are optimistic about the long-term effectiveness of growth management to reducetransportation and other facility costs, pockets of existing development outside the urban boundary undercut theeffectiveness of growth limits. These low-density unincorporated areas, largely exempt from the strict limits ondevelopment in effect elsewhere, continue to grow. In the Portland region, they have absorbed only 5 percent ofresidential growth, but in other fast growing areas one-quarter to over one-half of residential development occursin these unregulated places, complicating regional planning and financing for highways and public utilities, Evenwithin urban growth boundaries, new development is not necessarily contiguous to old and gaps occur, whichincrease public works costs and inefficiency. The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development isconducting a major study to evaluate the impact of current growth management programs and how to improvethem.4

IH COwerva@n and Development Commi ssio% Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals, 1990 (Sale~ OR: 1990), p. 14.2Jok Kelly, project manager, oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Commission+ P@!W@ COlllllldtXt@l, Nw.

1, 1990.3J’&id,

‘%id.—

For r-ail transit systems the components most in rail transit systems to a level ‘‘. . . consistent withneed of rehabilitation or replacement are railcars, current standards of safety, reliability, and aestheticspower substations, overhead power wires, mainte- for new rail systems . . .“ have been estimated atmince facility buildings and storage yards, and $17.9 billion.41

bridges. All also require high degrees of ongoingmaintenance. Facilities and equipment in the poorest Technologies for Transitcondition are usually the oldest, such as those in Fleet and facility management and regular main-New York City, Chicago, and Philadelphia, some of tenance are of primary importance in extending thewhich are more than 50 years old. Rehabilitation and lives of mass transit vehicles, in controlling costs,modernization costs to bring the Nation’s existing and minimizing environmental effects.

. — —olGaett Fleming TrmSpO~tiOn l%gincefs, Inc. et d., Rail Jlodernization Smdj, Report No. UMTA-PA 06-MB9-86-1 (Was~@oU DC: us.

Department of Transportatio~ Urban Mass Transportation Administration, April 1987), p. 2.


Buses

Busways-One traffic management strategy im-plemented by many cities is the creation of exclusivebus lanes on which only buses and commuter vansmay travel. Busways have reduced travel timessignificantly and cost far less than new rail lines.They can be grade-separated, created from wideningexisting roads, or by simply dedicating existinglanes to bus traffic.

Automatic Vehicle Monitoring—AVM sys-tems can locate transit buses and communicateinformation to drivers, dispatchers, central trafficcontrol computers, and passengers. Methods forlocating buses include LORAN C, dead reckoning,satellite referencing, and roadside beacons anddetectors. (See chapter 5 for further discussion oflocation technologies.) Radio channels can providevoice communication or data transmission linksbetween the bus and the central control. To speedtravel, buses with communication links to themunicipal traffic control system (as in some Frenchand Dutch cities) can be given signal priority atintersections. AVM technologies are used by transitauthorities for automated bus-to-dispatcher commu-nication, as well as for collection of data on bustravel times, stops, and adherence to schedules, andthus can bean important source of data for planningand management.42

Communications technologies, such as cabletelevision, videotex, telephone, video screens, andspeaker phones, can provide schedule and statusinformation to passengers on the bus, at bus stops, orat home. Speaker phones and automatic telephoneinformation systems can supply patrons with busarrival information specific to each bus stop. Cabletelevision enables bus passengers to view mapdisplays of routes and bus locations, while videoscreens at bus stops give passengers bus scheduleand arrival information. Onboard systems displayupcoming stops and connections with other modesof transportation.

Electronic Control Systems-Such systems canreduce emissions, smooth shifting, increase acceler-ation, and quiet operations for engines and transmis-

sions and electronically controlled power and drivetrains. The ability to diagnose engine and transmis-sion problems electronically should reduce mainte-nance costs and allow vehicles to stay in servicelonger. 43

Bus systems in cities with serious air pollutionproblems must comply with new emissions stand-ards by 1994. Emission control equipment andreformulated (’‘clean’ diesel fuel or alternate fuelsare among the alternatives, and agencies must weighthe trade-offs between capital costs, fuel costs,maintenance, and relative reduction in emissions inmaking decisions. Regardless of the ultimate choice,different equipment and/or fuels will bring newmaintenance concerns.

Particulate Traps-These consist of a metal-cladceramic falter, which captures particulate from theexhaust stream of a diesel engine. Tests conductedin California demonstrated that particulate traps canremove some 70 percent of smoke and soot emis-sions from the engine with no sacrifice in perform-ance. However, the reliability and durability of thetraps over the life of a bus remains in question. Testsof diesel particulate trap oxidizer systems are inprogress or planned in nine North American cities.44

Methanol—This is the alternative cleaner burn-ing fuel that has been tested most thoroughly for bususe. It is producible in the United States from naturalgas, coal, and biomass. It has one-half the energycontent of gasoline, meaning that 1 gallon of M100(pure methanol) gives about one-half the mileage of1 gallon of gasoline. However methanol is toxic,corrosive, and highly flammable, so different han-dling procedures and redesigned fuel and exhaustsystems are necessary. Lastly, a distribution systemcomparable to the existing system for gasoline anddiesel fuel will be needed before methanol can beavailable for nationwide use.

Natural Gas-Used in motor vehicles sinceWorld War II, natural gas now fuels primarilylight-duty van and truck fleets. The largest currentprogram for buses is in Vienna, Austria, where 400buses run on liquefied natural gas. Compressed

4XZUMdian ur~ T-it &SOci&m, prOceed@S: The International Conference on Automatic Vehicle Location in Urban TraM-t SYste~(’lbronto, Ontario, Canada: September 1988).

da~orge Ix, Pmgm m~ger, OffIce of Engineering Evd~tioIIs, urb~ ~s ~spo~tion ~“ “stratiom personal communicatio~ May31, 199Q and “NJ Transit Gins Advantage With Electronic Engine and Transmission Control Systems,” Bus Ride, vol. 26, No. 1, March 1990, pp.48-49.

44~~x~rs of Emission con~ols &~~tio~ “’f’rap Oxiber con~ol s~~ Repo~’$ ~ubli~ed document, Novemk 1989, pp. 8-10.


natural gas (CNG) is the most common formconsidered for bus use in this country, however. Incontrast to methanol, CNG is not corrosive, causesless engine wear, and gives longer engine durability,although as for methanol, larger onboard fuel tanksand new distribution facilities would be needed.CNG vehicles can require substantially more time torefuel than methanol or diesel fuel vehicles, aparticular concern for bus fleets, which can affordlittle down time.45

Rail Transit

Track Inspection Technologies—These includeautomated track measurement systems, which oper-ate either as dedicated vehicles or measuring devicesfitted to passenger cars. The equipment uses electro-optical or electromagnetic methods to give dynamicmeasurements of track geometry under loadedconditions. It measures and records track location,gage, profile, and alignment in a fraction of the timerequired by a track walking crew. However, theautomated track geometry measurement systemdoes not detect other track characteristics such as railfatigue, tie fastener problems, or concrete cracks.Newer track geometry cars can be equipped withvideo or other equipment to record information suchas overhead clearance, third rail alignment, foliageclearance, and tie condition. Dedicated rail flawdetection cars are used to test rails ultrasonically fordefects, which usually result from fatigue. Trackdata of all kinds can be stored in computerized datamanagement systems to help in setting priorities forfurther inspection and maintenance.

New Rail Propulsion Technologies—Suchtechnologies as alternating current (AC) tractionmotors can save substantial energy costs. ACtraction motors are operating successfully on railvehicles in Europe and Japan and have beenintroduced in New York City and Philadelphia;trolley buses and light rail already use them. ACmotors can reduce energy consumed in starting,braking, and heating; reduce maintenance and repairexpenditures because they have fewer moving parts;and reduce slipping, skidding, and wheel and railwear.

Offsetting these benefits is the greater weight ofthe line filter, which must be added to smooth linecurrent and reduce signal interference. The cost of

converting existing cars to run on AC is substan-tial-about $200 million for one regional agency.%

Control Systems—Most modem train controlsystems now use pulsed currents through the trackcircuit to communicate allowable speed informationand employ cab signaling, rather than waysidesignaling, which allows quick response to changingtraffic information. While older, wayside signalingconveys information only at block entrances, cabsignaling gives signal displays within the cab of thetrain, and displays are updated continuously inresponse to the condition of the track ahead. Thisenables trains to run with a higher level of safetythan with wayside signaling (see box 3-D again).

Automated Guideway Transit—AGT typicallyprovides slow-speed continuous service along dedi-cated, isolated guideways; cars are controlled bymicroprocessors. They function automatically anddo not require onboard operators, but they do requireexclusive right-of-way and security systems, such asanti-intrusion devices at stations and on the right-of-way. They can use steel wheels on rails, rubber tireson concrete guideways, or even magnetic levitation.Fare collection takes place in the stations. Examplesof AGT include people mover systems in Detroit,Miami, Jacksonville, Tampa, Morgantown (WestVirginia), VAL in France, SkyTrain in Vancouver,British Columbia, the M-Bahn in West Germany,and numerous shuttle systems in airports, andamusement parks.

Personal Rapid Transit—Concepts for PRTsystems include new configurations of existingtechnology and feature:

small, fully automated vehicles (withouthuman operators or attendants), available forexclusive use by an individual or a small grouptraveling together; andvehicles captive to a small, dedicated guide-way, located above ground, at or near groundlevel, or underground, which provide directorigin to destination service on demand withoutstops or transfers.

PRT systems face difficult environmental hurdles inthe form of objections to above-ground guidewaysand stations, which duplicate the road network tosome extent. Security concerns center on the driver-

4SL.R. Davis, d~tor, Equipment -w-e, Southern California Rapid Transit DistricL personal comnmnicatio% w. 22, 1990.

-cials from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, personal communication, Jan. 22, 1990.


less cars and unattended stations, while safety issuesinclude whether many small, closely spaced vehiclescan run safely on a single-lane guideway.

Surface Transportation Networks:Railroads

Rail service in the United States is provided by amix of public and private entities. The quasi-publicNational Rail Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), cre-ated in 1971, is the primary intercity passenger railcompany (see figure 3-6). Because of the importanceof public sector support to the continuation ofpassenger service, discussion in this section willemphasize passenger service and the Federal role.However, hundreds of private freight railroads playan equally critical part in the national transportationsystem, carrying bulk materials, such as coal andagricultural products, and about 50 percent of themarket for long-haul transportation of manufacturedcommodities. 47 Freight railroads compete withbarge lines for shipments of large bulk commoditiesand with tractor-trailer trucks for smaller bulkshipments. To counter the faster, more flexibleservice trucks can provide, rail companies haveconcentrated traffic and investment on fewer, high-density lines48 and introduced double stack andrail-highway vehicle services. The largest, or Class1, freight railroads, account for over 90 percent ofrailroad traffic and employ over 90 percent of the railwork force.49

Regional railroads are usually defined as thosewith between 250 and 1,000 miles of track, whilethose with less than 250 miles of track are classifiedas shortline or local railroads. Most of these 32regional lines are privately owned. However, 1 ofthem, and 31 of the over 400 shortline or local linesare owned and operated by State and local gover-nments (although they operate on privately ownedtrack). Since the Staggers Act (see chapter 2), the

number of shortline and regional railroads has grownsignificantly, providing continued service for manylocalities. 50

Railroad Management and Financing

The private sector owns and operates most railinfrastructure, including 97 percent of the total trackmileage, as well as most bridges, control systems,communications systems, yards, service buildings,vehicles, and support equipment.51 Amtrak ownsmuch of the track along the Northeast corridorbetween Washington and Boston (its busiest routes)and some along the Chicago-Detroit corridor, a totalof 600 miles. The Corporation contracts with 15private freight railroads to provide train dispatch andtrack maintenance services outside these corridors.Its operating fleet includes some 300 locomotivesand 1,900 passenger cars, most of which it owns. Ofits almost 39 million passengers in 1989, about 44percent rode on commuter rail systems operated byAmtrak on a contract basis; the rest were intercitypassengers. 52 In 1989, Amtrak trains carried more

travelers between Washington and New York thanany airline.53

Each year, Amtrak receives a Federal operatingsubsidy of about $500 million, which it splitsequally between its intercity long-distance routesand its shorter distance Northeast corridor opera-tions. In fiscal year 1989, the Corporation earned$1.27 billion in revenues, enabling it to cover 72percent of its operating costs from its own sources.About one-half of Amtrak’s yearly capital expensescome from internal sources, and the rest come fromFederal aid.54

States play a relatively minor role in financing,operating, or regulating railroads. Nonetheless, atleast 20 States provide assistance to local rail servicefrom earmarked taxes and general appropriations,and most maintain a State Rail Plan that includes an

dT~omtio~ material prepared for C)TA by the Association of American Railroads, J~. 31, 1990.

~Federal Railroad AdmmI“ “stratiou briefing document prepared for O’IA, 1989.4~,s. ~ner~ &cow@ ~lCe,znfo-tiOn on R~@afO~ Ref~~ Utier the sfuggerSRuilACfOf 1980 (wM~o~ DC: Aug. 17, 1983), p. 1.

WFederal Railroad Adnum“ “stration and Interstate Commerce Commission A Survey of Shipper Sati~action With Service andRates of Shoreline andRegional Railroads, joint staff study @%#dngtoq DC: August 1989), p. 1; and Association of American Raihoads, Profiles of U.S. Railroadr,supplement No. 1 (WashingtorL DC: 1990).

slFede~ ~~oad Administratio~ op. cit., footnote 48.5~omuta Semic= operated by ~~ ~clude tie ~5ach~e~ Bay Tr~it Au~ori~ ~~) ~d he -Md MI commuter SCrViCC

Wa

53Natio@ Railroad Passenger Corp., Annual Report 1989 wttdl@3% ~: 19$0.

~Natio~ ~koad p~~nger Corp., “ 1990 Legislative Report,” unpublished document, Feb. 15, 1990, pp. 5-9.

104 ● Delivering the Goods: Publ ic Works Technologies, Management, and Finance


inventory of facilities and a ranking of proposedprojects. A few large, urbanized States, Californiaand Pennsylvania, for example, subsidize or supplyintercity passenger train service. Other State aid isdistributed as grants or loans to small, shortlinefreight carriers. Local governments have few directresponsibilities for railroads, although commuterrailroads are major highway traffic relievers incongested metropolitan areas.

Rail Issues

Amtrak hopes to achieve full operating self-sufficiency by the year 2000, but needs to replace itsaging fleet of cars and upgrade track along severalcorridors to maintain and expand current levels ofservice. It could operate far more efficiently withnew locomotives and by using double-deck passen-ger cars on heavily traveled lines. To meet demandon sold-out long-distance routes, Amtrak plans topurchase at least 75 two-level sleeping and foodservice cars. On several routes, these cars willreplace single-level cars, which can be used on otherroutes to expand capacity.

Although Amtrak must purchase a good deal ofnew equipment to sustain revenue growth, doing sorequires large amounts of capital, which the railroadhas few means of accumulating. Yield management,higher fares, and efficient utilization of equipment,55

its current sources of increased revenue, are unlikelyto generate the dollars needed. Improved track,maintenance facilities, locomotives, and passengercars are expected to cost the Corporation about $300million annually during the 1990s and require sumsfar greater than the current Federal capital grants ofabout $30 million annually.

Rail facilities are strategically located in mostcities and offer often underutilized capacity, which,under the right circumstances, could bean economi-cal option for moving people and goods within andbetween metropolitan areas. However, funding con-straints often prevent railroads from making theinvestments necessary to keep customers. Shortlineand regional railroads that have formed from rail-road lines where maintenance was deferred and

neglected face rehabilitation needs far exceedingtheir ability to pay. A Federal Railroad Admin“ “stra-tion survey of small railroads found the one-timecosts of track and roadbed rehabilitation-replacingties and ballast and improving track surfaces-to behigher than annual revenues for many lines, about$428 million in total. Modal subsidies, embedded inFederal programs for other types of transportationassistance, provide support for other modes in waysthat would benefit railroads.

Labor issues are a final management concern forrailroads. Federal regulations requiring a supple-mental retirement system for railroad employees,raihoad-funded benefits for employees made joblessby a consolidation, line sale, or abandonment,56 andrailroad workers’ compensation statutes are particu-larly hard on shortline and regional railroads becauseof their small size and scale of operations.

Rail Technologies

Railroad technology in the United States is notcharacterized by rapid change; for instance, the airbrake system is the same conceptually as when itwas introduced, and standard track still consists ofsteel rails, spikes, and wood ties mounted on ballastof crushed stone.57 (For a potential exception, seebox 3-G.) However, new technologies for railroadoperations have developed rapidly in recent years.Electronic data information systems, radio commu-nications, advanced train control systems, and otherpropulsion innovations have enabled many railroadsto operate more efficiently and productively.

Keeping the System in Good Shape

Track condition has benefited from a new empha-sis on longer wear rail metallurgy, continuouswelded rail, profile grinding to extend rail life,concrete cross ties, new fastening systems for bothconcrete and wood ties, track geometry measure-ment systems, track maintenance planning tools,new inspection technologies, and more mechanizedand automated maintenance equipment.58

Track Maintenance Management Systems-Such systems function as decision support tools for

55W. Graham Claytor, Jr., president and chairman of the boar~ National Railroad Passenger Corp., testimony at karings before the HouseSubcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, Mar. 22, 1989, pp. 2-3.

fi’l”he hters~te Commerce Commission which has the authority to exempt line sale from kbor protection k etd ex~tions to most of *newest regional railroads.

‘7Federal Railroad Administration op. cit., foomote 48.ss~id.


Box 3-G-Magnetic Levitation Research

The High Speed Ground Transportation (HSGT) Act, passed in 1965, establ ished the Office of High speedGround Transportation in the Department of Commerce whose objectives were to explore advanced intercityground transportation technologies. Most early work on magnetic levitation (maglev) occured around the time ofthe act’s - at Brookhaven National Laboratory the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and anumber of private industry research facilities. However, other than feasibility studies and technical assessments,U.S. maglev work essentially ended in 1975, with the expiration of the HSGT Act.

The Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, and the Army Corps of Engineers have recentlybegun anew effort, the National Maglev Initiative, to assess the engineering, economic, and environmental aspectsof maglev and determine its feasibility for the transportation system. The budget appropriation for fiscal year 1991include $10 million for the Federal Railroad Administration an d $2 million for the Army Crops of Engineers tobegin work. A major program report planned for March 1991 will include technical and economic assessments,plans for developing U.S. capability to surpass existing foreign technologies, and recommendations on whether topursue further development.

Currently, maglev research is most active in Germany and Japan whose efforts have been underway way since thelate 1960s. Research in Germany, sponsored by the Federal Ministy of Research and Technology has focused onelectromagnetic suspension designs, while the Japanese areinvestigating both electromagnetic and electrodynamicdesigns.

One of the Japanese systems, an electrodynamic“c suspension design was originally developed by the JapaneseNational Railways (JNR). Work began in 1967, and research and development (R&D) costs through mid-1988 were$416 million. Since the priva ”tization of JNR in 1987, development of this system has come under the responsibilityof the Railway Technical Research Institute (RTRI) one of 12 offshoots of JNR. RTRI receives funds from the JapanRailways Group, a Consortium including six passenger railway companies the Japan Freight Railway Company,and the Japanese govermnent (Ministry of Transportation).l The vehicle has a top speed of over 300 miles per hour,but has been tested only over short distances at a test facility in Miyazaki. This system is the only maglev technologythat uses superconductivity. This Japanese technology require less sensitive tolerances betweentrack and train thanthe German system and thus maybe less costly to construct and maintain Although recent advances in developinghigh-ttemperature superconducting materials are not likely to affect the overall feasibility of this maglev technology,using high-temperaturee superconductors for mshlrb could bring modest gains in energy efficiency cfficiency and reliability.

railroad engineers, technicians, and planners for locomotives, which it is now evaluating in revenueidentifying physical track assets, inspecting andevaluating track, identifying work needs, and plan-ning and priority setting. Information is collectedand stored in large databases and includes installat-ion information; track segment inventory; inspec-tions, traffic levels, maintenance records, and repaircosts; and work crew history. These systems can alsohandle information about operations and store dataon planned and completed maintenance and repairwork for each track segment.

AC induction Motors-AC motors can beadapted to passenger rail and could extend the meantime between motor failures from 11/2 years to morethan 5 years.59 Amtrak has acquired two AC traction

service. The motors have fewer parts than DCmotors, require less maintenance, and are smaller,lighter, and less noisy. Amtrak has not yet deter-mined whether its future locomotives will use AC orDC traction.60

Concrete Cross Ties-Concrete ties providetrack with greater stiffness and stability than woodties and may be more durable, if track and vehicle arewell maintained. However, concrete ties are suscep-tible to cracking or fracture from impact loads, suchas those caused by irregularities in track or wheels.Widespread use of concrete ties has therefore beenprimarily on modem systems that are maintained tohigh tolerances, such as the TGV in France, and in

59K.M. Watkins, director, Motive Power, Amtrak, personal communication, May 25, 1990.60Terry Brunner, general superintendent of Iocomotives, Amtrak, personal communication Nov. 6, 1990.


A 27-mile test facility is under development in Yamanashi prefecture, and an extensive 4-year test of the systemis expected to commence in 1993. About $3 billion will be invested over the next 7 years for construction and testing,and the Yamanashi“ test track may become part of a possible revenue line between Tokyo and Osaka.

The other major Japanese system is the High Speed Surface Transportation (HSST) system, an electromagneticsuspension design with a top speed of 180 miles per hour. Development of this system began in 1975 by JapanAirlines, but in 1985, the technology was transferred to the HSST Corporation. Since 1981, the HSST system hasreceived no government funding; this system is still under development with no estimated completion date. HSSTmaglev has been demonstrated extensively but has never realized its top speed during these demonstrations becausetest track length has always been less than 1 mile. Because of its relatively low maximum speed in relation to othermaglev designs the HSST system will probably not compete with the RTRI system over longer routes. However,the technology is more mature, and applications could begin much sooner.

Modem maglev technology in Germany began in 1969, when the Federal Ministry for Transport commissioneda study on high-speed, track-bound, ground transportation. In 1977, the Ministry of Research and Technologydecided to concentrate development work on electromagnetic suspension designs, and between 1970 and 1980,provided funding in support to the Transrapid consortium As of mid-1988, over $800 million had been spent onthe Transrapid R&D program. The TRANSRAPID 07 vehicle has achieved a top test speed of 280 miles per hourand accommodates about 200 seated passengers. The Emsland test facility has a 19.5-mile track which has beenin operation since 1983; more than 15,000 miles of tests have been accumulated on the system. Although GermanTransrapid technology is currently the most advanced of the prototype systems many feel its precise tolerancerequirements could lead to high maintenance costs. The Transrapid is estimated to cost $20 million perdouble-track-mile, not including right-of-way acquisition and station costs.2

In December of 1989, the German government approved a 33-mile revenue route between the airports ofCologne/Bonn and Dusseldorf, later to be extended to Essen for a total of 51 miles. However, the government hasstipulated that the DM 3.6 billion in capital costs must be shared by private industry, the airports and airlines, andthe state of Northrine-“ -Westphalia and it is unclear whether this conditioncan be fulfilled.3 Recognizing the bleakoutlook for maglev in Europe because of the likely dominance of conventional high-speed rail systems-the FrenchTGV and German ICE, for examp--Transrapid is pursuing corridors and feeder routes in foreign markets, suchas the USSR, Saudi Arabia, Canada and the United States, to showcase its technology. A 13-mile route from theOrlando, Florida, airport to the Disneyworld vicinity maybe the first high-speed revenue maglev system.

this country, Amtrak’s Northeast corridor and program to identify technologies capable of retain-heavy-duty “height lines with extensive curvature.61

Rail Head Lubrication—This can increase fuelefficiency and reduce track and vehicle wear. Trainstraveling over straight sections of lubricated trackconsume between 3 and 10 percent62 less fuel thantrains traveling over unlubricated sections, andlubrication may save costs for car and locomotivewheel replacements as well.63

Passenger Waste Disposal—Criticism forreleasing untreated human waste from trains en routeled Amtrak in August 1989 to initiate a research

ing up to 72 hours of waste. Prototype systems havebeen installed on Amtrak trains, and their durabilityand the costs associated with providing and operat-ing equipment on existing trains are being assessed.

Increasing Capacity

High-speed train technology alternatives can in-crease capacity and efficiency without requiringmajor acquisition of new right-of-way (see box 3-H)in crowded intercity corridors. In the Northeastcorridor, electrifying the entire line and utilizing tilttrains could reduce travel time between New York


Box 3-H--High-Speed Rail

With substantial government assistance, high-speed rail has become both successful and efficient in Prance,Japan, and Spain over the past several decades. The TGV France’s high-speed rail system, began operations in theearly 1980s. Construction on the newest line of the TGV, the Atlantique, began in 1985. The Y-shaped line consistsof a main trunk between Paris and Courtalam“ and two auxiliary branches. The Western Paris-Le Mans branch wascompleted in 1989, and the southwestern Paris-Tours line was completed in 1990. Total estimated cost is 16 billionfrancs ($3 billion) for construction of 163 miles of track and rolling stock. The line includes 13 miles of tunnels,2 miles of viaducts, and seven flyovers to keep trains from crossing“ existing tracks. Maximum design speed is 300kilometers per hour (km/hr) (186 miles per hour (mph)), with turnout crossing speed of 160 and 220 km/hr (100and 136 mph).1

Land belonging to the SNCF (the French national railway company), the government, or alongside existingrail or highway right-of-way was used for 60 percent of the Paris-Courtalain stretch. To avoid level crossings, thereare more than 310 structures along the line, including 164 road bridges and 139 rail bridges. Continuous weldedrail and reinforced concrete crOSS ties are used throughout. The line is electrified and uses five power Substations.A control center at Paris-Montparnasse has telemetry and remote control equipment for the crossovers, spaced atapproximately 14-mile intervals, between the two tracks. It also controls electric power feed and can interven viaradio Iinks with all trains on the line. Fifteen satellite stations house safety equipment for each crossover site. Thetrack-to-locomotive transmission system sends signaling information to the cab, where the driver reads it on thecontrol panel.2

The TGV’s power and adhesion, and “d dedicating the high-speed corridor to passenger service with its lightloads, made possible a line with gradients of up to 3.5 percent (on the Paris-Sud Est Iine--the maximum grade onthe Atlantique line is 2.5 percent), instead of the usual 0.5 to 0.8 percent gradients. As a result, the line could berouted over plateaus where large-radius curves could be easily laid out, and thus avoid valleys, which are oftensinuous, densely populated, and furrowed by waterways and roadways--all of which increase construction costs.The TGV lines are compatible with existing track, so that the trains can penetrate city centers and serve all majorstation on the way.3

The Japanese Shinkansen (Bullet Train) long -

distance high-speed railways include two groups, the Tokaidoand Sanyo Shinkansen, which run Southwest from Tokyo, and the Tohoku and Joetsu Shinkansen , which serve theregions to the northeast. The Tokaido line began service in October 1964, while the Sanyo Shinkansen began

1SNCF, Direction de la communication, ‘The TC3V Atlantique: Construction of the New Line," June 1986.2Tbid.3SNCF, Direction de la communication,“The Railways of France,” brochure, n.d.

and Boston to under 3 hours from the present 41/a data communications link. Display screens in eachhours. Equipment and right-of-way upgrades couldlower the time between Washington and New Yorkto under 2 hours 15 minutes. While requiringsubstantial public investment, these improvementsare important in the short term, because they couldrelieve traffic congestion in air and highway corri-dors.

Advanced Train Control Systems-ATCS arecomputer based and give precise data on trainposition, condition, and speed. Location and speedare determined by coupling locomotive odometerswith either in-track transponders or a satellite-basedGlobal Positioning System (GPS). Information istransmitted between the central dispatch computerand the locomotive through a UHF or VHF radio

locomotive cab show train location and speed,upcoming route profile, speed limits, and otherauthorities from the dispatch center. The dispatchercan send instructions directly to the locomotiveengineer and receive precise information on trainlocation and speed. Efficiency is improved by bettercoordination of train movements, precise meet andpass planning, and more efficient use of crews andequipment. Sensors mounted on the engine, electri-cal and air systems, and fuel tanks can collect dataand monitor locomotive performance in real time.Transmitted to dispatchers and maintenance facili-ties, these data can reduce troubleshooting times andmaintenance costs. Safety is improved, because ifthe engineer does not follow speed instructions or


operating in March 1972. The Tohoku Shinkansen which runs north from Tokyo, began operation in June 1982;its east-west connecting line, the Joetsu Shinkansen began service in November of the same year. Maximum speedfor the line is now 150 mph.

When the Japanese National Railways was privatized in 1987, these lines became the property of the newShinkansen Holding Corporation, which leases them to three passenger railway companies: the East, Central, andWest Japan Railway Companies. A total of 2.7 billion passengers have been carried on the Shinkansen withoutinjury. The Shinkansen’s ability to take passengers directly from city center to city center makes it competitive withairline and expressway transportation, and five additional routes are scheduled for future construction.4

Shinkansen tracks are equipped with snow-melting facilities to prevent railway switch points from freezingin cold weather. Additional steps, such as covering the lower parts of the cars and using centrifugal snow separators,,which remove snow from the intake air,s are taken for the lines that pass through areas with heavy snowfall. Trainsoperating in areas prone to earthquakes are protected by a combination of earthquake detection and control systems,including seismometers installed every 20 to 80 km along the line. If land cables are damaged by large earthquakes,a communications satellite system will be used to transmit information.6

Tilt train technology is based on car bodies capable of tilting when moving through curves to reduce passengerdiscomfort. Development of one tilting train, the Spanish TALGO, began in the 1940s. The latest TALG0 modelis designed for a maximum speed cm straight track of 125 mph and for rounding curves safely at speeds 25 percentfaster than conventional trains.7 The TALGO trainset is made up of a succession of rigid cars articulated so as topermit the train to negotiate curves without vertical or transversal displacement between cars.Acceleration felt bythe passenger due to displacement when the train rounds a curve depends on the tilt of the car and is significantlyreduced if the car is tilted in toward the center of the curve. The suspension system in TALGO cars is above thecenter of gravity; the air springs of the main suspension behave elastically, allowing the car to tilt naturally aroundcurves as a result of centrifugal force. The TALGO trains also have an automatic gage changing mechanism toaccommodate different track gages.a Other tilting train configurations are manufactured by Bombardier of Canadaand Asea Brown Boveri, a Swedish-Swiss consortium. These are active tilt systems, which employ poweredactuators to cause the desired roll.

4East Japan Railway Co., Shinkansen brochure, n.d.5Ibid.6Ibid.7R E N F E , "TALGO: An Up-to-Date Train; A Long History,” informational document, n.d.8RENFE, “TALGO Pendular,” informational brochure, n.d.

conditions along the route require emergency con- traffic in major double stack lanes fell 25 percenttrol, 64 speed can be remotely controlled.65

Perhaps the most dramatic recent development inincreasing the efficiency of rail freight transport hasbeen the introduction of double stack service.Double stack cars consist of skeleton car spines,each capable of carrying two containers. Thisreduces weight and aerodynamic drag and cuts byroughly one-half the amount of power needed tomove trains at market-competitive speeds; that is,100 containers on double stack cars require 4locomotives, the same number needed to haul 50containers on conventional cars. Double stack hasbeen a major competitive success; long-haul truck

between 1985 and 1988, even though long-haultrucking in the rest of the country grew 33 percentduring the same period.66

Fuel Efficiency Measures-Approaches includeautomatic devices to prevent or reduce fuel spillage,recovering and recycling spilled fuel for heating andair conditioning railroad sheds and buildings, im-proved aerodynamic designs of railroad equipment,and calculating the optimal mix of power, weight,and speed for maximum fuel efficiency undervarious operating conditions. Other technologiesunder study for increasing fuel efficiency include

64Steven R. Ditmeyer, “A Railroad Command, Control, and Communications System for the 21st Century,” paper presented at the InternationalConference on Technology and Technology Exchange, New York, NY, June 30, 1989.

65Association of American Railroads, op. cit., foonote 47.


Photo credit: Port of Long Beach

Double stack cars carry almost twice as manycontainers, but use only slightly more energy than a

conventional freight train.

alternative fuels, such as mixtures of diesel fueldistillate with lower grade fuels, and the burning ofcoal in diesel engines. Rail electrification is anotherenergy alternative, but the high initial cost ofconverting to electrification might be a barrier,considering the current cost and availability of dieselfuel.67

Data Management and Transfer—These arekey to efficient operations, and Amtrak has in placea management information system that serves therailroad well. (See chapter 5 for further details onsuch systems.) Freight railroads have found manybenefits in electronic data interchange, the electronictransmission of administrative data, such as trackingmaterials and supplies, revenue, car accountingrecords, and freight loss and damage claims. Freightrailroads plan to shift to electronic data exchangerather than paper, when cars are interchanged, andsome railroads already allow shippers direct accessto their information systems.

Federally Managed Infrastructure:Waterways and Airways

In the two transportation areas where the Federalrole in operations and maintenance is large-

Photo credit: Port of Long Beach

Many operations at the Intermodal Container TransferFacility in Long Beach, CA, are computerized for speed

and efficiency. Computers in the control tower are linkedwith those of ocean vessels, and the yard receives

information about each container before it reaches port.

waterways and airways-the infrastructure has gen-

erally been kept in good physical shape and providesconvenient transport except at periods of peakdemand. With proper maintenance and rehabilita-tion, locks and dams can remain operable indefi-nitely,

68 and safety requirements help ensure t he

reliability of air traffic facilities. When facilities,such as a major lock or a runway at a busy airport,must be removed from service for rehabilitation, theFederal managers work with all concerned parties todevelop ways to minimize delays.

Ports and Waterways

Historically, communities and industries devel-oped near ocean and riverfront ports, which handledraw materials or finished goods primarily for localconsumption or from local suppliers. Today, theUnited States has the world’s largest port69 system,with about 200 major ports, each handling at least250,000 tons of cargo annually or having channels

GyAss~~tion of Americ~_~s, “when It Comes to Fuel-Elllciency, Railroads Lead the Transportation Pae~” background Paper, SOp@&r1988.

6sU.S. ~y COWS of Engineers, XnStitut.e for Water Resoumes, “The U.S. Waterway Transportation System: A Review,” unpublished repo~ April1989, p. 24.

% this sectio~ “port” means land-baaed facilities as oppo,sed to offshore, midstream, or other nontraditional transfer locations for cargo orpassengers. Commercial ports are links in a transportation network serving passengers, freight, and bulk cargo, and do not include facilities used solelyfor recreation or fishing.


deeper than 20 feet.70 Critical junctures in thenational transportation network, ports often combinetruck, rail, pipeline, barge, and ship operations fortransferring most of the 2 billion tons of cargomoving into or out of the United States every year.Less than 2 percent is handled directly by offshorefacilities and pipelines.

Fifteen percent of total U.S. freight ton-miles areproduced by commercial barges and tows carryingbulk commodities, such as petroleum, grain, andcoal, on the Nation’s shallow draft (less than 14 feet)inland and intracoastal waterway system.71 TheMississippi River, its tributaries, and connectingwaterways are the Nation’s major inland watertransportation network. (See figure 3-7 for a map ofthe inland waterway system.) Waterway transportoffers the lowest ton-mile costs to shippers.

After a decline during the recession in the earlypart of the decade, total waterborne commerce in theUnited States grew at about 3 percent per year duringthe 1980s. Continued growth at that rate would placeheavy demand on certain landside facilities,72 al-though adequate port capacity exists to meet U.S.commerce needs.73 The waterways can also handlemore freight shipments, and limited traffic demandmakes system expansion unlikely.

Management and Financing

Waterside facilities are constructed, maintained,and operated primarily by the Federal Government,through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (theCorps), which supports virtually all U.S. ports ofnational significance.74 The U.S. Coast Guard fur-nishes communication and navigation safety facili-ties. Until the late 1980s, virtually all navigationinfrastructure costs were paid out of the FederalGeneral Fund. Port project location and size wereestablished on a project specific basis, rather than aspart of a national system. Thus, the practical effectof many harbor deepening projects has been to

maintain competition among ports rather than tomeet transportation system needs.

To support economic development, the majorityof States with navigable waterways provide grantsfor construction of landside port facilities and watercargo terminals. Currently these grants, which totalabout $500 million annually, are administeredthrough State DOTS, economic development agen-cies, or State port authorities, which coordinate thepublic works components of major improvementprojects. Most States are reluctant to take overresponsibility for inland waterways from the FederalGovernment.

The largest ocean and freshwater port facilities areowned and managed by a municipality or public orquasi-public agencies, such as the Port of Seattle orthe Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.These ports consist of bulk facilities, often privatelyowned, and general cargo facilities, many of whichare leased to private operators.75 Inland waterwayterminals are usually privately owned.

Ports raise operating funds locally from user feesand capital from revenue bonds and State appropria-tions. Since 1986, port operators have been requiredto share dredging costs with the Corps, through an advalorem tax paid by shippers into the HarborMaintenance Trust Fund on all cargo loaded orunloaded at U.S. commercial harbors. Anon-Federalsponsor, often a local government or port authority,must share up to 60 percent of the costs ofconstructing new or deeper channels. The non-Federal sponsor must finance at least 50 percent ofthe maintenance dredging costs for new channelsdeeper than 45 feet.76 The tax, which finances aportion of harbor maintenance costs, was more thantripled in the 1990 budget agreement, from 4 centsper $100 of cargo to 12-1/2 cents per $100. Since trustfund outlays are limited to 40 percent of the totalFederal expenditures attributed to commercial navi-

W.S. Army Corps of Engineers, op. cit., footnote 68, p. 2.71UOS. ~y Corns Ofm=, ~ti~te for Water Reso~es, The 19881nland Waterway Review, IWR Report 88-R-7 @. Belvoir, VA: November

1988), p. 26.72u.s. kyCoqs of Iq@eers, Institute for WaterResources, “TheUZ$. Port and Harbor System: A Review,” unpublished repo~ September 1989,

d depends lmgely on cargo volume; deepwater harbor requirements are determined by ship size.p. 6. port deman731bid., p. 13.741bid., p. 5.75Jo~ ~ pi- C{pofi Dmelowent ~ tie ufit~ s~tes: s~~s, ~~es ~d ~~oo~” paper present~ at tie six~IIti ~tiolld Association

of Ports and Harbors World Ports Conference, Miami BeaclL FL, Apr. 22-28, 1989, p. 13.T%e Water Resowes Develo@nent Act of 1986 (I%blic hw 99-662).


gation in harbors, annual increases in surplus trustfunds are likely.

Because of the tax, users are funding graduallyincreasing portions of deepwater channel opera-tions, maintenance, and new construction. Requestsfor expansion projects are fewer and scaled backsince the cost-sharing requirements became effec-tive; the Corps estimates that project size has beenreduced by two-thirds from the levels initiallyrequested or authorized.77

Waterways-The Corps has modified all com-mercial waterways with locks, dams, bank protec-tion, and dredging to allow passage of 9-foot draftvessels. The number and size of lock chambersdetermine the maximum through speed for vesselson segments of the waterway. The Corps hasstandardized lock chamber sizes, and barges havebeen designed to make the most efficient use of thiscapacity.

Perhaps because the Federal Government hasalways supported maintenance for water-relatedfacilities, waterway maintenance costs have notcompounded as locks and dams have aged.78 Site-specific conditions, such as geology, climate, waterquality, and usage, affect maintenance and replace-ment needs more than age. Most locks have beenreplaced because traffic growth has overtaken theircapacity and long backups occur at peak periods, notbecause they have physically deteriorated.79

Barge operators pay a fuel tax that feeds the InlandWaterway Trust Fund (IWTF), which finances 50percent of construction costs, and applies on the11,000 or so miles80 of waterways that account forover 90 percent of inland waterborne commerce. TheInland Waterway Users Board, a federally estab-lished body that advises on waterway priorities, hasemphasized replacement projects on the Mississippiand Ohio systems and has specifically discouragedspending user fees for new waterways or rehabilita-tion. 81

Issues

With limited fiscal resources available to main-tain and physically expand the system, Federalinvestment decisions pose important questions forwater transportation. In addition, Federal environ-mental requirements for protecting wetlands havecreated difficult and costly construction anddredged-material disposal problems. Thus, fiscaland environmental issues frame the biggest chal-lenges for decisionmakers concerned about portsand waterways.

Fiscal Concerns-Congress has chosen to appro-priate more water-related project monies from theGeneral Fund than for any other transportationmode. Presently, 60 percent of harbor maintenancecosts and 100 percent of inland waterway operationsand maintenance expenses are paid for from theGeneral Fund. In addition, the General Fund pays forroughly 50 percent of all capital costs for bothwaterways and harbors. In comparison, less than 5percent of Federal highway expenditures come fromthe General Fund. In contrast to other publictransportation networks in the country, waterwayuser fees cover no operations or maintenance expen-ditures.

Projections of future IWTF revenues indicate thatthey will support approximately five lock and damreplacement projects per decade.82 Although sched-uled increases will raise the industry contribution,83

the annual fuel tax revenue is now less than 10percent of the total annual costs (for construction,operations, and maintenance) for the portion of theinland waterway system subject to the tax. Certainsegments of the inland and deepwater systemgenerate disproportionate costs relative to theamount of traffic carried (see tables 3-6 and 3-7).Traffic levels on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Water-way, completed in 1985, are far below the projec-

77~.s. ~y corps of Engineers, Op. Cit., foomote 729 p. 14.

76U.S. ~y COWS Of Engineers, op. cit., footnote 68, p. 24.

7?Ibid., p. 24.~@er 25,OOO miles of navigable waterways exist in the United S@@S.gl~d Waterway Users Board, “The Second Annual Report to the Secretary of the Army and the United States Congress,” unpublished report,

December 1988.82L. Gorge ~fle, ~ti~te for Water Reso~~es, U*SO by corps of Engin+rs, re~~ at “mging the hvestment fiomss fOr ~ ~t

Channels and Inland Waterways,’ the 1990 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington DC, Jan. 9, 1990.gsCoWcssio~ Budget OffIce, op. cit., footnote 38, p. *3.


Table 3-6-Traffic and Operations and Maintenance(O&M) Costs on Inland Waterways, 1986

O&M costs O&M costsTon-miles (millions of per ton-mile

Waterways (millions) dollars) (dollars)

123456

78

9

Upper Mississippi . . 12,871.9Middle Mississippi . . 17,504.7Lower Mississippi . . 100,058.3Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,505.9Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61,603.6Gulf Intracoastal

Waterway . . . . . . . 19,119.6Mobile . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,746.2Atlantic Intracoastal

Waterway . . . . . . . 367.1Columbia-Snake-

53.516.984.212.687.2

37.823.3

15.8

0.00420,00100.00080.00150.0014

0.00200.0041

0.0430

Willamette . . . . . . 1,228.2 9.0 0.0073Total . ..............227,005.6 340.2 0.0015NOTE: Segments of each waterway have a wider range of operations and

maintenance costs per ton-mile.SOURCE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, institute for Water Resources,

The 1988 /n/and Waterway Rewiew, iWR Report 88-R-7 (Ft.Beivoir, VA: November 1988).

tions used to justify its construction.84 These dis-crepancies raise a number of difficult equity andaccess issues.

Despite the importance of ports to local economicdevelopment, few cities have integrated transporta-tion systems that link ports to pipeline, rail, and truckservices. Paradoxically, a port’s success and itscontribution to the local economy increasinglydepend on its intermodal transfer capabilities ratherthan solely on the local demand for its watersideservices. 85

Environmental Concerns-Few U.S. channelsand harbors have natural depths greater than 20 feet,and ship dimensions set the demand for waterwaydepth. Bulk carriers and tankers often load to depthsof 50 feet, while freighters, including moderncontainerships, can normally use 40-foot deep chan-nels. However, no minimum standards have beenestablished for ship maneuverability to guide thosewho must decide how to modify channels. Thecreation of navigation channels and structures, suchas breakwaters and jetties, changes preexisting

Table 3-7-Federal Port Operations and MaintenanceOutlays per Ton of Cargo, 1974-84 (In 1985 dollars)

Ports Average Minimum Maximum

All ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.22 0.001 270.25”Large ports (more than

10 million tonsper year) . . . . . . . . . . . 0.17 0.001 0.99

Medium ports (100,000to 10 million tonsper year) . . . . . . . . . . . 0.50 0.001 23.30

Small ports (less than100,000 tonsper year . . . . . . . . . . . 11.68 0.050 270.25

aHi@ Owrations and maintenance (O&M) COStS uslJaiiY aP@Y to f~eral~maintained harbors with little commercial service. The benef.klaries areoften fishing veseeis and recreational users, neither of whom pay fees forO&M.

SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office calculations using data from U.S.Army Corps of Engineers.

currents and sedimentation. The design and siting ofchannels and their protective works are thus crucialfactors that determine dredging and maintenancerequirements and environmental effects.

In the past, dredged material was often placedwithin a mile of the dredging site, since transporta-tion to upland or ocean disposal sites added substan-tially to total costs. However, population growth incoastal areas and wetlands protection requirementsnow limit land disposal possibilities, and aboutone-third of dredged material is disposed of in theopen ocean.86 ‘‘The most prevalent single environ-mental issue facing ports in the U.S. is the properdisposal of dredged material, without which channelimprovements would simply come to a halt. ”87

Although only a fraction of harbor bottom sedimentsmeet the contamination criteria under which dis-posal in costly containment areas is required,88

gaining approval for dredging projects from a longlist of government and environmental groups cantake years. In some cases (Gary, Indiana, harbor, forexample), maintenance restrictions have causedwaterways to become shallower and narrower,severely limiting the types of vessels they canaccommodate.

‘Ibid., p. 87.8SU.S. ky COWS of Engineers, op. cit., footnote 68, P. 16.

S6U.S. con~~s, (lffke of ‘lkchnology Assessmen4 Wastes in Marine Environments, OTA-O-334 (’Washington DC: U.S. @Vernm~t prin~office, A@ 1987), p. 237,

STW s@Orn&~, p~Siden~~ericmASSW~tion of Port Authorities, quoted inJohn M. Pissni, PotiDeveZopmentin the UnitedStates.’ St@s, ZsSUesand Outlook, prepared for the Sixteenth International Association of Porta and Harbors World Ports Conference, Miami Beach FL, Apr. 22-28, 1989(’Iokyo, Japan: The Iaph Foundatio~ 1989), p. 27.

88u.S. Army Corps of -~~, Op. cit., footnote 72, p. 31.


Photo credit: Us. Army Corps of Engineers

Maintenance technologies advanocs developed by theArmy Corps of Engineers’ laboratories have helped theCorps double the lives of many of the Nation’s dams.

The lengthy process from authorization to com-pletion for channel and harbor construction (whichaverages 22 years, according to the Marine Board)has weakened the effectiveness of port and water-way planning and design. In many cases, fleetdemand and market economies change drasticallybefore a channel can open for business, making thedesign inappropriate for current use.

Technologies

The Corps has research, development, and evalua-tion projects for maintenance, construction, andrehabilitation technologies and methods ongoing ateach of its laboratories and has established aneffective technology transfer system through itsmany offices. Addressing structural problems inlocks, dams, jetties, and breakwaters, setting priori-ties among competing needs, and determiningg whenand where modification is economically appropriateare all water system activities that can benefit fromrecent technology advances. Decisionmakin“ g toolscan help industry and government alike to operatemore efficiently.

Corps Technology Aids-Nondestructive evalu-ation technologies (examination methods used

where visual inspection is impractical) can givemanagers more extensive information about struc-tural conditions and maintenance and repair needs.Although visual inspections followed by core sam-pling are the most common ways for lock and damtechnicians to find structural problems, visibledefects are often indicative of a chronic problem thatis costly to repair. Sonar is used to find defects onunderwater surfaces and electromagnetic sensorsand pulse/echo ultrasound devices are used to probeinside solid structures. (See chapter 5 for furtherdetails.)

Models and simulations of the physical andeconomic characteristics are valuable tools through-out the life cycle of a system, and can aid inplanning, design, and making investment decisionsfor infrastructure. For example, techniques forobserving and modeling local circulation and sedi-mentation can help design engineers locate andorient piers, wharves, and other pile-supportedstructures, so that a structure does not cause acceler-ated shoaling.89 The Corps has good modelingcapabilities at the Waterways Experimental Station.(For further details see chapter 6.)

Two Corps’ programs to coordinate infrastruc-ture-related work at the laboratories and in theprivate sector are the Repair, Evaluation, Mainte-nance, and Rehabilitation Research Program and theConstruction Productivity Advancement ResearchProgram (see chapter 6). Field-tested projects in-clude in situ repair of deteriorated concrete, precastconcrete for lock wall rehabilitation, and roller-compacted concrete for dams. (See chapter 5 fordetails on these technologies.)

Structural Technologies-During icy winterconditions or prolonged drought, vessel operatorsmust carry lighter loads, use higher power (whichincreases operating costs), or find an alternativeroute. The natural channels of most inland riversvary with seasonal rainfalls, and controlled releasesby the Corps from water reservoirs help maintainsuitable river stages throughout the year. However,some dredging is necessary to clear silted andshoaling channels.

Dredging-Dredging’s two major componentsare extracting material and disposing of it. Extract-

gwatio~ReW~hCo~cil, Marine Board, Dredging CoastalPorts:An Assessment of thelssues (WaahingtoxL DC: National tid~ymss, 1985),p. 103.

%bid., p. 101.

116 . Delivering the Goods: Publ ic Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Photo credit: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Although dredges are now more eff icient, environmental concerns about the proper disposal of dredged material have slowed

channel dredging projects

ing techniques and technologies have benefited from exponentially with height.94 The number and size ofautomation, sensing, and positioning advances (see lock chambers, fock filling and emptying rates, andchapter 5). The same dredging equipment is em- the types of tows and other vessels determine theployed generally for both maintenance and construc- traffic flow through a waterway. A typical lock cant i on .9 1

transfer vessels between pools in a 20- to 30-minute

Bank Protection--Articulated concrete slabs andoperation. Tows too large for a lock chamber mustbe split and the two groups of barges passed through

gravel prevent channel migration and permit selfdredging channel designs. Dikes and other structures

separately and then reassembled. Such double lock-

deflect or stabilize currents within a channel.92ages take about 11/2 hours.95

L o c k a n d Dam-S lackwa te r sys tems a re used The capacity of the lock system can be increasedwhere dredging, river embankments, and flow regu- by adding locks, rehabilitating structures, or replac-lation are insufficient for commercial navigation.93 ing existing locks with larger ones. Since funds forSeveral dams are usually required to make a long new construction are very limited, smaller, afforda-waterway navigable. The higher that dams are built, ble projects with immediate benefits must be consid-the fewer are necessary, but a dam’s cost increasesered. Alternative, lower cost, vessel lift technologies

93Open channels are generally less costly to construct and operate and support much greater traffic levels than lock and dam system94U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, op. cit., footnote 92, p. B-153.95Ibid,


and methods have been developed, but are noteconomically feasible for the locations analyzed bythe Corps.96 Lock-based tow haulage equipmentcould increase the capacity of some locks by 30percent by pulling unpowered barge cuts (fromdouble lockages) through the chamber.97

Other relatively minor structural improvementsinclude extended guidewalls to permit recombiningdouble lockage tows outside the chamber.98 Newcoupling equipment (fixed rigging and permanentwinches for tows and barges) to permit faster doublelockages and tow work is a cost-effective option forsmaller navigation locks.99 Structural changes thatmodify river currents, as well as protect locks fromtow collision damage, can improve lock approachesand allow tows to position more quickly and safelyfor lockages.

Traffic Management Options—Although nosafety reasons require Federal control of waterwaytraffic, the low cost and wide availability of commu-nications and surveillance technologies make sys-temwide traffic management a technical option.Scheduling access to congested facilities wouldallow better planning by industry and could reduceoperating costs, since vessels often operate atinefficient fuel consumption speeds (too fast) giventhat delay at the next lock is likely. Tow breakagedelays could be reduced by a “ready-to-serve”policy; vessel operators would need an extra tow-boat in each tow, or they could combine resourcesand station helper boats near each lock. Anothertraffic management option at locations with singlelocks is to give commercial traffic priority whentraffic is heavy. Recreational vessels could beallowed transit only at scheduled times or on aspace-available basis. Safety precautions prohibitmixed lockages of tows and recreational craft.

Locks operate more efficiently when trafficmoves in a single direction, because the next tow can

be positioned while the lock is cycled. For two-waytraffic, the next tow must remain a safe distanceaway and wait for the departing tow to clear thechamber and approach area. Orderly one-way opera-tion alternates a fixed number of lock cycles(commonly three to five) in each direction, increas-ing lock flow through by up to 15 percent over arandom first come-first served policy100 and reduc-ing average delays. This method is similar to trafficmanagement on one-lane bridges or during roadconstruction.

While total system capacity will not change withbetter traffic management and scheduling, industryoperating costs will be lower. Industry initiatives,such as new coupling equipment, system schedul-ing, and better fuel monitoring equipment,l0l canachieve substantial economic benefits.

Technologies for Industry Efficiency-Systemmonitoring and performance data, such as trafficmeasurement, are essential for decision analysis,leading a number of ports to setup electronic servicecenters. Shipping documents transmitted by com-puters route and track cargo, and release importfreight. The United Nations has developed ED-IFACT (Electronic Data Interchange for Admini“ “s-tration, Commerce and Transport) as a standard forthe current disparate computer/data managementsystems.

Other alternatives for economic marine transpor-tation are vessel operating changes, new forms andlocations for ports, and vessel design modifications.Short-term alternatives include some of the operat-ing practices already in use today-calling atshallow ports with less than a maximum load, timingmovements with tides (or other conditions), andmidstream cargo/fuel transfers. These measures aremore expensive for carriers than larger vesselsoperating fully loaded without delays for the tide orlightering. l02

9@J~l Bi,lbrou~ U.S. AMly Corps of m=, “Middle Columbia Rivez Study: Ship Lift Alternatives,” Transportation Research Circu&rNumber 350: Ports, waterways, Interm&l Termi&s, and International Trade Tramiportation Issues (WAingtoq DC: Transportation ResearchBoart my 1989), pp. 66-72.

~.S. Army Corps of Engineers, op. cit., footnote 68, p, 26.~-, ~~dge & C~P~ll, “Upper Mississippi River Transportation Economics Study: Final Repo@” study sponsored by the U.S.

Department of Agricultwe et al., April 1989, p. 25.%id., p. 3.:~.s. ~y CoWs of Engineers, op. cit., fOOtnOte 68> P“ 26”

IOl~Pr, c~~dge & Campbell op. cit., footnote 98.10~o ~rge~~e, chief, N~v@tionDivisioQ ~ti~te forWa~rR~o_, U.S. ~yco~s of -~,~o~ COIIIIUUldCtiO~ July 10,1990.


Loading additional cargo or fuel after the vesselpasses restrictive channels is considered the mostcost-effective option,103 and at present coal collierscan load in midchannel below New Orleans, whiletankers can load and unload in the Gulf offshorefrom Louisiana.l04 Alternative vessel designs in-clude a proposed jumbo barge carrier three times thesize of the largest ship today. Cargo from the maincarrier would be offloaded to barges, which couldserve ports that would not need deep-draft channelsor large load center facilities.105

Building a large “island” offshore in 80 feet ofwater in the Delaware Bay has been proposed.However, the operational feasibility of such a majoroffshore terminal would depend on multi-Stateagreements and substantial new investment in land-side infrastructure, and its economic success woulddepend on diverting much of the traffic from otherports. The potential environmental impacts of con-struction and operation have already led to strongopposition. l06

Intermodal Advances—The major recentchanges in maritime-related, intermodal operationshave occurred in the private sector—in containersand technologies that support fast vessel turnaround,including ship design, cranes, truck chassis, doublestack railcars, and electronic information manage-ment. The Shipping Act of 1984, which permittedsingle bills of lading for intermodal cargoes, spurreddemand for these technologies. Containers eliminatethe handling of individual cargo, improving loadingand unloading efficiency and transfer to railcars ortruck chassis. New container vessels called “postpanamax” ships, because they are too large to passthrough the Panama Canal, carry up to one-thirdmore containers than the previous generation. Sincethese huge vessels have high operating expenses andare designed for transferring cargo efficiently, theymust use ports that can provide fast turnarounds ifthey are to operate economically.

Federal Infrastructure: Aviation

Air transportation is truly a national system in theUnited States; the effects of a thunderstorm in an airtraffic control (ATC) sector near Chicago or a closedrunway in Denver ripple across the country indelays, missed connections, and rerouted aircraft.Airlines and the military operate under a uniform setof Federal regulations and fly in a relatively central-ized public airspace and ATC system.107 Eachelement of the system—pilots, controllers, and otheraviation personnel, aircraft, and airports-mustmeet Federal safety standards and be certified by theFederal Aviation Administration (FAA). Airportsand airways are the public works portions of thesystem.

Management and Financing

Although the routes and airspace or airwayslinking airports are defined electronically and proce-durally, they are nonetheless public works. Thefederally operated ATC system, established princi-pally for flight safety, coordinates and directs allflights to and from U.S. airports, and comprises oneof the most complex transportation operations in theworld.

For ATC purposes, the airspace above the UnitedStates is partitioned according to airport locationsand the amount of traffic into three broad categories:terminal, en route, and oceanic airspace. Terminalairspace surrounds airports, and is characterized byaircraft changing speed, direction, and altitude, asthey maneuver after taking off or prior to landing.The airways connecting airports make up the enroute airspace, while oceanic airspace begins overinternational waters, with much of it lying beyondsight of land. Costs for the system, managed andoperated by FAA, are paid out of the Federal Airportand Airways Trust Fund and the General Fund.

The National Airspace System (NAS) P!an—First published in 1981, the NAS Plan is FAA'scomprehensive program for modernizing air trafficfacilities and equipment, and consists of more than90 separate projects. Relying on advances in auto-mation that are part of the NAS Plan, FAA expects

loqNatio~ Resm~ Counci~ op. cit., footnote 89, p. 5.

l~~fle, op. cit., fooinote 102.IOS~ta A. Heel, ‘‘me and Intermoda.1 Transportation: Issues and ~exlges, ’ TR News, No. 144, September-October 1989, pp. 15-19.lm~~e, op. cit., footnote 102.107~ere me ~ge S=torS of ~con~olled ~wme amoss tie Ufited s~t~, gene~ly below 12,000 f~t, often US~ by general aviation.


Table 3-8-Passenger Enplanements at 25 U.S. Airports, 1988

Totalenplanements a Cumulative

Airport Rank (in thousands) Percentageb percentage

Chicago O’Hare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 28,850 5.8 5.8Atlanta Hartsfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 23,573 4.8 10.6Dallas-Fort Worth . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 23,029 4.7 15.3Los Angeles International . . . . . . 4 22,179 4.5 19.8New York JFK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 19,415 3.9 23.7

Denver Stapleton . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 15,015 3.0 26.7San Francisco International. . . . . 7 14,683 3.0 29.7Miami . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 14,316 2.9 32.6Boston Logan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11,802 2.4 35.0New York LaGuardia . . . . . . . . . . 10 11,790 2.4 37.4Newark International.. . . . . . . . . . 11 11,580 2.3 39.7Honolulu International . . . . . . . . . 12 11,081 2.2 41.9St. Louis International . . . . . . . . . . 13 10,139 2.1 44.0Detroit Metro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10,044 2.0 46.0Phoenix Sky Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9,559 1.9 47.9Pittsburgh International . . . . . . . . 16 8,971 1.8 49.7Minneapolis-St. Paul. . . . . . . . . . . 17 8,939 1.8 51.5Houston Intercontinental . . . . . . . 18 8,142 1.7 53.2Orlando . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8,122 1.6 54.8Washington National ., . . . . . . . . 20 7,888 1.6 56.4Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7,789 1.6 58.0Seattle-Tacoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7,659 1.6 59.6Las Vegas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7,658 1.6 61.2Charlotte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7,613 1.5 62.7Baltimore. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5,363 1.1 63.8alncludes US. certifi~t~ route air carriers, foreign flag carriers, supplemental, air commuter, and dr tmis.bBX~ on 493.8 million passenger enplanemeflk.%umulative percentage is a running sum: e.g., the top five airports have 23.7 percent of total U.S. enplanements.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, EAAAvktiorI /%mcasfs:Fisca/ Years

1990-2001, FAA-AP090-1 (Washington, DC: March 1990).

to address current constraints due to controller Airports—Airports, most of which are not feder-workload, computer processing capacity, hazardous ally owned, provide landing and takeoff areas forweather detection, and communications. aircraft and facilities for transferring passengers and

When it was first presented to Congress, costs forthe NAS Plan were projected to be $9 billion over 8years, but adding new projects and changing existingones may raise total costs to $25 billion by the year2000. 108 Complexities of implementing technologychanges in a large operating system have caused themajor projects within the NAS Plan to fall behindtheir original schedules by 1 to 5 years.109 FAA alsomaintains a plan for research, development, andengineering to examine technologies outside theNAS Plan. ll0

cargo to other transportation modes. The large andsmall commercial airports, which offer cargo andpassenger airline service, are owned primarily bymunicipalities or special authorities and by 13States. A relative handful of these facilities handlemost commercial airline passengers—almost one-quarter of total passengers board flights at just fiveairports (see table 3-8). Of the over 17,000 air-po r t sl l l in the United States, most are public-usegeneral aviation (GA) airports owned by municipal-ities, counties, or private groups and used primarilyby personal and business aircraft.

lo13u.s. Gener~ Accounting Offke, Continued Zmprovernents Needed in FM’s Management of the NM Plan, GAO/RCED-89-7 ~~ato% ~:November 1988), p. 3.

l%id, p. 3.1l~.so ~~ent of Transportation, Federal Aviation ~“ “stratioq “Federal Aviation Adrmm“ “stration Plan for Research Engineering, and

Developmen~” vol. I, draft manuscript, September 1989.1lIu.s. Dep~ent of Transportation Federal Aviation ~“ “ tratioq FM Statistical Handbook ofAviationfor Calendar Year 1987 (Sprin@el~

VA: National ‘Ik&nical Information Service, 1987); included in the “airport” count are heliports and seaplane bases.


The concentration of commercial passengers atmajor airports permits them to be largely self-supporting from landing fees, airline rents, andrevenues from parking and concessions. Manage-ment and oversight of groundside facilities differsdrastically from airport to airport. Airlines typicallylease terminals and gates112 from the airport opera-tor, obtaining exclusive-use rights, and the majorlessors often gain a strong voice in decisions onwhether and how to expand ground facilities. Underthe 1990 budget agreement, airports are permitted tolevy up to $3 per passenger charge, providing anewsource of revenue, for use solely on airport improve-ments.

Medium and small airports rely on Federal orState help in meeting their funding needs. Almost allStates have airport aid programs, usually targeted tosmaller, nonmetropolitan airports, and most main-tain statewide airport development plans. Fundscome from State aviationappropriations.

Issues

Land-use, financial, and

fuel taxes and general

environmental concernsframe many governmental decisions about aviation.System capacity has become a major issue. Becausetechnological advances allow capacity increaseswithout a decline in safety, airspace capacity islimited by Federal investment decisions and tech-nology. l13

Environmental Concerns—Aircraft noise is aserious problem for airport operators and airlines,leading to measures that permit Federal funds to beused to soundproof homes and schools, and in somecases, purchase real estate in high noise areas.Community groups fighting to restrict airport opera-tions because of noise concerns have limited airportdevelopment across the country.

While the intensity of sounds can be measuredprecisely, determiningg what constitutes objection-able noise is more subjective. Currently, individual

aircraft must meet FAA noise standards, based on a24-hour average of noise energy,114 commonlyreferred to as Stage 1, 2, and 3 rules.ll5 Whiledifferences in local conditions and jurisdictionalfactors have made establishing a more definitiveFederal standard for airport noise difficult, Stage 1aircraft are already banned, and all Stage 2 aircraftare prohibited after December 31, 2000.116 Neweraircraft must meet Stage 3 requirements, the strictestones.

In each successive jetliner generation, new tech-nology has lowered noise levels, but additionalreduction through technology may be limited, pos-ing contentious issues. For example, 50 percent ofthe noise from a Boeing 757 on landing approach isaerodynamically produced, a type of noise thatexperts believe cannot be reduced much more.Nonetheless, a working group of the InternationalCivil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is studying thefeasibility of Stage 4 noise limits.117

The 1990 deficit reduction agreement requiresthat the Secretary of Transportation establish, byJuly 1, 1991, a national noise policy that considersthe economic impact on air carriers and makesrecommendations related to aircraft noise to Con-gress for changes in State and local governmentauthority and other standards, procedures, and pro-grams. No airport will be allowed to restrict Stage 3aircraft operations without forfeiting all Federalaviation grants or the right to impose passengerfacility charges, unless the program was in placebefore October 1,1990, or the Secretary of Transpor-tation approves the restrictions.

The current level of aviation operations has asmall, but significant effect on air quality. In the LosAngeles basin, aircraft exhaust and fueling emis-sions contribute about 1 percent of the total volatileorganic compounds. FAA and EPA are addressingthese air quality issues by requiring that new jetengines reduce organic compounds emissions by 60to 90 percent. EPA is considering regulations

llz~~es sometimes le~e ground space and build their own facilities.llsB=d on ~wat~ ~~c ~~ntrol ~pmation s~~ds, ~~ us~le @~e above tie con~en~ Ufiti Stites could mOmlnO&W, theomticdy,

well over 1 million aircraft at once.IM14 CFR 150, app. A.11514 ~ 36.

~~eCongressiowl Record, Oct. 16, 1990, P. 12535.

llv~chml Zwokarte, project manager, Engineering, Federal Avtition ~“ “stratioq personal communicatio~ July 1989.118Nichol~ p. ~~ ~lce of Env~~e~t ~d ~ergy, F~m~ Aviation A-s@atioU persolld collllllllllkatioQ Jdy 31, 1990.


Table 3-9-Congested Airport Rankings and Expansion Plans

Airport rank by total Ranked by Plannedhours of air carrier delay total air carrier construction that will

Airport (1987 rank) in 1987 operations in 1987 increase IFR capacity

Chicago O’Hare . . . . . . . . . . . . l a

2Atlanta Hartsfield. . . . . . . . . . . Sb

1 xDallas-Fort Worth . . . . . . . . . . 3 b

4 xLos Angeles International. . . . 4C

3Denver Stapleton . . . . . . . . . . 5 xNewark International. . . . . . . . 19San Francisco International. . 7d

6New York LaGuardia . . . . . . . 8d

21New York JFK . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 d

26Boston Logan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10d 10St. Louis Lambert . . . . . . . . . . 11d

11Miami International. . . . . . . . . 12d 22Phoenix Sky Harbor . . . . . . . . 13d 9Washington Dunes . . . . . . . . . 14d 28Detroit Metro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15d 12Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16d 13Washington National , . . . . . . 17d

25Minneapolis-St. Paul . . . . . . . . 18d 18Honolulu International . . . . . . 19d 16Pittsburgh International. . . . . . 2od 20Houston International . . . . . . . 2 ld

27 x

xx

KEY: IFR = instrument flight rules.a Total air carrier delay exeeeda 100,000 hours.b Total air earrierdeiay is between 75,000 and 100,000 hours.c Total air earner delay is between 50,000 and 75,000 hours.d Total air carrier delay is between 20,000 and 50,000 hours.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Cqwufy Enhancement P/an,

DOT/FAA/CP189-4 (Washington, DC: May 1989).

requiring vapor recovery systems for aircraft fuel-ing. 118

Capacity—According to recent estimates, delayscost scheduled air carriers almost $2 billion in extraoperating expenses and passengers $3 billion in losttime, excluding commuter and general aviation data,which are not available.ll9 About two-thirds of alldelays are caused by bad weather-restricted visibil-ity, thunderstorms, or snow or ice on runways—which affects airports less than 10 percent of the timeon average. Too much traffic for airports and ATCto handle during normal conditions accounts forroughly 25 percent of delays, while pavementconstruction and ATC equipment problems eachaccount for less than 5 percent.120

Annual airline travel demand depends on thestrength of the economy and generally followstrends in the GNP. Current forecasts indicate thatincreasing numbers of U.S. and foreign airports willhave traffic demand exceeding their capacity forlonger periods of time each day. Average annualgrowth of 4.2 percent in passengers enplaned onU.S. airlines and 2.1 percent in total aircraft opera-tions is projected.121 The annual delay problems thatplague 25 commercial airports are shown in table3-9. If no capacity improvements are made, esti-mates are that by 1997,122 17 airports will be in thesame delay category as Chicago O’Hare, AtlantaHartsfield, and Los Angeles International aretoday. 123

Ilw.s. Department of Transportatio~ Federal Aviation Adrmms“ “ tratioWAirport Capacity EnhancementPlan, DOT~AA/CP/88-4 (Washingto@DC:April 1988), p. 1-11.

120u.s. Department of ‘rransportatio~ Federal Aviation Adnws“ “ trstio~Aiqort Capacity EnhancementPlan, DOT/FAA/CP/89-4 (WashingtoUDC:Mlly 1989), p. 1-10.

IZIU.S. Depanment of Trsnsportatio~ Federal Avi$tion ~“ “ trationj FM Aviation Forecasts, Fiscal Years 1990-2001, FM-APO ml(wao~ DC: March 1990), pp. 5,7.

l-ederal Aviation Administration op. cit., footnote 120, p. 2-1.l~~id., table 2-2, p. 2A.


Airline hub-and-spoke operations can place assevere a burden on ground capabilities as on theairside, and ground access to and from airportsdepends entirely on local planning and transporta-tion management. Moreover, no single agency ororganization is responsible for research or planningfor enhancing the capacity of ground facilities;FAA's authority over landside development andmanagement is limited.l24

Building more runways and airports, which wouldprovide the greatest increase in aviation systemcapacity, requires high capital investment, and moreimportant, overcoming community opposition basedon land use and noise and air pollution concerns.These are such difficult obstacles that just six of themost congested airports are planning new runways(see table 3-9 again).

Access and Equity Concerns—When trafficdemand exceeds runway capacity, as happens regu-larly during peak periods at busy airports, eachsingle occupant aircraft imposes roughly the sameamount of system delay as an airliner with 300passengers. However, smaller aircraft almost alwayspay much less in landing fees and Federal taxes forusing the system, a policy that embodies difficultand contentious equity and access issues. Majorairlines have altered schedules and purchased largeraircraft, so they can carry more passengers and cargounder these circumstances.in

Underutilized Airports-Modifying lightly usedairports close to busy facilities to make them moreattractive to commercial or GA users is generallymore feasible than new construction. FAA hassponsored reliever or satellite airport developmentfor GA traffic by earmarking funds especially fordeveloping and upgrading these airports,126 to reducedelays at nearby, busy, commercial airports byremoving the small, slow GA aircraft. However,reliever and other GA airports face some of the samenoise and competing land-use problems as commer-

cial airports. Furthermore, any policy to divert trafficalso diverts revenue from the major airport.

Restricting Airport Access-Restricting access,at least to certain runways, for small, low-performance aircraft is one way to increase runwayavailability for large jets. However, unless suitablealternative facilities, such as reliever airports, arefound for excluded aircraft, such a policy could beconsidered discriminatory and a restriction of inter-state commerce.l27 Moreover, while quotas and re-

estrictions may be acceptable temporary measures,actions to change basic underlying demand will alsobe necessary if capacity cannot be increased.

Quota systems for all aircraft are used at severalairports where demand exceeds physical or noise-related capacity regularly for much of the day. Fourmajor airports-Chicago O’Hare, La Guardia andJFK in New York, and Washington National-arecovered by FAA’s high-density rule, established in1973, which legally caps the number of flights thatcan be scheduled for these airports. Landing andtakeoff slot quotas are established for three userclasses: air carriers, commuters, and GA. While GAslots are distributed by call-in reservations, aircarrier and commuter slots are allocated by airlinescheduling committees, which are granted antitrustimmunity to negotiate the assignments. FAA re-serves the right to distribute the slots if negotiatorsfail to reach agreement.128 During good weather,high-density airports can usually handle aircraftwithout assigned slots.

Current quota systems favor incumbent airlines,since slots are granted based on prior use, acomplaint raised frequently by airlines formed afterderegulation and currently by airlines wishing toestablish a market at the four airports. Establishedcarriers counter that since they invested in the airportand its market over many years, they should be ableto keep their slots, now worth millions of dollarsapiece to the holders at several airports.

l~Transportation Research Board, MeaWring Airport tind.m”de Capacity, Special Report 215 (WashingtorL DC: NatioM R~~ch COWICfl, 1987),p. 57.

lzjAftervwy no c-e since 1983, com.merc~ aircraft seating capacity is projected to grow by three seats per ai.rcI@ on average, fiwch of thenext 12 years. From U.S. Department of Tr~or@tioU Federal Aviation A&rums“ “ tratio&Ffi Aviation Forecasts, Fiscal Years 1990-2001, FAA-APO9G1 (Washin@orL DC: March 1990), p. 53.

lzbu.s.con~ss, Ofliceof lkchnologyAs~ssmen~ AirportSy,rtenDeveZop?nent, OTA-STI-231 (WashingtorqDC: U.S. @v ernmentPrinting Office,August 1984), p. 110.

1zTIbid., p. 114.1281bid., p. 114.


Market Concerns-Market pricing of positionsat congested airports raises other access and equityissues. Selling (or leasing) airport landing slotsthrough the open market is viewed by many econo-mists as the most effective way to determine thevalue of airport access and allocate these scarceresources. l29 However, competition among airlinescould potentially be limited if slots are hoarded, andsmall aircraft could be effectively excluded from theairport.

The appropriate use of the proceeds from slottransactions is a contentious issue. Although airlineshave been allowed to treat slots as private goods, theslots are created and provided by public agencies,the airport proprietor, and FAA. A strong case can bemade that slot payments belong to the agenciesproviding the services and should be used for publicpurposes.

Differential/ Pricing-At present, ATC servicesand public airspace are available at no charge to allproperly equipped and operated aircraft. Access topublic airports, except where quotas are in effect, isgenerally open to anyone willing to pay the landingfee, usually less than 2 or 3 percent of the aircraft’soperating costs.130 Landing fees offset the capital,maintenance, and operating costs for runways andother airport facilities. Fees do not generally vary bytime of day and are typically based on aircraftweight, which is roughly related to required size offacilities and the amount of wear caused by theaircraft. However, most fees fail to reflect the coststo other users of delay and congestion, and provideno incentive to shift demand to nonpeak periods.

A few airport operators have tried to managedemand by raising landing fees, but small aircraftoperators and airlines alike have successfully chal-lenged landing fees in court as unreasonable anddiscriminatory. In 1986, the Port Authority of NewYork and New Jersey successfully instituted asurcharge of $100 for GA aircraft landing at its threemajor airports from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., reducingtraffic by 30 percent for those times.131 The Massa-chusetts Port Authority, reallocated airport costsamong all users, charging higher landing fees for GA

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Taxis and private automobiles carry the vast majority ofpassengers to and from airports.

and lower ones for airlines. However, the feestructure was challenged as discriminatory, and wasoverturned by DOT (see box 3-I).

Passenger Surcharges-Direct passenger sur-charges for flights during peak periods will probablynot be passed on to the passengers affected unlessfares are regulated in some form, not a likelyprospect. Finally, passenger charges alone do littleto divert small aircraft or encourage large aircraftuse.

Transportation to Airports-Getting to andfrom the airport, which can represent a sizableportion of total trip time, depends on the capabilitiesof the regional transportation system surroundingthe airport and on the convenience of road circula-tion, the availability of parking, and mass transitaccess at the busiest airports. Because origins anddestinations are so scattered throughout urban areas,road vehicles, especially private automobiles andtaxis, carry over 90 percent of the passengers to andfrom most airports. Airport employees, who accountfor about one-third of all access trips, usually mustalso rely on automobiles. Many major airports havesignificant air pollution problems stemming primar-ily from automobiles and surface traffic congestion,although aircraft contribute as well.132The growth of

12~.s. COw~~, ~lce of ~~OIOm A~w~me~$ S@e skies for To~wowI: Aviation Safq in u co~etitive EnVirO~nt, OIA-SET-381(Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing Gf13ce, JuIy 1988), p. 38.

l~~ce of mhnolog ASSeSsmen~ op. cit., footnote 126, p. 116.131JmEo Momm, $$~actic~ Me~~s for Shif@Gme~Av~tion Tfilc Fmm Commerce service~rts to RelieverAirpor@” Transportation

Research Record 1218 (WashingtoxL DC: Transportation Research Boar& 1989), p. 13.ls2David W. Davis, executive director, Massport, personal Co-UnicatioX4 MY 2, 1~.


Box 3-l—The Massachusetts Port Authority

On July 1, 1988, the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) implemented the first phase of its Program forAirport Capacity Efficiency (PACE), a plan to reduce delays at Logan International Airport by basing landing feesmore closely on the actual airport costs for accomrnodat.ing each aircraft. Fees rose for small aircraft (the previousminimum of $25 was increased to $91) and fell for the largest airliners. The fee changes caused general aviationflights to drop by one-third and improved Logan’s on-time performance ranking, established by the U.S.Department of Transportation (DOT) for the 30 busiest commercial airports, from roughly 21st to 2nd during thelast month of the PACE program.l However, small “aircraft owners2 filed complaints with the Federal AviationAdministration soon after the PACE plan was announced and on December 22, 1988, DOT ruled that the new feestructure was “. . . unreasonable and contrary to Federal statute. Faced with the loss of millions of dollars inFederal funds for airport improvements, Massport’s Board voted to return temporarily to the previous fee scheduleand to develop another, more acceptable, pricing method. Logan’s on-time performance ranking plummeted to 29thby April 1990.4

PACE landing fees had two components: a weight-based portion to cover runway construction, maintenance,and other costs that vary with aircraft size; and a charge to recover costs linked to each flight (such as lighting,emergency services, and snow plowing), which according to Massport, had been previously subsidized bycommercial airline passengers. A second phase of PACE, never implemented, proposed peak-hour pricing and slotsales to shift traffic away from high demand periods. DOT accepted the dual-omponent landing fee concept butdisagreed with some of the ways Massport divided the costs between the two components of the fee. For example,Massport divided the costs for maintaining crash, fire, and rescue (CFR) services among all landings regardless ofaircraft size, since all flights benefit. However, since the requirements for CFR capabilities are based on the sizeof the aircraft using an airport, DOT ruled that CFR costs should be assigned on a weight-based scale. Moreover,DOT endorsed peak-hour surcharges as an acceptable pricing option for landing fees,s Massport remains committedto winning DOT approval of a landing fee schedule that uses peak-hour pricing to improve airport capacity and isdeveloping alternatives.6

1David W. Davis, executive director, Massport, personnel communication, May 2, 1990.2National Business Aircraft Association, Regional Airline Association, and Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.3U.S. Department of Tranaportation, Office of the Secrctary, “Investigation Into Massport’s Landing Fees,’ ‘ FAA Docket 13-88-2, Dec.

22, 1988.4Davis, op. cit., footnote 1.5U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Massachusetts Port Authority v. U.S. Department of Transportation, “Brief of

Petitioner-Appellant, Massachusetts Port Authority,” No. 88-2227, Dec. 22, 1988.6Tom Champion, special assistant to the administrator, Massport, personal communication, Nov. 8, 1990.

the rental car industry reflects the lack of suitable York and Boston, where surface arteries are veryalternate forms of transportation from many airports.Procedural and management changes, such as park-ing restrictions combined with strict enforcementand segregating private autos, taxis, limousines, andbuses, are inexpensive and effective options.

About 25 percent of airport trips are to or from thecity center,133 so dedicated surface systems such asrail transit and remote terminals are essential toground access in major metropolitan areas. Waterferries and helicopters, available for a few large,urban airports, transport relatively few passengers,but are an important alternative in cities like New

congested.

Funding landside investments involves complex,multijurisdictiona1 arrangements that vary widelyfrom airport to airport. The capital improvementssponsored by FAA are limited to on-airport road-ways, guideways, and walkways, including bypasslanes, multiple termina1 entry and exit points, curbfrontage, remote park and ride facilities, and pedes-trian overpasses or underpasses. For projects toimprove ground access off the airport property,jurisdictions must seek FHWA and Urban MassTransportation Administration grants or find Stateand local funds.

133Office of TechnologyAssessment, op. cit., footnote 126, p. %.


Technologies for Enhancing System Capacityand Performance

Airports can operate close to peak capacity mostof the time. Because airport physical expansionpossibilities are constrained and runways alreadyoperate close to technologically peak efficiency, thecritical long-term limit for air travel is likely to berunway capacity. Gains in runway performance willrequire systemwide air traffic management, such asmore efficient aircraft routing, spacing, and se-quencing within queues. Technology can contributeby reducing distances necessary for safe separationbetween aircraft, increasing controller productivity,and enabling flights to continue at the maximum ratein all but the most severe weather conditions.

Analytic tools can help air traffic decisionmakersmake rational system choices under such circums-tances. FAA already has some computer-basedmodels for quantifying the effects of changes inequipment, procedures, airspace configurations, anduser demand on system performance. For example,using its NASPAC simulation model, FAA foundthat the new airport now under construction inDenver should reduce airline delays nationwide by4 percent on a moderate winter day and 18 percenton a more snowy day.

134 Plans are under way for adynamic simulation laboratory to further FAA’ssystem analysis capability, and modeling and simu-lation technologies are being incorporated into theagency’s traffic management facilities.

Some of the options for increasing the capacity ofexisting airports and runways, their current limita-tions, and the role of technology are listed in table3-10. While capacity gains from any option can bequantified, they depend on too wide a range ofparameters and conditions l35 to detail in this re-port. 136 Making runway performance under instru-

ment flight rules (IFR) closer to visual flight rules(VFR) capabilities will have the greatest effect on

current delays, and requires technology to reduce thesafe spacing between aircraft. Increasing VFR ca-pacity requires reducing the time an aircraft occupiesa runway, overcoming wake vortex hazards, andmanaging arriving traffic to eliminate gaps.

Surveillance-One of the most promising near-term technologies for improving IFR capacity atairports upgrades the secondary surveillance systemto give faster radar data updates and larger andclearer controller displays. 137 These radar systems,not a part of the NAS Plan, will permit increasedoperations on parallel and converging runways.Different systems are currently being tested atMemphis and Raleigh-Durham airports.

Civilian surveillance radars require clear lines-of-sight to monitor traffic. Over oceans or remote areas,or at low altitudes where radar coverage is notpractical, satellite technologies are available. Themost promising satellite surveillance application isdependent surveillance, under which aircraft-basedequipment determines position and relays informa-tion via satellite to a ground-based ATC facility.Automatic dependent surveillance (ADS) relies onnew applications of established communicationsand navigation technologies and will likely be usedfirst on the busiest ocean routes. Currently, control-lers track oceanic flights through position reportsfrom pilots derived from onboard navigation instru-ments and relayed by high frequency radio. Onceestablished, ADS will allow closer spacing ofoceanic flights, but no satellites yet operate in theaeronautical mobile band, which an operationalADS system must use. ICAO technical standards arestall in the process of being developed, and FAA hasnot yet established an implementation plan or policyfor ADS.138 FAA is investigating advanced satellitetechnologies that could have applications for ATC,but the potential reliability of ADS makes thecost-effectiveness of the more expensive independ-ent satellite systems questionable. l39

134The Mitre Corp., “Analysis of National Delays and Throughput Impacts of a New Denver Airport,” unpublished documen~ April 1990.135Airportcapacity depends onhow operations are split betwcxmdepartures andarrivalsandamong the mix of aircxafttypes.Furthermore,lFR capacity

is critically dependent on runway contlg-uration. For example, only one runway can be used during IFR at airports with parallel runways that are lessthan 2,500 feet apart.

136A de~i.1~ qwti~tive discussion of ah-field capacity gains resulting from potential operational improvements is presented in John E. tibro~Estimates of Potential Increases in Airport Capacity Through ATC System Improvements in the Airport and Terminal Areas, FM-DL5-87-1(Washingto~ DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, October 1987).

lsTKen Byr~ project m~~er, Parallel and Converging Runway Monitoring, Federid Aviation ~1989.

“ “stratioq personnel communicatio~ Dec. 1,

lsBzWok~e, op. cit., footnote 117.

Isgclyde hliller, Rese~h and Development Servim, Federal Aviation ~“ ‘ tration, personal communication Sept. 11, 1990.


Table 3-10-Enhancing the Performance of Existing Airports and Airways

Potential enhancement Goals Current limitations Potential technological options

Increase the maximum takeoffand landing rate possible fora runway.

Increase the maximum takeoffand landing rate possible forairports with multiple run-ways.

Increase the average takeoffand landing rate of a runwayor airport.

Reduce the time an aircraft occu-pies a runway.

Reduce wake vortex hazards,allowing closer in-trail aircraftspacing.

Reduce collision avoidance andwake vortex hazards, allow-ing closer aircraft spacing.

Reduce runway downtime.

Reduce enroute airspace-related delays.

Reduce collision avoidance andwake vortex hazards, allow-ing closer aircraft spacing,dose the IFR/VFR capacitygap.

Reduce time-wasting gaps inarrival stream.

Reduce delays due to inaccu-rate/lmpredse weather infor-mation.

No more than one aircraft al-lowed on a runway at a time.

Fast, moving, heavy aircraft takemore time to slowdown thansmaller planes.

Vortices are intrinsically linked toaerodynamic lift and cannotbe eliminated.

Vortices are usually invisible.Aircraft size difference is a large

factor in vortex hazards.

Ground- and airborne-basedsurveillance, communica-tion, and human reactiontime are presently insufficientto safely separate aircraft atthe distances necessary forsome parallel runways.

Necessary periodic mainte-nance.

Snow and ice removal.

Human capability to process andtransfer information.

Oceanic ATC capability farbelow domestic level.

ATC radar and cockpit instru-ments are not as capable ashuman vision.

Difficult for controllers to positionand sequence aircraft at opti-mal times for runway ap-proaches, especially if trafficis mixed among aircraft withdiffering sizes and speeds.

Safety margins must be keptlarge for dangerous thunder-storms and windshear, re-sulting in delays.

High speed exits from runways.

Improve aircraft decelerationcapabilities.

Make wake vortices visible topilots; reduce the strength ofthe vortices.

Improve surveillance, guidance,communication, and automa-tion.

Longer lasting materials; analyti-cal and management tools(e.g., nondestructive evalua-tion).

Snow and ice sensors; selectedpavement additives.

Automation, surveillance.

Better surveillance, communica-tions, and navigation.

Surveillance, navigation, guid-ance.

Improved strategic and tacticalmanagement technologiesfor air traffic.

More accurate weather predic-tion and detection; betterinformation transfer to con-trollers and fright crews.

KEY: ATC = air traffic control; IFR = instrument flight rulse; VFR = visual flight rules.SOURCE: Offioe of T~hnology Asessment, 1991.

Navigation and Guidance-Long-range radio- stations to allow complete coverage across thenavigation systems, LORAN and OMEGA (see continental United States.l40 Combined with anchapter 5), permit navigation in remote locations. As ADS link, LORAN or OMEGA could permitpart of the NAS Plan, FAA is providing funds to the enhanced low-altitude and remote-site traffic con-Coast Guard to install four additional LORAN trol.141

140u.s. Dep~ent of ‘rranaportatio~ Federal Aviation ~“ “ tratiow National Airspace System Plan: Facilities, Equipment, AssociatedDevelopment and Other Capital Needs (Waahingtoq DC: September 1989), p. IV-58.

141u.s. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation ~“ “stratio% “Federal Aviation Administration Plan for Research Engineering, andDevelopment” vol. n draft manuscript, September 1989, p. 258.


Satellite-based systems offer the greatest poten-tial for aviation navigation enhancement. INMAR-SAT, an international consortium that operates aglobal satellite system for maritime mobile commu-nications, plans to deploy the first satellite designedto provide civilian aeronautical service. The Depart-ment of Defense (DoD) Global Positioning System,which will provide civilian aircraft with locationdata accurate within 500 feet, is expected to beavailable for worldwide navigation in late 1993.FAA studied the integration of GPS with LORAN ina single cockpit device and determined that thiscombination may be suitable as a sole means ofnavigation, and is currently evaluating avionics.142

The NAS Plan includes replacing current instru-ment landing systems (ILS), which provide courseand glideslope guidance for landing aircraft, withmicrowave landing systems (MLS). MLS allowcurved approaches, not possible with ILS, andpotential capacity gains in locations where presentrunway approaches and departures conflict. Al-though the program has been besieged with contro-versy and is behind schedule, FAA must complywith ICAO plans to install MLS as the landing aidat international airports by 1998.

Weather Detection and Prediction-Avoidinghazardous weather-windshear,143 severe turbu-lence, lightning, inflight icing, or hail-is especiallyimportant in terminal areas, where aircraft are closeto the ground. Existing radars are able to identifyareas of heavy precipitation, often indicative ofdangerous flying conditions; however, these radarscannot see clear air turbulence or windshear. Ad-vanced weather radar systems that can measurewinds and other automated weather observing sys-tems are being deployed as part of the NAS Plan.Next generation weather radars, funded jointly byDoD, the National Weather Service (NWS), andFAA, will replace existing NWS radars. Becausethere are no meteorologists at some FAA facilities,the terminal weather radar will employ expertsystems to present weather information (such as

automatically identifying microbursts) in a usableform directly to controllers.l44

Communication-Federal aviation communi-cations systems transmit ATC and weather informa-tion through voice and digital messages over one-way and two-way radio, landline wire, and fiberoptic links. Two communications developments thatcould support increased airspace capacity are datalink and satellite relay for aircraft. The NAS Plancalls for Mode S digital links to transmit many of theATC and weather messages sent over voice chan-nels, and to provide new functions such as real-timegraphic display of weather and ATC instructionrelay and conflation. Digital communications willnot replace the current air-ground voice links as theprimary system for real-time ATC and weatherinformation until at least late in the decade.

Successful tests using existing satellites for com-munications have prompted at least five airlines toorder airborne systems for their new aircraft.145

ICAO’s Future Air Navigation Systems Committeehas stated that”. . . satellite-based communications,navigation, and surveillance will be the key toworldwide improvements. ’ ‘146

Automation and System Management—Computers are used extensively throughout the ATCsystem to process flight plans, correlate and displayradar returns, and alert controllers to hazardoustraffic situations. All traffic control decisions arenow made by controllers. However, systems cur-rently being developed will be capable of computingoptimal flight paths in real time and relayinginstructions directly to cockpits.

ATC Computers-Computers process primaryand secondary radar returns, track targets, andprovide appropriate data for each aircraft. FAA’sCentral Flow Control Facility (CFCF) already man-ages IFR traffic on a national scale. Flight planinformation and live radar data from 20 en routecenters are relayed to CFCF, where an aircraftsituation display presents national traffic data andanalyses, updated every 3 minutes, for any portion of

14~id., p. 256.ldsw~dtiis ac~e, u~ysudde~ i.nwindvelocity across anaimraft’spath. The most dangerous form of windsheaxis them.icroburs~ ar@dly

descending column of air that maybe impossible for some aircraft to escape horn when flying close to the ground.l~~ce & I&hnolo= Assessment op. cit., footnote 129, p. 158.

14s’’Tbsts Demonstrate Potential Benefits of Satellites in Air-Ground Communications,” Aviation Week & Space Technology, vol. 130, No. 2, July10, 1989, p. 57.

146’’ICAO’S ‘Ibrn-of-Century Plan Complet~” Interavia, August 1988, p. 749.


the continental United States. The system automati-cally alerts the traffic manager when capacity isinsufficient. Under the NAS Plan and R&D pro-grams, FAA is working toward using real-timecomputer analyses to manage runway and airspaceconfigurations and to issue traffic clearances foroptimal traffic flows.

The centerpiece of the NAS Plan is the AdvancedAutomation System (AAS), a $5 billion project toreplace and consolidate computer hardware, soft-ware, and workstations at airport tower, terminal,and en route ATC facilities. FAA expects bettersafety, greater system capacity, and lower opera-tional costs, due in large part to new and expandedautomated functions. Among the most important ofthese new capabilities is automated en route airtraffic control (AERA).

AERA, to be implemented in three phases, willpredict and resolve traffic conflicts in four dimens-ions and permit more fuel-efficient and direct flightpaths. FAA plans to install the first phase in 1997.The objective for AERA 3, on program completion,is automatic monitoring and control of traffic, andremoval of the capacity limitations of the currentsystems to permit controllers to manage airspaceregions much larger than present ATC sectors.147

Many aviation safety experts view increased use ofautomation with ambivalence. While automatedsystems increase efficiency and safety in some areas,they require monitoring and accurate data entry. Therole of the human in this increasingly automatedenvironment is a critical issue that needs to bestudied extensively to establish bases for settingstandards. 148

Technologies for Enhancing Groundside Ca-pacity—An airport’s groundside 149 components—aircraft parking aprons and gates, airport terminals,

and surface transportation links-are importantfactors in total trip time for passengers and cargo.Limitations in groundside capabilities can alsorestrict air service growth.

The number of passengers and the amount ofcargo that pass through an airport are the mostcommon economic indicators applied to measuringairport capacity. However, airport operators alsomust include employees, visitors, and service andground access vehicles in their calculations, andanalytic techniques and data for measuring ground-side capacity are less developed than methods forassessing airside capacity.150

Gates and Aprons-Airport gates and aprons arethe areas where aircraft receive fuel, maintenance,and other servicing. Although fewer gates would berequired if airlines shared them, most gates arecontrolled by individual airlines. Competition be-tween airlines and widely spread facilities at thebusiest airports limit the feasibility of jointly usinggates. If airport operators had more control overgates, more efficient use would be possible,151

allowing faster aircraft turnaround and expandingthe parking spaces and terminal access available foraircraft.152 Apron geometry and level of demand alsoaffect aircraft access to gates, and for the nextgeneration B-777, Boeing plans to use folding wingsin the design to avoid gate restrictions.

Security Technology and Procedures—Todeter aircraft hijacking and sabotage, FAA requiresairlines to screen passengers, carry-on articles, andin some cases, checked baggage, and airport opera-tors to control access to the airfield and aircraft.Technology permits much faster processing thanmanual searches alone would allow, and relativelyfew significant delays due to screening occurcurrently in the United States.

147Federal Aviation A&rums“ “ tratiom op. cit., footnote 140, p. III-38; and Federal Aviation Admmt“ “stratiom op. cit., footnote 141, pp. 63-64,ldg~ce of RXhUOIOgy hwmmn~ op. cit., footnote 129, p. 125.ld9The~~@~~= “bide” ~ “gro~dside” is somewhat arbitrary. The Federal AviationA&mm“ “strationincludes aircmftgatesandparking

areas in the airside category, as aircmft in these areas are still subject to air traftic control rules and regulations. In this repom however, airsideinfrastructumare those components whose performan ceaffects airport and airspace capacity. Each gate andparkingspace is usually controlled by a singleairline, and one airline’s gate performance generally does not affect other users of the airport. Exceptions are when airlines share gates or gate backupsrestrict other taxiing aimraft.

An alternate deftition of the groundside is the fmiliti~ and pd~es involved in the p~smger’s or cargo shipment’s journey from the originatingpoint to the “amraft, aircraft-to-aircraft transfers, and from the aircraft to the final destination. (Note: once on board the aircm the passenger or cargois in the airside).

l~atio~ Re-h comc~ Trq~tion ~=ch Bo@ ~eaSw”ng A@orf~~”& cap~c@, s~~ Report 215 (wmhhgto~ D(!: 1987),p. v.

lslDavid W. Davis, ex~utive director, h4asspoK unpublished remarks, OIX Advisory p~el meeting, Apr. 18, 1~.lszRefers to passenger or cargo trip-time ludess OthetiSe smtti.


Table 3-1 l—Traffic Congestion Increases in 15 Major Cities

Annual AnnualCongestion Percent total costb congestion cost

index a change (in billions per capitaCities (1987) (1982-87) of dollars) (in dollars)

Los Angeles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.47 20 7.9 730San Francisco-Oakland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.31 29 2.4 670Washington, DC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.25 31 2.2 740Phoenix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.23 6 0.9 510Houston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.19 1 1.5 550Atlanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.16 30 1.1 650Seattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14 20 0.9 580New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11 4 6.8 430Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11 11 2.5 340Detroit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10 - 2 1.9 460San Diego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.08 38 0.6 280Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.06 17 2.1 520Dallas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.03 22 1.0 530Minneapolis-St, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.97 24 0.5 240Milwaukee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 10 0.2 190~hecongestionindexisaweighted me~ureofurhnmtitityleveis,anddti~tithvalu~greaterthan l.Ohaveeongestionpmblems.Roadsearrying more

than 13,000 vehicles perfreeway lane perdayor5,000vehicles perarteriailaneperdayareeonsidered congested.~ngestion cost is the estimated cost of travel delay, excess fuel consumed, and higher insuranm premiums paid by residents of large, congested urban

areas.SOURCE: Office cf TeehnologyAssessment, based on Texas Transportation Institute, “Roadway Congestion in Major Urban Areas, 1982 to 1987,”’ Researeh

Report 1131-2, 1989.

The equipment used today consists of x-rayscanners with moving belts and magnetometers, bestsuited for detecting metal,153 and their successful usedepends on the skill, alertness, and motivation of thepeople operating them. These methods are mosteffective at detecting weapons, and are not verysuccessful at uncovering explosives and volatilesubstances. Passenger background checks and inter-views, as are done by Israel’s El Al Airlines, areeffective screening methods, but are both labor-intensive, time-consuming) and go beyond tradi-tional limits of privacy, limiting their acceptabilityin the U.S. system.

New technologies for baggage screening include:x-ray tomography devices; electromagnetic andnuclear-based systems that identify atomic ele-ments, such as nitrogen, a key component of mostexplosives; and vapor detection techniques thatrecognize and evaluate trace quantities of organicmaterials often present in explosives. However,further development to improve speed and reliabilitywill be necessary before these technologies arewidely deployed. New security systems may requiresome redesign of airport interiors to accommodatelarge screening devices.

. .

Conclusions and Policy Options

Although the U.S. transportation networks pro-vide enormous benefits to the national economy,congestion and structural decay are taking their tollon efficiency and productivity, especially in largemetropolitan regions, today’s centers of economicactivities. The quality of service provided by thetransportation infrastructure is a product of govern-ment investment decisions made over the system’slifetime, about planning, design, construction, Oper-

ations, maintenance, and rehabilitation. In theUnited States, shifts in population and transportpatterns and vehicle technology occur much fasterthan governments change the ways they design,manage, and maintain the transportation infrastruc-ture. The result is overburdened infrastructure in themajor urban areas, while many rural States muststruggle to provide adequate basic services fromtheir shrinkm“ g economic bases. Every year, high-way congestion in the Nation’s largest cities isestimated to cost motorists over $30 billion (seetable 3-1 1), while airport delays take a $5 billion tollon airlines and passengers. OTA concludes thatthese problems are due more to investment,land-use, and management policies and practicesthan to inadequate technologies. While new tech-

153x-~y &viC~ inMUWCI nxxmtly are able to distinguish among diffem ~~ri~ s-organics, plastics, metal-based on density.


nologies can help improve infrastructure conditionand smooth traffic flows in congested areas, theFederal Government must change its infrastruc-ture investment policies and address systemmanagement issues, if the most pressing trans-portation problems are to be resolved.

Financing and Investment

Federal fiscal policies-General Fund subsidies,grant matching requirements, trust fund spendingtargets, and revenue raising options-vary for eachtransportation mode. These policies do not alwayslead to economical system investment and manage-ment and have created substantially different infra-structure problems for each mode.

Surface Transportation

Aviation and port and waterway infrastructure(where the Federal Government plays major invest-ment and management roles in operations andmaintenance, and the rights-of-way—air andwater—require structural systems only indirectly) isin quite good physical condition. Although delaysoccur, most are amenable to management andtechnical solutions. In contrast, the Federal Govern-ment has always been an important, but minority,investment partner only in surface transportationinfrastructure-roads, bridges, mass transit, andrailroads-leaving management and operations tothe State, local, and private owners. Federal surfacetransportation funding policies have favored capitalinvestments, without a corresponding commitmentto operations and maintenance. The result is thatState and local government owners of the far-flungroad system have cut back and deferred maintenanceand rehabilitation. Most simply have not invested inbasic operational improvements, such as advancedtraffic signal systems. Private owners, primarilyrailroads, also neglected maintenance, especially onlightly used track sections, abandoning or sellingbranch lines as soon as they were able.

Changing Federal fiscal policies for surfacetransportation to allow Federal trust fund moniesto be used throughout the infrastructure life cycleand for operations and maintenance is the toppriority. Such spending discretion is of criticalimportance for rural or other economically con-strained areas facing unaffordable infrastructuremaintenance and rehabilitation needs. In someregions, local transportation grants may best be usedfor noncapital investments, such as maintenance

management systems, employee training, or ad-vanced traffic control equipment.

State matching requirements range from 10 per-cent for Interstate construction to 25 percent forprimary and secondary programs. However, a pri-mary road in poor condition can create a trafficbottleneck that has a major impact on a connectingInterstate, making rehabilitation of the primaryartery crucial to smooth interstate travel. Congresscould consider equalizing State matching re-quirements for all highway grants so that deci-sions about spending priorities reflect regionalpriorities, rather than projects tailored to fitgrant categories. Expanding State and local optionsfor raising revenue, such as tolls, on facilities builtwith Federal funds is crucial as well, to help leverageand stretch Federal dollars.

Increased flexibility in the use of Federalhighway and transit grant funds-the ability totransfer or combine them—would also helptransportation system productivity. Examples in-clude railroad improvements (for Amtrak, too, sinceover 40 percent of Amtrak passengers travel ontrains under contract to jurisdictions), park-and-ridefacilities, HOV lanes, and preferential treatment fortransit or other high-occupancy vehicles. A fundingprogram for surface transportation condition im-provement, which would include passenger rail,mass transit, roads, and bridges, might be such amechanism. Similarly, a program for surface trans-portation capacity expansion should include newcommuter rail and bus systems, new busways, newlanes, including HOV facilities, and expansion toexisting systems and facilities.

Market Pricing

Traffic congestion creates additional operatingand maintenance expenses for vehicles and infra-structure, and delay costs for users. Since the pricepaid for using the transportation system is oftenbelow real costs, the demand for frequent transportservice to many destinations encourages large fleetsof small vehicles to clog the infrastructure. Theaverage passenger and cargo capacity of vehicles isa key factor in efficient system flow. Industry useslarge vehicles—widebody jets, long, double trailertrucks, double stack trains, jumbo barges, and newcontainerships-when economics favor them andregulations allow them. User pricing policies(peak-hour tolls) that reflect vehicle costs to thesystem could favor higher capacity operations,


Table 3-12—Federal Expenditures and User-Fee Revenue for Transportation, 1989

Federal Federal Dedicated revenueexpenditures user-fee revenuesa as percent of

Transport mode (in millions of dollars) (in millions of dollars) expenditures

Highway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,898b 14,270 102Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,595’ 1 ,357d 37Rail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594’ — —Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,748f 3,664 63Ports and waterways . . . . . . . 1,436g 223 h

16a ~es not include interest received on trust fund balances.b ln~~es funds outlay~ for the Federal Highway Administration, the National Highway Transportation *fety

Administration, the Forest 8ervice for forest roads and trails, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs for roadconstruction.

c lnd~es capital and operating grants and limited research and development (R&D) spending.d Revenue SoUrm is 1 cent per gallon from motor fuel t= (19W).e Amtrak funding and limited Federal R&D SpSIlding.f Does n~ indu~ e~penditure~ for National Aemnauti~ and Sp=e Administration, National Transportation

Safety Board, or Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary.9 Army Corps of Engin~rso@laysforharbors watenvays. Doss not include Maritime Administration, Coast Guard,

or Panama Canal Company outlays.h lnd~es [nla~ Watemay Tmst Fund, Harbor Maintena~e Tmst Fund, and St. Lawrence 8eaway Tolk.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transmutation, Federa/ Trsmmortation /%anua/ Statistics. f7sca/ Years 1979-1989(Washirigton, DC: May 1990).

such as car pooling and mass transit, and possiblylower total energy use and environmental dam-age. They could also lower life-cycle costs bymatching system characteristics and long-term usepatterns. For example, a highway policy basing userfees on the pavement wear imposed by commonlyused vehicles (truck axle weights, for example) andusing the increased revenue to pay for thicker, moredurable pavements could lower long-term totalhighway costs.

Strict market pricing policies raise issues relatedto ability to pay and discrimination against certainclasses of transportation users. OTA concludes thatpricing decisions for demand management mayrequire Federal oversight to ensure affordabletransportation options to all users. A share of therevenues generated by those willing and able to payfor premium service could fund alternative transpor-tation systems for other users.

General Fund Subsidies

Tying user charges to system expenditures, espe-cially for operations and maintenance, can encour-age realistic infrastructure decisions and provide along-term revenue stream for system management.While social benefits such as defense, environ-mental protection, and economic development jus-t@ General Fund support for transportation infra-structure, these tax monies currently subsidize eachmode to different degrees (see table 3-12). On boththe inland waterways and deepwater channels, theGeneral Fund now pays roughly 50 percent of capital

costs, a reasonable amount given the multiplepurposes these structures serve, and a markedreduction from historic levels. However, watershippers and operators still pay only a minor share ofoperations and maintenance costs, in sharp contrastto other transportation modes, where users pay mostof these costs. OTA concludes that this preferen-tial treatment for port and waterway users isdifficult to justify and that it is time for anotherlook at investment and cost allocation policies fortransportation infrastructure. One option is toequalize General Fund subsidies among trans-portation modes over a 5- to 10-year period.Another is eliminating the subsidies entirely,using trust fund revenues for Federal programsand looking to new revenue sources, such ashigher State and local grant matching require-ments.

Whatever the choice, if General Fund subsidiesfor transportation are reduced, and budget con-straints prevent using trust fund balances, user feesand non-Federal funding must make up the differ-ence, or existing public networks will have to scaleback. With the exception of the inland waterwayoperators, most transport sectors would be capableof generating sufficient revenues to remain atpresent capacity. Congress could consider a long-term, gradual disinvestment of commerciallyunproductive waterways, unless regional govern-ments and recreational users are willing to meetsubstantially more of the costs. For example,hydroelectric power, drinking water, and recrea-


tional boating opportunities supplied by these navi-gation projects, if priced at fair market values, couldfund significant amounts of system operating andmaintenance costs.

Management Framework

Finding ways to increase system capacity andhandle increasing demand without constructing newrights-of-way poses enormous challenges. Newtechnologies can marginally increase the capacity ofinfrastructure, but they are often expensive andeventually reach structural limits. A systems man-agement approach that encourages carrying the samevolume of passengers or cargo on fewer vehicles andmakes full use of all modes could address air quality,energy use, and congestion problems.

Intermodal Transportation

While individual intermodal operators—airports,marine ports, terminals, and stations-and transpor-tation companies are investing in advanced equip-ment and electronics to speed cargo and passengertransfers, problems related to intermodal transportincreasingly hamper regional surface transportationlinks. For example, port operations both contributeto and suffer from surface traffic congestion, airpollution, and problems caused by overweightshipments. Many such issues are international andinterstate in scope and beyond the capabilities ofState and local governments to resolve.

A host of governmental agencies have regulatoryand fiscal authority over separate elements ofregional transportation, and no effective mechanismfor multimodal coordination has emerged. Federalpolicy has favored capital investment as support foreconomic development, a policy that has diminish-ing application in metropolitan areas, where im-proved system (regional) management will be thekey to future economic success. OTA concludesthat Federal incentives for addressing regionaltransportation issues, intermodal links, surfacecongestion solutions, and environmental impactsare essential.

Institutional Framework

Neither DOT nor Congress has successfullyovercome strong, separate modal interests andachieved an appropriate systems approach to solvingtransportation problems. In Congress, only theappropriations committees have sufficiently com-prehensive jurisdiction, but those committees were

never intended to set transportation policy. DOT’srecently published National Transportation Policyrecognized this and encouraged a multimodal ap-proach toward transportation problems. However,this encouragement is not enough; OTA concludesthat unless steps are taken to institutionalize amultimodal approach within DOT, the tradi-tional modally oriented structure will be perpetu-ated and the agency will not be able to addresstoday’s transportation issues effectively.

If the Federal Government is to regain a leader-ship role in transportation, changes in institutionalmanagement must be made. In the short run,consolidating several of the water managementfunctions and urban modes makes a great deal ofsense. Over the longer term, options include restruc-turing DOT in divisions by broad mode-aviation,and surface and water transportation-or by func-tion, such as metropolitan passenger and intercityfreight transportation. Reforming congressionaloversight as well, by developing a mechanism tocoordinate or concentrate transportation author-ization, will be crucial to the success of arestructured DOT.

An immediate option for Congress to consider isto shift civilian water transportation authority fromthe Army Corps of Engineers to DOT, as wasoriginally envisioned when DOT was created. Thiswould consolidate all transportation policy and trustfunds within a single agency with Cabinet-levelattention and facilitate multimodal decisionmaking.Because some of the Corps’ traditional missions arewaning, over the longer term consideration couldbe given to making the agency into a NationalCorps of Engineers with the mission of making itsengineering and water resources expertise avail-able to support a number of executive agencies ona reimbursable basis. It could remain looselyassociated with DoD and maintain its other currentresponsibilities, or these could be assigned to otherdepartments as appropriate (flood control could behoused in the Department of the Interior, forexample).

Transportation Technologies

Advanced technologies, innovative and alterna-tive multimodal delivery systems, more efficientmanagement and methods, and changes to incen-tives will be necessary to improve the Nation’stransportation system. Yet with few exceptions, data


collection and research have been insufficient toidentify the best choices among the advancedconcepts vying for places in the future transportsystem. Moreover, much in the current institutionaland organizational structure acts to prevent adoptionof new technologies and management techniques.Officials, particularly at the local level, are oftenunaware of suitable new technologies, and evenwhen they do know about new tools, they oftencannot afford to buy them or to train employees touse them.

Improving Operations

Technological procedures for mitigating con-gestion and structural limitations are often ex-pensive to implement, but may be cost-effectivewhen other options are unavailable. New trafficmanagement and control technologies could poten-tially improve traffic flows on congested roadways,airways, and waterways on the order of 10 to 20percent, although when new capacity is opened in acongested corridor, it is usually fried quickly bylatent demand. Many of these options requiresignificant public investments, and in most cases,users would also need to invest in new equipment,raising issues related to ability to pay.

Roadway technologies that speed traffic flows,inform motorists of congested areas, and detect andrespond to traffic incidents promptly are beingdeveloped and tested. The backbone of all of thesesystems is an efficient, traffic-responsive signalcontrol system, a basic technology that can offerimmediate congestion improvements. Advancedtraffic control signal systems are one of the fewhighway technologies whose effectiveness dependsrimarily on actions by public agencies, and theyP

represent a vital first step in the development ofother Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systems. In-vehicle guidance and communications systems willbe of limited benefit unless they are linked to thepublic infrastructure. Federal assistance to localjurisdictions for implementing these highwaytechnologies and ensuring coordination betweenadjacent municipalities to provide smooth inter-city and interstate traffic flow are top priorities.

Managing Demand—Additional reduction incongestion can be attained in urban areas if technol-ogy is used in conjunction with full-cost pricing.Longer term Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systemsdevelopments, such as those that control vehiclespeed and direction as well as spacing between

vehicles, offer greater potential for faster travel andreduced delays, but these technologies are at an earlystage of development, and any possible implementa-tion is at least two to three decades away.

The top investment priorities for air are communi-cations, navigation, and surveillance technologiesthat can improve terminal ATC capabilities andincrease effective airport. capacity during inclementweather, the time when most delays occur. Satellite-based systems will be essential for gains in interna-tional traffic. However, future gains in ATC capabil-ities are likely to outpace the ability of airports tohandle takeoffs and landings, and some form ofdemand management is likely to be necessary.

At some congested inland waterway locks, traffficmanagement and equipment for pulling unpoweredtows could increase capacity by over 20 percent.Scheduling access to these facilities would allowbetter planning by industry and could reduce operat-ing costs. However, the initiative for such systemtraffic management would best come from thewaterway users, since safety issues do not justifyprecise Federal traffic control on the waterways.

Alternative Modes

Technologies leading to improvement in onetransportation mode can benefit the entire sys-tem by relieving congestion in other modes. Forexample, employing high-speed rail in heavilytraveled automobile or air corridors, such as those inthe Northeast corridor and southern California,could significantly reduce rail travel times andattract passengers away from highways and airports.Improving the attractiveness of bus transit by givingurban buses priority at traffic signals and providingdedicated lanes would similarly help alleviate roadtraffic in crowded areas. Any gain in roadwayperformance will likely enhance airport groundaccess, since most air passengers and cargo dependon road vehicles. See table 3-13 for a summary of thelikely effects of various surface transportation meas-ures.

Alternative technologies, such as tiltrotor aircraftor magnetically levitated trains, could play a role inbypassing the parallel problems of limited airportcapacity and surface transportation congestion inmetropolitan areas. Developing and implementingsuch radically new technologies will require billionsof dollars and is likely to require Federal support.However, since these technologies would serve


Table 3-13-impacts of Surface Transportation Measures

Technology or measure Impact Governmental action required

Highways:Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systems . . . . . .

Timely pavement and bridge construction,maintenance, and rehabilitation .....,. .

Rail:Timely right-of-way maintenance and

rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Automatic train control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .High-speed passenger rail . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mass transit:Alternative fuels . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . .

Automatic vehicle location and passengerinformation systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Reduced congestion (10-20%) lnstallation of integrated, traffic-responsiveImproved safety (0-20% fewer accidents) signal control systems by local govern-Less driver frustration ments ($1 to $20 million/major city)

Federal investment in R&D ($10 to $100million/year)

Reduced life-cycle cost (50%) Higher annual maintenance expenditures byIncreased life (50%) State and local governments

Reduced Iife-cycle cost (10%) None, private-sector financedIncreased productivity (higher speeds),

fewer accidents (50%)Improved service and safety None, private-sector financedImproved service (50-100% quicker travel Federal support for Amtrak capitalexpenses,

times than conventional rail) Federal support of right-of-way acquisition,Shift some traffic from airports and highways construction, and possibly maglev R&D

Reduced emissions of NOx and particulates Increased fuel and equipment expenditures(0-20% reduction in ambient air pollution if for municipal transit authoritiesthese fuels are used only on mass transitvehicles)

Improved service, increased ridership (10%) Increased equipment expenditures forleading to congestion relief municipal transit authorities

overlapping needs, choices may have to be madebetween them and other technological options, andtotal public costs projected for each system, issuesthat will need further study. Moreover, Congresswill be involved in determining the appropriatesources for funding and how the developmentprogram should be managed.

High-speed intercity ground transportation,urgently needed in congested regions such as theNortheast corridor, can ill afford to await the

development of maglev or tiltrotor technology.Proven steel-wheel technologies, such as tilt trainsand high-speed systems, are available now and canplay a key role in speeding passenger travel andrelieving congestion from other modes in crowdedurban corridors. Tiltrotor aircraft and maglev trainsshow promise for even faster travel, but requireextensive development and are at least a decadeaway from possible implementation.

E n v i r o n m e n t a l

M a n a g e m e n t a n d

CHAPTER 4

Pub l i c W o r k s

T e c h n o l o g i e s

ContentsPage. .

Drinking Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137Water Storage and Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137Water Distribution, Consumption, and Pricing

. . . . . . .● *.. .*, ..*. ,., ,.. ... .,. ... *o,*.*+** 139. .

Drinking Water Standards .., .,. ... .,. ,., .,. ... .,. .., .*. ,+ Q,**, *,m*. **$*, *****co 140Technologies for Safe Drinking Water ● . ● . . . . , . . . . ● ● ● ● . . ● . . , . . , ● + ● ● ● ● . . ● , . ● . . ● , , , , 141Technologies for the Distribution Network ... ,.. +,. ... ... ... . .,.+.,+,06,0+.,,.,,+ 145Technologies for Small Systems .*. .,. ... *.. ... ... ... ,*e. *.. *.*, *+*a o,+**,***,* 147Management and Operating Tools ... ,*. .*. ... ... ... ... *,*. .**. a,, ,m******o*. .a. 148

Wastewater Treatment . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . * * * . . . + . * * * a * * . . * o . . + + . * 150Wastewater Treatment Regulation .., ... *.. ..*. .,, **, **** **** c**o*** m**+ *o** .*+ 151Wastewater Treatment Issues .., ..*. *,. .., ... ... ... ,.. *,. ... ... .+. ..+, **,+,*,4+ 151Wastewater Treatment Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Municipal Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...+..*..*.*.,.**..,,*..*,*,.* 158Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159MSW Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160Reduction Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164Recycling ..*. ... ... *.. ... ... .*. ... .,. .. Q., ,,. ..** *.. *o**, Q,+, ,*, ,*#, ,,. c4 ****e, 165

Hazardous Waste ..*. ... ..*. ... ... ... ... ... ... ..+. ... ++** *.. .*. ..*+ ..+. .$* @ * *m* r* o 166Technology Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Issues and Concerns ... ... ... .,. *.. ... .,. ... ... .,. ,,. ,,*+, ao+**** e,, ,*, * **c,*,..* 168Coping With an Anxious Public ?,, *.. *.*. ... ... .,, *.*, *c*+ *,, **** **o*, ,* *****o- 168Small Systems ... .., *.. ... ,., .,. ... ... .,. ,.. ,,*+o, .,**, m*. Q*** *ee$* c*, ***am.+., 168Financing and Management ... *.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..o. .*** ... ..** ***. *c.+., 170

Conclusions .,, ... ... ... ,.. .,. ... ... +.. +.. O+,,,.,,.. . . . . . . .,, . . . . ., . . . . ..+,...,+ 175Changes at EPA *.*. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .+ +. ... ..** *.*. .*** .+. ... *.@+ + c.....+. , 176Standards and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176Protecting Public Works Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

BoxesBox Page4-A. State Water Quality Programs and New Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1424-B. Alternative Process for Water Treatment .*** ***. *.. ,**$. .,. .., .*+, ,+, ,o*, ,, o*, 1454-C. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and Distributed

Control Systems (DCS) o.. ... .*. .*. *,. .,*. ... ... ,., +*, $**. ,**. *.*. ++, *, **4.. 1494-D. Sludge Handling Techniques ... ..*. *.. ... ... ... ..*. ... ..** .*, ,,*. ,,. ,.*. *. #+* 1564-E, Circuit Riders: Helping America’s Rural Water Operators ..,..,.. +.., . . . . . . . . . . 169

TablesTable Page4-1. Major Federal EnvironmentaI Public Works Legislation ., . . . . ,***.*.. . . . . . .*,** 1384-2. Community Water Systems in the United States . ....,...,.,*..**.*,.*+,*+,,*,** 1394-3. Size, Number, and Capacity of POTWs in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1504-4. summary of Local Government Environmental Expenditures by Media . . . . . . . . . . 1714-5. Average Annual Household Payments for Environmental Services for a

Sample of 8,032 Cities, Towns, and Townships . . . . . , . . . . . . . . , 1714-6. New Regulations That Will Impose Local Costs ... ... ,.. .., Q, + + * + * . . . +.,*+*.,* 1724-7. Total National Cost Impact of Compliance With Office of Drinking

Water Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

CHAPTER 4

Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies

In the haste to get new Federal water and related environmental programs in place,consultations and concurrence to ensure equitable and effective results have been neglectedif not ignored. 1

The Federal Government’s role in environmentalprotection includes legislation, policies, and regula-tions to preserve the quality of the Nation’s air andwater supplies and to control the disposal of wastes.State and local officials must implement theseFederal policies as they supervise, manage, operate,and maintain the public works infrastructure thatsupplies water, treats wastewater, and collects anddisposes of solid wastes.

Ensuring good water quality requires planning,managing, and operating a wide range of publicworks facilities including reservoirs, locks anddams, flood control structures, and drinking waterand wastewater treatment plants. Equal care inmanaging solid waste and hazardous waste disposalfacilities is also necessary because of the potentialmovement of contaminants through groundwater oroverland flow. The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) has the Federal lead for environ-mental protection, setting standards for drinkingwater quality and surface waters, establishing pol-lutant limits on the discharge of effluents frommunicipal wastewater treatment plants and indus-trial point sources, and addressing issues of disposalof municipal solid and hazardous waste. Theagency’s responsibilities are established by a set ofmajor environmental laws (see table 4-l).

Meeting EPA standards is not an easy task andplaces substantial technical, management, and fi-nancial demands on States and communities oftenill-equipped to meet them. Technologies are essen-tial tools for public works officials in carrying outrisk assessments and implementing environmentalprotection measures. Maintenance, construction,repair, and rehabilitation techniques can improveperformance and extend the service lives of existingfacilities, and innovative systems, demand manage-ment, and improved fiscal and operational methodscan reduce inefficiencies and foster more effective

operations. The gulf between the capabilities ofStates and localities and their legal responsibilitiesposes difficult dilemmas for policymakers.

This chapter provides a snapshot of the threemajor environmental public works service areas:drinking water supply, wastewater treatment, andsolid waste disposal. It examines related manage-ment and financing issues and technologies and theways Federal standards and programs affect theState and local governments responsible for carryingout the requirements and providing services.

Drinking WaterThe drinkin g water supply system includes the

sources, facilities, and activities needed to transmit,store, treat, and distribute water to residential,commercial, industrial, and agricultural consumers.Groundwater is the source of about one-half ofdrinking water supplies by volume, with surfacewater (rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs) provid-ing the remainder. Many groundwater and somesurface water sources need very little treatment,usually simple disinfection with chlorine. However,some local water sources have been contaminatedand require filtration, aeration, or chemical treat-ment. For example, technologies to remove nitratescontaminating aquifers must now be used in parts ofthe Midwest after decades of agricultural fertiliza-tion.2 Federal and State Governments regulate andoversee the local suppliers of drinking water toensure that it is free from biological and chemicalcontaminants.

Water Storage and Supply

supplying drinking water has historically been alocal government service, provided by municipallyowned systems, investor-owned water utilities,homeowner’s associations, and water wholesalers.About 30 percent of all public water systems are

Istephen S. Li@t ~d JOhII R. WO&aSka, “Forging a New State-Federal ~ianCe in Water Management,” Natural Resources Journal, vol. 30,summer 1990, p. 479.

zJ~es ~w~, Amtican waterwor~ Association Research Foundatio~ personal COmmti~tiO1.L DCZ. 15, 1989.

–137–


Table 4-l-Major Federal Environmental Public Works Legislation

1948

1956

1963

1965

1966

1967

1969

1970

1972

1974

1976

1977

1980

1984

1986

1987

1990

Water Pollution Control Act authorized the Federal Government to conduct research andgrant loans to States.

Water Pollution Control Act Amendments gave permanent Federal authority to becomeinvolved in water pollution policy and make construction grants to States.

Clean Air Act asserted Federal interest in controlling air pollution.

Solid Waste Disposal Act established the Federal research and development program.

Water Quality Act authorized Federal water quality standards on interstate waters andrequired States to set standards.

Clean Water Restoration Act increased Federal grant share to 50 percent of project costs andincreased grant funding.

Clean Air Act amendments authorized Federal standards and enforcement.

National Environmental Policy Act required impact statements on all major Federal actions.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) formed to administer numerous mediaprograms.

Clean Air Act Amendments expanded Federal regulatory authority and required States toadopt implementation plans.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) set minimum wastewater treatmentstandards and established construction grants.

Coastal Zone Management Act authorized Federal grants to States to develop coastal zonemanagement plans under Federal guidelines.

Marine Protection Act regulated the dumping of waste products into coastal waters.

Safe Drinking Water Act set standards for water quality.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) supported recycling and discouragedlandfills.

Toxic Substances Control Act authorized EPA to regulate the manufacture, sale, or use ofany chemical threatening the health of humans or the environment.

Clean Air Act Amendments strengthened EPA enforcement.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act establishedSuperfund for chemical dump site cleanup.

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (of the RCRA) targeted hazardous wastemanagement.

Safe Drinking Water Amendments strengthened Federal requirements.

Water Resources Development Act initiated user fees and cost sharing for water projects.

Clean Water Act Amendments required that wastewater construction grants be phased outby 1991 and replaced until 1994 by capitalization grants to State Revolving Loan Funds.

Clean Air Act reauthorization with additional controls on autos, buses, and trucks.

Superfund extended through 1994.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

community water systems, providing service yearround to about 219 million people, primarily resi-dential users. A few very large community watersystems (0.5 percent of the total) serve more than 43percent of the population, while at the other end ofthe scale are a huge number of small systems (seetable 4-2), which serve less than 2.7 percent. About40 million people draw drinking water from privatewells, which are not subject to the Federal drinkingwater standards and are not regularly tested for

contaminants. Noncommunity water systems pro-vide intermittent service primarily to transient andnonresidential users.

Siting and constructing new reservoirs is increasi-ngly difficult because the number of available sitesis diminishing, new water supplies must be pro-tected, and resistance for environmental reasons ishigh. Furthermore, the costs of developing newsupplies and storage facilities rise as better sites are

Chapter 4-Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies ● 139

Table 4-2-Community Water Systems in theUnited States

Number of people served Number of systems

25 to 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,425501 to 3,300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,9953,301 to 10,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,02910,001 to 100,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,802More than 100,001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency data, 1991.

preempted. 3 Thus, water utilities find it easier andcheaper to protect raw water supplies than to developnew supplies or treat water contaminated in storage.Many have programs to control erosion and protectreservoirs, watersheds, and well-heads so as toreduce chemical and equipment requirements, ef-forts that require extensive monitoring and enforce-ment of waste discharges and surface runoff.4

Water Distribution, Consumption, andPricing

. .Drinking water distribution systems transportwater from the treatment plant to the customer. Theelevated storage tanks, ground storage reservoirs,pumps and pumping stations, mains from 6 to 54inches in diameter, pipes, valves, and connectionsfor distribution can account for up to 80 percent of. .drinking water costs. Systems in poor repair losetreated water through leakage, raising costs evenhigher. An examination of eight systems ranging inoutput capacity from 0.3 MGD (million gallons perday) to about 75 MGD showed amounts of suchunaccounted-for water ranging from less than 1percent up to 37 percent.5 Small systems generallyhad a higher percentage of unaccounted-for water.

Average water usage is from 80 to 150 gallons percapita per day in the United States, although actualhuman consumption is between 1/2 to 1 gallon percapita per day. The cost of drinking water is typically$1.00 to $1.50 per 1,000 gallons; annual cost per

person ranges from about $30 to $80 annually. Wideregional cost variations exist in the United States,because water is not evenly distributed geographi-cally. This uneven distribution creates difficulties inmatching supply with demand.6

Managing Supply and Demand

In localities where water shortages have promptedmandatory reductions, water use is declining; short-term conservation rules due to drought conditionshave also reduced usage. For example, Massachu-setts’ plumbing code now requires new and replace-ment toilets to use not more than 1.6 gallons perflush v. 3.5 gallons per standard flush.7 Mandatoryreduction rules have been enacted in some commu-nities on Long Island, New York, and in California.Greater attention is being paid to reservoir manage-ment and operation and optimizing multipurposewater systems through regional compacts such as theWashington Sanitary Sewer Commission.

Optimizing site-specific characteristics, such asstorage, flow, and quality, of surface and ground-water supplies, a process known as conjunctive use,8

can increase the amount of good quality water andimprove supply quality. Tacoma, Washington, has aconjunctive use strategy by which it augments waterfrom its principal source, the Green River, duringperiods when large amounts of suspended claymaterials create high turbidity, with high-qualitygroundwater to reduce treatment requirements.9

Water utilities require large investments, partlybecause high seasonal demands usually occur duringperiods of low stream flows, necessitating largestorage facilities. Thus, water systems generallyoperate at levels of output well below capacity,creating an incentive for utilities to encourageconsumption, often through low prices for high-volume users. Although human consumption is asmall percentage of total water used, almost all watermust be treated to drinking quality standards.

3K~@ D. Fr~~~& R~~~m~ for ~ fi~, “Wa@rR~o~ce: s-, fi~ds, and policy N~s,” d,is~sion paper EN’R88-02, 1988, p. i.

AWade hfiller Assocktes, IXW., The Nation’s Public Workr: Water Supply (Washington ~: NationaI Council on public works @rOVern~t WY1987), p. 53.

spa~~k Ce a ~d J~~e A. B~~, cost l~act Of &@ D~’n~”ng wut&&t C@@unCe f& Conuna”sm”on4?egulated water UtilitieS, ~report 89-6 (Columbus, OH: The National Regulatory Research Institute, January 1989), p. 19.

6Fre&ric~ op. cit., fOOtnOte q, P. ‘“

7Avemge household savings is estimated to be from 9,400 to 25,700 guons Wr y-.Sues. ~y CoWs of _=rs, me Hy~lo@c -X c~~r, E/e~nts Of Conjumtive Use Water Supply, Research D~

(wmto~ DC: March 1988), p. iv.ent No. 27

mid.


Drinking Water Standards

Regulating drinking water to protect public healthwas historically a State and local responsibility.During the late 19th century, the threat of choleraand typhoid epidemics prompted many States andlocalities to establish sanitary commissions, whichevolved into departments of public health, to super-vise sewage treatment and monitor “drinking waterpurity. During the first half of this century, contin-ued small-scale outbreaks of waterborne infectiousdiseases motivated numerous States and local gov-ernments to adopt ordinances to control pollutionand protect “drinking water supply from contamina-tion. l0 However, growing concern in the 1960s andearly 1970s over the purity of the Nation’s drinkingwater prompted passage of the Safe Drinking WaterAct (SDWA) of 197411 as an amendment to thePublic Health Service Act. The act and its amend-ments require EPA to set standards for drinkingwater quality and for the protection of undergroundsources; the States must enforce the standards. Allpublic water supply systems—whether publicly orprivately owned-are subject to the mandate.

Dissatisfied with EPA’s implementation of the1974 act and faced with the threat of suits byenvironmental advocates, Congress enacted theSDWA Amendments of 198612 to simplify the EPAregulatory process, stiffen the requirements, andaccelerate the schedule for EPA to establish andimplement new National Primary Drinking WaterRegulations. Congress specified 83 contaminantsfor which EPA was required to promulgate regula-tions and identify the best available technology byJune 1989, and required that 25 contaminants beadded to the list every 3 years. To assure compliance,EPA has imposed various requirements for monitor-ing water quality, maintainingg records, and issuingreports. All public water systems are required by thestatute to test on a scheduled basis for all contami-nants for which EPA has established standards. The1986 amendments also authorized continued, butrelatively small, grants to States and localities, aswell as new Federal assistance intended to helpsmall systems monitor for unregulated contaminantsand install disinfection equipment.

The Water Quality Act Amendments of 1987addressed such issues as nonpoint source pollution,storm water discharges, the National EstuariesProgram, toxics control, and sewage sludge manage-ment. Other laws with provisions aimed at improv-ing U.S. water quality include the Resource Conser-vation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Envi-ronmental Response, Compensation, and LiabilityAct; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Roden-ticide Act; and the Toxic Substances Control Act.

If a State assumes primacy, or primary enforce-ment authority, for drinking water, it takes onresponsibility for ensuring that its localities meet therequirements of the national laws and regulations,and most States have done so. The 1986 SDWAAmendments, while providing some flexibility tothe regulations, added to the States’ workload byrequiring additional review and analysis to ensurecompliance. Some States voice concern that theycannot meet these requirements with their availableresources and personnel (see box 4-A) and mustconsider abandoning primacy; they are apprehensiveabout the responsibility, liability, and costs associ-ated with failed systems.13

Recent Regulatory Changes

Water systems are currently trying to comply withrecent changes in drinking water regulations such astesting for the additional contaminants listed in theSDWA and seeking technology alternatives. Con-trolling the frost set of contaminants requires systemsto change their processes without knowledge offuture regulations or the identities of additionalcontaminants. New regulations call for all surfacewater supplies to be filtered, and EPA has combinedthis requirement with disinfection regulations intoone set of standards for surface water. Systems thatdo not filter must now do so, regardless of existingwater quality.

In addition, legislation also requires that newdisinfection standards be promulgated for watersupplies. One goal of the new standards is reducingtrihalomethanes (THM) and other byproducts ofchlorine disinfection. However, EPA faces a di-lemma in setting standards: reducing the level of

loco~cil on Envi.ro~en~Q~i~, The 16th AnnuuZRepoti of the Council on Environmental Quality (Washington ~: U.S. @verWent hthsOffice, 1985), p. 7.

Ilfiblic ~w 93-523, 88 s~to 16~.

@ublic Law 99-339, 100 Stat. 642.lsJok Tr~, Natio~ Rural Water Association, personal co~ticatiou Apr. 17, 1990.


chlorine is likely to increase biofilm growth in waterdistribution systems, because less residual disinfec-tant will remain in treated water. This may well leadto a new set of operating problems. How best toregulate lead in drinking water is also problematic,because lead has been widely used in service linesand solder for household plumbing.

Coliform monitoring regulations have beenchanged to determine simple presence or absence asopposed to a density (parts per volume) measure-ment. These changes will increase the number ofsamples needed by a utility to show compliance andare likely to increase substantially the number ofutilities in violation because low levels of coliform,which do not pose a public health risk,14 are likelyto be present.

Risk and Uncertainty in Standard Setting

Although an appendix to the EPA NationalInterim Primary Drinkin g Water Regulations of1976 mentions that “. . . priority should be given tothe selection of the purest source. . . ,“15 thisapproach is not stressed in legislation or in EPAregulations. EPA’s water quality standards are basedon maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) deter-mined by animal studies. While monitoring equip-ment can measure some contaminants in parts pertrillion, standards determined by animal modelingcannot project human toxicity to this accuracy.Moreover, MCLs “. . . for one contaminant do notrecognize the additive or synergistic behavior of themany contaminants that are present together inwastewaters. 16 Scientists’ ability to develop newchemicals and to measure their presence in theenvironment in minute amounts far surpasses theability to understand and evaluate long-term humanhealth risks.

Removing a contaminant from drinkin g water tomeet an MCL standard is more costly than prevent-ing its introduction in the first place. Complex andspecific EPA regulations for drinking water andsewage treatment may conflict with regulations ofother Federal agencies, creating problems for opera-tors and raising costs. For example, the process of

Photo credit: Dan Broun, OTA Staff

Americans count on being able to draw safe drinking waterfrom every household tap.

removing radionuclides from drinking water createsradioactive sludge that is difficult to dispose ofbecause it is a radioactive waste. If engineers adjustwater disinfectants to reduce corrosion in distribu-tion systems, the changes may reduce chlorine’seffectiveness, yet adding more chlorine to achievethe same disinfection level will increase the carcino-genic THMs.

Technologies for Safe Drinking Water

Most newer water treatment methods are special-ized, expensive, and not designed for amass market,making it difficult for localities to introduce newtechnologies. 17 SDWA regulations are aimed atTHMs, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), andsoluble organic compounds (SOCs), with morecontaminants to be added overtime. As standards foreach new contaminant are promulgated, new meth-ods or new chemicals become important. ‘Althoughthe SDWA can be expected to stimulate the develop-ment of alternative treatment processes, at this time

Wldwmd &l&eick setior res~ch microbiologist DrMcing Water Research Divisioq U.S. ~vti~ntd PmtCCtiOn AgeMy, P-corrmmnicatioq Sept. 10, 1990.

ISDafielA, ofi ‘Philosophy of the Safe Drinking WaterAct and Potable Reuse, “ EnvironmentalScience & Technology,vol. 14,N0. 1 l, November1980, p. 1298.

IGDaniel A. oti, “Reuse: p~c~ or Me in the Sky,” Journal of the American Water Works Association, VO1. 77, No. 7, July 1985, p. 26.

ITSee for ex~ple, Wade Miller Associates, Inc., op. cit., fOO~Ote 4.


Box 4-A—State Water Quality Programs and New Technologies

State public works officials and engineers play important and often pivotal roles in the difficult process ofensuring the quality of a State’s drinking water systems and wastewater treatment plants. For example, in Ohio, theOhio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) has primacy in the approval process for new construction,upgrades, improvements, and expansions of drinking water facilities 1 The system’s engineer or a consultant mustprepare project plans and submit them to OEPA’s office of “Drinking Water for approval. OEPA engineers provideinitial advice and suggestions about project feasibility and acceptance through the State office or one of four regionaloffices. Following initial acceptance, project designs can be completed and submitted for a more detailed reviewfor compliance with State construction and environmental standards.2

Ohio uses the “Ten State Standards,” which are guidelines for conventional treatment equipment andenvironmental regulations or more sophisticated treatmentprocedures. Developed before many of today’s

technologies, these standards are considered veryconservative. Although Ohio is trying to move away from thesestandards to encourage innovative technologies, the permit process favors familiar‘ 4 technologies with a proven trackrecord. Moreover, public works operators often must back up innovative systems with conventional technology incase the new process fails, resulting in costly redundant systems.4

The Office of Drinking“ Water is short of experienccd engineers, and current salaries are not sufficient to attractor retain needed staff.5 Because the State currently has a 6- to 9-month backlog of project design approvals, Stateengineers do not have time to examine thoroughly proposals that include new technologies, The State legislaturehas considered increasing the staff and raising salaries in response to pressure from contractors and constructioncompanies that are losing money because of the delays.

Oklahoma has a more decentralized approach for environmental decisionmaking, 6 and five different Stateagencies have authority in environmental permitting. Municipal drinking water or wastewater treatment plantsrequire approval from the State’s Department of Health, while permits affecting water and agriculture involve the

1Robcrt Stevenson, manager of operations, Toledo Water Treatment Plant, personal communication,“ Oct. 18, 1989.Zkihley Bird, manager, E@nedng Sc!ctiq Di?Asion of Pubuc Drinkhg water, Ohio ~Protection Ag’uJey, parmnld

~CtiO~ &t. 20, 1989.3WMIC MillurAssocia@, Inca The N&”on’s Public Worb: Report on W- Slqpfy @?d@tO& w: ~add ~

w-My 1987), p. 75.onFilbiicwoEk8

‘$Whlt van Co% commissiow!x of WtltlX, ~kdo, ~, pcracd ~ tit 18, 1989.5other Statm have the same pmbkml. Virginia and Perm$yivania report that W -**h -t to ~- - *

e@neer@ firms for young “enpecn% they a% * the lack of ilwtitntional memory &e to II@ turnovar. Virginia aaempta to give youngw-~e~~a~ofhow aystcms operate inpractiwbymtatin gnewlyhircd agineemin the regkmal of5cc8for2 rnoatlubefore * begin reviewirlg plans, The rationale is that newly hired c@neera will be better able to judgo a new proce.w if they have 8eea someof ti tcchnologios in the field.

6Jon Craig, chief for Wastcwattz Co-a m, ~Dqartm@ of Heal@ pusonal ~ Oct. 11, 1989.

there is no single technology that will remove all Current Basic Treatmentregulated contaminants. ’ ’18 The complexity of thewater treatment process, coupled with variations inwater supply characteristics, make the search formajor new technologies difficult. Moreover, newtreatment methods will bring new difficulties. Forexample, research on treating surface water supplieswith granular activated carbon (GAC) found thatdioxins were formed in the carbon reactivationprocess; after evaluation, an afterburner was in-stalled to eliminate dioxin byproducts.l9

Natural waters contain dissolved inorganic andorganic substances, bacteria and plankton, andsuspended inorganic material. Customary treatmentmethods to remove these substances include floccu-lation, sedimentation, filtration, and chemical pre-cipitation.20 Raw water is brought to a mixing tankwhere chemicals are added; the water is thentransferred to a flocculation tank for additionalmixing. Particulate matter, chemical floe, and pre-

18Mann and Beecha, op. cit., footnote 5, p. 9.l9Robert Clark et al., “Removing Organic Contaminants From Groundwater,’ Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 22, October 1988, pp.

1126-1130.20"Water Treatmen," Standard Handbook of Environmental Engineering (New York ,NY: McGraw-Hill), pp. 5.76~5.123.

Chapter 4--Environmentai Public Works Management and Technologies . 143

State Department of Agriculture. Discharge permits for industry fall under the State Water Resources Board. If anoil or petroleum facility needs a discharge permit, the State Corporation commission has jurisdiction, and theDepartment of Mines has jurisdiction over mining activities. If an environmental issue is not clearly defined, it ishandled by the Pollution Control Coordination Boarb, made up of representatives from all these agencies plusprivate citizens.

The State of Oklahoma does not have primacy in wastewater discharge permitting; thus permits are issued bythe U.S. EPA. The State submits National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit applications to the EPAregional office in Dallas for review. Primacy can have an impact on technology choice, since a State review agencyis more likely than the ERA regional office to recommend technology appropriate to the location. Also, if a smallcommunity system is in violation, or about to be, the State agency can act more quickly to assist or solve theproblem. 7 Although Oklahoma’s various agencies do not conduct evaluations of new or innovative systems, theDepartment of Health has indicated interest in the use of more such technologies. The State’s Revolving Fund alsoencourages their use, and a municipality will be placed higher on the funding priority list if its plans incorporateinnovative systems. The Water Resources Board sets standards in line with the Clean Water Act, providing someincentive to develop new technologies.s

Virginia uses a two-part permitting process for drinking water facilities comprised of standard technologies.9

One permit is issued for construction and one for beginning operation of the completed facility. construction plansfor standard technology are submitted to one of the State’s six regional offices for review. Engineers in Virginia’sregional offices perform the complete engineering review of the plans and then send them to the head office inRichmond for approval. The two top administrative engineers of the Division of Water Supply and theComissioner of the Health Department must approve the plans. Like Ohio, Virginia has a large plan reviewbacklog, largely due to staffing shortages. Moreover, a more rigorous process is required for innovativetechnologies. The manufacturer or supplier of a new technology must bond the product or system, discouragingpromoters of unproven equipment After bonding, the plans follow the same mute.

Pennsylvania has a special “Innovative Technologies” permit for new technologies,10 which requires a12-month pilot test including source water checks to rneasure their effectiveness. Unlike the standard technologypermitting process, innovative technology permits require oversight approval from the Division of Water Suppliesin Harrisburg. This approval, however, is required only on the new technology portion of the plan. Although specialrequirements, such as those in Virginia and Pennsylvania eliminate some risk associated with new technologies,they tend to inhibit some systems from trying innovative technologies.

7Ibid.8James Barnet, director, OkWmM state Watu Ikoufm3 Boar& permnal -unicatkmi Oct. 12, 1989.9All~ Ha3nln@, director, DivMonof water supply Bl@edng, virginia Departmc@ of Heah&pcmonal Communicatim w 20,1989.l~@ A, Marmeco, chief, Division of Watex Supplies, Pennsylvania Dc@rtm@ of ~ Resource% pemonal

Communimtiom Oct. 20, 1989.

cipitates from suspension are then removed throughgravity in settlement tanks. Filtration removesmatter held in suspension by passing the waterthrough a porous medium. Disinfection, using chlo-rine, chlorine dioxide, ozone, or potassium perman-ganate, destroys pathogenic bacteria.

Chlorine has been the disinfectant of choice formore than 70 years and is currently added to about90 percent of U.S. potable water supplies.21 Chlorineis readily available and inexpensive and its charac-

teristics are well known; water treatment specialistsdepend on it and rely on residual chlorine in thestorage and distribution system. U.S. consumers donot object strongly to the levels applied; somesuggest the taste of chlorine is proof that the wateris properly treated.

However, the byproducts of chlorination includepotentially carcinogenic halogenated byproducts,principally THMs.22 Reducing chlorine to achievethe THM standard can lower the disinfection ability

21National Reswch COunC& “News Repo~” informational document October 1989, p. 14.~Much is fi~en about tie THM byproducs of chlorinatio~ but they represent only about 10 percent of the chlorine byproducts. Factors ~wm

byproduct components include source water quality, seasonal factors, water treatment process selection and operations, and disinfection processes andchemicals.


to the point that pathogenic bacteria are not killed,23

and may require the addition of other treatment steps(See box 4-B).

Most European systems have well-protected stor-age facilities and short distribution systems, and relyon oxidation and disinfection with ozone24 com-bined with biological treatment and postfiltrationGAC for water treatment. Large amounts of THMsare not formed in treatment plants, since chlorine isused sparingly and is carefully monitored, becauseconsumers do not want a chlorine taste in thewater.25 However, ozonation does have its own setof byproducts, some of which are also chlorinebyproducts.26

Alternatives to Chlorine

Other processes, such as adsorption, aeration, ionexchange, oxidation, and distillation, are being usedto remove dissolved substances. For each of theseoperations, the quantity and concentration of chemi-cals added, speed of mixing, technique, and settle-ment times will have an impact on the final results.The pH, turbidity, chemical composition of thewater, type of coagulant, and such physical factorsas water temperature and mixing conditions alsoaffect the results.

EPA has investigated technologies for removingSOCs and VOCs from groundwater. Each technol-ogy must be tested under field conditions beforeEPA will advocate its use. GAC adsorption, abroad-spectrum technology for treatment of organiccontaminants, has been field tested, and tests onpacked tower aeration are still under way. Othertechnologies being evaluated are powdered acti-vated carbon, alone or in combination with otherprocesses such as ozone oxidation, reverse osmosis,and ultraviolet treatment. Although many of theseprocesses are effective for removing SOCs, theyhave high capital and/or operating costs.

Reverse osmosis (RO) takes advantage of thephenomenon that solutions passed under pressurethrough a semipermeable membrane will result insolutions with lower concentrations of dissolvedsubstances.27 Membranes are very thin films capableof selectively separating suspended or dissolvedsolids from water depending on size and molecularweight. They can be constructed from a number ofsynthetic polymers, including cellulose acetate,cellulose-based polymers, polyamides, and polysul-fone. RO and electrodialysis are currently themembrane processes with the most applicability fordrinking water treatment; in fact, RO has provensuccessful in desalination plants. Ultraviolet light iseffective for disinfection when the water supply ishighly clarified and bacterial loads are moderate,although it does not provide any residual disinfec-tion.28 Ultrafiltration, an emerging technology, nan-ofiltration, and RO all rely on applied pressure todrive water through the membrane. In electrodialy-sis, an electrical current separates the salts.

Membranes limit the amount of chemicals neededfor water purification, reduce the size of treatments,and can reduce operations and maintenance costs.New developments in membrane technology maylower energy requirements (less feed pressure),improve centaminant removal rates, and resistpermanent organic fouling. However, membraneprocesses do require pretreatment, periodic clean-ing, and disposal of filtration residue.

Work on innovative technologies must be care-fully monitored to see whether performance meetsthe design criteria. However, “. . . once treatmentunits are installed, . . . there is generally little fol-low-up to see if designs are proper or are adequatemechanically to stand up for a reasonable period oftime. ’ ’29 Without the followup evaluations much ofthe value of the demonstration projects is lost.

~Studies have showq thou~ that precursor control through physicaI removal mechanisms ~Y be tie ~st waY to mhimize all chlorinationbyproducts. See Alan A. Stevens et al., “Formation and Control of Non-Trihalomethane Disinfection By-Products,” Journal of the American WaterWorks Association, vol. 81, No. 8, August 1989, pp. 54-60.

~zone is an oxidizing agent that controls bacteria in the water and destroys taste and odor compounds. It oxidizes iron and manganese, leavinginsoluble compounds that can be removed by fdtration. Ozone gas is a hazardous material, requiring special care in handling.

ZS~p Rice, presiden~ Rice ~tmmtio~ COmUI@ EI@tx~, persoti COmmuniMtiOW Dw. 13, 1989.~$<Repofi on tie Wo&hop on By-Products of @XMMtiOIIt “ Water Research Quarterly, vol. 6, No. 4, July-September 1988, pp. 13-15; and ibid.Z7~&~ N. Eisen~rg ad E. J~ ~ddlebroo~, R~erse ~msi~ Treat~nt of Dri~ing waler (Stortek, MA: ButW’’WOrth ~blishers, 1986).

mM~ ~d Beecher, op. cit., footnote 5, p. 8.=J~es A. G@ch ~d S. B~a ~~~ ‘C- Wati Tr~tment Tec~ology for Gro~dwater Remediatio~” paper presented at the Thhd

National Outdoor Action Conference on Aquifer Restoration Groundwater Monitoring and Geophysical Methods, Orlando, FL, May 22-25, 1989.


steps:1.2.

3.

4.

5.

Dual Systems

Dual systems, which supply potable and nonpota-ble water through separate pipes, although not a newconcept,30 offer an alternative to the high cost oftreating all water to drinkin“ g water quality, particu-larly for new systems. Dual systems can be used forsystems of any size but are attractive for smallsystems where high treatment costs must be met byrelatively few customers. Wastewater treatmentrequirements produce a high-quality effluent thatmay be too valuable to be discarded;31 usingreclaimed wastewater for nonpotable purposes in

distribution systems can:

relieve the pressure on high-quality waters sothat these can serve larger populations;cost less than developing additional high-quality freshwater sources for nonpotable uses;reduce the burden of pollution on the receivingbody of water; andreduce the risk of utilizing water drawn frompolluted sources.

Although the installation of a dual system requiresadditional capital expense for parallel pipe networksand additional valves and connections, the construc-tion excavation is performed only once, and the

system operating costs are lower. These systemshave proven economical; operating systems includethe Irvine Ranch Water District (California), Colo-rado Springs (Colorado), and St. Petersburg (Flor-ida). The City of San Diego recently passed anordinance establishing a water reclamation masterplan and implementing strategy for the city. Thesesystems will become more economically attractiveas water source development and wastewater treat-ment become more costly due both to inflation andenvironmental regulations. However, retrofittingdual systems in mature water utilities may be toocostly an alternative, and some public works offi-cials have voiced concerns about the potential healthrisks of an inadvertent connection of potable andnonpotable supply lines.32

Technologies for the Distribution Network

Although the SDWA requires that regulations bemet at the consumer’s tap, most compliance effortsfocus on water as it leaves the treatment plant.33

However, distribution systems are related to 20percent of waterborne disease outbreaks.x If thedistribution system loses its integrity, treated watercan change in quality through chemical or biological

%e RomarI aqueduct supplied water that was used for nonpotable purposes. Drink@ water was drawn from other sources.slDavid A. ()- unive~ity of North Carolinq “Feasibility of Dual or Multiple Water SUpply SyStemS,” unpubli- ~~~pg 1982.s~c~d H. s~ivaq ex~utive director, American Public Worka ASSOCkttiOllj ptTSCMld C0mmUniWtiOr4 J@ 17, 1990.Ssfiid.

~Ro~rt Clark et al., “Contamma“ nt Propagation in Distribution Systems,” Journal of Ennronmental Engineering, vol. 114, No. 4, August 1988,PP. 929-941.


Photo credit: American Consulting Engineers Council

Using sludge from wastewater treatment plants tofertilize reforestation projects can be a oost-effective

disposal method.

transformations. 35 Untreated water may enter thesystem through pipe breaks, and bacteria can beintroduced from a variety of sources, includingenclosed reservoirs to which chlorine is not addedand living organisms in mains that, when disturbed,may release bacteria into the “drinking water.36

Leak detection and control are essential both forensuring against contamination and controlling cost.Significant savings can be achieved through leakdetection and repair programs, even where watertreatment costs are low. Minor repairs can preventmore serious problems and avoid the expense ofadditional water damage. Metered systems and thosethat have full information about their distributionnetwork are more likely to be able to locate andrepair problem sections. Leak detection surveysutilize a number of techniques, including visual

observation, sonic technology, miniprobe sensors,tracer gases, and infrared photography.37

However, many water companies lack even rudi-mentary data about distribution systems. Useful datawould include pipe information such as manufac-turer, location, length, pressure, installation contrac-tor, installation date, diameter, material, and place-ment method; and maintenance information such asmaintenance crew or contractor, location, problemtype, depth, corrective action, and local surface andsubsurface conditions.

Studies indicate that a few pipes in a networkaccount for most maintenance problems,38 and thateach repair shortens the time to the next repair. Pipebreaks are caused by: 1) quality and age of pipe,connectors, and other equipment; 2) the environ-ment in which the pipe is laid, such as thecorrosiveness of the soil, frost and heaving, andexternal loads; 3) quality of the workmanship usedin the laying of the pipe; and 4) service conditions,such as pressure changes and water hammer. Addi-tional research is needed to increase understandingof these relationships and to guide future repair andreplacement efforts and design and placement activ-ities.

Corrosive water can cause problems by increasingthe concentrations of the metal compounds frompipe systems in the water. Lead, cadmium, and otherheavy metals are generally present in variousamounts in pipe solder material, and other contami-nants such as copper, iron, and zinc can be leachedfrom distribution systems. Corrosion is such a costlyproblem for pipes, valves, pumps, and reservoirs thatthe higher initial expense of more corrosion-resistant materials is often a sound investment. (Seechapter 5 for further details.)

Proposed rules for monitoring water qualitywithin the distribution system prescribe a minimumnumber of samples based on the population served

35S&e _ Water Co&ttee, Drinking Water and Health, VO1. 4 (WaShingtO~ DC: National Academy ~ss, 1982).36RO&II M. CM et d., “Distribution System: Cost of Repair and Replacement” paper presented at the Conference on pipeline rnfrash’uc~e,

Pipeline Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Boston, MA, June 6-7, 1988.37Stephen money et id., Preventing Waterbss in Water Dism-bution Systems: Money Saving Leak Detection Programs, Technicd Report N-86/OS

(Washington, DC: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, March 1986).3gJ~es Goodrichet al., ‘‘Data Base Development and Analysis for Water Distribution Systems,” Hydraulics and Hy&ology in the Small Computer

Age-’Vol. 1, Proceedings of the Specialty Conference Sponsored by the Hydraulics Division of the hwrican Society of Civil Engineers, Lake BuenaVis@ FL, Aug. 12-17, 1985.

Chapter 4-Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies . 147

by the system,39 and suggest that the number of sitessampled be at least three times the number of therequired monthly samples. This represents at least anorder of magnitude increase over the number of sitescurrently sampled.40 When the bacteriological sam-ples exceed the standards, resampling at five addi-tional sites within the immediate neighborhood isrequired until the problems disappear or the sourceof the problems is identified and corrected. Theproposed regulations do not provide procedures forlocating monitoring stations in a water distributionsystem and assume that water customers will permitthe utility to take samples at the tap on request.

Technologies for Small Systems

Small systems serve only 8 percent of thepopulation, but they account for 93 percent ofmaximum contaminant level violations and 94percent of monitoring/reporting violations. Packageplants, self-contained units that are premanufacturedand shipped to a location, are one way to ensure thata small system has an up-to-date treatment plant.These plants have lower installation and operatingcosts than conventional treatment plants, and offerhighly integrated and compact systems and a highdegree of automation.41 Package plants can beeconomical up to 2 million gallons per day (MGD),a size that accounts for about 90 percent of U.S.water utilities.42 While package treatment plants canmeet SDWA standards,43 technology change hasbeen slow. Small systems have not yet been sub-jected to the same level of enforcement as largersystems, and localities that are not in compliancehave not had to make changes to meet the regula-tions. Thus there is little demand for such systemsand little incentive for potential manufacturers.44

Where centralized treatment is not feasible orcost-effective or where private wells are common,point of use (POU) equipment can be installed at thetap and provide whole-house or single-tap treatment.The equipment is easy to install, treats only the waterused for consumption, simplifies operation andmaintenance, and generally has lower capital costs.

Point of entry (POE) devices include watertreatment equipment installed outside a home orserving a group of homes or businesses and areaccepted by EPA for complying with drinking waterregulations. Their major use is in sparsely populatedareas. 45 POU devices must be used to remove.contaminants that are of concern with ingestion,whereas POE devices should be used when skinadsorption or inhalation of a specific contaminant isof concern.

POU and POE systems are operator-intensive andrequire regular maintenance, monitoring for contam-inant breakthrough, and collection and disposal ofcontaminated media.% They also pose a safety risk;they provide untreated supplies that can be acciden-tally ingested. POU and POE treatment does notalleviate the responsibility of a water utility toprovide safe drinking water to its customers.

Bottled water, while not anew technology, can bean alternative source for drinkin g water in smallcommunities, although in most cases piped water isless expensive47 Since human consumption amountsto only about 1/2 to 1 gallon per day, treatment ofwater to drinkin g quality may not be necessary atsome remote locations. Bottled water is regulated bythe Food and Drug Administration and meets EPASDWA regulations.

3952 Federal Regi$ta 42224; and 40 ~ 141 ~d 142 (Nov. 3, 1987), c’- w~e~ Natio~ _ Water Regulatio~ Totid Coliforms;Proposed Rule.”

‘@Rolf A. Deininger and Byung H. Lee, School of Public Heal@ The University of Michig% “Monitoring Strategies for Water DistributionSystems,” unpublished manuscrip~ n.d.

dlwade Miller Associates, Inc., op. Cit., footnote 4, p. 57.d~c~d G. St=ie and RoWrt M. C~& ‘tCosts for Sti Sys@ms To M~t the Natio~ titerim Drinking Water Regulations,” Journal of the

American Water Works Association, vol. 74, No. 1, January 1982, pp. 13-17.43Robert M. Ctik ~d J~m M. Mod, “pa-e p~~: A Cost Eff~tive Solution to Sti Water System ‘heatlnerlt Needs,” JOZU?UZZ Of the

American Water Works Association, vol. 73, No. 1, January 1981, p. 30.44DOW chk, Culligan Water Systems, personal communicatio~ Feb. 5, ~w.~Baj~ Ly~ et d., “POU/POE Devices: Availability, Performan ce, and Cost,” paper presented at the 1989 ASCE National Conference on

Environmental Er@e@ng , Aust@ ~ July 10-12, 1989.46~R. Fox, C~Field fiPnence With po~t+f.use Tr~~~t Systems for Arsefic Remov@” Jour~l Of theAmen”Cm Water Works Assocz”atz”on,

vol. 81, No. 2, February 1989, pp. 94-101.dTDa~el A. o- ~ ~roceedings: Cooperation in Ur&n wafer~a~ge~nt (wagton, m: Natio@ Academy Press, 1983), p. 49.


Management and Operating Tools

Technologies to improve the performance ofpublic water systems range from computerizedcontrol systems to improved maintenance informa-tion systems. Gradually, operators of larger systemsare replacing much of their electrical and mechanicalcontrol equipment with programmable logic sys-tems that are more reliable and require feweroperator hours.48

These systems, called supervisory control anddata acquisition systems (see box 4-C), monitor awide range of data and information on motors,valves, meters, feeders, and sensors, for example,and are oriented to plant operations such as thoseseen in water treatment facilities.49 Detroit expectsto save at least 20 percent on energy and chemicalcosts and to boost staff productivity with its newcontrol system.so The city also hopes to have bettercontrol of the combined sewer system and effluentquality and of supply to its suburban customers.

Maintenance for environmental public works isoften neglected and underfunded, leading to highercosts when major repairs are necessary. “It can befive times as expensive to replace sewer pipe after itbreaks than to repair it while it is still in one piece:as much as $100 per foot compared to $14.”51

Technologies to improve maintenance performancebegin with information systems that tie togetherinformation on the facilities and equipment andrepair and replacement activities so that managerscan have up-to-date information on equipmentinventory, current condition, and maintenance andrepair requirements. Such information systems ena-ble managers to devise optimum maintenance strate-gies, perform life-cycle cost analyses, and avoidlosses due to maintenance failures.

Condition assessment is becoming a criticalfunction for operating systems as funds for capitalfacilities diminish and the need to get the most fromexisting equipment increases. For water supply and

wastewater treatment operations, it is especiallyimportant because the majority of the investment isunderground and out-of-sight. In addition, usinginaccurate condition assessments to prepare biddocuments for repair projects results in changeorders, inefficient contracts, and lost productivitywith the contracting agency. (See chapter 5 fordiscussion of nondestructive evaluation technolo-gies).

The provision of drinking water involves heavycapital expenditures, long lead times in planning andconstruction, and high freed costs. Construction isoften undertaken well in advance of establisheddemand because of the need to take advantage ofeconomies of scale and the need for coordination ofother public services in an area. Recent experiencecoupled with increasing costs for public serviceprovision underscore the lack of analytical modelsavailable for predicting future demand. Very littlework has been done to develop models that integratepublic works information into demand modeling.52

Accurate consumption data are needed for prepar-ing billing materials, developing cost-based ratestructures, controlling system losses, planning forfuture demand, and estimating the need and costs forfuture facilities. Portable hand-held data entry de-vices, borrowed from the inventory industry, pro-vide savings by eliminating the printing of meterreading cards and reading them into the billingsystem. Automatic meter reading equipment basedon integrated circuitry and advanced telecommuni-cations technology can provide additional costsavings by totally automating this function. Thetechnology utilizes a device that collects informa-tion on utility usage, packages it into a data stream,and sends it through a telephone, cable, radio, orpower line carrier to a computer for storage andanalysis. 53 Benefits include eliminating the extrawork and costs involved in “lock-outs,” estimates,call backs, and premature cancellations; improvingcustomer service with more accurate and up-to-date

~David Mohler, McNamee, !kley, & porter, personal cxnmmmicatiom Mar. 2, 1990.@Ameri~n Society of Civil EXlg-, Proceedings: Critical Water Zssues and Computer Applications, 15th Annual Water Resources Conference

(Nevv Yorlq NY: June 1988).%avid Fisher, Detroit Water and Sewerage llepartm~ personal communication Jan. 19,1990.51 Virginia K@ Do1l’k, “Systerna Link Geography and Da~” Engineering News Record, vol. 222, June 1, 1989, p. 30.52Ro~~ M. ~~k et ~,, U.S. ~fima~ ~o~tion Ageq, “cost Mode~ for Sti Syst- T~hnologies: U.S. Experience, ” tmpublitid

manuseripg n.d.ss~~d &.~mg=, CCTel~ete~~~ of ~ ~“ Procee&”ngs, First Imer~tio& co~erence on lnfias~cture Research, November 1.5-17,

1988 (Washington, DC: URISAj 1988), pp. 117-138.

Chapter 4--Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies . 149

Box 4-C—Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) andDistributed Control Systems (DCS)

SCADA systems were initially used by electric power companies to control remote equipment and facilitiesand to diagnose system failure and monitor operating efficiency in large, geographically dispersed sites. A variant,DCS, is used to control a small number of individual sites close to a central location and is oriented to plantoperations. Advances in computer technology have made these systems more affordable and user friendly enoughto enjoy wide application,l and as system costs have dropped,many utility companies have begun to use thesesystems.

Orlando, Florida’s system is designed to automatically monitor and control removal of effluent from the watersystem. This system uses microprocessors, called master terminal units (MTUs) at each remote ‘‘pressure zone.”At each master terminal is a cable-based local area network, similar to those used in many offices today. The MTU’sare connected via UHF radio transmission to the central control station. In addition, remote control and dataacquisition devices are located at the individual elements of the SCADA system.2 An operator at a computerterminal can communicate directly with the remote units to control pumps and valves. The effluent removal systemcan be controlled locally, at the area control center, or remotely, at the central control center. For data acquisitionthe central computer queries the MTU’s, and each MTU queries each local unit. Since the system is distributed ratherthan centralized, it is easy to diagnose problems and expand system coverage.3

These systems make it possible to perform distribution systems analysis in real time and enable the operatorto optimize pumping operations and use of water storage facilities, and avoid process and permit violations. AtOakland’s East Bay Municipal Utilities District, for example, a DCS monitors sewer system water levels at eightremote locations, so that remote treatment facilities can be brought on-line before the main treatment plant isoverloaded. 4

1Herb Fiddick, Black & Veatch Engineers, personalcommunication Jan. 12,1990.2Orelan R. Carden, Jr., 4 ‘Distributed Control Optimizes Wastewater Reuse,” InTech, October, 1988, p. 52.3Ibid.4Michael J, Vandaveer, East Bay Municipal Utilities DiStrict, personal communication, 1990.

billing information; shortening read-to-bill turn- ple, the additional costs incurred for losses in servicearound and enhancing cash flow; and reducing baddebts. These automated systems can be shared byother utilities, such as gas and electric, as well,reducing expenses for installation and operation.Associated issues involve telecommunications regu-lations, standardization, cooperation among theutilities, compatibility, legal, and other institutionalconsiderations .54

Decision models can help in budgeting futureimprovement projects by evaluating resource alloca-tion and maintenance management informationwithin a capital budgeting framework.55 For exam-

and repairs to aging pipes56 must be considered inthe decision process together with a host of othermore obvious costs. In addition, cost evaluations forsystem improvements as well as modificationsneeded to ensure compliance require more thoroughconsideration in the decision process. Models areneeded to assist decisionmakers with these systemdetails.57

Since many of the issues and operations withwhich local government and local utilities areconcerned relate to land or location, a geographicinformation system (GIS) is a useful tool for

54Automatic meter reading configurations include: 1) telephone dial-inbound which uses an electronic meter interface unit (MIU) on the customer’Spremises through the telephone companies test equipment without ringing the customer’s telephone; 2) telephone dial-outbound in which the MIU dialsthe utility’s computer and transmits the latest meter reading, usually at a preset time; 3) a cable TV-baaed system in which the utility communicates withindividual MIUs over the cable to obtain the meter reading; and 4) a radio system in which the MIU transmi ta to a utility receiver. About 50 percentof the existing systems are telephone systems although these are restricted by court rulings related to AT&T; cable systems are a very small part of existingand potential systems.

SS~~e fiefier, Lonnie Haefner Enterprises, hlC., ‘‘Impacts of Advanced Technology Innovation on Public Worka Mamgement and DecisionMaking,” OTA contractor repo~ June 28, 1989, pp. 22-28.

fipadi A. Karaa et al., ‘‘Budgeting of Water Distribution Improvement Projects, “ Journal of Water Resources Planning andiUanagement, vol. 113,No. 3, my 1987, pp. 378-391.

S’Ro&~M. Clmket ~., ~ ‘A Spaw Cos@ System forDrinking Water,’ ‘JournaZ of fheAmencan Water WorksAssociation, JmuMY 1982, PP. 18-26.


planning, management, and operations.58 A GIS canassist utilities in collecting, storing, analyzing, anddisseminating data and information. A GIS also hasthe ability to manage and display graphic mapimages, to manage large volumes of nongraphic datathat are related to a geographic location, and toperform various retrieval and analytical functions onthe combination of graphic and nongraphic data.Public works agencies, departments of transporta-tion, port authorities, and planning organizationshave recognized the value of these systems to store,manage, and integrate several related databases.59

(See chapter 5 for discussion of geographic informa-tion systems.)

Wastewater TreatmentWastewater is a significant component in the

water cycle because all treated (and some untreated)wastewater flows into the Nation’s waterways.Wastewater (sewage) treatment includes the facili-ties and activities needed to collect, transport, andtreat residential, commercial, and industrial waste-water, and, in the case of combined sewers, surfacerunoff and groundwater. The Nation has more than15,000 publicly owned treatment works (POTWs),which can treat approximately 37 billion gallons perday (see table 4-3). Commercial establishments andabout 160,000 industrial facilities also dischargetheir wastes into collection systems served byPOTWs. About 39,000 industrial facilities dischargeeffluent (most of it treated) directly into waterways.

POTW system components include collector sew-ers, interceptor sewers, combined sewers for waste-water and storm water, flow equalization facilities,wastewater treatment plants, on-site systems andseptic tank systems.60 Collection systems rangefrom low-capacity sanitary sewers that transportwastes from homes to higher capacity sewers thattransport industrial sewage and storm water towastewater treatment plants. Higher capacity sewersconsist of both interceptor sewers (that use gravityfor transport) and force mains (that use pumps totransport to interceptor sewers at a higher elevation).

Table 4-3-Size, Number, and Capacity of POTWsin the United States

CapacityActual flow range (MGD) Number (MGD)

0.01 -0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,960 2510.11 - 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,003 2,6711.01 - 10.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,893 9,37210.01+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577 24,383

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,433 36,677

POTW Treatment LevelsCapacity

Level of treatment Number (MGD)

Less than secondary . . . . . . . . 2,122 5,529Secondary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,403 15,714More than secondary . . . . . . . 3,115 14,373No discharge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,762 973Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 88

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.448 36.677KEY: MGD _ million gallons per day.

POTWs = publicly owned treatment works.SOURCE: Apogee Research, Inc., from U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 1986Nee& Survey Report to Congress: Assessmentof Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Faclities in the UnitedStates (Washington, DC: February 1987), p. 4.

Combined sewers transport both wastewater andstorm water to wastewater treatment facilities. Flowequalization facilities are sometimes used to storewastewater during storm events and discharge to thewastewater treatment plant during low-flow periods.At the wastewater treatment plant, pollutants areremoved and/or treated by screening, settling, bio-logical treatment, and disinfection.

Primary treatment removes settleable solids. Priorto the 1972 Clean Water Act this was the maximumamount of treatment provided by most treatmentplants. Secondary treatment removes 85 percent ofoxygen-demanding materials and suspended solidsand destroys most bacteria by disinfection. Allmunicipal plants must now provide at least this levelof treatment. Advanced treatment using chemicalsand filtration can remove over 99 percent ofpollutants from wastewater. All processes exceptdisinfection produce a sludge that must be disposedof by incineration, by application on the land, or byburying it in landfills.

58Rebecca Somers, “GeographicInformation Systems in I-ocal Government: A Commentary,” Photogrammetn”c Engineenng and Remote Sensing,vol. 53, No. 10, October 1987, pp. 1379-1382.

59’’bcational Referencing and Highway Segmentation in a Geographic Information System,” ZTE Journul, March 1990, pp. 27-31.~About25 p~centof tie U.S. pop~tion is servtiby septic tank/soil absorption systems. James Kreissl, “Ake~tive SeweXX h the Utited Stites,”

paper presented at the 1985 International Symposium on Urban Hydrology, Hydraulic Infrastructures and Water Quality Control, University ofKentuc@, hXi.UgtO~ KY, July 23-25, 1985.


Photo credit:American Safety of Civil Engineers

Pretreatment and treatment programs are aimed atensuring that industries adequately treat wastewaterbefore discharging Into rivers, streams, and sewers.

W a s t e w a t e r T r e a t m e n t R e g u l a t i o n

Until 1972, responsibility for controlling waterpollution rested primarily with State and localgovernments. With the passage of the Federal WaterPollution Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500,the Clean Water Act), Congress significantly in-creased the Federal role in water quality,6l andincreased Federal assistance for the construction ofwastewater treatment plants. EPA was made respon-sible for setting water quality standards, developingwater quality criteria, establishing technology-basedeffluent limits, and developing a national system ofdischarge permits.

The Clean Water Act replaced in-stream waterquality standards with limits on the pollution levelsof discharge from municipal treatment plants andindustrial point sources. EPA established the Na-tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permit system, which made Federal ap-proval mandatory for every point source of waste-water discharge. To ensure permit approval, locali-

ties were required to use technologies for wastewatertreatment approved by EPA, even if a lower degreeof treatment would not reduce water quality.

Pretreatment and treatment programs are aimed atensuring that POTWs and industry adequately treatwastewater before discharging it into rivers, streams,and sewers. Pretreatment programs are designed toprevent the passage of toxic substances into water-ways. When pretreatment fails, toxic substances cankill or inhibit the growth of bacteria that removepollutants in treatment processes, and interfere withplant operations, contaminate sewage sludge, andcreate safety and health hazards. Nonetheless, manycities do not bring strong enforcement actionsagainst industries that violate pretreatment require-ments.62

More flexible regulatory strategies could reducetreatment costs if they include trading betweenpoint/nonpoint sources. Reducing pollutant loadingsthrough nonpoint source controls maybe considera-bly cheaper than increasing treatment standards atthe local sewage treatment plant. Even though $400million was authorized for a nonpoint source pro-gram in the 1987 reauthorization of the Clean WaterAct, no money was appropriated, and EPA has beenslow to implement trading programs.

Wastewater Treatment Issues

Wastewater treatment requirements are beingstiffened, and new standards for toxic chemicalcontrols dictate that sludge treatment, handling, anddisposal receive more attention. Toxics emitted inoff-gases from treatment facilities have alreadybecome a major air pollution problem in some U.S.cities. The major issues facing POTWs are discussedbelow.

Upgrading Existing Facilities

Many POTWs must upgrade facilities to meetNPDES permit requirements that increase treatmentrequirements, improve plant performance, and meetincreased demand from growing communities. Al-though routine maintenance becomes very costly assystems age, the significant investment in existingfacilities and the high cost of replacement may make

Slfior le~s~tion ~cludes tie Rvem ~d wbors Act of 1899, the Water Pollution Control Aet of 1948 and several subsequent ~ws (see tible 4-1).

@U.S. General Accounting Office, Improved Monitoring and Enforcement Nee&d for Toxic Pollutants Entering Sewers, GAO/RCED-89-101(w@@3@u DC: 1989).


repair and rehabilitation of the present system acost-effective choice.63

Infiltration of groundwater and the flow of rain-water and surface runoff into sanitary sewers in-crease the demand on treatment facilities and can, onoccasion, overload them. Flow surges caused byinfiltration or inflow can force the bacterial solidsused in the treatment process out of the plant,reducing treatment efficiency for long periods.Broken pipes, defective pipe joints, illegal connec-tions of foundation drains, cross connections be-tween storm sewers and sanitary sewers, and illegalconnections with domestic storm drain systems arecommon reasons for flow surges.64 Many communit-ies already treat as much as one-third more waste-water than necessary because of cracked or looselyfitting sewer pipes.65 These problems can be solvedby a combination of sewer line repair/rehabilitation,adding flow equalization facilities, and increasingtreatment plant capacity. However, plant operatorsare often unable or ill-equipped to collect the dataneeded to assess and correct these problems.

Combined Sewer Overflows

Combined sewers are conduits that transportdomestic and industrial wastewater during dryweather conditions and storm water runoff duringwet weather. Combined sewer systems currentlyserve 12,000 communities nationwide, but approxi-mately 60 communities account for over 80 percentof the total area served by combined sewers.66

When storm water runoff exceeds the capacity ofthe treatment facility, the combined sewer overflow(CSO) enters a receiving water without beingtreated. Because these discharges are subject to theClean Water Act regulations, prohibiting dischargeswith less than secondary treatment, storms create

potential for violations and enforcement actions formany communities.

Managing the storm water flows to bring CSOdischarge points into compliance has evolved fromsimple removal of runoff to comprehensive ap-preaches. b7 Control measures include nonstructuralmethods, such as improved urban development andresource planning, natural drainage, sewer ordi-nances and discharge permits, chemical use controls,surface sanitation, and erosion and sedimentationcontrol. Structural controls, often the most feasiblealternative in heavily developed urban areas, includeonsite storage and infiltration facilities, overlandflow modification, and solids separation. Successfuland cost-effective storm water management strate-gies integrate several appropriate, feasible, andeconomic components for control.68

Sludge Management

The addition of chemicals in coagulation, soften-ing, and settling operations yields an unwantedbyproduct-sludge. The Nation’s POTWs produceabout 7.7 million metric tons of sludge annually andproduction will probably double by the end of thecentury, since higher level treatment of wastewaterwill increase sludge production. Sludge manage-ment and disposal can consume from 30 to 6 0percent of a wastewater treatment operations andmaintenance budget.69 Sludge-related problems in-clude odor objections, incinerator ash disposal,public acceptance of land disposal, and the potentialfor high concentrations of toxics in sludge. Becauseof the chemicals used in water treatment and thesolids that precipitate out in the treatment process,the sludge can be classified as a hazardous waste.When this occurs, the cost of sludge disposal canexceed the capital and operating costs of treated. .drinking water.70

mu.s. ~v~omen~ Prot=tion Agemcy, Center for Environmental Research Information, Handbook: Retrofim”ng POTWS, EpA/625/689/020(Cincinnati, OH: Jtdy 1989), p. 1.

WU.S. Enviro~en~ protection Agency, (lfflce of Municipal Pollution Contro~ Infiltration and Inflow Analysis and prOJect Cetiificafion

(W-ton, DC: My 1985).fiDisc~sio~ at the ~vfiomen~ pro~ction Ag~cy “Municipal Wastewater Treatment Technology Fo~” ~ Arbor, ~. J~e 6-*, 19*9.66u.s. Env~~~n~ ~ot=tion Agenq, co~ined ~e~er @@o~ TOM”C po//~tant s@, EPA 440/1.84/304” (w&+hhlgtOIl, m: A@ 1984), pp.

5, 10.GTJ. -~~, “Stonwater _gement Techno@y: Recent Developments and Experience,” NATO Urban WaterResources AdvancedResearch

Workshop, June 22-27,1989, Douglas, Isle of Man, presentation prepMts @russels: North American Treaty Org a.nization, 1989), p. 1%.‘%bid., p. 209.

@Richard Kuchenrither, Black& Veatch Engineers, personal communication Feb. 13, 1990. As transport costs increase and treatment options@ninis@ the percentage of total costs is likely to increase.

~$cwatti Tra~en~~$ op. cit., foo~ote 209p. 5-%-



Sludge management, using new equipment (such as thatpictured here), and disposal can consume from 30 to 60

percent of a wastewater treatment operations andmaintenance budget.

Legislation in 1988 prohibited sludge disposal inthe ocean. Although EPA has little information onsludge types, characteristics, quality, amounts, andfate, its proposed rulemaking for disposal makesconventional methods difficult to pursue. The newrules imply support for beneficial use and landapplication,

71 and will increase sludge reporting andrecordkeeping requirements for POTWS.72 The reg-ulations are risk-based and cover five different typesof sludge disposal: incineration, nonagriculturalland application, agricultural land application, dis-tribution/marketing, and monofills/surface im-poundments. A sludge survey of 200 POTWs will becompleted by EPA in mid-1990 and should provehelpful in determiningg the nature and extent ofsludge management problems.

Air Toxics

Wastewater treatment is fast becoming an issue inair quality debates. Air quality districts in Californiahave proposed regulating air contaminants from

POTWs by requiring additional monitoring andanalyses of air toxics, changes in wastewater treat-ment facilities, and changes in plant operation andmaintenance. The proposed regulations include"

● * . newly regulated substances, some of which arenot detectable in wastewaters entering POTWS.”73

Control measures will involve pretreatment orproduct substitution, air flow management, and theuse of best available technologies. Activated carbonadsorption is a candidate technology, but little isknown about its use for removal of VOCs in thewastewater treatment environment. No other meth-ods have been demonstrated in research or commer-cial facilities for air toxic control.74 Attempts atremediation of air toxics have brought severecorrosion problems for POTW facilities.75 Further-more, little is known about the limitations of existingtechnologies for treating toxics in exhaust gasesfrom treatment facilities.

Nonpoint Sources

Treated wastewater often contaminates drinkingwater sources less than nonpoint sources (NPS). Thefive major contributors to NPS pollution are farms,urban areas, construction sites, mines, and forestswhere logging is conducted. Contaminants rangefrom sediments and pesticides to spilled solventsand asbestos brake linings. Because NPS pollutants,mostly heavy metals, sediment, and salinity, comefrom thousands of diffuse sources, controlling themwill require monitoring and changing the dailyactivities of individuals and businesses in everywatershed. Agricultural activities, such as tillagepractices and animal waste management, are thegreatest source of NPS pollution, accounting for70 percent of the total nitrogen and phosphorusdeposited in surface waters.76 NPS pollutants are thelimiting factors in improving or maintaining waterquality for both surface water and groundwater. “IfFederal and state clean water regulations weretotally successful in eliminating pollution from

71ffS~dads for& Di~~ of Sewage Sludge,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Proposed Rule, Fea%alllegister, PP. 5746@~ @eb. 61989). A range of professional groups, including the Cooperative State Research Service Technical Committee W-170 in its Peer Review Reportpublished July 24, 1989, has raised questions about the scientilc and risk assessment methods and quality of data used by the Environmental protectionAgency to develop tbis proposal.

m~dus~pm~ea~ent pro- Cmfiprove sludgeq~tybtic~y and make sludge qualities for all but afew POTWs tihbleforbaefic~use. Kuchenrither, op. cit., footnote 69.

73Kris P. Linds@o~ K.P. Lhdstrom, hc., and Farouk T. Isn@ State WaterR60urees Control Board, “The ~pact Of ~xic Air Q@.@ Re@tionson California Publicly Owned Treatment Works: Fii Report for the State of Califorr@” October 1988, pp. 1, VI-1.

741bid., p. VI-5.T~B@e Andersom ti=tor of technica services, Orange County Sanitation Districts, personal comunicatio~ J~e 6, 1989.T6Lyse D. Hels@, “WaterTr~~ent: Solving tie Second Genemtionof Environmental problems,” Ch-”cal Week, vO1. 142, My M 198% P. 32.


(single sources like wastewater treatment plants thatconvey their pollutants to the stream in a pipe) theArkansas River would be little changed from thepolluted river it is today.”77 Nationally, EPA reportsthat 65 percent of all water pollution comes fromNPS sources. In Western States, with fewer peopleand less industry, that figure is often closer to 90percent, and nearly every river is affected.

Wastewater Treatment Technologies

A few systems rely on advanced instrumentation(see box 4-C in section on drinking water) andnondestructive evaluation techniques for locatingleaks and breaks, and assessing the condition of thesystem, including plant, the pipes, and connectors.However, most systems lack accurate informationon facility condition.

Pipe and Collection System Technologies

Underground construction, rehabilitation, andpipe replacement using trenchless technologies(equipment that makes it unnecessary to dig trenchesto remove or replace pipes) can be extremelycost-effective. Direct savings come from reducedtrenching and shoring work and reduced surfacerestoration requirements. In urban or developedareas, delays due to construction and disruption tobuildings and surface plantings are very costly.Indirect benefits include reduced road closures andrerouting of traffic, and reduced destruction ofdifficult to replace items such as trees, shrubs, andgardens. A variety of trenchless technologies pro-vide widely different benefits.78 (See chapter 5 foradditional information about trenchless technolo-gies.)

Collection system technologies include sewerseparation, inlet controls, sewer pipe controls, andsevere flow control by overflow regulators. They canalso include real-time control of sewer flow andpollutant routing by using peripheral monitoring andtelemetry stations and computer-based sewer andpollutant flow prediction methods. Real-time con-trol systems also permit operating the sewer system

remotely to release overflows of less pollutedbatches of combined sewage at points where theenvironmental impact is the least.79

Storage tanks or tunnels outside the sewer system,but connected to it, permit stored combined sewageto be drained during off-peak periods into thewastewater treatment plant. Such facilities allowmodifying flow patterns, reducing overflows, andsome treatment of the stored volume by sedimenta-tion.80 They also serve as flood protection andhazardous spill containment during dry weather.81

Corrosion can also be a serious problem forconcrete and other materials used in sewers, andalternative pipe materials are being examined fortheir durability and reliability. In sewers the corro-sion is generally caused by acids, such as hydrogensulfide, or by industrial chemicals and solvents.Using lined concrete pipes has prevented corrosionin a number of systems, most notably in southernCalifornia where communities that installed thelined pipes have had few corrosion problems.Neighboring systems that chose to use unlinedconcrete pipes to save initial costs have sufferedexcessive corrosion. (See chapter 5 for more infor-mation on materials and corrosion.)

Treatment Plant Technologies

Treatment plant technologies encompass pretreat-ment, physical processes, advanced treatment (phys-ical, chemical, and biological), natural systems,disinfection, treatment plant instrumentation, con-trol, and operations. While new technologies canbring real benefits, systems investing in new equip-ment or turning to new processes are likely toencounter new maintenance problems.

Filters and membranes are increasingly importantin advanced wastewater treatment, particularly asmaterials and manufacturing techniques bring pro-duction improvements and lower costs. An ad-vanced wastewater treatment plant in OrangeCounty, California, reclaims treated municipalwastewater for injection into an underground sea-water barrier system. The process, which meets

77High Counq NWS, VO1. 21, No. 22, NOV. 20, 1989, p. 11.7SD.T. Iseley, Departmmt of Civil Engineering, Louisiana Tech University, “Trenchlem Technology-Alternative Solutions to Complicated

Underground Utility Nelwork Problems,” seminar notes, Second Annual Alumni Appreciation Seminar, Rustom LA, NOV. 3, 1989.7~id., p. 206.mid., p. 207.Slllichard Field, “Urban Stormwater Runoff Quality Management: Low Cost Structurally ~tensive M~ s and Treatment,” Urban Runoff

Pollution, NATO ASI Series G: Ecological Sciences 10, H.C. lbrno et al. (eds.) (Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1990), pp. 677-699.

Chapter&Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies ● 155

current EPA drinking water standards, includesreverse osmosis for removal of both organic andinorganic compounds. (See discussion in watertreatment section of this chapter.)

Polymers (long, charged hydrocarbon chains)mixed with ferric chloride electrochemically precip-itate out suspended particles. Polymer technologyhas proven successful for advanced primary treat-ment, because polymers can eliminate up to 85percent of the suspended solids that remain aftersecondary clarification. (A secondary treatmentplant that is operating properly removes about 85 to93 percent of influent, suspended solids.)

Although EPA has recently emphasized removingtoxics within the plant and using filtration to reducetoxicity, POTWs do not have the equipment ormonitoring devices to identify and measure toxics attheir facilities. Moreover, information about thenature and amounts of toxics released into municipalwaste streams from industrial facilities rarelyreaches POTWs.

Sludge Disposal

EPA defines and regulates any residual with aportion of sludge as sewage sludge.82 Sludge hasbeneficial plant nutrients and soil conditioningproperties, and estimates suggest that nearly 40percent of municipal sewage sludge is applied toland in the United States. However, sludge contami-nants, such as heavy metals, and organic carcinogensand pathogens, must be reduced so that landapplication does not create a potential health orsafety threat.83 A recent study of the technologiesavailable for sludge disposal listed five primaryoptions: 1) comporting, 2) heat drying, 3) landapplication, 4) landfilling, and 5) incineration.84

(See box 4-D for more information.)

Technologies for Small Rural Systems

Many rural communities rely on individual, onsiteseptic systems to treat wastewater. Although suchsystems are often inexpensive and cost-effective,age, lax maintenance, thin or poor soil, and a simplelack of space have contributed to septic systemsfailures or untreated sewage polluting groundwaterand entering ditches and streams. Problems arewidespread; 80 percent of counties surveyed in onestudy reported system failure and potential contami-nation of groundwater and surface water.85 More-over some States and counties are not enforcinglocal sanitation and land-use codes, and in somecases, the codes themselves have led to failures.86

Lower cost alternatives to conventional gravitysystems include pressure sewer systems, vacuumsewer systems, and small diameter gravity sewers.Pressure systems, which depend on pumps to movewastes from the customer location to the pressuremain, are dependent on pump and grinder technol-ogy. Vacuum systems use a vacuum to draw wastesinto a collection main and then into a collection tankbefore being pumped to a treatment facility. Smalldiameter gravity sewers are connected to septictanks that collect dirt, grease, and solids and preventthem from entering the main collection system. Eachof these systems has been used advantageously inrural communities and has unique characteristicsthat recommend its use under specific circum-stances. Thus they demand more of the designengineer than conventional systems. Moreover, evenwith improvements in materials and design, each ofthese systems requires regular maintenance andaccess to on-lot facilities for maintenance andemergency repairs.

Natural systems, aquatic plant systems, landtreatment, and wetlands can provide waste treatmentfor the substantial range of hydraulic and pollutantloading and temporal fluctuations that are character-istic of small systems.87 Aquiculture systems have

Sw.s. D~~m~t of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research Service Technical Committee W-170, “Peer Review+hdards for the DiSPO~ ofSewage Sludge,” unpublished repo~ July 24, 1989.

E3u.s. ~v~omen~ Prot=tion Agmcy, Center for Environmental Research Information Control of Pathogens in MZUU”ci@ Watewater SZUdge,Ek?4/625/10-89/006 (Cincinna@ OH: September 1989).

~B~ck & Veatc& hc. CChdt RWrt on A8smsmmt of Technologies,” prepared for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Feb. 27.1987.EsS@dy by the ~~m p- AssWiation for the ~ois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, cited i.u paul ~cone, “Big Trouble

in Little Amencq” Civil Engineen”ng, vol. 59, No. 8, August 1989, pp. 57-59.~~id., p. 58; ~d James Kreissl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, persomd Commmicatiou Jm 24, 1990.ETu.s. mvfi~enM protection Agency, office of Research and Developmen~ Cater for Environmental Research wO-tiOU Desz”gn Manul:

Constructed Wetlands and Aquatic Plant Systems for Municipal Wastewater Treatment, EPAf625/1-88/022 (Cincinnati OH: September 1988).


been studied for several years, but have limitations, surface waters. In some systems treated water issuch as climatic effects, pest control, and anaerobic directed to underdrains or storage basins for futureconditions. 88 Rapid infiltration land treatment uses use in irrigation.89

specially constructed basins for draining partiallytreated wastewater that seeps through the earth, joins Wetlands can effectively remove or convert largethe groundwater, and eventually emerges in adjacent quantities of pollutants, including organic matter,

88Kreissl, op. cit., footnote 86.89U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Research Information, Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal

Wastewater--Supplement on Rapid Infiltration and Overland Flow, EPA 625/1-8 l-013a (Cincinnati OH: October 1984).



Natural systems and wetlands can provide effective waste treatment for small systems or, as pictured here, drainage for stormwateroverflows for larger immunities.

suspended solids, metals, and excess nutrients from for long periods of time as natural wetlands have.point sources and nonpoint sources. Natural filtra- Other disadvantages include the large land areation, sedimentation, and other processes help clear requirements for treatment, the lack of understand-the water of many pollutants. Some are physically or ing of important biological and hydrological processchemically immobilized and remain still until dis- dynamics, and possible problems with pests.turbed; decomposition breaks down other com-

Operations and Maintenance Technologiespounds into simpler substances. Research into wet-lands for treating discharges frommining operationsindicates the potential for successful treatment, withsome limitations, especially during cold weatherperiods.90 However, the mechanisms that modifyand/or immobilize pollutants, especially toxic sub-stances, in wetlands are poorly understood. Noadequate design criteria have been established, andwetlands systems operate more like experiments.9l

No long-term operating data exist to confirm thatmanmade wetlands can continue to function reliably

EPA has developed an evaluation methodologyfor determiningg specific causes of inadequatePOTW performance. The first step is a review andanalysis of a POTW’s design capabilities andadministrative, operational, and maintenance prac-tices92 to determine if significant improvements intreatment can be achieved without major capitalexpenditures. Typical performance limiting factorsare inadequacies in staffing, understanding of pro-cess adjustments, and maintenance programs.93 The

R. and Leslie S. “The Use of Wetlands forTreatment of Environmental Problems in Mining: Non-Coal MiningOperations,” paper presented at the International Conference on Constructed Wetlands for Chattanooga TN, June 1988.

for addition of an inexpensive treatment. Such falters are, however, subject to clogging. Jon Craig, chief for Construction Oklahoma State Department of personal June 1990.

Protection Agency, Handbook: Improving Performance Using the Composite Correction Program Approach(Cincinnati, OH: October 1984).


second step consists of implementing correctivemeasures to achieve desired effluent quality, andcompliance with permit requirements. EnvironmentCanada has successfully demonstrated an opera-tional process audit technique that uses a microcom-puter-based, real-time monitoring system with ex-tensive instrumentation to analyze operational im-provements. 94 This technique could be used as partof a correction program to obtain additional informa-tion.

Computerized control systems can be applied towastewater treatment facilities in much the samemanner as for “drinking water treatment. (See discus-sion on operations and maintenance in water supplysection.) Such systems can take undercapacitytreatment units off-line and/or use them to equalizeflow; they can also equalize flows to use off-peakelectricity, recover waste heat, and monitor andoptimize chemical dose rates. Expert systems, abranch of artificial intelligence, can be designed toprovide assistance to POTW personnel charged withoperating and maintaining complicated wastewatertreatment processes. Prototype systems have beendeveloped to diagnose problems associated withactivated sludge treatment plant operations. Sincestudies have shown that treatment plants exhibitmore problems due to faulty operation than any othercause, expert systems might prove useful in closingthe gap between design capability and operationalperformance.

Planning and Management Tools

Reclaiming or reusing treated wastewater, primar-ily for nonpotable purposes, is not a new concept;water shortages caused by droughts, the rising costsof developing reliable water supplies, and modemwastewater treatment technologies are making reuseprojects more economically attractive than ever.95

California alone had nearly 400 nonpotable reuse

projects by 1985;96 Florida lists 188 recovered waterreuse systems. Nonpotable uses include agriculturalirrigation, industrial processing, and toilet flushing.To meet water quality requirements, reused watermust be adequately disinfected and a chlorineresidual must be present.97

Florida adopted a rule in 1988 that includes amandatory reuse of reclaimed water in critical watersupply problem areas.98 The State’s five watermanagement districts will designate critical areasand will implement the program through theirpermitting program for recovered water. The Statehas developed comprehensive rules on water reuse,particularly for irrigation in public access areas, ofresidential property, and of edible crops. Specificrequirements have been set for preapplication treat-ment, reliability, operation control, buffer zones,storage, cross-connection control, and other fea-tures. The driving force for water reuse in Florida hasbeen effluent disposal rather than water shortage dueto low stream flows. Applicants for surface waterdischarge permits must demonstrate that reuse ofdomestic reclaimed water is not economically ortechnologically feasible for them.99

Municipal Solid Waste100

Man has long used open dumps and landfills todispose of solid waste, and early landfills wereconsidered a way to fill in or “reclaim” land areasthat were considered unusable otherwise.l0l By the1970s, hydrogeological investigations showed thatin many locations, harmful liquids were leachingthrough the soil into the groundwater supply, and thesearch for alternatives for municipal solid waste(MSW) disposal was on. Planning and constructingnew landfills began to require extensive subsurfaceinvestigations to determine hydrogeological andgeotechnical conditions that affect contaminantdischarge from waste sites. However, landfill cri-

%ordon Speirs, “WastewaterTreatment Plant Recess AudiL” paper presented at the 1989 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Technology ForunLU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Am Arbor, MI, June 6-8, 1989.

~D@el A. C)- “Watm Reuse in Developing Countries,” paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Watti POUutiOn control FOdedO~San Francisco, CA, Oct. 17,1989.~h op. cit., footnote 16, p. 26.mid.wRecl_ wat~ is wat~ @t b.SS r~iv~ at least secondary treatment and is reused after flowing out of a wastewater -tient p~t.

~avid W. York and James Crook “Florida’s Reuse Rogram: Paving the Way,” paper presented at the 62d National Conference of the WaterPollution Control Federation, San Fmncisco, CA, Oct. 17, 1989.

l%s ~tion is M on U.S. CoWss, Office of Technology Assessmen~ Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Muw”cipal Solid Wrote,O’IA-O-424 (wasbingtoq DC: Us. Governm d Printing ~lce, October 1989).

101w- L. ~je, “Rubbis&” The Atlantic Monthly, IkcdXr 1989, P. 103.

Chapter 4--Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies ● 159

teria promulgated in 1979 by EPA had little immedi-ate effect on the practices at MSW sites, and almost80 percent of MSW still ends up in landfills.

Disposal of MSW is primarily a local responsibil-ity. However, new criteria, proposed in 1988 andnow under revision, would extend Federal controlover landfills and include regulations on location,facility design, operating criteria, groundwater mon-itoring, financial assurances, and postclosure re-sponsibilities. According to EPA, most MSWlandfills do not have equipment to monitor air,surface water, or groundwater for pollutants. As ofNovember 1986, only about 35 percent monitoredgroundwater, 15 percent monitored surface water,7 percent monitored methane gas, and 3 percentmonitored other air emissions.

The majority of MSW landfills, 86 percent, arepublicly owned, and most are small, receiving lessthan 30 tons per day. Privately owned landfills tendto have more capacity; one representative of privateoperators estimated that about 50 percent of totallandfill capacity may be privately owned, l02 Perhapsbecause their larger size gives them economies ofscale and because of more stringent State regulationspromulgated in recent years, privately owned MSWlandfills are more likely to have leachate collectionsystems, groundwater monitoring, and surface watermonitoring.

Issues

EPA predicts that about one-third of all existinglandfills will close by 1994, and that 80 percent ofcurrently operating landfills will close in the next 25years. l03 Many of these are old landfills that cannotmeet the requirements of the Resource Conservationand Recovery Act. Few new, technologically ad-vanced landfills have opened, accelerating the de-cline in capacity.l04

However, raw data on landfill closings does notprovide a complete picture. While landfill capacityin many States, such as New Jersey, Florida,Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, is running low,some States have expanded their landfill capacity.

Photoo credlt: Office of Technology Assessment

About 80 percent of municipal solid waste is disposed of inlandfills, most of which do not have equipment to monitor

air, surface water, or groundwater for pollutants.

Pennsylvania, for example, closed 13 MSW landfillsin the last 2 years, but available capacity has actuallygrown from 4.2 years to 5.5 years, because the Statepermitted one very large, new facility to open andallowed two others to expand.

Regulatory Concerns

EPA has issued guidance on pollution controlsconsidered to be “Best Available Control Technol-ogy." Although regulations regarding emissionswere issued in late 1989, those regarding ash will notbe issued until Congress clarifies whether or not ashwill be managed as hazardous waste. In the absenceof clear Federal guidance, several States have issuedtheir own emissions and ash management guidelinesand standards. A meeting of leading experts inincinerator technology organized by the U.S. Con-ference of Mayors endorsed recycling and wastereduction and found that technologies exist today tocontrol pollutants from incinerators to levels of risk

lo%. ~diville, prso~ communication, November 1988, as reported in Ofik.c of Technology ~Se88men6 Op. cit., footite IW.losMost env~omm~y sound kn~ are designed with a lifespan of about 10 years. At my givm morneng o~hdfof theSC l~m * ~ ~

in 5 years.l~Howard ~venso~ senior associate, Office of Technology Assessmen4 perso~ co lllmldctltiO~ Dee. 7, 1989. In ll&i.itiO@ fin- new sites for

new landfills is a major problem particularly in Northeastern States.


below regulatory concern. 105 Mercury and chro-mium, however, remain vexing problems in emis-sions and in incinerator ash.

Recognizing the limitations of current knowl-edge, EPA is coordinating with industry, States, anduniversities to develop a research and developmentR&D) agenda. Study areas are likely to includeemerging commercial technologies, appropriateMSW incinerator operating conditions and emis-sions control technology, ash management, landfilldesign and operation, siting and monitoring meth-ods, recycling techniques, and toxic products substi-tutes. l06

Institutional Concerns

About 10 percent of U.S. solid waste is recycled,and most observers believe more MSW could berecycled. The major roadblocks are not technolo-gies, although some technical refinements couldprovide measurable increases. EPA is promoting anational recycling goal of 25 percent by the year1992, although the goal does not appear to be basedon a quantitative evaluation of the market potentialof individual MSW components. Some components,such as office paper and aluminum, are “supply-limited,” that is, they are not collected in sufficientamounts or are too highly contaminated for currentmanufacturing processes. Others, such as used oiland newspapers, are “demand-limited,” becausemarkets for them are insufficient, even thoughsupplies may be available. These distinctions are notconstant and may change due to many factors.

Pricing is the other serious market consideration,one made complex by fluctuations in markets forrecycled products. Increased public sector collectionof recycled materials provides a supply of materialsthat is not sensitive to demand. Municipal collectorscan even afford to pay manufacturers to takematerials, if doing so is less expensive than disposal.This means that private sector suppliers may havedifficulty marketing their recycled goods, whichwould drive down profits and reduce the employ-ment and tax revenue they generate. Municipalities

must thus consider their recycling policies andprograms carefully.

Although MSW is primarily a local responsibil-ity, States have begun promoting incentives formulticommunity facilities or for nonlandfill wastedisposal, and some States are providing financialassistance to communities. Maryland’s Solid WasteFacilities Loan Program provides loans to localgovernments to improve environmental and humanhealth aspects of their solid waste programs. Since1983, over $1.4 million has been obligated for loansfrom State general obligation bonds.

Minnesota established the Solid Waste Process-ing Facilities Capital Assistance Program in 1980 toassist counties in moving from landfills to recyclingand resource recovery for solid waste. Priority isgiven to programs developed under joint powersagreement between counties. Grants totaling $20.2million have been awarded from the General Fundsince 1980. Minnesota also established the WasteManagement Board in 1980 as an independentagency of the State. Its purpose is to providetechnical, financial, and planning assistance forsolid and hazardous waste management to commu-nities and technical assistance to industry in recy-cling, resource recovery, and hazardous waste man-agement. The Legislative Commission of WasteManagement provides oversight of the board’sgrantmaking and advocacy to facilitate waste man-agement.

MSW Technologies

MSW technologies include landfill liner materi-als, collection and treatment of leachate, monitoringand controlling landfill gas and other potentialcontaminants, comporting and other processingequipment, and techniques and equipment for bettersubsurface analysis.l07

Landfill Liners

Liners are used at the bottom of a landfill toprevent or reduce migration of leachate (liquids thatpercolate through the landfill carrying contami-nants) into groundwater beneath the site or away

loswat~ Scbub, U.S. Conf=nce of myors, personal communicatio~ Oct. 13, 1989. Regulatory concern relates to a one-in-a-tionchfi~ of aperson over a lifetime developing a health problem linked to an incinerator.

l~u.s. EnvhonrnenralProt@ionA gency, office of Solid Waste, The Solid WasteDi/emmu:An AgendaforAction (wmgto~ DC: Fe- 1989),p. 31.

loTJef&ey Clunie and R.W. Beck& Associates, The Nation’s Public Works: Report on Solid Waste (waShingtOrL ~: National COunCil on ~blicWorks Improvement May 1987), p. 49.


from it laterally. About 66 percent of U.S. landfillsuse a soil liner such as clay. Many of these, however,were not constructed using sound soil engineeringtechniques (compacting and remolding). A soil orclay liner can use compacted and uncompacted soilto absorb the chemicals leached into them. However,certain chemicals, xylene or carbon tetrachloride, forexample, dehydrate the soil, causing water tomigrate downward. The dehydrated soil may crack,forming pathways for liquids to leach into deepersoil.

Presently, only 1 percent of landfills use syntheticmembrane liners, and only 6 percent of plannedlandfills will use them. Other less common linersinclude paving asphalt, sprayed liners of liquidrubber, and soil sealants. Synthetic membrane linersare typically made of rubber, polyvinyl chloride, orvarious polyethylene. Most synthetic liners arevirtually impermeable to water; their permeability toother chemicals varies.108 Data suggest that thetoughest liner is made of high-density polyethylene,though some experiments show it was easily perme-ated by trichloroethylene. The lack of definitive dataindicates that additional research is needed on thefrequency with which synthetic liners are actuallyexposed to high concentrations of volatile organicchemicals and on long-term performance of theliners under these conditions.

The effectiveness of synthetic liners also dependson how well the seams of the different liner segmentsare joined together. The chemical compatibility ofliner materials is critical in determiningg bondstrength, and liner manufacturers’ recommendationson compatible materials must be followed to assureproper bonding. Composite liners, or engineered soiloverlain with a synthetic flexible membrane, com-bine the best qualities of both types by being nearlyimpervious to most leachate while providing anabsorbent layer should the synthetic liner rupture.

Covers

During the useful life of a landfill, some type ofcover, usually about 6 inches of compacted earth, isapplied on a daily basis to control against mosqui-toes and vermin, prevent odors and fires, and

discourage scavenging. Proposed EPA regulationswould require this.109 When a landfill is closed, it iscovered to reduce water infiltration. Unlike dailycover, the final cover needs to be of an easilycompacted soil type and should be sloped to increaserunoff and reduce infiltration. EPA estimated thatalmost all active and planned units have or will havesome type of earth cover of soil, sand, or clay, butonly about 2 percent have or will have a syntheticmembrane cover.

Although for the most part, MSW is placed belowground level, the concept of confining waste aboveground was developed for hazardous waste. If asloped, above-ground storage mound is used, com-plete with liners and requisite drainage and gascollection equipment, simple gravity will aid in amore reliable leachate control system, and leaks canbe found more easily before they contaminategroundwater.

Leachate Collection and Removal Systems

Leachate collection and removal involves placinga series of perforated collection pipes in drainagelayers filled with sand or gravel, or above the liner,to collect leachate. If the landfill is designed with aslope, leachate will drain into a central collectionpoint. The collected leachate can be recirculatedback into the landfill, but in most cases it is truckedto a municipal sewage treatment plant or sewer,discharged to a treatment plant through a sewer, ortreated onsite with biological treatment processes.However, only 11 percent of existing landfills useleachate control systems, and available data do notallow a determination of how much leachate iscollected.

Gas Production, Collection, and UseGas produced by decomposition in landfills is

primarily equal parts methane and carbon dioxide,with a few trace organic chemicals. Landfill gas canbe allowed to escape into the atmosphere throughvents, or it can be “flared” or burned as it leavescollection pipes. More expensive and complicatedpumping and collection systems are used only whena landfill has been at least partially closed and a cap

losperm~bfi~ is one performance measure of a liner. One measure of the rate at which leachatepermeates a liner is in centimeters per second. A clayliner is relatively permeable, allowing water to seep through it at 1 millionth to 10 millionths of a centimeter per second. Synthetic liners resist seepageand pass water much more slowly—between 100 millionths and 10 trillionths of a centimeter per second. While clay liners are more porous, they dohave the ability to absorb and hold organic chemicals.

l~~ently, 45 Stites r~fie that cover be appli~ daily. The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed landfill regulations ~SO wotid ~hthe application of daily cover. 53 Federal Register 33314 (Aug. 30, 1988).


installed. Active pumping systems are the mosteffective means for collecting landfill gas and canrecover from 60 to 90 percent of methane produced.

While over 1,500 MSW landfills use venting,flaring, or collection and recovery of methane, only123 landfills collect methane for energy recovery.Wells are dug into landfills or adjacent soil, andpipes are laid to collect the landfill gas. Contami-nants, such as carbon dioxide, are removed, and themethane is injected into natural gas systems pipe-lines and can fuel an internal-combustion engine orgas turbine that generates electricity for generaluse. ll0 If all methane emissions were collected andprocessed for energy recovery, the energy recoverypotential would amount to 5 percent of all naturalgas consumption or 1 percent of all energy demandin the United States.

Enhancing Degradation Rates

Landfills for waste disposal are based on thepremise that what is buried will eventually decom-pose. Core samples taken recently from variouslandfills indicate that all kinds of waste can remainvirtually intact even after 50 years; buried news-papers were used to verify the dates. Thus evenbiodegradable wastes decompose much differentlyand more slowly than expected.111 Appropriatelandfill design requires additional research on sub-jects such as the conditions under which differentcomponents degrade, how rapidly they degrade,whether degradable plastics would have much effecton landfill capacity, and what environmental prob-lems they might create.

The idea of recycling leachate to enhance degra-dation has been examined in the laboratory, andseveral MSW landfills in the United States are usingthis technology in some way. The potential benefitsof this system include reducing decomposition timefrom 15 to 20 years to only a few years, increasedmethane production, and reduced amounts ofleachate to dispose of or treat. However, currentEPA regulatory proposals would ban addition of anyliquid to landfills, and careful controls to preventoffsite migration would be essential.

Incineration Technologies

Three basic types of incinerators are used today:mass bum, refuse derived fuel, and modular. Massbum facilities are designed to bum unsorted MSW,and require only a small amount of handling ofMSW. They generally have only one combustionchamber, and they operate using more air than wouldbe needed to complete combustion if the fuel couldbe uniformly burned. Some incorporate combustiongrates that vibrate, reciprocate, or pulsate to agitateMSW for better combustion.

Refuse derived fuel (RDF) facilities process orseparate MSW mechanically before burning. Theseparation can be done at curbside or at a centralprocessing center. The remaining waste is shreddedand sometimes mixed with other fuel, such as oil,and injected into the combustion chamber. Wastecoming into these plants is sometimes compactedunder pressure for easier handling and burning.Many mass burn and RDF facilities are designed torecover energy, which can be used or sold; these areknown as waste-to-energy facilities.112

Modular facilities are small and often factoryfabricated for disposing of manufacturing-relatedbyproducts. A ram is used to advance MSW througha two-combustion-chamber arrangement. The firstchamber has a ‘‘starved” or oxygen deprivedcondition and the second chamber is oxygen rich topromote burning of uncombusted gases. This type offacility uses unsorted MSW, and its units are smallerthan those for mass bum facilities and thus better forsmall communities. Disadvantages include incom-plete burning and generally low efficiency forenergy recovery.

Every incinerator must shut down periodically formaintenance. Mass bum incinerator manufacturersclaim 85 percent reliability. Early RDF facilities hadmechanical problems that caused frequent shut-downs, but recent changes in design have improvedtheir reliability considerably. Occasional combus-tion “upsets,” or temporary changes in combustionquality caused by changes in MSW composition,sometimes cause shutdowns. Air supply adjust-ments controlled by computer monitoring systems

llo~p R. o’kary et ~., “Managing Solid Waste,” Sa”entijic American, vol. 2S9, No. 6, Deeembex 1988, p, 42.IIIW.L. Rathje et al., “Source Reduction and Landfill Mytbs,’ paper presented at NASSWMO National Solid Waste Forum unintegrated Municipal

Solid Waste Management Lake Buena Vistq PL, July 17-20, 1988.ll~er~ ~WovcV facliti= ~= @ven a boost by tie ~bfic Utities Re@~ory policies Act of 1978, wti~ IW@XeS pOWCI companies tO buy

electricity generated from an incinerator at a price equal to what it would cost the company to generate the same power.

Chapter 4--Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies ● 163

can help avoid these problems. Although most newfacilities utilize computer monitoring technologies,mass burn facilities remainreliable than RDF units.

Several other incinerationcurrent use generally in smallFluidized bed combustion is

simpler and more

technologies are incommercial settings.a process in which

burning waste is entrained with very hot particles ofsand in an upward flow of turbulent air. Both“bubbling,” where material stays at the bottom ofthe furnace, and ‘circulating’ designs, where wasteis allowed to move upward and then returned to thebed for further combustion, are utilized.

Pyrolysis is heating the MSW in the absence ofoxygen. It produces a solid residue, which must bemanaged, and liquid tar and gas, which can be usedas fuels. Although pyrolysis plants are operated insome European countries and Japan, U.S. experienceis limited.

Controlling Air Emissions

The major types of flue gas pollutants generatedby MSW incinerators are: carbon monoxide, particu-late matter, nitrogen oxides (NOx), chlorinatedhydrocarbons (e.g., dioxins), acid gases (e.g., hydro-gen chloride), and metals such as lead and mercury.Problem emissions result from incomplete combus-tion and combustion temperatures that are either toohigh or too low.

Three basic technologies are commonly used forcontrolling incinerator emissions: 1) preseparationof materials from MSW before combustion, 2)destruction of harmful elements during combustion,and 3) removal of pollutants from flue gases bycontrol equipment after combustion. The effective-ness of each of these approaches varies for each ofthe different categories of air emissions. Presepara-tion effects are hard to measure. Removing ahazardous material before it gets to the incineratorwill prevent it from creating a harmful emission, butits ultimate disposal may be equally dangerous.Limited data show that preseparation has little effecton the production of dioxins/furans. However, atsome older facilities, presorting for certain materi-als, such as aluminum, iron, glass/grit, and autobatteries, has reduced hydrocarbon emissions.

Metals in flue gas and ash can be reduced as muchas 25 percent by sorting out certain items such as carbatteries. Presorting can increase the combustiontemperature (because of a more uniform fuel), lowerash content by about one-half, and decrease carbonmonoxide emissions by a factor of two to three.Removing yard wastes from incinerator input cansignificantly reduce NOX emissions.

Combustion management using computer con-trols can yield improvements by regulating heat andMSW flow. Sensors monitor combustion tempera-ture, output emissions, and adjust MSW flow topromote complete burning.

Three combustion and postcombustion controlsare used to manage NOX emissions. Combustionimprovements can be achieved through better grateand furnace design and flue gas recirculation.Selective catalytic reduction, which involves inject-ing ammonia into flue gases to preclude formation ofNOX, can reduce emissions. A proprietary noncata-lytic process, Thermal DeNOx,113 involves theinjection of ammonia into the upper furnace whereit reacts to produce nitrogen and water. Three U.S.facilities are currently using this technology, andreductions in NOX emissions have been as high as 45percent.

Postcombustion gases are controlled by devicescalled scrubbers. These devices fall into two catego-ries and several types. The first category applies topostboiler scrubbers and includes wet, or “quench,”scrubbers; dry scrubbers; and spray dry scrubbers.The second category includes dry injection scrub-bers used in a preboiler location. In the mid-1980s,because of increased concern for the impact of acidgases on the environment, many new facilities wereconstructed with acid gas scrubbers.114

Wet scrubbers add alkaline absorbents in theboiler, which react with exhaust emissions to formsalts, which are then landfilled. Although capable ofremoving most of the pollutants, wet scrubbers uselarge amounts of water, which must be treated beforedisposal. Dry scrubbers spray a solid alkalinepowder into the flue gas to react with exhaustemissions. Because dry scrubbers use no water, theyavoid water pollution and some corrosion problems.However, they do increase both the capital and

l13~s is a trade name.

lld~~e ~d Row. Bec& & Associates, op. cit., footnote 107, p. 46.


operating costs of waste-to-energy facilities by asmuch as $5 to $10 per ton.ll5

Other systems inject a solid dry absorbent directlyinto the boiler or onto original MSW prior to theproduction of flue gases; lower flue gas temperaturesto as low as 40 degrees C to condense acid gases,organics, and volatile metals; or spray an atomizedslurry into the flue gases and collect the dryparticulates after the water in the slurry evaporates.

The majority of volatilized metals are caught inscrubbers. Metals are condensed onto fly ash parti-cles, which are then picked up by the scrubbers. Lowflue temperature has been found to be critical in thisprocess. For example, below 285 degrees F up to 99percent of cadmium is removed, and a 53 percentreduction of copper was achieved with flue tempera-tures of between 230 to 260 degrees F.

Precipitators and fabric containers called“baghouses” are commonly used to control particu-late emissions from incinerators. Electrostatic pre-cipitators (ESPs), located in the exhaust area of thefacility, electronically charge particles and then passthem between parallel plates of opposite charge,drawing the particles to the plates. The plates areunloaded periodically and the residue landfilled.Multiple “fields” of plates can be used to increaseefficiency, and ESPs work best when plates are largeand gas flow is relatively slow. Efficiency has beenshown to be as high as 99.7 percent.

Fabric/bag filters are installed over incineratorexhaust outlets to trap particulate matter in the fluegases. The bags are designed to “cake up” withparticulate, adding to their efficiency. A combina-tion of fabric filters and a scrubber has proven to bethe most effective at controlling emissions. Thescrubber reduces acid gases (which degrade the bagfilters), reduces “blinding” the bag filters by stickyparticles, and cools the exhaust gases.

Cooling flue gases before they reach pollutioncontrols will condense most dioxin and furans intofly ash particles, which can then be controlled byscrubbers. The combination of scrubbers and fabricfilters has been shown to remove 97 to 99 percent oftotal dioxins in postcombustion flue gases, and mostnew facilities have these controls.

Incinerator Ash

Incinerators produce both bottom ash and fly ash,the light particles that are carried off the grate byturbulence or that condense and form in the flue gasin the boiler section. Each year the United Statesgenerates 2.8 to 5.5 million tons of ash, or 25 to 35percent by weight and 5 to 15 percent by volume ofthe original MSW.

Over 50 percent of fly and bottom ash is estimatedto be disposed together with MSW in landfills,where rainwater can leach out toxic chemicals fromthe ash, including metallic compounds and acids.The toxicity of incinerator ash can be predictedthrough laboratory tests,ll6 and ash residues can betreated chemically or thermally to decrease thelikelihood of leaching.

Untreated ash can be stabilized or solidified andthen used in road or artificial reef construction,construction blocks, and landfill cover, for example.Questions about the long-term effects of reused ashhinder more extensive use, however.

Reduction Tech Techniques117

Waste reduction techniques focus on reducing theamount and toxicity of materials before they becomewaste, to lower the demand for capacity increasesand requirements for technologies. Fewer toxics inMSW would reduce the amounts and types ofchemicals in landfills that create toxic air emissionsand toxic leachate. Packaging accounts for 30percent of the weight of all solid waste, paperproducts make up over 40 percent, and yard wastescomprise another 20 percent, making all of themcandidates for waste reduction.

Toxicity Reduction

Toxics are found in many household products thatend up as MSW. In fact, household maintenance andcleaning products are estimated to make up almostone-half of the household hazardous waste discardedfrom residences. Lead, cadmium, and mercury areused as coatings-in light bulbs, in cables andelectrical products, and in batteries. Such items aremajor contributors to the residues of these chemicalsin MSW. Identifying substances in MSW that posethe greatest risks to humans and removing or

1lsIbid., p, 47.~ls~ce of TCChOIO~ Assessment op. cit., footnote 100, P. 251.l17~s ~tion is based on ibid,, ch. 4, “MSW Prevention. ”


substantially reducing them from products that enterthe waste stream is an effective way to reducetoxicity.

Many organic chemicals are used, often intention-ally, in common consumer products. Examplesinclude formaldehyde in particle board, toluene ininks, chlorobenzene in cleaners, and methylenechloride in spray propellants. Industry has success-fully reformulated a number of products to reduce oreliminate hazardous components. The substitutionof chloroflourocaxbons (CFCs) with hydrocarbonsas a propellant in aerosol spray cans after a ban onCFCs by EPA and the Food and Drug Administra-tion in 1978 and the substitution of titanium and zincpigments for lead in exterior house paints areexamples. However, reformulating products is time-consuming and costly; R&D leading to approval ofone new pesticide can take 10 to 15 years and costup to $10 million.

Studies have shown that consumers favor buyingproducts that pose fewer potential risks whendiscarded and that providing information on thetoxicity content of a product will affect purchasingdecisions. Making such information available is oneway public officials can affect the amount of toxicsubstances in the waste stream and reduce costs ofMSW disposal.

Recycling 118

Recycling is another method of reducing wastemanagement costs, increasing landfill capacity, andreducing incinerator emissions. MSW recycling iscarried out principally by private entrepreneurs inthe scrap industries, nonprofit groups, and scaven-gers. Municipalities, however, usually initiatecurbside collection programs, drop-off centers, andbuy-back centers. The preparation of collectedmaterials involves both manual and automatedmethods and takes place at central facilities, com-monly referred to as material recovery facilities.

The type of equipment used depends on the typeof MSW that is being handled: mixed waste,commingled, or separated. Mixed waste facilitiesseparate recyclable from other waste that is thenlandfilled or incinerated. In some areas, severaltypes of recyclable (e.g., glass, aluminum, andpaper) are collected together and later separated.This commingled waste is easier to manage than

mixed waste, because items that could pose a hazard,such as disposable razors or diapers are excluded.However, a different collection system than for therest of MSW is needed, and the program depends onpublic participation. Even items separated atcurbside need some preparation to meet the needs ofcommercial buyers. Equipment may include scales,conveyors, and balers, as well as other processes forseparating different types of materials that arecollected together.

Technical Difficu!ties in Recycling

Paper and paperboard waste represent 41 percentof total MSW discard, and estimates indicate a 22 to28 percent recovery rate. Some short-term opportu-nities exist to increase recycling paper and paper-board, but technical and capacity barriers maypreclude dramatic increases. Since most high-quality waste paper is already collected, additionalsupplies from new sources and de-inking of lesserquality waste will be more costly. Contaminants inrecycled waste paper limit its use in makingnewsprint, and consumer preference limits increaseduse of recycled paperboard.

Glass recycling rates are in the neighborhood of10 percent. Presently, because of chemical differ-ences, certain types of glass, such as flat glass, safetyglass, pressed and blown glass, optical glass, andindustrial glass, cannot be manufactured with recy-cled waste glass (known as cullet). The largest useof virgin materials, primarily silica sand, is forcontainers, accounting for 68 percent of U.S. silicasand production in 1986. While cullet is 100 percentrecyclable, color separation processes are not asefficient and limit its use. Technologies have yet tobe developed to reprocess non-color-sorted glass.

Less than 200 million pounds of postconsumerplastic discards (less than 1 percent of the amount inMSW) were recycled in 1986. Plastics are resilientmaterials not easily crushed; thus, plastic bottlestake up more space on a collection truck than otherMSW components, making household collectiondifficult.

The large variety of plastics in MSW poses otherproblems. Presently, only containers made from twotypes of plastic (high-density polyethylene andpolyethylene tetraphalate) are being recycled insubstantial amounts, because these containers are

llsThi5 ~tion is based on ibid., ch. 5, “R=ycling.”


not degraded significantly by processing. The Foodand Drug Administration restricts the use of recycledplastic in food packaging because of the risk ofcontaminants migrating into the food.

Finally, the presence of contaminants and theeffects of natural degradation processes affect plas-tics recycling. Separating plastics from paper, met-als, adhesives, pigments, and dirt is necessary butdifficult. While proven separation technologies arecommercially available, automated separation tech-niques (primarily based on differences in density) donot work well for complex mixtures of productscontaining many types of plastics. The performanceof recycled resins is not as good as that of virginmaterials, and since reprocessing accelerates thedegradation process, durability and dimensionalstability are reduced.

Hazardous Waste119

Public works officials must comply with EPA’shazardous waste regulations. The most effectiveway to minimize the risks associated with hazardouswastes would be to reduce the production of thematerials and the wastes. Once hazardous wastes aregenerated, they must be managed by one of twobroad categories of technologies: 1) treatment byone or more steps to reduce the hazard level of thewaste, or 2) disposal through containment or disper-sal on land or in the oceans.120 Treatment technolo-gies reduce the hazard level directly or facilitatereduction in other steps by changing the physical orchemical nature of the waste, by separating wasteconstituents, or by reducing the concentration ofhazardous substances in the waste. The treatmenttechnologies include chemical, thermal, and biologi-cal treatments.

Containment technologies, such as landfills, sur-face impoundments, and underground injectionwells, hold waste in a manner that inhibits release ofhazardous components into the environment orkeeps releases to acceptable levels. With mostcentainment options, releases are likely to occur atsome time. Some surface impoundments are de-signed, in fact, to transfer material to the ground.Dispersal techniques, such as land treatment(spreading waste on the land) or ocean dumping, rely

on naturally occurring processes to reduce thehazard level of waste constituents, or to transportthem into and through the environment therebydiluting concentration to acceptable levels, or both.Some geographical locations are considered goodsites for land disposal facilities because their hydro-geological characteristics make releases unlikelyand because the probability that people or sensitiveelements of the environment would be exposed toreleases is extremely low.

The feasibility and appropriateness of a manage-ment technology for a specific waste depends onmany factors, including the characteristics of thewaste and the environmental features of the facilitysite. Regulatory requirements and the goals andeconomic calculations of waste generators andhandlers will also influence technology choices.

Waste type is an important determin ant in choos-ing treatment technology; for example, some wastesare incompatible with a specific technology becausethey would damage the equipment. Well-establishedchemical and physical treatments are available forwastes characterized as hazardous because of theirreactivity, corrosiveness, and ignitability. However,the choices are not clear for a waste for whichtoxicity is the major hazardous characteristic. Toxicconstituents may be organic, inorganic, or metallic,and many technologies could be used. The majorissue is whether to use a treatment or containmentapproach; treatment is preferable in most cases, if itis technically feasible.

In general, the kinds of waste most suitable forland-based containment are residuals from treatmentoperations, pretreated or stabilized waste, untreat-able waste, and relatively low-hazard waste. How-ever, some untreatable wastes, such as polychlori-nated biphenyls (PCBs), are so highly toxic that landdisposal is unacceptable, and waste elimination isthe only feasible alternative.

Technology Alternatives

The goal for a hazardous waste treatment anddisposal technology is to reduce the probability ofrelease of hazardous constituents, but no technologycan eliminate this probability entirely, because

ll~s -on is based on severaI OTA pUt)li@iO%TeC?lno@ieS and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control, ~,O’IA-M-197 (Washington DC: March 1983); Superfund Strategy, summary, O’_D4-ITE-253 (Washington DC: March 1985); and Serious Reduction ofHazardous Waste, summary, OTA-ITE-318 (WsshingtoU DC: September 1986).

lm~ce of Tcc~olo~ As~s~en~ Technologies and Managentent Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control, OP. Cit., fOO~Ote 119, pp. 19-20.


toxics in waste usually affect more than one me-dium. For example, high-temperature incineratorsdestroy most of the toxins in waste, but some airpollution may occur, and the incinerator ash must bedisposed of. Chemical treatment, such as dechlorina-tion, detoxifies the waste itself, but may producesome residue requiring additional treatment ordisposal. Treatment efficiencies, such as degree ofdestruction, degree of containment, degree of stabili-zation, and reliability, also differ. Emerging thermal,physical, and chemical treatment technologies offerthe potential for preventing emissions of hazardousconstituents, providing resource recovery, and re-ducing toxicity.121

EPA has emphasized cleanup for control ofhazardous substances.122 Resource Conservationand Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations emphasizekeeping landfill costs low by not requiring compre-hensive, stringent monitoring at landfills, or retrofit-ting of existing, active landfills. The agency hasexempted from some of the new regulations portionsof existing landfills that do not yet contain wastes,has limited postclosure monitoring requirements to30 years, and has not required locating wastemanagement facilities so as to protect drinking watersources. The Comprehensive Environmental Re-sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (Super-fund) is aimed at the cleanup of uncontrolledhazardous waste sites abandoned by industry andmunicipalities; in many cases there were no formalmechanisms or funds to respond to the hazardousspills and leaks at these sites.

Reducing Hazardous Wastes

Because many hazardous wastes cannot be de-stroyed by known pollution control methods, reduc-ing the production of hazardous wastes brings higherbenefits to environmental protection and publichealth. Source segregation or separation, widelyused in industry, is usually the easiest and cheapestway to reduce wastes before they require manage-ment by communities as hazardous waste. The basicprinciple is to keep waste in concentrated, isolatedforms rather than to produce large amounts ofindis criminate mixtures that must be separated later.

End-product substitution may bring long-termbenefits if the substitute product is adopted in manyindustrial sectors and markets. Changing only oneproduct or application is likely to have a relativelysmall effect on hazardous waste generation. More-over, waste reduction is likely to be a secondarybenefit of such changes, since product performanceimprovements are the main driving forces. However,as hazardous waste management becomes moreexpensive and costs are passed on to consumers,public awareness of the amount of hazardous wastein products may contribute more to end-productsubstitutions.

Monitoring Strategies and Technologies

Monitoring is essential to environmental protec-tion and public health to establish baseline data anddata for setting regulatory standards, verifyingcompliance with regulations, helping identify R&Dpriorities, and assessing contamination. Surveil-lance monitoring can verify compliance with regula-tory requirements and provide limited data aboutchanges in environmental quality. Assessment mon-itoring helps determine the extent of deterioration inenvironmental quality and provides data that indi-cate cause-effect relationships for specific hazards.Sampling procedures, data comparability, and limit-ations in available analytical methodologies mustbe developed for both types of monitoring. Difficultchoices are necessary about the location and numberof sampling sites and the frequency with which thesamples are taken.

Even though monitoring is essential to controllingrisks, RCRA regulations call for only limitedmonitoring activities for incinerators and land dis-posal facilities. Such an approach can lead to delaysin detecting releases of harmful contaminants.

Treatment

Although industry and Federal officials are morelikely to use them than local public works officials,several innovative technologies to deal with serioushazardous waste sites are on the horizon. A newprocess, known as in-situ radio frequency heating,has been developed to decontaminate soil taintedwith volatile or semivolatile waste. This process

lzl~~ndispo~ app~ to be technically feasible, but adequate scientific hlfOrXIWI‘on is unavailable for deciding what the appropriate locations arefor specific wastes. Ibid., p. 20.

lzz~eReso~CoMmation~R~v~kt Of 1975 (R_) R@klteS ~management anddisposalof newly created industrial hazardous waate.The Comprehensive EnvironrnentrdResponse, Compensatio~ and Liability Actof 1980 fmces the cleanup of waste spills andtheunccmtrolled disposalsites of past industrial practices.


uses microwave technology to heat contaminatedsoil from 200 to 1,000 degrees F, incinerating thetoxins. Up to 5,000 tons can rehandled at a time, andpreliminary tests show costs to be 60 percent lessthan for other types of thermal incineration.123

An electrochemical oxidation process is beingdeveloped and tested at the United Kingdom’sAtomic Energy Authority. The technique convertsPCBs, pesticides, and other hazardous materials tocarbon dioxide and water through feeding a solutionor slurry of the chemical into an electrochemicalcell. The rapid oxidation in the chamber is achievedat atmospheric pressure and with temperatures at orbelow 100 degrees C. It may also be possible todispose of CFCs with this process.l24

Issues and ConcernsPublic perceptions of environmental risks are

shaped almost entirely by the common understand-ing of health and environmental effects from pastmanagement practices and failures. Risks and poten-tial damages-the direct harmful effects of pollutionand contamination, as well as indirect effects, suchas losses in property values-are borne largely bylocal communities. Although the public calls forbetter management, citizens also frequently opposethe siting of specific environmental public worksfacilities, such as waste treatment plants.

Coping With an Anxious Public

Public works officials can build public confidenceand expand understanding of the risks involved by:1) improving the quality of information disseminat-ion to the public to better describe facility needs,uses, characteristics, and risks; 2) using decisionprocesses based on sound technical criteria to ensurethat specific technologies and locations have beenchosen to reduce present and future risks as well asto satisfy waste generator and management needs;and 3) increasing efforts to promote demandmanagement, conservation, and alternatives such assource reduction and recycling. Although bothtechnical and institutional approaches can be used toaddress public concerns, a combination of nontech-

nical and institutional approaches, especially at theState and local level, may be more effective. Sitingconcerns can never be completely eliminated,they may be resolvable through compromise.

Small Systems

but

Small systems are modest undertakings; a systemserving 5,000 persons is likely to have limitedbudgets, yet must meet the same regulations aslarger systems with greater economic capability.Small systems cannot benefit from economies ofscale as do larger systems; certain processes andfunctions-for example, maintaining a chlorina-tor—in water treatment must be provided regardlessof the number of connections.125 Lacking sufficienttechnical and financial resources, many small sys-tem operators have had to defer capital outlays, andcannot meet the investment required for growth andsystem upgrading. The amount of capital they canaccess is limited and their financing costs arerelatively high. Finally, the sheer number of smallwater systems, which are the most likely type ofpublic services to be private sector operations, andwhat has been steady growth in that number,complicate the task of State agencies charged withregulating this industry. In many States, smallsystems find it difficult to retain employees with theskills necessary to deal effectively with new stand-ards, with operating problems associated with de-caying infrastructure, with expansion requirements,with fair and equitable rate-setting practices, or withsome types of financing problems. (See box 4-E forinformation about the circuit rider program to assistsmall systems operations.)

State legislatures can adopt clear statutory author-ity for State regulatory agencies to deny appropria-tions and operating permits to new systems unlessthey comply with minimum design, operating, andconstruction standards and undergo financial, opera-tional, and management evaluations.l26 WashingtonState initiated the first nationally known program forcontrolling potentially nonviable small systems.Connecticut has authority to require proposed sys-

123’ ’Weston to Microwave ‘Ibxics,” Engineering News Record, vol. 222, No. 25, June 22, 1989, pp. 17-18.l~Derrnot o’sullh~ “Electrolytic Oxidation Destroys Toxic Wmte.s, ” Chemkal and Engineenng News, vol. 67, No. 24, June 12, 1989, p. 27.l~Robert M. Chk, “Pac~ge Plmts: A Cost-E.ff~tive Solution to Small Water Systems Treatment Needs,” Journal of theAnzerican Water works

Association, January 1981, pp. 24-30.lZGJoti J. Botid and Daniel Serrs, The Johns Hopkins university, “Improving the Management of Community Water Systems: Survey and

Recommendations,” prepared for the Maryland Department of State Pkmning, February 1988.


Box 4-E--Circuit Riders: Helping America’s Rural Water Operators

More than 55,000 water treatment systems in the United States serve populations under 10,000 persons. Smallcommunities often cannot afford an experienced highly trained, full-time public works engineer. To assist suchsystems, most of them rural, nearly every State has a visiting engineer who can provide advice, trouble-shootproblems, and ensure proper operation and compliance with Federal and State regulations. These engineers, orcircuit riders, as they are called traditionally provided technical support in emergencies; however, now they alsoprovide financial and management guidance, technical training, and technology transfer.

In 1980, the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) began funding a comprehensive national program forcircuit riders,l expanding an existing program of 16 circuit riders in 22 to 24 States. By 1989 there were circuit ridersworking in all the contiguous 48 States. Most States have one circuit rider, five States, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma,Louisiana and Mississippi have two. Some small States, especially in the Northeast, share circuit riders. FmHAprovided $2.8 million in fiscal year 1989 to the National Rural Water Association (NRWA) which, in turn, hasagreements with its State affiliates to provide the State circuit riders. The appropriation for fiscal year 1991 is $3.25million. A State circuit rider office is not large, usually consisting of the circuit rider, a program manager, and asecretary. In some cases, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and State environmental agency money helpssupplement State office costs.

FmHA regulations require at least 35 half-day site visits per month, and a typical circuit rider will spend around20 days per month on the road. Newer circuit riders may make as many as 70 visits a month to meet as manyoperators as possible and demonstrate their utility to those unfamiliar with the service. The program is attractivefor young engineers, and experienced circuit riders are actively recruited by larger urban systems that can providehigher salaries.2

The services provided by circuit riders are free, and any small water system serving under 10,000 persons canrequest a visit, although priority is given to water systems with outstanding FmHA loans. Assistance can berequested by calling the State NRWA office or through the State environmental agency. Circuit riders are on call24 hours every day, and the hard work and long hours cause high turnover.

South Dakota has an active rural water program that supported a State circuit rider before the NRWA’Sprogram.3 The State’s Rural Water Office is staffed by six full-time employees, including a program manager anda circuit rider, paid by NRWA. The South Dakota Rural Water Asgroup insurance, and extra training

sociation (SDRWA) supports staff for lobbying,services for managers, operators, and clerical workers. Technical training

courses in subjects such as electricity and chemistry frequently are contracted to area vocational/technical schoolsand paid for through State membership dues, and SDRWA also provides onsite technical training.

In the last several years, South Dakota has constructed many new, technically complex, regional water systems,which provide piped water to towns, homesteads, and farms in up to seven counties. Because many of the State’ssystem operators are still uncertified, SDRWA is working with the State environmental agency to improve the skillsof these rural operators so that they can be certified

lTheFarmers Home Administration is a credit source for eligible rural communities for various kindsof projects, including water supplyand wastewater treatment, which together account for about 50 percent of loans and 55 percent of grants. Congress appropriated $440 millionfor water and wastewater projects in fiscal year 1989.

2Larry Bowman, project officer, Farmers Home Administration, personal communication, Sept. 28, 1989.3Denis Davis, executive director, Rural Water Association, South Dakota, personal communication,Oct. 2, 1989.

terns to interconnect with an existing system, if tion of a small system. However, small systems havefeasible. 127

successfully blocked consolidation efforts, l28 and

States can also support regionalization, consoli- EPA has the legal authority to exempt small systems

dation, and satellite systems, in which a large system from the SDWA provisions, if the exemption doesagrees to assume ownership, management, or opera- not pose an unreasonable health risk. The program

127U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ensuring the Viability of New, Small Drinking Water Systems: A Study of State Systems, EPA Report570/9-89-004 (Washington, DC: April 1989).

128Suffolk County, Long Island, NY residents believed that improved water service would generate unwanted development and blocked efforts toconsolidate their system with others. Cirola, op. cit., footnote 44.


has never been an active one and EPA is currentlypreparing a new set of procedures for it.129

Small systems also need information about low-cost, simple wastewater treatment technology.While alternative systems for application in smallcommunities are available,130 they are not widelyused. Conventional collection systems often repre-sent more than 80 percent of the capital cost for thewastewater system in small and rural communi-ties131 and are rarely cost-effective.132 Communitiesfind that available funds are quickly consumed foroperations and maintenance expenses, and some areconsidering deliberate noncompliance because theyare unable to meet the requirements of their dis-charge permits.

.Financing and Management

Consumer demands and stricter Federal and Stateregulations have raised costs of environmentalpublic works dramatically, and the upward trend isexpected to continue through the 1990s. In additionto mounting outlays for new construction and majorupgrading, costs for operations and maintenance,administration, and monitoring are climbing rapidly.In 1987, EPA and State and local governments spent$40 billion for environmental protection, and EPAestimates that just to maintain standards current in1987 will cost $56 billion per year by 2000. Theamount climbs to $61 billion, if costs for selectednew regulations described later in this chapter areincluded.133 However, a high degree of uncertaintysurrounds these cost estimates; if costs were calcu-lated for all prospective regulations, the price wouldbe significantly higher.

The burden of these rising costs will fall predomi-nantly on local governments, In 2000, local govern-ment outlays for sewers, “drinking water, and wastemanagement are expected to total almost $54

billion, or 87 percent of all governmental spendingfor these services, up from almost $33 billion or 82percent in 1987 (see table 4-4). The State share-mainly for administrative and technical assistance-will remain steady at 5 percent, while the Federalportion is anticipated to decrease from 13 to 8percent, primarily because of the phase-out of EPA’swastewater treatment facility grants.

Capital Costs

By 2000, local governments will have to raise anestimated $19 billion per year in new capital—mainly through bond issues—for waste and drinkingwater and solid waste projects.134 However, costscan double once projects are designed and thebacklogs of deferred maintenance are taken intoaccount. The need for expensive capital improve-ments will put particularly heavy pressure on small,low-income communities that have limited re-sources and poor access to capital markets, and onolder cities already burdened with large debt andwhere competition for revenues is acute.

Operating and Maintenance Costs

More sophisticated and energy- and chemical-intensive treatment processes required by new gov-ernmental regulations will add substantially to localoperating and maintenance costs. Expenses areexpected to climb steadily from $23 billion in 1987to $35 billion in 2000.135 To cover these increasedoperating costs, many utilities will have to raise ratessubstantially. Ironically, one result will be thatissuance of new debt for capital outlays will besomewhat more difficult. In addition, the careful andfrequent system monitoring required by new regula-tions will add to local costs, especially if the utilityis unequipped to do complex chemical testingin-house, or if private laboratories are not easilyaccessible.

Iz%avid Schuare, U.S. 13twironmtmtal Protection Agency, personal Communication Apr. 27, 1990.l~or e-les, see the following pamphlets fkom the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Wwging TwMoIof@s: Altive Wastmabr

Collection Systems,” December 1983; “OverlandFlow: An Update,” October 1984; “Less Costly WastewaterTreatment for Your Tbm” September1983; and “Land Treatment: Rapid rnf’iitratio~” June 1984.

131u.s. 13nvironmmM Protection Agency. “Emerging Technologies: Alternative Wastewater collection Systems,” Op. CiL footnoti 130.IQ*ss~, op. cit., footnote 60.13SU.S. ~v~oma~~t=tion A~ncy, Atitrationand Resources Managemen~A PreZiminqAnalysis of the PubZic Costs ofEnw”ronmentaZ

Protection: 1981-2000 (Waabingto~ DC!: 1990), p. ii.l%bid., p. 15.ls%id., p. 54


Table 4-4-Summary of Local Government Environmental Expenditures by Media(In billions of 1988 dollars)

PercentPercent Percent increase

Program 1987 of total 2000 a of total 1987-2000

Water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $11.4 35.O% $21.1 39.3% 85%Drinking water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.8 45.4 22.2 41.4 50Solid waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.7 9.7 18.0 59Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.9 0.7 1.3 133Total local spending . . . . . . . . . . . 32.6 100.0 53.7 100.0 65a Gst of rn~rltalnlng 1987 levels of environmental quality plUS costs Of n@V regulation%b in~~es costs to deiiver Setices.

SOURCE: Apogee Research from U.S. Bureau of the Census and data prepared in 1988 by the Environmental Lawinstitute from Environmentai Protection Agency Regulatory impact Analyses.

Table 4-5-Average Annual Household Payments for Environmental Services for a Sample of8,032 Cities, Towns, and Townships (in 1988 dollars)

Additional payments to Additional payments to Total estimatedmaintain current Ievels of comply with new environ- household payments

Average payments environmental quality mental and service for environmentalCity size ,

.in 1987 in 2000 standards in 2000 protection in 2000

500 or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $670 $593 $317 $1,580501 -2,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473 223 67 7632,501 - 10,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433 143 29 60510,001 - 50,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444 197 24 66550,001- 100,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 142 24 539100,001 - 250,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 111 34 436250,001 - 500,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 126 68 529500,001 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 140 93 626Population weighted average . . . 419 180 48 647SOURCE: Apogee Research, inc., from data cornpiied by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, and 1986 Survey of Community Water Systems, mnducted by the

Research Triangie institute for the Environmentai Protection Agency, Office of Drinking Water, Oct. 23, 1987.

Impacts on Households

Although some communities will continue tosubsidize environmental public works, the majorfinancial impact of regulatory compliance will fallon individual households through higher rates. Ifcurrent trends continue through 2000, the averagehousehold will spend about $650 a year on chinkingwater, wastewater treatment, and solid waste man-agement, or 54 percent more than in 1987136 (seetable 4-5). However, rates and increases will varysubstantially from community to community. Forexample, Boston is anticipating a tripling of sewerand water rates to finance the mandated cleanup ofBoston Harbor. In Cedar Park, Texas, a recentlydeveloped suburb of Austin, rates are now relativelyhigh, but are not expected to increase much becausecapital requirements are low, and no expendituresare anticipated for compliance with new regulations.In recently built communities, rate increases tend to

be lower, because facilities are newer and moreefficient.

Across the board, system size is the majordeterminant of rate increases (see table 4-5 again).Utility charges in very small systems are anticipatedto increase about 135 percent compared to 50percent in mid-size cities and 60 percent in largejurisdictions. Small system costs are high becausethey lack economies of scale and technical andmanagement expertise and usually pay more forcredit.

Wastewater Issues

In 1988 EPA estimated that $84 billion in capitalinvestment would be needed to bring all municipalwastewater treatment facilities into compliance withthe Clean Water Act standards.137 These estimatesare probably low, because many of the regulationsare not in final form. In addition to construction andupgrading facilities to comply with secondary treat-

1361bid., p. 29.1371bid., p. 3.


Table 4-S-New Regulations That Will Impose Local Costs

Regulation Status

A. Drinking waterInorganic compounds (IOCs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Soluble organic compounds (SOCs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fluorides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lead and copper corrosion control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lead and copper maximum containment Ievel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Coliform monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Surface water treatment rule: filtered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Surface water treatment rule: unfiltered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Radionuclides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Disinfections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B. Wastewater treatmentSecondary treatment of municipal wastewater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pretreatment requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sewage sludge disposal-technical regulations for use and disposal. . . . .Storm water management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C. Solid waste disposalMunicipal landfill Subtitle D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Municipal waste combusters-air standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Municipal waste combusters-ash disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D. Miscellaneous regulationsUnderground storage tanks-technical standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Underground storage tanks-f inancial standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Asbestos in schools rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Title iii requirements . . .

in developmentin developmentPromulgatedPromulgatedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedin developmentin development

PromulgatedPromulgatedIn developmentIn development

Proposedin developmentin development

PromulgatedIn developmentPromulgatedPromulgated

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Administration and Resources Management, A Pre/hnk)aryAna/ysk of the Pub//c Cods of Entironmentd Prot~tjon: 1981-2000 (Washington, DC: 1990), p. 44.

ment requirements, communities are mandated tosolve other problems such as combined seweroverflow (CSO). (See wastewater treatment sectionof this chapter for details.) Elimination of CSOs inlarge cities like Boston and Chicago will costbillions of dollars. Costs are likely to be proportion-ally large for mid-size jurisdictions. Nashville, forexample, anticipates spending $633 million onconstruction of deep tunnels and storage tanks in thecity’s downtown to hold CSOs and to expandtreatment capacity.138 Prospective governmentalregulations on sludge disposal, toxics, nonpointsource pollution, and wetland protection may im-pose additional costs.

Federal grants have played a key role in financingwastewater treatment facilities. During the early1980s, Federal construction grants, averaging $4billion a year, supplied roughly one-half of allinvestment in wastewater facilities;139 municipalbonds, general fund revenues, and States provided

the rest. Beginning in 1989, construction grants werereplaced by grants capitalizing State RevolvingLoan Funds (SRFs). Authorization for the program,which was designed as a transitional effort toestablish self-sufficient State loan programs, expiresin 1994. While all 50 States and Puerto Rico haveestablished SRFs and each has received at least onecapitalization grant, SRFs will fall far short ofmeeting local investment needs. Even if capitaliza-tion grants are leveraged, at least 20 States facecombined financing needs of nearly $57 billion.l40

Drinking Water Issues

Detailed costs of compliance with the SDWA arejust beginning to be calculated, because final rulesare in place for only a handful of regulations. At aminimum, local governments will have to absorb ananticipated 50 percent increase in annual outlays forwater. The majority of costs will be imposed byefforts to comply with EPA regulations for filteringsurface water, controlling contaminants, providing

lsg’’Nashvfile Plan Hits $633 Milliou” Engineering News, Aug. 9, W90, p. 11.Is~vimmm~ protection Agency, op. cit., footnote 133, p. 19.

l%id., p. 19.


Table 4-7—Total National Cost Impact of Compliance With Office of Drinking Water Regulations(In millions of 1986 dollars)

Number of Annualized Average annual Total annualsystems Capital Annual capital and monitoring compliance

Rule affected cost O&M cost O&M cost cost cost

Final:Fluoride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385 $ 32.5 $ 3.0 $ 6.8Volatile organic compounds . . . . . 1,824 164.4

$ 0.2 $ 7.013.4 32.7 23.1 55.8

Surface water treatment . . . . . . . . 10,288 2,938.5 166.4 511.6 17.1 528.6Total coliforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,183 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.2 75.2Proposed:Phase II soluble organic

compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,284 288.4 11.5 45.4 32.2 77.5Phase II inorganic compounds . . 192 79.6 6.6 15.9 6.0 21.9Lead and copper:

Maximum contaminantlevel rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947 333.7 35.4 74.6 0.9 75.5

Corrosion byproducts . . . . . . . . 42,980 599.0 157.3 227.6 32.0 259.7Prospective: a

Radionuclides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,867 3,771.1 347.4 790.3 2.6 792.9Disinfection requirement . . . . . . . 103,354 1,352.0 316.0 474.8 12.8 487.7Phase V sulfates . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,089 214.0 33.2 77.0 6.2 83.2Arsenic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 59.0 5.1 23.5 23.5Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,832.2 1,095.3 2,280.2 208.3: 2,488.5KEY: O&M = operations and maintenance.%andated by the U.S. Environmental Protective Agency; has not yet developed proposed regulations.SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protective Agency, Office of Drinking Water, Estimates of the Tota/Bemtits and Tota/CostsAssoaated Wth /n@ernentatiofl

ot the 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act(Washington, DC: Nov. 27, 1989), p. 12.

adequate supply and storage capacity, and replacingcorroded and leaking distribution systems (see table4-6).

The impact of EPA “drinking water standards willvary among systems depending on what rules apply(see table 4-7). Nationally, regulating radionuclideshas the highest price tag-about $793 millionannually-because of high capital costs and therelatively large number of systems affected. How-ever, the per-system cost of meeting surface watertreatment regulations (SWTR) will be greater, be-cause fewer systems are out of compliance now.SWTR, controlling total coliforms and meetingdisinfection requirements, comprises 40 percent ofall local compliance costs, because the problems arepervasive and costly to address. Expected rules forwell-head protection and regulating disinfectionbyproducts are likely to add significantly to compli-ance costs.

System size is also important in determiningcompliance costs, since large systems benefit fromeconomies of scale. Over one-half of total capital

requirements are attributed to small systems servingless than 10,000 persons, and within that groupone-half of the costs fall on systems serving fewerthan 3,300 persons.141 In Pennsylvania, 90 percentof drinkin g water violations occur in small sys-tems.142

Solid Waste Management Issues

The cost of solid waste collection and construc-tion and operation of landfills and incinerators isexpected to rise to about 60 percent from approxi-mately $6 billion per year in 1987 to $10 billion in2000 and will account for 18 percent of environ-mental spending (see table 4-4 again). Existinglandfills are rapidly reaching capacity, and bittersiting disputes are forcing new facilities further outand increasing per-unit disposal costs. While waste-to-energy plants and incinerators are preferred bylocal governments, they are more expensive to buildand operate and also face siting problems. Rules forcontrolling gas pollutants and ash from incinerators,under development by EPA, are likely to increasecosts.

IAIu.s. Envko~ent~ ~otmtion Agency, Mice of Drink@ Water, Estimates of the Total Benefits and Total Costs Associated With Zmplernentationof the 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (Washington DC: 1989), p. 19.

IAWommOnw~~ of Pennsylvania, Dep~ent of Environmental Resources, Division of Water Supplies, Community Waler Supply: ZSSWS adPolicy Options (Harrisburg, PA: February 1990), p. 6.


Financing and Management Strategies

The impact of sharply rising operating and capitalcosts can be reduced by increasing revenues andmore cost-effective management. Historically, mu-nicipal sewer and water services and, to a lesserextent, waste disposal have been underpriced. Thedifference between the rates users pay and full costs,including maintenance, depreciation, and capitalimprovement reserves, has been subsidized byGeneral Fund revenues and intergovernmental aid,in the case of wastewater treatment. Loca1 officialshave been reluctant to raise rates, fearing a politicalbacklash from consumers who think of environ-mental public works as rights, rather than as capitalintensive services. Through the years, underpricing,coupled with rising costs, has led utilities to cutinvestment in system maintenance and improve-ment, a major cause of the deteriorated condition ofmany municipal systems. A rational methodologyfor rate-setting would seek to cover marginal orincremental costs rather than average costs, whichcan lead to excessive demand and inflated estimatesof future needs.

Full-Cost Pricing

In response to tightening local budgets, somecommunities are raising sewer, water, and trashcollection charges to cover full costs and adoptingnew rate structures. Rate structure options includeraising seasonal or peak rates when demand is high,and block rates that charge a higher or lower per-unitrate for each additional block, depending on the localpolicy objectives to conserve or use excess capacity.Encouragement to raise rates is coming from manysources, from environmentalists to private andgovernmental creditors, who insist on full-costpricing to ensure debt repayment. Independentsewer and water authorities, removed from politicalpressure and with mandates to be fiscally self-sufficient, are in a better position than local electedofficials to carry out rate reforms.143 The AmericanWater Works Association is in the process ofdeveloping a new manual on alternative rate struc-tures that will help local systems determine their bestapproach. 144

Attracting Private Capital

Where State laws permit, local jurisdictions cancharge developers impact fees to pay for construc-tion of sewer and water improvements required bytheir development. In some communities, officialshave raised capital funds by selling developersaccess rights to prospective water or wastewaterplants. These strategies and their variations providepublic works departments with upfront capital andensure that facilities are built to local standards andcan be easily integrated into the larger communitysystem. Because the real estate market must bestrong to attract developers willing to pay impactfees or purchase access rights, these strategies areused most frequently in high growth areas, such asCalifornia, Florida, and Colorado.

Operating service contracts are another form ofprivate sector participation. While they do not lowercapital needs for local governments, they can cutoperating costs and allow a buildup of revenues forcapital outlays.

Although enthusiasm for private ownership ofenvironmental facilities has waned since the passageof the 1984, 1986, and 1988 Tax Reform Acts, solidwaste management is one of the few areas in whichprivate ownership is still considered profitable.However, private investment is more likely to be incollection, recycling, and resource recovery than inownership of landfills.

Demand Reduction

Raising user rates is an effective way to reducedemand and system expansion costs, but few com-munities have consistently used rate increases tomanage demand. However, in 1987, officials inOrange County, Florida, added a 50 percent pre-mium for “drinking water above 15,000 gallons permonth; as a result, demand dropped by amountsranging from 11 to 25 percent within the countyservice areas. Experience in California indicates thatprice changes must be substantial to reduce demand;moderate increases do not change behavior. Further-more, over time users adjust to price changes andreturn to former use patterns unless rates areincreased steadily.145

M3Apog& Research, ~% “Wastewater lklanagemen~” a report prepared for the National Council on Public Works rmprovemen~ 1987, p. 153.l~~stopher WoodcocQ Camp, Dresser& McKee, Inc., personal commticatio~ Mar. 5, 1990.

Idsclaudia Copelmd, Water Consemafion: Optionsfor rhe ResidenriazSector (Washington DC: Congressional Reseamh Service, September 1989),p. 41.


Consumer education about costs can reducedemand. Most consumers are unaware of how muchwater they use, but when they are informed, byadvertisements and inserts in utility bills, their usagecan decrease as much as 15 percent. Moreover,providing consumers with retrofit kits for showerheads and toilets can result in a 5 to 9 percent watersavings, although over time 15 to 20 percent of thosewho install the equipment remove it.l46 In solidwaste management, controlling demand throughpublic education about source reduction and recy-cling are promising strategies, although only about10 percent of U.S. solid waste is recycled. Theunpredictable nature of the market and pricesthwarts development of the industry at present.

Timely maintenance of sewer and water pipes canreduce demand by minimizing water loss andpreventing the contamination of drinking watersources. Dual systems offer an alternative to the highcost of treating all water to drinkin g water quality,and water reuse can reduce demand.

Regional Planning

European experience shows that regional plan-ning can improve the efficiency of water supplydevelopment and wastewater and solid waste man-agement, l47 but few regions in the United States canboast of such achievements. Uncoordinated devel-opment of land use and public works plans and lackof integration of drinkin g water, wastewater, andsolid waste plans ignore cross-media impacts andlead to inefficiency and increasing operating andcapital costs. To be effective regional planningneeds reliable funding and a strong State legislativemandate coupled with financial leverage to encour-age local cooperation.148

Groundwater protection is an important planningand management issue. Sources of groundwatercontamination include many types of waste disposal(including septic systems and hazardous waste)leaking storage tanks, fuel transportation and spills,well operations, agricultural practices, road salting,

and urban runoff, as well as mine drainage. Ground-water standards “.. . can be used. . . to establishlimits on contaminants in effluents (that is dis-charges), evaluate ambient groundwater quality,define the level of protection to be achieved,establish a goal for remedial clean-up, triggerenforcement, and help establish preventive pro-grams to protect groundwater.’ ’149 Other measuresto control sources of contamination include reducingthe disposal of wastes on or in the land, enforcingstrict standards for sources of contamination, andprohibiting the placement of potential contamina-tion sources above aquifers that are particularlyvulnerable to contamination.

ConclusionsAir, earth, and water are parts of the Nation’s

common resources. They are essential to humanhealth and to community development and deserveprotection by far-sighted and well-integrated policy.However, governmental policy tools for providingthe protection are the products of numerous, dispar-ate laws, EPA regulations, State actions, and courtrulings. In the aggregate, these address obviouspollution problems from specific sources, but do notcomprise comprehensive policy guidance for envi-ronmental stewardship. For example, relatively littleis known about groundwater movement and theintrusion of pollutants into drinking water suppliesfrom landfills, sewer overflows, and other manmadefacilities. Although about two-thirds of streampollutants are from nonpoint sources, primarily fromagriculture, data about these pollutants are inade-quate and regulatory tools are scarce for controllingthe contamination. It is extremely hard to shape goodpolicy and legislation and to justify the costs ofmeeting standards when problems are so poorlyunderstood.

EPA has recently released a report from itsScience Advisory Board that urges the agency tofocus on the environment as an integrated whole.l50

Congress could help State and local agencies that

14elbid., p. 42.ldTApogee Res~ch, Inc., op. cit., footnote 143, pp. [email protected] de~s, S= U.S. CoWess, mce of Technolo~ Assessment, Rebuilding the Foundiztions:A Special Report on State and~calpublic WOrkS

Financing and Management, OTA-SET-447 (Washington DC: U.S. Governrnent Printing ~lce, March 1990).149us. ~m~ ACwm@ OMCO, Groutiater Quality: State Activities To Guard Against Contaminants, Report to the ~ subcommittee

on Hazardous Wastes and lbxic Substances, Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate (Washington.L DC: U.S. Governmentprinting ~lce, Febmary 1988), p. 12.

1~.s. fi~ma~ ~t=tion Agency, Reducl.ng Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental protection, Report by ~ ScienceAdvisory Board to the Administrator (Washington, DC: September 1990).


must comply with EPA standards by articulating theNation’s goals for environmental policy in a com-prehensive mandate for the agency, and by directingit to undertake research to improve its data andanalysis of environmental risk so it can set achiev-able standards. If EPA standards were based on theiroverall impact on water quality and on their potentialhealth effects, local decisionmakers might havewider choices for treatment technologies. Consult-ing more frequently with State and local operatingofficials during the standard setting process couldhelp identify alternative approaches and avoid futureproblems.

Adequate financial resources must also be pro-vided for the agency. If Congress considers legisla-tion to elevate EPA to Cabinet status, it would betimely to consider a clearly stated mission topreserve environmental quality from degradationacross media as part of the legislation.

Changes at EPA

The Nation does not have an estimate of theoverall improvements in water quality since the1972 amendments to the Clean Water Act. Insuffi-cient data and lack of a methodology to measureimprovements to water quality and health effectsmake estimates of the benefits of standards verydifficult. The high costs of regulatory complianceindicate that EPA should make developing datato support estimates of benefits and to directfuture regulations a top priority.

Information on local environmental conditions isalso limited. Data are lacking on types and amountsof sludge produced, about the purity of water at thetap, about the condition of underground pipe sys-tems in many cities, and the efficiency of specifictreatment plants. Some cities do not even have anaccurate inventory of their systems. Local inven-tory and condition assessment information issparse; many system managers do not have theresources to initiate a program to accumulate theinformation, and cannot correlate the informa-tion they do have with a preventive maintenanceprogram. Federal or State technical assistanceprograms and incentives are needed to addressthese problems.

Communities adopt new EPA standards slowly,because their experience has shown that EPA islikely to change pollutant standards as more dataaccumulate. The cost of meeting EPA regulations is

already high, and frequent and inconsistent changesin standards impose enormous hardships on theoperating agencies that must implement them.

Environmental regulations focus on single-mediaeffects, and environmental research has followed thesame course, although recognition of cross-mediaeffects and interest in research in this field aregrowing (see chapter 6 for further details). Contin-ued research on a hazard, such as lead in drinkingwater or dioxin, usually brings better understandingof the risks. Once regulations or standards have beenissued and if subsequent research shows that therisks have been overestimated, it is extremelydifficult to roll back or change the standard. Thecosts of reducing many hazards to levels indicatedby early estimates may be excessive. Informedregulatory and policy decisions can be made onlyafter extensive research, testing, and evaluation.Although it can ensure that standards are set,requiring EPA to develop standards by a specificdate may result in unworkable requirements.

Standards and Regulations

State and local officials responsible for compli-ance contend that EPA standards afford unevenprotection and can create difficult interjurisdictionalissues, when pollutants from one jurisdiction causea neighboring municipality to violate regulatorystandards, for example.

EPA’s wastewater treatment regulations are basedon strict definitions of primary and secondarytreatment and biochemical oxygen demand andsuspended solids in outflow. Despite the fact that thestandards are intended to specify performance, theireffect is often to steer jurisdictions to a specificfacility design that has a proven record of meetingeffluent standards (in the case of wastewater treat-ment). Absent effective incentives for trying newtechnologies, regulations based on best availabletechnology tend to stifle the search for innovativealternatives. Many State and local agencies lack thetechnical ability to consider and weigh treatment anddisposal alternatives for different circumstances.Moreover, standards for environmental public worksoften limit options for local authorities, since theburden of proving that an alternate but untriedtreatment method or facility falls on the requestingagency, which lacks data to show its effectiveness.

EPA could seek ways to develop regulations thatare more likely to have the effect of improving and


measuring protection performance, rather than con-trolling end-of-the pipe pollutants. Such standardscould provide localities and equipment supplierswith flexibility to meet health and environmentalgoals and to reward improved system performance.In addition, methodologies for setting risk-basedregulations and better methods for assessing theconsequences of regulations are needed.

Protecting Public Works Investments

OTA concludes that the Nation’s enormousinvestment in environmental public works canbest be protected by upgrading existing infra-structure to obtain optimal performance and tomeet new standards. Other priorities includerehabilitating systems to ensure against waterloss or contamination due to leaks, initiatingprograms to prevent the intrusion of contami-nants into supplies and treatment facilities, pre-ventive maintenance, and education and trainingfor personnel. With some notable exceptions,localities can meet many of the costs for theseactivities by pricing services at full cost.

Costs of maintaining and upgrading facilities toensure compliance fall disproportionately heavilyon small systems because of their small scale andhigh unit costs. Many small treatment systems arenot in compliance with current regulations, andthose with limited financial resources will havedifficulty meeting new environmental standards,even using known technologies. Although EPA andsome States have initiated programs to slow theformation of new, small systems and to providetechnical assistance to existing systems, theseefforts are not sufficient. Congress could encourageEPA to develop incentives for States to establishconsolidation programs and for manufacturers tofocus on equipment for small systems. Large, olderjurisdictions with declining populations and shrink-ing economic bases may also have fiscal difficultyrenewing and upgrading their public works to meetFederal standards. Congress may wish to addressthe issue of environmental enforcement policy,given the wide discrepancies in financial re-sources, technical information, and managementcapabilities. OTA concludes that such difficultiesare likely to result in noncompliance in largenumbers of jurisdictions, with small systemshaving particular problems. Additional Federalfiscal assistance would help States and jurisdic-

tions with low economic bases to avoid thisalternative.

Federal tools for affecting State and local rehabil-itation, conservation, and maintenance policies arelimited, but can be focused through standards andincentives. Since pollution prevention is far lesscostly than cleanup, Congress could stiffen mea-sures that identify and penalize polluters. Themanufacture, sale, and use of consumer products thatpollute through use or disposal could be limited, andattempts to measure the environmental costs ofproducts as well as the potential economic loss ofnonproduction could be encouraged. A pollutionremediation fee on items that pollute on use or ondisposal is one possible source of income forFederal assistance to State and local governmentsto support compliance efforts.

Training and Education

Already complex, environmental technologies arebecoming more complicated and more dependent onhighly trained personnel. Environmental infrastruc-ture utilizes a host of highly sophisticated electroniccommunications, electrical, and mechanical equip-ment as well as intricate microbiological and chemic-al testing apparatus. Yet the Nation’s supply ofwell-trained managers, engineers, and technicians toinstall, operate, and maintain advanced treatmentfacilities is inadequate. Even at the State level,filling positions with well-trained personnel is aconstant struggle; smaller systems, while required tomeet the same standards as larger systems, do nothave the resources to train their staff or to hirealready-trained personnel. Existing technical assist-ance, such as the circuit rider programs, haveprovided some assistance, but more needs to bedone. Congress could support programs fortraining and education of State environmentalagency personnel and provide incentives to oper-ating systems that undertake training. Profes-sional organizations could assist by developingand carrying out mentor programs for youngand/or inexperienced agency personnel. AnyFederal financial assistance could be tied toratemaking that covers the costs of staffing foroperations and maintenance.

Technological Innovation

New and innovative technologies can addressmany public works problems and can help agenciesdesign, construct, operate, and maintain complex


systems more efficiently and productively. Forexample, instrumentation and measurement technol-ogies are available to monitor contaminants enteringor leaving a facility and eliminate the guessworknow associated with operations and maintenance.

However, public works managers are slow tointroduce new technologies, because they lackinformation, funding, training, and incentives tochange. New technologies often address only onepart of a system’s problems; they must also fit intothe existing staffing and infrastructure framework.Market characteristics do not encourage manufac-turers to develop innovative equipment for smallsystems, and consequently new technologies areaimed mainly at large and medium systems. Thedemonstration of innovative treatment technologiesis stifled without a Federal program to supportrisk-sharing arrangements among public and privateparticipants; engineering firms and local decision-makers will continue to choose technology with along track record. Federal actions to providefinancial incentives for development of innova-tive technology, and to stimulate evaluation ofnew technologies through applied R&D pro-

grams, technical assistance, and informationdissemination, could improve the efficiency andproductivity of environmental public works.

Environmental problems are very complex, andtechnology choices are often costly and inflexible.The speed with which manufacturers create newproducts that degrade the environment once in thewaste stream puts great pressure on those responsi-ble for dealing with the results. Because environ-mental technologies are often developed as solutionsfor a specific medium and not to address the rootcause of the problem, they may create new andunexpected difficulties. The rapid pace of changemeans that a technology choice often represents botha financial and a facility commitment that does notallow much adjustment once implementation be-gins. Incentives to discourage waste generationshould encourage manufacturers to avoid prod-ucts that have adverse effects on the environment.If properly designed, such incentives would affectthe raw materials, the manufacturing process,manufacturing byproducts, and/or the ultimatedisposal of the product.

CHAPTER 5

Cross-Cutting Technologiesfor Infrastructure

Photo credit American Consulting Engineers Council

ContentsPage

Measurement, Instrumentation, and Nondestructive Evaluation Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181Sensors and Measuring Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182Public Works Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Information and Decision Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185Maintenance Management Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185Geographic Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185Artificial Intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185Simulation Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

Communications and Positioning Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188Signal Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Field Construction Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190Trenchless Construction Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192Soil Improvements and Stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193Dredging Technology and Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193Rail Track Construction and Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Materials and Corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194Asphalt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196Geotextiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197Plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197Advanced Composites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197Maintenance: Protecting Against Corrosion . . . . . * . . ., . . . + . . * . . . . ., . . . . .,, , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Technology Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201Designing the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201Procurement Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202Standards and Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203Risk and Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204Repair and Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204Proprietary Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205Personnel Training, Education, and Recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206promising Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207Technology Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207Personnel Training, Education, and Recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

BoxesBox Page5-A, Geographic Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186543. Automatic Meter Reading Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1915-C. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Alternative and Innovative

Technology Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

TablesTable Page5-1. Measurement Technologies for Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1835-2. Nondestructive Evaluation Techniques for Public Works . . . ., . .,, . . * . . .,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1845-3. Types of Trenchless Construction and Rehabilitation Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1925-4. Concrete Types Used in Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1965-5. Corrosion Reduction Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2005-6. Rehabilitation Techniques for Corroded Bridge Decks and Substructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2005-7. Alternatives for Technology Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

CHAPTER 5

Cross-Cutting Technologies for Infrastructure

. . . infrastructure choices [including technologies] are choices of resource allocation [and]must be dealt with in the political arena.l

Technologies for public works have come a longway since the days of open sewers and roads madeof stones embedded in the soil; and the technologiesand materials available to designers, constructionengineers, and managers continue to evolve. As theneed to maintain and repair the Nation’s infrastruc-ture becomes more acute and the value of greaterefficiency and higher operating standards grows,advances in technology and materials can providemany opportunities to save time and money forpublic works. Most technologies are applicable tomore than one type of infrastructure, and the mostuseful of these cross-cutting technologies for publicworks may be clustered into the following generalcategories:

● measurement and nondestructive evaluationtools,

. information and decision systems,● communications and positioning systems,. field construction technologies, and● materials and corrosion.

These categories are not new, but a number oftechnological advances have led to devices and

Photo credt: Library of Congress

Today’s technologies make this nonmechanized highwayconstruction project of the 1940s look outdated.

systems of remarkable versatility, precision, andpower that can decrease costs and increase reliabil-ity. This chapter describes some of the most usefultechnologies for infrastructure and discusses thereasons that many of them are used today in privateindustry, but have not yet found wide application inpublic works.

Measurement, Instrumentation, andNondestructive Evaluation Tools

High-speed, noncontact, sensing technologies—radar, infrared thermography, laser optics, ultra-sound, and others-make it possible to surveyhundreds of miles of pavement, piping, or a numberof bridge decks with great accuracy in a single day.The applications already commercially available orunder development include radar to detect pavementvoids, infrared thermography to identify delamina-tion in concrete bridge decks, automated imagingand image processing for high-speed surveys ofpavement surface distress, and lasers for evaluationof pavement profiles and continuous measurementof pavement deflection.2

Sensors and Measuring Instruments

Today’s advanced sensors, made smaller andmore accurate by silicon microchips, include ultra-sound, fiber optics, and infrared optics. Radiation,sound, temperature, moisture, pressure, and otherphenomena can be measured with a high degree ofprecision using appropriate sensors.

However, the major areas stimulating new sensordevelopment include advanced manufacturing,power generation, security, waste technology, andenvironmental protection, rather than public works.3

Sensitive electronic devices do not function wellunder the adverse operating conditions-includingdirt, humidity, temperature and pressure extremes,

Iscott ]o~Sow ~omentS, ~Royce won (~,), Perspectives in ur~nl~as~uc~re ~M~o~ ~: Natio~ tidemy Press, 1984), p. 171.

%ermeth R. Maser, “From Guesswork to Guamn tee?” Civil Engineering, vol. 59, No. 9, September 1989, p. 78.sK~e~ B. Steinbruegge, “New Sensors for ‘I&lay’s Industry,” Design News, vol. 42, July 7, 1986, p. 109.

-181–


and the presence of harsh chemicals-that character-ize much of public works. Nonetheless, a number ofsensors have been developed that can monitor undersuch conditions. For example, detecting leakage orthe chemical composition of fluids in large publicworks systems, such as drinking water and waste-water treatment plants, has been made easier byadvances in sensor technology for detecting fluidcontent and flow rates.

Remote sensing, automated control, and measure-ment instrumentation can enhance marine dredgingoperations. A position indicator coupled with anautomatic control system to orient and positionequipment precisely can increase dredging effi-ciency and reduce the amount of material dredgedunnecessarily. Modern instruments used to measurematerial flows and partial automation of main-tenance dredging can reduce annual costs by40 percent.4

Automated railroad track measurement, usingequipment mounted on railcars, can give dynamicmeasurements of track geometry under loadedconditions. Using electro-optical or electromagneticsensors coupled with inertial sensors, the equipmentmeasures and records such parameters as tracklocation, gage, profile, alignment, and crosslevel.Such systems provide repeatable track geometrymeasurements at close intervals in a fraction of thetime required by track walking crews measuring atlonger intervals.5 These data can be fed into compu-terized maintenance planning tools, which canidentify and set priorities for needed track mainte-nance. “Smart sensors,” which indicate their ownbreakdown, will enter the market soon, Table 5-1provides information on other major types of sens-ing technologies for public works.

Japanese manufacturers have made wide use ofpressure sensors on computer-controlled machinetools, hydraulic robot limbs, and vacuum-assistedpicking tools.6 Sensitive pressure sensors, implantedin robot “hands,’ can make machines more tactile,while optical sensors enable robots to discriminateamong the patterns that are being examined. Re-

search and development (R&D) is under way todevelop micromachined sensors that would measureacceleration and vibration of machinery. Althoughthese sensors can be very useful in especiallyhazardous construction or maintenance activities,much of the public works environment is too harshto make use of such sensitive equipment reliable andcost-effective.

Nondestructive Evaluation (N DE)

NDE describes any method of examining thephysical or mechanical properties of a structure orcomponent (pavement or a machine part) withoutaffecting it permanently or significantly. Humaninspection is the most common NDE method. Moreautomated inspection tools include visual, optical,liquid penetrant, magnetic particle, eddy current,ultrasonic, radiography, and leak detection tech-niques. Widely used in industry, nondestructivetesting instruments have become very powerful,especially when coupled with microprocessors.Because they can improve productivity, NDE instru-ments are becoming indispensable for automatedinspection in computerized manufacturing plants.Computers are now being interfaced with NDEinstruments from every category, including thoseused for public works.7

No single NDE method is appropriate for all typesof materials, structures, and types of damage. Somemethods are suitable for detecting surface cracks,others for examining deep within structures, al-though resolution deteriorates the deeper one looksinside a structure. To minimize error, many methodsmay be used in combination to determine a struc-ture’s condition. Field conditions such as changingweather, moisture content, and shock waves frommoving vehicles also make nondestructive testing ofpublic works extremely difficult. Moreover, hetero-geneous materials, such as the asphalt and concretewidely used in infrastructure are relatively difficultsubjects for NDE. The judgments of trained expertsare still needed to determine infrastructure condi-tion, because NDE, particularly for public works, isnot yet a purely scientific process.8

4Natiod Remhcomcfl, CO remission onhgineering and lkchnicrd Systems, Marine Board, Dredging Coastal Ports (Washingto~ DC: NationalAcademy Press, 1985), p. 112.

s~blic lkchnoIogy, ~c., “Track Geometry Measurement System” Transit Technology Briefs, vol. 2, No. 3, fall 1982.Ssteinbme=e, op. cit., footnote 3, P. 30.

7John E, ~gh~ “NDT Is ~—Slowly But Surely,” Quulity, vol. 27, No. 1, January 1988, pp. 2022.sJo~ Broo~lel~ Stitegic Highway R~~h ho- perSO~ ~mm~Mtiou Aug. 9* 1989”

Chapter 5—Cross-Cutting Technologies for Infrastructure . 183

Table 5-l—Measurement Technologies for Public Works

Physical property Technology uses Comments

Surface pressure . . . . . . Silicon crystal-based sensors

Temperature . . . . . . . . . Fiber optics; infrared detectors

Fluid properties . . . . . . . Moisture sensors: electrolytic cell,aluminum oxide, and chilledmirror; pressure wave viscositysensor

Infrared optical sensors

Chromatography

Truck weighing systems for high-ways; robotic handling devices

Process control if temperature is afactor; pavement inspectionequipment; overheating

Treatment plants and pipe net-works; treatment plants for chemi-cal composition

Detect presence and amount oforganic materials in treatmentplants

Chemical composition of liquidsand gases

Applications limited because sensi-tive equipment cannot tolerateharsh public works environment.

Limitations in harsh and rapidlychanging environments.

Expense limits use in public works.

Used in various environmentalpublic works testing activities.


Sound waves are frequently used NDE methods.A simple procedure to determine flaws in relativelythin pavement areas, such as bridge decks, is to draga set of chains across suspect areas. A loud,drum-like sound results if delamination, or separa-tion of the pavement into layers, has Occurred.9 Moreadvanced techniques involve transmitting ultrasonicwaves through target materials or test structures andmeasuring the echo response as the waves bounceback. l0 Ultrasonic devices have benefited fromadvances in circuit design on silicon chips, andportable devices that produce high-frequency soundwaves and accurately record the signals from thetested object have become common. A commer-cially available, ultrasonic instrument tied to amicroprocessor is being used for testing corrosioncracking in pipes.11

Tagged materials are a promising method forNDE in the future. If detectable particles areembedded in concrete and other materials, inspec-tors can quickly trace structural changes over time.Magnetic detection devices can be used to examinethe density distribution of embedded particles;damaged areas show changes in the average distribu-tion of the particles.12 Sonic devices emit a soundwave into the structure and measure the vibrations ofthe embedded particles. The particles in damagedmaterial vibrate more than those in solid concrete,


Nondestructive evaluation methods, such as ultrasonics,help inspectors determine the physical condition of bridgesor other structures without affecting them permanently.

and a different echo is produced.13 Table 5-2summarizes a spectrum of current NDE methodssuitable for public works.

Public Works Experience

Measurement and nondestructive evaluation toolsare most useful for relatively homogeneous materi-als and in controlled operating environments. Underother circumstances, including many typical infra-structure environments, the most sensitive NDE

%on Frascok Materials and Research Divisiom Vermont Agency of Transportation personal communication, Aug. 10, 1989.IOJfi M~hy, ~te~ Divkio~ New York Department of Transportation personal communicatio~ Aug. 9, 1989.llRo~fi H. mls and M&e C. Tsao, Nondestructive Inspection With Portable Ultrasonz”c Zmaging SySte?W Special wti~ Nbfication No. ~

(Washington DC: American Society for ‘Ihsting and Materials, 1987).l~van Amatci, ‘(M&@ Conmete Smarter Than It bolts,” Science News, vol. 135, May 6, 1989, p. 284.

ls’’Vibrating Iron Particles to Sound Out Problems,” Engineering News Report, vol. 223, No. 2, July 13, 1989, p. 15.


Table 5-2-Nondestructive Evaluation Techniques for Public Works

Technique Use Comments

Ultrasonic waves Detect flaws in pavement, voids in materials. Used for lockand dam inspections, up to 30 foot withina structure.

Impact echo Detects flaws by measuring structural strength of Requires access to only one side of structure.materials.

Radiographic (x-ray Detects flaws on materials and machinery. Requires access to both sides of subject material;radiation) involves high-energy radiation, well-trained

technicians, and safeguards.Eddy-current method Detects flaws at or near surface of electrically

conducting materials.Magnetic particle Detects surface cracks of ferrous materials. Very reliable.Liquid penetration Detects small discontinuities on a solid surface. Useful for nonmagnetic materials.Infrared thermography Detects surface flaws in almost all materials. Can detect voids and cavities around sewer pipes as

well as delamination and cracks in bridge decks.Ground probing radar Detects subsurface voids. Requires trained specialist to interpret recorded data.X-ray fluorescence Analyzes chemicals in solids and liquids. Commercially available equipment is highly special-

ized and expensive; not widely used in publicworks.

Electronic acoustic Detects leaks in underground pipes or tanks. Used in New York City, which has an old watersensor system.

Fiber optic probes Detect leaks, surface flaws, and other conditions. Monitors provide visual information; machine (orrobotic) vision can be used to detect surface flaws.


techniques are much less precise.14 Moreover, manynewer technologies, such as infrared thermographyand laser impulse interferometry, are still too expen-sive to be used routinely in the field. Furthermore,the expertise required to operate the sophisticatedequipment and analyze the test results is beyond thecapabilities of most State departments of transporta-tion (DOTS) and municipal water and sewageagencies.

Nevertheless the technologies hold great promisefor many public works applications. Highway re-searchers envision an NDE system combined withinformation technology to record dynamic changesin structures and predict reliably when bridges androads need repair or rehabilitation. Cost-effective,nondestructive life prediction systems may be avail-able within the next 5 years to help less experiencedinspectors predict structural life and plan for opera-tions and maintenance costs. However, the initialcosts of these new technologies will be relativelyhigh.

State Programs

New York State has one of the most advancednondestructive testing programs in the UnitedStates, 15 but it is not linked to an advanced

information system. To detect flaws in metal struc-tures, the New York DOT has used. eddy current,magnetic particle, and x-ray radiography techniquesand is experimenting with thermography, radar, andultrasound for checking pavements. Bridge decksare subjected to electrochemical analysis to detectcorrosion, and the agency uses the chain dragmethod to determine delamination. However, theState DOT cannot afford to purchase and maintainthe necessary NDE equipment, so it contracts withprivate firms to perform the tests, and it does nothave total cost estimates for its NDE activities.l6

The Vermont agency for transportation does itsown inspection of transportation infrastructure, andcontracts out as well. The agency estimates that itsdirect cost for conducting an in-house, predomi-nantly manual, bridge deck evaluation is 5 cents persquare foot, compared with 15 to 20 cents per squarefoot for infrared evaluation done by a private firm.However, bridge traffic is not interrupted during theinfrared evaluation, justifying its higher costs.

The Pennsylvania Department of Transporta-tion’s (PENNDOT) NDE program includes visualinspection, friction and skid testing, electrochemicalcorrosion detection, thermographic and radar test-ing, and underwater sonar testing. PENNDOT also

14&oo~eld, op. cit., footnote 8.lsfiid.16Mqhy, op. Cit., foo~ote 100

Chapter 5—Cross-cutting Technologies for Infrastructure . 185

utilizes information technology, maintaining com-puter databases of over 100,000 road segments and54,000 bridges, and creating models to evaluatedifferent management plans. Their software is avail-able to other DOTS. The cartographic division atPENNDOT is developing techniques to use theTIGER geographical information system (GIS) forsustaining and expanding the infrastructure. Finally,PENNDOT is researching machine vision tech-niques and expert systems for pavement inspectionand management.17

Information and Decision SystemsManagement information and decisionmaking

systems are already proving valuable tools for publicworks agencies where they have been implemented.The categories of these tools range widely andinclude artificial intelligence systems and decisionmodels. Public works managers have found mainte-nance management systems and GIS particularlyuseful in their activities.

Maintenance Management InformationSystems

Maintenance Management Information Systemsare essentially database management systems thatallow managers to set priorities and schedule pre-ventive maintenance. The systems can track allmaintenance activities (both scheduled and un-scheduled) and work crews, materials, and time torepair data, permitting planning for future activities.Such systems are not new, but their application topublic works infrastructure was slow until micro-computers became commonplace, and appropriate,user-friendly, and cost-effective software was devel-oped.

Geographic Information Systems

GIS are computer systems designed to manageinformation related to geographic locations. Theycan also store, analyze, and retrieve large volumes ofnongraphic data from other systems and displaygraphic map images and tie them to descriptive(nonnumerical) data from a specific location. Thesystems allow the user to enter, store, retrieve,

manipulate, and display geographic informationquickly and accurately; these decisionmaking aidsare particularly valuable. See box 5-A for moredetails on these powerful and versatile tools.

Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence uses computers configuredto provide automated reasoning. Examples of tech-nologies that use artificial intelligence are expertsystems, computer vision, and robotics.

Expert Systems

Expert systems are computer programs that at-tempt to duplicate an expert’s reasoning process tosolve problems in a given field. Unlike conventionalcomputer programs that process algorithms, expertsystems use heuristics (“if-then” rules) to adviseand guide users. Since they can be programmed toexplain their reasoning, expert systems can be usedas training tools to expand the expertise of a fewspecialists to a larger group of individuals.

Systems that could be useful to a public worksmanager include a computer model used in Canadato determine whether a contaminated industrial sitecan be cleaned up or whether the contaminationposes enough of a health hazard to require perma-nent abandonment.l8 The expert system asks pro-spective users of the site a series of questions, suchas what type of construction is planned for the site.The database includes information on the land users,possible land uses, more than 30 organic com-pounds, physical characteristics of soil types, andthe underlying geological formation.19 Prototypesystems have been developed to assist in such areasas highway and bridge design, traffic operations andcontrol, tra.file incident detection, urban sewersystem design, and highway noise barrier design.20

Although organizations see expert systems as asubstitute for trained or experienced specialists, veryfew sophisticated systems are routinely used today.The systems that are in use are devoted to trainingpeople about complicated procedures and to diag-nosing complex equipment and system problems.Moreover, current systems address clearly struc-tured conditions, and experts recognize that human

ITGwy Ho- Pennsylv@a Department of Transportation, personal communication Aug. 9, 1989.

lgDi~e Daniel, “AI Decides Safety of Contamma“ ted Sites,” Computing Canaalz, vol. 15, No. 15, July 20, 1989, pp. 1-4.l%id.~.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Survey of the State-of-theArt Expert/Knowledge Based Systems in Civil Engineering,” USA-CERL Special

Report P-87/01, October 1986.


Box S-A-Geographic Information Systems

A geographic information system (GIS) is a com-puter-based system designed to manage informationwith a spatial or geographic element. With geographiclocation as a basis, information (spatial and nonspatial,or attribute) pertaining to a particular location can bestored, analyzed, and retrieved A multipurpose GIScan meet many different local government needs andprovides automated tools to enter, store, retrieve,manipulate, and display geographic informationquickly and accurately. Scanning technology allowsrapid capture of everything from old engineeringdrawings to recent aerial photos. Once entered into aGIS, information can easily be updated and redraftedby the computer in different scales and in differentcombinations as needed for day-to-day decisionmak-ing.

Related systems, computer-aided design and draft-ing (CADD) programs, also produce graphical dis-plays, but are primarily used to create dimensionaldrawings, such as street plans and profiles, andnondimensional drawings, such as architectural ren-derings. CADD systems have links for databaseattributes, such as those of a GIS.

Automated mapping/facilities mapping (AM/

P h o t o c r e d i t : American Consulting Engineers Council

Computer-aided design and drafting (CADD) programspeed the work of infrastructure planners designers, andstructural planners. CADD programs can be used to create

dimensional drawings, such as street plans, and non-dimensional drawings, such as architectural renderings.

FM) systems, also related to GIS systems, evolved from the need for numerous mapping products within localagencies. The needs include parcel maps at different scales, park and planning maps, tax assessment maps, real estatemaps, water and sewer department maps, and street and bridge department maps. These systems have proven usefulfor operational decisions, inquiry response, land development planning decisions, resource planning decisions,management decisions, and policy decisionmaking.“ G I S , AM/FM, and CADD differ in user interface,discipline-specific procedures and terminology, data models, and applications; however, they share the samefundamental technology and the same enabling technologies, computer graphics, and database management

Computer graphics systems linked to AM/FM systems enable survey data to be processed at a speed comparableto electronic data collection. State-of-the-art computer mapping systems offer great flexibility in the

expertise cannot be replaced in every complex Research is currently being conducted to look atdecisionmaking context.21

Computer Vision

Machine or computer vision refers to the auto-mated analysis of visual images and can provide areliable method for analyzing images in real time.For example, in a current highway application, videocameras are linked to computers that analyze theimages to generate traffic flow and congestioninformation, which then serves as input for signaltiming algorithms.

the applications of machine vision to analyzingfacility condition. Highway cracking, patching, andpotholes are distress types best captured by visualdevices, but developing an automated system toidentify pavement problems presents significantchallenges. A complete inventory of distresses forasphalt or concrete pavements may exceed 20 types;current automated systems rarely cover more than 5or 6 types and must perform their tasks quickly andreliably. Once perfected, however, such systems willprovide highway authorities with cost-effective,


way information is presented; a library of symbols can be developed. If survey crews assign the symbol name inthe field relevant map symbols can be automatically placed as the graphics software processes the data.

GIS information that is common to most uses of a map can be located in layers within the same file; informationused less frequently can be placed in separate files. For example, all information required for project site selection,such as existing facilities, property boundaries, services, elevation contours, and buildings, can be stored in separatelayers and manipulated independently, yet viewed and analyzed as a single, comprehensive map.

GIS information includes spatial, or location, data and attribute data. Spatial data is based on a geographiccoordinate system; items can include land parcel, area and district, facility, and natural features. Attribute data istraditional database information that can be referenced geographically, such as by addresses, and can includelocation by events, conditions, demographics, construction permits, or police reports. (For examples of data seetable 5-A-l.) Table 5-A-1-Selected Geographic Information

Geographic information serves a broad constitu- System Data Capabilitiesency, because information about land parcels and

Area/district features:geographically related data are needed regularly by ~h~~’~~cat!mm~.Current land usemany different agencies for a variety of purposes. Property parcel features city boundaries

Moreover, the ability to combine land-related attri- Zoning boundaries Neighborhoodsbutes from many different sources is a vital support for Stormwater drainage facilities Planned land-use areas

Water facilities zoningmany government and nongovernment activities. Sanitary sewer facilities Planning/policy areasHowever, while raw data are usually available, they Traffic control facilities Tax rate areasoften cannot be used effectively in making complex Geodetic control School service areasdecisions because of variations among agencies in data Reference grid Traffic analysis zones

Soils Fire/rescue areasformat, quality, and org anization. For multipurpose Flood p!ains sheriff ballwick areassystems, information stored in property record books, All area/district map layers Lgislatlve districtspaper files, microfiche, maps, charts, or computer ~~~ufeg~raphy Councilman districts

databases must be input into a GIS in a consistent formSchool board districts

Road, water, and sewer Zip code areasand updated regularly. These can be time-consuming master plans sanitary inspection districtsand costly tasks. Nonetheless, GIS, linked to the Depth to groundwater Solidwaste collection dlstrlcts

Sewer service areasappropriate computer tools for specific purposes, will Facility features:Stormwater

become a valued aid in many public works offices. Parks service areasSolid and hazardous waste Natural features:

With the installation of a computerized data system, disposal sites Noise contoursthe database can be shared and duplication of effort can Sludge disposal sites Environmentally critical areasbe minimized, if organizational issues, such as system Public transit routes

Snow emergency routesaccess authorization, data use, quality control, and Historical sitesvalidation of the automated record are addressed. SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991,

objective, repeatable assessments of pavement con- vehicles. For example, a multipurpose vehicle for adition. 22 See chapter 3, box 3-B and chapter 4, box variety of road maintenance tasks is under develop-4-C for other examples of public works uses of thistechnique.

Robotics and Automation

While the use of mechanized equipment to applylarge forces or lift heavy loads in public worksconstruction and maintenance is widespread, moreadvanced forms of automation are still largely in theR&D stage. The sophisticated sensing and electron-ics needed for autonomous operation in the publicworks environment have been installed in some test

. .ment in France. Its intended uses include mowinggrass around curbs, sowing, ditch excavation, roadmarking and cleaning, surface cutting, brushwoodcleaning, and salt dispensing. Other machines arebeing developed for such tasks as curb and gutterconstruction, road surface patching, bridge cable/beam inspection, and paint removal/surface prepara-tion. A system to help repair runways by removingrubble, filling cracks, and performing nondestructivetesting is under development at the University ofFlorida and the Tyndale Air Force Base.23

22Haris KOUtSOpOuloS, “Automated Interpretation of Pavement Distress Da@’ Construction, newsletter of the Center for Construction Research andEducatiom Massachusetts Institute of Technology, winter 1989, p, 10.

23Miroslaw Skibniewski and Chris Hendrickson, Carnegie-MelonUniversity, ‘‘Automation and Robotics for Road Construction and Maintenance,”unpublished paper, n.d., pp. 3-5.


Simulation Models

Simulation models have been developed over theyears by public works officials to examine variousaspects of flow and movement patterns.

as that in Denver, Colorado, now under construction,or identify which elements of the air traffic systemare limiting factors. However, since the model usesaverage traffic demand data, based on publishedairline schedules, it cannot analyze the transientbehavior that characterizes daily operations.

TransportationEnvironmental Models

Planning models attempt to model consumerroute and mode choice to assist planners in road andtransit development plans. Road traffic modelsexamine traffic patterns at intersections, trafficflows in networks, and aggregate system perform-ance to provide information about traffic delays,bottlenecks, and aggregate vehicle performance.Researchers from the Federal Highway Administra-tion (FHWA), State DOTS, and universities havedeveloped numerous models; current efforts focuson models that process real-time information abouttraffic demand and use it to determine signal timingplans. The Automated Traffic Surveillance andControl System (ATSAC) in Los Angeles is based onthe Urban Traffic Control System developed byFHWA. (For additional information, see chapter 3.)

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)makes use of a number of models to provide analyticand management information. SIMMOD is a de-tailed model that tracks individual travel times,delays, and fuel burn for a given airport, as well asairspace and traffic configuration. It is useful formeasuring the delays at a specific location caused byairspace or procedural changes, but is difficult to usefor systemwide analyses, as capacity must beestimated by trial-and-error.24

NASPAC provides delay and utilization statisticsfor entire networks based on simulation and queuingmodels, incorporating the national airspace andairways structure, and selected airports, arrival anddeparture fixes, and weather conditions.25 Bestsuited for strategic analyses, NASPAC can estimatethe benefits across the system of a new airport, such

Simulation models are important to environ-mental studies for examining the way contaminantsare dispersed in the various media and determiningthe impact of contaminants on groundwater, forexample. Numerous models have been developed bythe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)and other agencies to assist in regulatory anddecisionmaking activities.26 The Bureau of Recla-mation is developing a model that combines artifi-cial intelligence, policy analysis, systems analysis,and risk analysis to yield a tool for river basinplanning, operations, and management.27 Riverbasin planning in the Western States involvesenvironmental concerns as well as irrigation, hydro-power, and water rights considerations, and such amodel can be of considerable help to decisionmakersat all levels of government.

Communications andPositioning Systems

Communications and positioning technologiesare essential elements of traffic management andcontrol and remote infrastructure monitoring. Publicworks managers and transportation users rely oncommunications, navigation, and surveillance sys-tems, some developed and supplied by the FederalGovernment and others by private providers. Com-parable technologies to locate and identify vehiclesand craft, and to relay traffic instructions and otherinformation, are now practical for each transportmode. See chapter 4, box 4-C for a related use inenvironmental public works.

mTJ.S. Cowess, ~lce of T&koloB Assessmen6 Safe Ska”es for Tomorrow: Aviation Safety in a Competitive Enw”ronrnent, 0~-SET-381(Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Oftlce, July 1988), p. 136.

‘iFederal Aviation Administrat.ioq “PlanforResearc~ Engineering, and Development-Volume II: Project Descriptions,” Conference Review Draft#4, Sept. 21, 1989, p. 49.

Msee, for e=ple, tie follo~ OTA rew~: ~rotec~ng the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination, VOL L pB 8$154 WAS @P@ield*VA: National lkchnical Information Service, 1985); Use Of J40&4S for Water Resources Management, Planning, and Policy, PB 83-103655(Springileld, VA: National lkchni~ Information Service, 1983); and Catching Our Breath: Next Steps for Reducing Ur6an Ozone, OTA-O-412(Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Wlce, July 1989).

ZWJ.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, “Advanced Decision Support Systems,” Progress Report, June 30, 1989.


Signal Systems

Signals transmitted over various portions of theelectromagnetic spectrum form the basis of the manytypes of navigation and surveillance systems, whichgenerally depend on one- or two-way communica-tions. The increasing power, reliability, and cost-effectiveness of microprocessing technology havemade advanced communications and positioningfunctions available to a wide range of users.

Systems that support information transfer areconsidered to be communications technologies.High-frequency radio and visual signals are com-monly used in line-of-sight communications fortransportation vehicles, while waveguides, such ascables and fiber optics, are used to link groundfacilities. The low-frequency radio spectrum permitsover-the-horizon communications; however, inter-ference and low data transfer rates pose problems.

Navigation technologies include radio signalsystems that provide bearing, distance, or otherreference to fixed transmitters. Widely used inaviation and maritime navigation, these are nowfinding increased application in surface transporta-tion. Inertial navigation and dead reckoning systemscompute vehicle position relative to an initial fixedlocation based on vehicle heading, speed, and timeen route, also without communication links. How-ever, small measurement errors can accumulate,causing problems over long distances.

Surveillance includes determining the positionand other characteristics of a remote vehicle, usuallythrough communications technologies, and in civil-ian transportation, cooperative vehicle-based sys-tems and procedures are often used. For example, airtraffic control radar information is augmented byautomatic transponder replies from aircraft, whichstrengthen the signal returning to the radar, identifythe aircraft, and provide other data. Position reportsfrom vehicles transmitted to a monitoring facility isanother type of cooperative surveillance, and iscommonly used by commercial operators in alltransport modes.

Satellites

Satellite-based systems offer the greatest poten-tial for enhancing worldwide communications, navi-gation, and surveillance, because they have the key

advantage of altitude. Operating thousands of milesabove the Earth, satellites have direct line-of-sightover entire continents, permitting the higher fre-quencies of the radio spectrum to be used forcommunications and positioning. Satellites cansupport and augment existing communications andpositioning systems, and serve as passive communi-cations relays, as reference positions for navigation,or as interrogation and monitoring devices forsurveillance. Although satellites are expensive toinstall and operate, a few satellites can replace anextensive ground-based infrastructure. However,potential users must consider ways to ensure thatsatellite systems can be reliably maintained andreplaced.

Three decades of telecommunications industryexperience and increasingly affordable mobile re-ceivers and transmitters have enabled industry andpublic traffic managers to use communicationssatellites as linchpins in traffic surveillance andcontrol. For example, truck companies have foundsatellite-based services to be cost-effective, becausedrivers on long haul routes do not have to stop enroute to telephone their locations to dispatchers.FAA is considering using automatic dependentsurveillance (ADS) for air traffic control over remoteareas without radar coverage. Under ADS, onboardnavigation systems would relay the aircraft’sidentification and position via satellite to a centralmonitoring facility to display screens similar tocurrent radar-based ones.

The United States and the Soviet Union are eachdeploying constellations of satellites, which, al-though funded for military purposes, will allowcivilian receivers to determine their positions toaccuracies of around 100 meters.28 The U.S. GlobalPositioning System (GPS) is expected to be avail-able for worldwide navigation in late 1993. Eachsatellite serves as position reference by broadcastingits location and a precise time signal, and a receivercalculates its position by measuring the time delayof signals sent from three or more satellites. FAA isinvestigating whether a single navigation deviceusing both GPS and Soviet satellite signals couldprovide greater redundancy and precision.

A different approach for obtaining position infor-mation is by radio-determination satellite systems,

190 . Delivering the Goods: public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

which unlike GPS requires that each participatingvehicle transmit as well as receive. Signals sent fromthe vehicle must be relayed by at least two satellitesto a central location, where the vehicle’s location iscomputed by noting the time difference in thesignals.

Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI)

AVI systems commonly use vehicle radio- ormicrowave-based transponders, which can be“read” by fixed or mobile equipment. The readerscan be placed along a route or at a facility whereinformation needs to be exchanged or billing needsto take place, such as bridge or toll road entrancesand exits (see chapter 3, box 3-E for furtherinformation), weigh stations, and ports of entry.FAA regulations require commercial carriers and allaircraft flying near the busiest airports to beequipped with radar transponders, which can trans-mit aircraft identification and altitude to groundcontrollers. Additional AVI technologies includeoptical and infrared systems, inductive loop sys-tems, and surface acoustic wave systems.

Long-Range Radionavigation

Long-range radionavigation systems, LORANand OMEGA, provided by the Federal Governmentand originally designed for marine operations,permit navigation in remote locations. OMEGA’scoverage is worldwide; LORAN’s is up to 1,000miles. Positions are determined by measuring thedifference in signals from precisely synchronizedtransmitters, using time difference for LORAN andphase difference for OMEGA. Low-cost/low-weightmicroprocessors can automatically perform thesemeasurements, making widespread use possible.LORAN reception is presently concentrated incoastal areas, but FAA is providing funds to theCoast Guard to install four additional LORANstations for complete coverage across the continen-tal United States.29 Combined with an automaticdependent surveillance link, LORAN and OMEGAallow enhanced low-altitude and remote-site trafficmonitoring.30

Photo credit: PortAuthority of New York and New Jersey

Automatic vehicle identification and billing systems couldsignificantly lessen traffic delays at toll faclities.

Automatic Meter Reading

Various communications technologies are beingused to develop automatic meter reading systems(see box 5-B) for utilities that set rates on the basisof usage. System customers are provided with ameter and a device that collects information from themeter, packages it into a data stream, and sends it toa central location, where the data are received andstored in a computer. Systems can be developed forwater, sewage, and other utilities, and the opportu-nity for computerized operational management maybe the biggest advantage of such systems.31

Field Construction TechnologiesThe tasks necessary to complete a capital facility

after a final design has been chosen comprise thefield construction process. Although constructionusually refers to building anew project, methods andtechniques for rehabilitating existing infrastructureare equally, or perhaps more, important to today’spublic works officials. Nonetheless, engineeringeducation and most related R&D emphasize con-

%J.S. Department of ‘lkansportatiom Federal Aviation Administratio& Natio,val Airspace System Plan: Facilities, Equipment, AssociatedDevelopment and Other Capital Needs (WaahingtoQ DC: September 1989), p. IV-58.

~.S. Department of Tranaportatiou Federal Aviation Admirdstratio~ “Federal Aviation Administration Plan for Researcb Engineering, andDevelopment” vol. IL draft manuaeript, September 1989, p. 258.

Slwnald sctie~er, United Water Resources, personal coInInuIliCatiOU lm.


Box 5-B—Automatic Meter Reading Systems

Meters are used by utilities to measure consumption of their product water, gas, or electricity. A utilitymetering system usually consists of meters and local devices to collect information from the meter, package it intoa data stream, and send it to a central computer. In contrast, traditional metering systems use collection personnelto read meters individually at the point of service. Automatic meter reading (AMR) systems can eliminate the extrawork and costs involved in ‘‘lock-outs,’ estimates, call backs, and premature cancellations and can shortenread-to-bill turnaround,

The development of integrated circuitry and the restructuring“ of the Nation’s telephone system now enableAMR systems to use telephone lines or a radio transmitter to send consumption data to the utility’s computer system.An AMR system can be configured in one of several ways, including: 1) telephone dial-inbound which uses anelectronic meter interface unit (MIU) on the customer’s premises through the telephone company’s test equipmentwithout ringing the customer’s telephone; 2) telephone dial-outboundin which the MIU dials the utility’s computerand transmits the latest meter reading, usually at a preset time; 3) a cable TV-based system in which the utilitycommunicates with individual MIUs over the cable to obtain the meter reading; and 4) a radio system in which theMIU transmits to a utility receiver. In a variation of the radio system, the utility queries the MIU for information.About 50 percent of the existing systems are telephone systems although these are restricted by court rulings relatingto AT&T; cable systems area very small part of existing and potential systems.

AMR systems are part of a larger field, termed “computerized operations management.” In addition, sincemost customers are served by more than a single utility, the information collection and transmission componentsneeded by each utility could be integrated in a single metering system. Major issues must be resolved, however,including:

. who installs and maintains the equipment;

. telephone line use limitations and radio frequency use limitations;

. the way regulations affect or restrict utility activities; and● standardization of the electronic equipment for compatibility of communications signals and data

interchange and transmission issues. 1

1Typical of the s tandards is the High Level Data Link Control model of the International Standards Organization that is designcd tofacilitate synchronous code transparent transfer of user data. Japan has adopted its standarddata exchange format for automatic“ meter reading.

struction of new facilities rather than the special Trench less Construction Technologies—problems involved in rehabilitation.32

Construction activities require considerable plan-ning and organization, as well as management ofmaterials, personnel, and time. Many of these earlyprocesses are crucial to design and management, andtake place primarily in an office. These and otherphases of construction projects have been greatlyaided by advances in computer hardware and soft-ware, new materials, and technologies related tostructural design, corrosion protection, and robotics.Virtually all the construction technologies discussedhere have already found some applications in publicworks.

Trenchless excavation construction (TEC) refersto installing of water supply, sewer pipes, or anyother structural components, below grade withoutdigging an open trench. Trenchless constructionavoids much of the disruption and traffic delayassociated with digging up streets, sidewalks, andyards and eliminates the need to excavate aroundother utility equipment and tunnels, particularly indense urban areas.33 It differs from construction oflarge diameter tunnels primarily in size--TECopenings range from 2 inches to 12 feet and permitthe installation of pipes to transport fluids, whiletunnels are much larger and transport vehicles. Table

32American Society of Civil Engineers, Task Committee on Water Supply Rehabilitation Systems, Water Supply System Rehabilitation, Thomas M.Walski (ed.) (New York, NY: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1987), p. 1.

33Natioal ResearchCouncil, U.S. National Committee on Tunneling Technology, Micro- andSmall-Diameter Tunneling (Washington,DC: NationalAcademy Press, 1989).


Table 5-3—Types of Trenchless Construction and Rehabilitation Technologies

Type—

Variations Comments

Trenchless construction technologies:Horizontal earth boring . . . . . . Boreholes can be produced by augering, drilling,

ramming, and water jets.Pipe jacking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Excavation processes vary from manual to

highly sophisticated tunnel boring machines;pipe can be prefabricated concrete, steel, orfiberglass.

Utility tunneling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Excavation methods may be identical to pipejacking methods; most widely used liningsystems are tunnel liner plates, steel ribs withwood lagging, and wood box tunneling.

Rehabilitation technologies:Cured in place lining . . . . . . . . . Curing process includes inserting a resin

impregnated hose into an existing pipe; linermaterials include polyester felt, woven glass/felt, and woven polyester; liner is cured byheat or ultraviolet light.

Sliplining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Existing pipe is lined with a new pipe, possiblypolyolefin, with spirally wound profiled pipe, orwith pipe that reaches its final shape and sizeafter insertion into the original pipe and anexpansion process.

Spraying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cementitious or polymeric coating reinforcedwith steel is sprayed onto the interior walls ofpipe; cementitious coatings are limited toman-entry sewers.

Does not require workers in the borehole; someequipment is laser-guided and remote-controlled.

Requires workers inside the pipe during the excava-tion and/or spoil removal process.

Smaller than transportation tunnels.

Requires that cuts be made in the liner for lateralconnections.

Joining pipe sections is critical; grouting betweenliners and original pipe maybe needed.

Sources of water infiltration must be removed beforelining is applied; can utilize manual spray equip-ment or remote-controlled spray equipment.

SOURCES: For construction technologies-D,T. Isley, Department of Civil Engineering, Louisiana Teeh University, “Trenehless Excavation Technologies(TEC) Methods: A Classification System and an Evaluation,” unpublished paper, Second Annual Alumni Appreciation Seminar, Ruston, LA, Nov.3, 1989. For rehabilitation technologies-K. Reed, The Deve/oprnent ofa Frarneworkfor the Evacuation otsewer Renovation Systems, ReportNo. 539 (Huntingdon Valley, PA: Water and Wastewater Technologies, October 1989).

5-3 summarizes the primary trenchless constructionand renovation technologies.

Trenchless construction R&D has focused onsmaller structures-generally less than 42 inches indiameter-because this size range includes themajority of piping networks used for water supply,petroleum product, and sanitary and storm sewersystems. Rapid development of new techniques andinnovations in traditional methods underscore theimportance of having installers, designers, andregulatory agencies be familiar with TEC capabili-ties. Installation of TEC systems requires a highdegree of accuracy and increases the need formonitoring and control systems, because if trench-less construction is done incorrectly, it can be moredestructive than trenching work.34 Contractors havebeen slow to adopt these techniques because of thecomplexity of installation and because they prefersimple methods that provide fewer chances fortechnical problems.35 Supporting technologies that

can speed the application of TEC methods includeactive guidance systems, improved cutting equip-ment to handle large cobbles and boulders, andobstruction sensing equipment.36

Tunnelingground andadvances, if

Tunnels

consists of excavating a hole in thesupporting the hole as the tunnel

necessary. Conventional tunneling in-cludes a systematized drill and blast cycle forexcavating and tunnel support by timbering, ma-sonry arches, or steel ribs. Tunnel boring machines(TBMs), introduced in the United States in 1954,provide a continuous excavation process that is fastand relatively inexpensive, although use of TBMs islargely restricted to ground with predictable, con-stant geology.

The New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM),one of the most recent innovations, was developed

~D.T. Ise]ey, Dep~ent of Civil Engineaing, Louisiana ‘Ibch Utiver$ity, “Trenchless ‘Ikdnology: Alternative Solutions to ComplicatedUnderground Utility Network Problems,” seminar notes, Second Annual Alumni Appreciation Seminar, Rustoq LA, NOV. 3, 1989.

35Jsmes B. Gardner, “Trenchless Technology: A Quiet Revolution, ” The National Utility Contractor, vol. 12, No. 12 (ArlingtorL VA: NationalUtilities Contractors Association, December 1988), p. 18.

~Natio~ Rme~ch Council, op. cit., footnote 33, pp. 20-21.


in the 1950s for construction of road and watertunnels in the Alps. The technique met the demandsof extremely variable geology and the need forflexible construction methods to meet changingground conditions. NATM includes drill-and-blastexcavation; extensive use of shotcrete, a light coat ofconcrete sprayed on the tunnel walls to seal thenewly exposed rock from the atmosphere and tosupport unstable rock; extensive instrumentation tomeasure ground deformation; and frequent use ofwaterproofing membranes. NATM also requirescontracting arrangements that permit decisions onconstruction methods and the extent and timing ofstructural support systems to be made jointly by theengineering and contracting staff as excavationprogresses. While NATM saves money on materialsbecause it uses no shield and less lining, the savingsrealized by the sheer speed of TBM excavation mayoffset the extra material costs of conventional tunnellinings.

A flexible, waterproof, asphalt-based materialrecently developed in Japan offers potential as abackfill material for tunnels, particularly in earth-quake-prone areas. Consisting of an asphalt emul-sion, cement, and a water-absorbing polymer, thecomponents are liquid at ambient temperature andcan be pumped, but form a waterproof gel whenmixed. This material has lower strength but higherductility than other materials used as tunnel backfill.The ductility is important because it allows thematerial to cushion the shock from earthquakes.Because the material is more viscous than standardbackfill material, it can fill the space between tunnelsegments and the surrounding rock more completelyand make the tunnel more waterproof.37

Soil Improvements and stabilization

Earth can be strengthened and stabilized by steelreinforcing bands that are used to form a cohesivewall or embankment from sand, gravel, and other fillmaterial. Other reinforcement techniques includefibro-compaction, compaction grouting, dynamiccompaction, and wick drains.

Soil nailing, or drilling a hole into a slope andfilling it with a steel rod and grout, usually con-

crete,38 is an alternative method for constructingretaining walls for construction projects. Althoughthe technique has been used in other countries fornearly 20 years, U.S. experience has been limited. Adesign manual under preparation for FHWA willprovide specific design information and allow morewidespread use of soil nailing for highway projects.

Jet grouting is a versatile technique for underpin-ning existing foundations, but other applications areevolving as the technique becomes better known.Grout slurry is pumped under high pressure down adrill pipe 2 to 3 inches in diameter and forced out oflateral jets at high velocity. The grout shatters thesurrounding earth, mixes with it, and dries, after theremoval of the drill pipe, to form a column up to 48inches in diameter of grouted soil. The soil andjetting conditions determine the physical propertiesof the column.39 Jet grouting has also been used astemporary shoring for open cut and shaft excavation,to construct tie-backs for anchoring reinforcedconcrete retaining walls, and to construct nails forsoil nailing.

Dredging Technology and Capabilities

There are two basic methods of dredging—mechanical and hydraulic-and the particular appli-cation depends on sediment type, water depth, seaconditions, and the location and proximity of thedisposal area. Mechanical dredges employ buckets,grapples, or other containers to cut and scoopmaterial and transport it to the surface; they aregenerally less efficient for U.S. waterway conditionsthan hydraulic dredges, which work like vacuumcleaners. The pump/suction elements of hydraulicdredges are often coupled with mechanical devicesto loosen material from the bottom.

Improvements in automation and instrumenta-tion, rather than changes in fundamental dredgingequipment and techniques, offer the best potentialfor reducing excavation costs for channel mainte-nance and construction in the near term. Short-termdredging contracts, the vast majority of U.S. work,favor use of older, less-sophisticated equipment anddiscourage new investment and R&D.40 The lastwholesale introduction of new private dredge equip-

37H0 Moriyoshi et rd., ‘‘A Composite Construction Material That Solidi.ties in Water, ” Nature, vol. 344, Mar. 15, 1990, pp. 230-232.3sRe~d Gn.ilsc~ “soil Nailing Debate,” Civil Engineering, vol. 58, No. 8, August 1988, P. 61.sgpa~ petit and Clayton WoodeQ, ‘‘Jet Grouting: The Pace Qtickms,” Civil Engineering, vol. 58, No. 8, August 1988, p. 65.~ational Rewareh Council, op. cit., footnote 33, p. 113.


ment followed the retirement of the Corps’ hopperdredges in the late 1970s.

Rail Track Construction and Rehabilitation

Track maintenance has been highly mechanizedwith complete rail-mounted machines capable oftotal track rehabilitation in one operation. Thesesophisticated technologies are, in general, used bythe more affluent railroads; smaller railroads tend touse more traditional manual maintenance meth-ods.41 For example, one class I railroad is testing amechanized tie renewal system designed to replace400 ties per hour. The system carries its own ties,spikes, anchors, and plates, and consists of severalunits, each responsible for a different part of the tierenewal process (rail anchor removal, spike pulling,tie removal, tie insertion, and tamping). It travelsalong the track at roughly 0.5 mile per hour as itrenews the ties, reducing the labor and trackoccupancy time normally needed for tie renewal.42

New equipment designs have also been introducedfor automated ballast tamping operations, ballastcleaning, rail laying, and aligning and gaging.43

Materials and CorrosionConcrete and steel will continue to be primary

construction materials for infrastructure for quitesome time. Recent research has identified newadditives, coatings, and uses for these materials toimprove their durability and resistance to operatingstress. Corrosion has plagued all elements of infra-structure for decades, and many technologies exist tocombat this problem at both the design and mainte-nance levels. However, convincing State and localofficials to invest limited funds in preventivemethods is difficult.

Concrete

Concrete is one of the most widely used construc-tion materials in the United States; it is found inpublic works structures ranging from bridge decks torailroad ties, highways to runways, and structural

supports to water pipes and storm drains. Theprincipal advantages of concrete include the availa-bility of component materials throughout the coun-try, its low cost, workability at time of installation,and durability. Concrete is a strong, workablematerial, made up of aggregate, cement, water, andcontrolled amounts of entrained air. Sand, gravel,and crushed stone are the most commonly usedaggregates; clay, shale, slate, and slag are morelightweight, but less frequently used. The light-weight aggregates can reduce initial costs andproduce better acoustic and thermal insulation thanstone aggregate. The trade-off is some loss instructural strength. Concrete can be recycled, but theprocess is difficult, because the old pavement mustbe crushed to retrieve the aggregate.44

Cement is the “glue” that binds the aggregatetogether. The one most commonly used in construc-tion is Portland cement, a dry powder, consisting ofsilica, alumina, lime, and iron oxide, which reactchemically when water is added to form a glue-likebinder. Any excess water not used by the chemicalreaction improves the workability of the cement andaggregate mixture. However, excess water increasesthe porosity of the concrete, which in turn reduces itsstrength, and engineers and construction workersmust choose between strength and workability .45

In addition to the basic ingredients, variousadditives to concrete mixtures can achieve certainproperties. Air entraining admixtures increase theamount of air in the concrete material, increasing theconcrete’s resistance to the cracking associated withfreezing and thawing. Accelerators, such as calciumchloride,46 sodium chloride, sodium sulfate, sodiumhydroxide, sodium sulfite, potassium sulfate, andpotassium hydroxide can speed up the hydrationprocess to make the concrete set faster, but this mayreduce the materials’ effective lifetime. Organicmaterials, such as sugar and lignosulfonates, act asretarders to slow the hydration process. Undercertain conditions, increasing the time required for

41 Federal Railroad AdministratioxL informational documen~ n.d.dz~~con~uous ~tion Tie Remov*~oW” progressive Railroading, November 1989, PP. 43-44.

4sFederal Railroad Administration op. cit., footnote 41.44w Ffiedl~d, Avktion Consultants, personal comnumicationj NOV. 8, 1989.

45u.s. co~ss, Offiw of ~~olo~ Assessment ~anCed~ateria/~ ~y~e$ign, 0~-&35 1 (wuhingtoq ~: U.S. Government Phlthlg OfflCe,

June 1988), pp. 48-49.46~le ~.cim chloride is the most ~mon ~celemtor employed by the com~ction indus~, excessive use ~ cause .StTklUs COITOSiOn Of

steel-reinforced rods. See corrosion section in this chapter.


Photo credit:American Public Works Association

Concrete’s low cost, durability, and workabilityat the time of installation make it one of the most widely

used construction materials.

the concrete to set can produce concrete that canmaintain its strength for longer periods of time.

Concrete is considerably stronger under compres-sion than under tension and works well for structuressuch as gravity dams, footings, and heavy founda-tions. To compensate for its low tensile strength,concrete is generally reinforced with steel. Becauseit changes volume at different temperatures andmoisture levels, concrete is subject to cracking.Joints between slabs of concrete can accommodatevolume changes, but often allow moisture to seep in,which eventually causes further damage. Properdesign and maintenance can minimize these prob-lems.

Brittleness is another disadvantage of concrete,which is able to bend only slightly to absorb stressand may crack as a result. Researchers are studyingthe chemical reactions of cements in order toimprove the strength and durability of concrete.Some aggregates contain silica in a form that reactswith sodium or potassium in cement, absorbingmoisture and expanding to crack the concrete.

Because of the many advantages of concrete, theconstruction industry continues to use it regularly.Government and university researchers are workingto overcome its limitations. (See table 5-4 for furtherinformation.)

Asphalt

Asphalt is an inexpensive material, processedfrom petroleum byproducts, and used primarily as acementing and waterproofing agent. Although as-phalt’s public works applications include liningcards and reservoirs, waterproofing and facingdams and dikes, and coating pipes, more than 70percent of asphalt produced in the United States isused as a cementing material for asphaltic concrete(AC), for paving roads and highways. Hot asphalt ismixed with hot graded stone aggregate. The mixtureis spread over a gravel base and subbase and rolled,while still hot, to produce the desired density andsmoothness. 47

The problems associated with AC pavementsinclude rutting, stripping, fatigue cracking, thermalcracking, and aging, and may result from improperinstallation and maintenance and unexpected trafficwear. AC pavement’s ability to withstand heavyloads is a function of both its design and the strengthof the subbase. It can be designed to support thesame loads as concrete pavement, but care must betaken when it is laid. The Strategic HighwayResearch Program (SHRP) (see chapter 6 for details)will monitor over 800 sections of pavement over thenext 15 years to compare performance with designin order to improve the design method. Theseevaluations of design methods are important be-cause engineers rely heavily on the performancehistories of concrete composed of specific aggre-gates under certain environmental conditions.48

Resurfacing an AC pavement is relatively simple;the top inch of the pavement is scraped off andremixed; then anew layer is added on top of the old.The remix method gives an excellent seal betweenthe old surface and new layers and serves as a formof instant recycling. If surface cracking is too severe,a fiber mat impregnated with asphalt material can belaid over the old surface; when the new layer isplaced on top, the mat distributes stress around thecracks of the old pavement, preventing them fromaffecting the new layer.

Current research is focusing on ways to improveperformance of AC pavement. SHRP is studying thechemistry of the asphalt binder so as to developguidelines for State and local engineers to follow

aTMcGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology (New Yorkj NY: McGraw Hill I%blish.bg, 1987), vol. 2, @I ~., PP. 111-112.4sJohn J3rwmfield, Strategic Highway Reseamh ProgranL personal co-ticatio~ J~e 21, 1~.


Table 5-4--Concrete Types Used in Infrastructure

Type Characteristics Uses/comments

Steel reinforced concrete

Prestressed concrete

Post tensioned concrete

Blended cements; cementsubstitutes

Blended cements; fastsetting or high earlystrength

Fiber reinforced concrete

Roller compactedconcrete

Polymer concrete

Steel reinforcing bars are implanted into concretefor increased tensile strength.

High-strength steel wire is stretched inside aconcrete member prior to hardening process;increases tensile strength.

High-strength wires are stretched after the con-crete has hardened to increase tensile strength.

Current substitutes are used to reduce overall costwhile increasing strength and reducing permea-bility of concrete; depends on local availability ofsubstitutes.

Additives are used to achieve faster curing timesor yield higher early strength.

Small, discontinuous fibers are added (steel,glass, carbon, nylon, polyethylene, and polypro-pylene) to concrete mixture.

Concrete using less cement and lower qualityaggregate is rolled after put in place.

Pavement, buildings, dams, parking decks.

Bridges and buildings where heavy weights must besupported.

Bridges and buildings where weight must be sup-ported.

Reduces costs.

Permits quicker use of finished product; more costly.Long-term performance of some mixtures needs tobe evaluated.

Adds impact resistance and ductility to the concrete.

Dam construction and Iow-speed heavy-weight vehi-cle pavements; problems can occur due to poorbinding between layers and random uncontrolledcracking.

Polymers are added to aggregates. Sets quickly and has low permeability; costs are high.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.


Resurfacing an asphaltic concrete pavement is a relativelysimple procedure. The top inch of the pavement is scrapedoff and remixed; then anew layer is added on top of the old.

when building a road, runway, or parking lot. Thesespecifications will describe performance results forboth the asphalt binder and the aggregate selectedand will take into account variations in weather andtemperature. 49 Private sector research to develop

more durable, and more crack-resistant AC productsincludes experimentation with a sulfur modifier,which lowers cost, reduces the amount of petroleumneeded to produce asphalt, and makes the pavementless susceptible to temperature variations.50

Steel

Steel’s great strength, elasticity, durability, andductility make it a valuable material for publicworks, where it is used in bridges, building struc-tures, storage tanks, and pipelines. However, steel’svulnerability to corrosion requires that coatings orother protective techniques be used. Galvanized andpolymeric-coated steel, which represent two types ofcorrosion protection, are widely used for culverts,bridge spans, retaining walls, revetments, and under-ground piping.

Any exposed steel surface will develop a protec-tive oxide layer in the presence of moisture andoxygen, which isolates it from the environment andretards corrosion.51 However, if conditions arehostile enough, this protective layer is not sufficient,

f$~ I-Iamig~ asphalt program manager, Strategic Highway Research ProgranL personal communication Dec. 7, 1989.=id.SIN, De@ B~e and J~es Bushman, Corrosion and Cathodic Protection of Steel Reinjlorced Concrete Bridge Decks, WA-P-88-W

(Washiogtoq DC: Federal Highway Admuu“ “stration, 1988).

Chapter 5—Cross-Cutting Technologies for Infrastructure . 197I

and once the steel structure is corroded, the alterna-tives are costly—shoring up the structure or replac-ing the affected members. Currently, the best way toprotect a new steel structure in a highly corrosiveenvironment is to coat it with some type of material,usually paint. A cathodic protection system can beused if the steel is in an electrolyte such as soil orwater.

Weathering steel forms a hard, protective, oxidecoating that prevents additional rust. Under the rightcombination of moisture, sunlight, and fresh air, itstands up to corrosive environments better thanconventional steel.52 However, if weathering steel isnot used properly, the formation of the protectiverust film stops, and normal corrosion proceedsinstead of slowing to a negligible rate once the oxidelayer is formed.53 Prolonged exposure to deicing saltand water, such as might occur in bridges in coldclimates or marine environments, is very harmful toweathering steel. FHWA has developed guidelinesto aid local officials in designing structures usingweathering steel.54

Geotextiles

Geotextiles, woven or nonwoven fabrics, aremade of long chains of polymeric filaments or yamsformed into a stable network. Geotextiles becamewidely available in 1975, when 3 million squareyards were sold. Because the fabrics are inert tocommonly encountered chemicals, sales of 400million square yards were expected in 1990, drivenby demand for geotextiles for industrial hazardouswaste landfills. Infrastructure needs have alsospurred the geotextile industry, and forecasters seean annual growth rate for infrastructure applicationsof 5 to 10 percent in the near future.55 Geotextileshave a wide variety of uses in infrastructure mainte-nance, rehabilitation, and new construction fordrainage; erosion control; materials separation; soilreinforcement; and blocking moisture seepage. Forexample, when used on a road running through aswampy area, geotextiles can help reinforce thesurrounding banks and prevent soil erosion.

Despite their utility, these relatively new productshave problems that need to be resolved before thistechnology gains full acceptance. Uniform qualitystandards are lacking, and geotextile manufacturescurrently set their own strength and durabilitystandards. Techniques for working with geotextilesare not commonly taught in engineering schools, andthe engineering community is consequently reluc-tant to use geotextiles, because trial-and-error meth-ods have often failed. FHWA, the American Associ-ation of State Highway and Transportation Officials,the Associated General Contractors, and manufac-turing industry representatives plan to form a taskforce to establish performance standards for siltfences, drainage, erosion, separation, and pavingfabric. Other groups working on standards includethe California DOT, the Armyand the U.S. Forest Service.56

Plastics

Recent advances in plastics,of polyvinyl chloride (PVC)have benefited public works

Corps of Engineers,

primarily in the areapipe manufacturinginfrastructure. PVC

pipes had long been banned from most wastewaterprojects, because the pipes did not conform tostandards set by the American Society for Testingand Materials for compression resistance, tensilestrength, and other loading factors. Manufacturers ofPVC piping assert the pipes can now meet thestandards for pipes up to 60 inches in diameter, largeenough for most water and wastewater applica-tions o

57 PVC piping can attain the same strength asstandard metal or masonry piping, but is moreresistant to corrosion in hostile environments such asacidic soils or exposure to stray currentsgenerally lighter, making it easier to handle

Advanced Composites

Advanced composites have been used

and is

in theaerospace industry for years with great success, butlittle advanced composite technology has beentransferred to infrastructure needs. The main hurdleis a fragmented construction industry, with few

szRiti Robiso~ “weathering StWl: Inclustry>s Stepchild,” Civil Engineering, vol. 58, No. 10, October 1988, p. 42.

5sBroomfield, op. cit., footnote 48.

~Ibid.55jew D~@o, ~nior geotecticd engineer, Feder~ fi@waY ~“ “stratiow personal communication Nov. 9, 1989.‘Michael Lawson, ‘‘Geosynthetics Winning New Respect,” Engineering News Record, vol. 223, No. 17, Oct. 26, 1989, pp. 36-38,57u.s. congress, office of ~hnology~sesmen~ “Construction and Materials Research and Development for the Nation’s fiblic WOrkS,” sti

paper, June 1987, sec. 7, pp. 4-5.


incentives to innovate or move away from tradi-tional materials, such as concrete and steel. Otherobstacles include high initial costs and lack ofmanufacturing equipment, uniform design codes,data on long-term performance, and understandingof advanced composites by public works designersand engineers and construction and maintenanceofficials. Moreover, composites often degrade onexposure to water, oxygen, and light, leading tochanges in color, size, mechanical properties, andoccasionally to crazing or propagation. The rates ofdegradation can be significantly reduced by usingexpensive additives that are justifiable for high-performance aircraft, but much less so for publicconstruction projects.

Advanced composites have many advantagesover traditional building materials. Most are moredurable, lighter, and less costly to maintain, and canform strong interlocking bonds without rivets orwelds. Composites are not affected by corrosion anddo not require much inspection during the designlife. Many deliver the same strength as traditionalmaterials, but at much lower weight, a potentiallylarge advantage for the design of heavy structures,such as bridges. The largest load that must besupported by a long span bridge is the dead weightof the bridge itself, rather than the traffic on thebridge deck. Therefore, lightweight advanced com-posites can save money by reducing the amount ofmaterial required to support both the dead weightand a given traffic density, or the same amount ofmaterial can support much heavier traffic.58

In England, a 7-year advanced bridge project ledto the construction of a 250-ton, corrosion-resistant,glass fiber bridge, with decks that latch together.Japan is also researching infrastructure applicationsfor advanced composites; a 4{ story office buildingin downtown Tokyo contains ,0,000 wall segmentsmade of pitch fibers. 59 ‘

Maintenance: Protecting Against Corrosion

Corrosion of infrastructure components costsbillions of dollars (one major study estimated thatcosts total about 4 percent of the Nation’s GNPannually) in repair, replacement, and lost productiv-ity; approximately 15 percent of these costs areavoidable with current technology.60 Corrosion mostoften affects metal structures, such as bridges,concrete reinforcing bars, and pipelines, and evenproblems invisible to the casual observer can lead tostructural failure, lost lives, the loss of investment,and damage to the environment. As the average ageof facilities and structures continues to rise, corro-sion problems will inevitably worsen, althoughexpenses can be minimized if proven technologiesand techniques that account for corrosion in allphases of construction (design, installation or fabri-cation, maintenance, and repair) are utilized.

A natural phenomenon, corrosion is an electro-chemical process through which metals are oxidizedin aggressive environments, such as moist salt air ina marine environment,6l wastewater in pipelines orwastewater treatment plants,62 soils in contact withburied structures or pipelines,63 or where a structureis subjected to pickup and discharge of stray currentsfrom such sources as direct current rail systems.64

Material selection, use of coating systems, consider-ation for corrosion in the design of a facility, andcathodic protection are options for controlling corro-sion. It is important that engineers and other designprofessionals be aware of the many available corro-sion control techniques and of the benefits ofincorporating them into initial designs to extend theservice life of structures.

Corrosion of reinforcing steel in buried, sub-merged, and atmospherically exposed concretestructures including bridge decks and substructures,piping for water and wastewater, water treatment

5au.s. COW55, Offiw of khnolog Assessment, AdvancedA4atenah by Design: New Structural Materials Technology, OTA-E-351 (_W_OQDC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1988), pp. 87-88.

YW’Cm New ~hnolo~es Save Our mblic Works?” Civd Engineering, vol. 59, No. 12, December 1989, pp. 26-28.

-ational Bureau of Standards, Econonu”c Effects of Metallic Corrosion in the United States: A Report to Congress by the National Bureau ofStandards, NBS Special Publication 511-1 (Washington DC: 1985). Costs are extrapolated from a 1975 study by the National Bureau of Standards.

GIR.J. Kessler and R.G. Powers, “Conductive Rubber as an Impressed Current Anode for Cathodic Protection of Steel Reinforced Concrete,”Corrosion/89 (Houstoq TX: National Association of Corrosion Engineers, April 1989).

GZJ.L. Vitiobos, + ‘Corrosion of Reinforcing Steel by Hydrogen Sulfide Induced Corrosion in Wastewater Facilities,” Corrosiod90 (HOUStOIL TX:National Association of Corrosion Engineers, April 1990).

63K.C. Garrity et al., “corrosion Control Design Considerations for a New Well Water Line,” Materials Perforwnce, Au-t 1989.~’A.w. Peabody, Control Of pipeline Corrosion (HoustoU TX: National Association of Corrosion -WXS, 1%7).

Chapter 5-Cress-Cutting Technologies for Infrastructure . 199

Photo credit:American Society of Civil Engineers

Corrosion of public works infrastructure costs severalbillions of dollars annually for repair, replacement, and

lost productivity.

facilities, and parking garages has become a signifi-cant problem in the United States for many types ofpublic works facilities.65 Concrete is porous, and actslike a sponge in the presence of water or otherliquids. It normally provides a protective environ-ment for reinforcing steel, because its chemicalconstituents and highly alkaline nature help create aprotective film on the surface of the steel. However,if the water contains chloride ions and thesepenetrate to the surface of the reinforcing steel, theprotective film will be disrupted and corrosion of thereinforcing steel will begin.66 As corrosion of thereinforcing steel progresses, rust products whichhave a larger volume than that of the original steelwill accumulate around the corroding area. Thiseventually causes cracking and spalling of theconcrete due to forces that can exceed 5,000 poundsper square inch. Corrosion may also occur when theprotective film does not develop uniformly, as mayhappen when calcium chloride is added to concreteduring mixing to accelerate the set of the concrete.

Photo credit: Marsha Fenn, OTA Sfaff

Using properly protected steel bars for concreteprovides defense against corrosion.

Protection

Techniques to protect concrete structures againstchloride contamination include high-quality, denseconcrete, epoxy-coated reinforcing bars, liners, andcorrosion inhibitors added to concrete mixtures (seetable 5-5 for details). Regardless of the choice ofprotective method, ongoing maintenance is essentialand replacement may eventually be necessary .67

Maintenance and Rehabilitation

The principal technologies now available forcorrosion prevention during rehabilitation arecathodic protection, waterproof overlays, epoxysealers, and local patching. Once concrete has beencontaminated with chloride ions, engineers haveseveral options depending on how long the repairsmust last and how much money can be spent (seetable 5-6).68 For example, if a bridge has a functionallife of only 3 to 5 more years before replacement, aquick fix method is most cost-effective.

Cathodic protection, used by the Navy for morethan 50 years to protect the integrity of shipcomponents, provides longer term safety. Cathodicprotection is not now widely used on bridge decks,because placing a new layer of concrete can also be

W3fiice of lkehnoIogy Assessment and National Association of Corrosion Engineers, Materials l’kdmology and -~c~e D=isio_Workshop, unpublished remarks, Oct. 14, 1989,

66M.L. ~~ ~d B-w. ~~, ~~M=Wc~ s~~tion of Cmosion ~uced Cmcmg in Re~o~~ Concrete,’ COWOMOW8!J (Houston, ~:

National Association of Corrosion Bngineers, April 1989).S7JoIm Broo~eld, Strategic Highway Research Ro~ personal communication NOV. 30, 1989.@Natio~ Association of Corrosion Engineers, “Steel Reinforced Concrete Structures Corrosion Control Considerations,” unpublished report,

November 1989.


Table 5-5-Corrosion Reduction Techniques

M e t h o d Characteristics C o m m e n t s

High-quality dense Less permeable than ordinary concrete; reducesincreases weight and production costs; traditionalconcrete the likelihood of chloride ions contaminating steelprotection method in high-risk environments.

reinforcement.

Epoxy-coated reinforcingProtective sleeve prevents corrosion even inNow widely used for bridges in United States andbars (rebars) presence of chloride ions. Canada; requires careful handling during

construction.

Penetrating sealers Thin layer of sealer is applied to surface to reduceFrequently used on roads and highways.ion penetration.

Waterproof overlays Layer is bituminous, covered with layer of asphalt.Used successfully in European countries.

Corrosion inhibitors Admixtures to concrete mixture. New technology; test results are inconclusive.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on Federal Highway Administration, “Time-to-Corrosion of Reinforcing Steel in Concrete Slabs,”

FHWA-RD-88-165, unpublished report, September 1988.

Table 5-6-Rehabilitation Techniques for Corroded Bridge Decks and Substructures

M e t h o d Characteristics C o m m e n t s

Cathodic protection Current passed through the steel reinforcing barCurrent must continue or corrosion can begin again.stops the electrochemical corrosion activity.

Waterproof ing Pavements and bridge decks resurfaced withMembrane can crack soon after installation.m e m b r a n e s asphaltic-type concrete.

Epoxy sealers Surface sealed with epoxy or other polymer prod-Effective in short term; sealer often needs to beucts to prevent more chlorides from enteringreplaced.or to change internal moisture content.

Patching Deteriorated concrete replaced. Not effective in the long term unless all the chloride-contaminated concrete is removed.

Conductive polymer Bridge decks and structural supports overlayed withStill under development; experimental testing showsconcrete sprayable conductive concrete to prevent electro-promise.

chemical corrosion.SOURCE: Office of Technologv Assessment. based on Federal Highwav Administration. “Spravable Electrically Conductive Polvmer Concrete Coatings,”

FHWA-RD-85-102~ unpublished report, July 1987. - -

successful in preventing corrosion. However,cathodic protection is a preferable method of pro-tecting contaminated concrete substructures, be-cause the removal of a significant layer of contami-nated concrete in preparation for an overlay couldresult in structural collapse. Missouri, one of the fewStates to turn to extensive cathodic protection forbridges, did so because its bridges had relatively thinlayers of support, and the degree of corrosion madeState DOT officials concerned about their structuralintegrity.

Coatings

Because it is simple and cost-effective, paint is themost common coating for preventing corrosion.However, environmental concerns have created newcomplications for public works officials and for thepaint industry. Regulations governing lead contami-nation require measures to ensure that lead does notescape into the atmosphere during paint removal and

. , . . .

that paint debris is disposed of safely. In NorthCarolina, DOT officials have turned to sandblastingoff old paint and then using the sand-lead mixture inasphalt pavement.69 States that do not find suchalternatives face hazardous waste disposal prob-lems.

The air pollution caused by volatile organiccompounds (VOCs) in paints also poses an environ-mental dilemma. VOCs are hydrocarbon-based sol-vents that evaporate during application, drying, andcuring and create lower atmospheric ozone in thepresence of nitrogen when catalyzed by sunlight.While paints without VOCs have been developed,they do not yet adhere as well or last as long.

Some 224,000 steel bridges in the nationalinventory need protection from corrosion. Officialsresponsible for their maintenance must find ways toprotect them with coatings that conform to newenvironmental regulations.70 In some cases, local

@William G. K.&q “Regulators Putting the Lid on Pain~” Engineering News Record, vol. 223, No. 14, Oct. 5,1989, pp. 3033.

-id.


officials have found it cheaper to replace a bridgethan to strip the paint for coating replacement.71

Since costs for R&D to develop new materials areprohibitively high for State and local agencies,FHWA is doing research on protective coatings forsteel as well as how to dispose of contaminated,removed paint.72

Water and Wastewater Facilities

The pipe systems for water and wastewaterfacilities are particularly subject to corrosion. Acidicand moist soil attacks the outside of the pipe, whilematerials in the water or the wastewater corrodefrom the inside. Stray currents from such sources asnearby high-voltage mass transit power supplies, orgrounding systems from electrical distribution sys-tems, and oil and gas pipelines, also cause corrosion.

Three available methods protect pipes from theeffects of corrosion: material selection, coatingselection, and cathodic protection. Advances inmaterials and coatings have done much to mitigateagainst corrosion and prolong the useful lives ofpipes, making the additional initial investment wellworthwhile. However, the most effective method toprotect a water/wastewater distribution system iscathodic protection. Gas and oil pipelines arerequired by law to have cathodic protection, becauseleaks caused by corrosion can lead to explosions. Incontrast, penalties are rarely assessed for a water orwastewater leak, giving local agencies little incen-tive for protecting their piping systems. Yet a simpleprotection system can extend the life of a pipingnetwork indefinitely, and since corrosive materialsin effluent from wastewater facilities are common,corrosion protection considerations should be aroutine part of planning a pipe network.73

Technology ManagementThe complex and fragmented process for Federal,

State, and local public works decisionmaking, therequirements for community participation in largeprojects, environmental impact statements, andcomplicated permit processes make public worksproject timetables extraordinarily lengthy. Numer-

ous organizations and interest groups committed topreserving the status quo affect technology choice,and legal, social, economic, and political considera-tions usually outweigh technology-related factors. Itis hard to imagine a decisionmaking framework lessadaptable to change and to innovation. Politics oftendetermine what gets built, by whom, and how, andsomehow elected and appointed decisionmakersmust find an appropriate balance among competingneeds and technology alternatives.

Designing the Project

Every large construction project goes throughsimilar stages before completion, with preliminarydesign activity beginning even before a decision istaken to start construction. Project design, which hasa major impact on the final outcome, can be carriedout by agency staff or by a design consultant. Ineither case, designers pay close attention to existingdesign standards and previous projects to ensure thesuccess of the project and to reduce the financial,political, and professional risks involved with theproject. Neither agency engineers nor design firmshave an incentive to introduce new technologiesunless directed to do so by the owner, and manypublic officials are not interested in being the firstowner of a new technology .74 Thus, technologiesdeveloped offshore are not easily introduced into theUnited States because designers are not familiarwith them, operating experience is often underdifferent conditions, and handbooks and manualsdescribing their implementation and use are notreadily available.75

After a design is completed and accepted, biddocuments are prepared, which include the projectdesign, specifications for materials, parts, and equip-ment, and contract provisions. Designers rely onengineering standards and specifications to preventunexpected failures, and since the design determineswhat the contractor will construct, opportunities forintroducing promising new methods or technologiesare limited. Flexibility in certifying what is accept-able to meet specifications, such as allowing propri-etary and sole source technologies, might spur the

71 Don Fohs, chief of materials, Federal Highway ~“ “stratioq personal communication Nov. 28, 1989.

721bid.TsNational Association of Corrosion Engineers, “Water and Wastewater Corrosion Considerations Offered by the National Association of Corrosion

Engineers,” unpublished paper, November 1989.TdRudo~ Nothenbmg, chief aws~ative Offlwr, City and County of San Francisco, personal ~mm~catioq Feb. 10S 1989.

Vsvictor Elias, private consultant personal COmmUnimtiOm my 2, 1~.


use of innovative technology.76 Legal restrictionsoften prevent a designer and contractor from work-ing together to develop a better or less costly project.

Long-term maintenance requirements of newdesigns must be considered, since an improveddesign may reduce capital costs but require addi-tional inspection and maintenance efforts. Becauseresponsibility for design, construction, operations,and maintenance is divided in most organizations,opportunities during design for improving opera-tions are often unknown to, or overlooked by,designers. Maintenance managers are not alwaysconsulted in the development of specifications for afacility or equipment for which they will be respon-sible, even though their suggestions can result incost savings.77

One possible improvement to the process isholding a competition for preliminary designs; thiswould allow evaluation before detailed developmentof the preferred design and weighing of alternativeson a basis of more than low cost.78 Althoughexamining alternative designs can bring long-termsavings, the costs of funding more than one designmay be hard for public officials to justify. Costs areincurred early in the process, benefits are accruedonly in the future, and there is no guarantee that thebenefits will be as estimated. Projects can beprocured through a design-build contract (seebelow), but in some States this approach is notconsidered protective of the public interest, and legalrestrictions prohibit it for public projects.79

Design on the basis of system performance isanother way to develop less costly designs. Goodperformance specifications require a thorough un-derstanding of the problem and the technologicalways to solve that problem.80 Even when officialshave such understanding, evaluating alternativedesigns to meet performance objectives is difficult,because comparisons are based on a range of criteriathat have different definitions and measures. Evalu-ating designs that include new or innovative technol-

ogies is also difficult, particularly if operatingexperience is lacking. Despite these complications,performance-based design competitions can openthe path for innovative problem solving.

Value engineering (VE) is a very specific costcontrol methodology for examinin g a design on thebasis of its functional purpose and capital, operating,and maintenance costs, so as to identify cost itemsunnecessary for the proposed function of the facility.EPA mandates VE for projects greater than $10million and currently reports an $18 return per dollarspent on VE.81 Some design firms perform anindependent in-house VE of all their design proj-ects.82 Some DOT programs, especially in the UrbanMass Transportation Administration, also requireVE for capital grant-funded facilities.

Procurement Options

Most public works projects are purchased under asystem of competitive bidding that offers those whoare qualified an opportunity to prepare a bid orproposal. Procurement procedures and regulationshave been developed over time to ensure fairnessand accountability and to protect the large sums ofpublic money involved. Some procurement regula-tions, such as Buy America and minority set-asides,have been established to achieve specific economicand social goals, but they also can affect technologychoice.

Selection on the basis of lowest cost or ‘low-bid’is most common for public works projects, eventhough the lowest bid price rarely accounts forquality, performance over time, and maintenance.Contractors compete against one another in thebidding process, and often the winner subsequentlycompetes with the locality to further minimize costsand maximize profit. However, choices on the basisof lowest initial cost ignore options that could havehigher quality and long-term economy. Since oper-ating and maintenance costs are not the same fordifferent designs, a purchase decision that ignores

TcRussell W&aria, Congressional Research Service, ‘‘Productivity in Public Works Construction: Options for Improvement” report 88-97, Jan. 29,1988. 1

~Robrt Confio, “EWloyee pticipation: The Blue Collar Edge,” Public Works, June 198’7, Pp. 81-82.78W&aria, op. cit., footnote 76.%. Gerald Schwar@ vice pnxiden~ Sverdrup Corp., personal communication, May 4, 1990.

~omas Richardson chief, Engineering Development Divisio~ U.S. Army Engineering Waterways Experiment StatioU remarks at the OTAWorkshop on Transportation Infrastructure l’kchnologies, July 25, 1989.

slwiIti J~bic, private consultaq personal comrnun.imtiom Apr. 30, lm.

szTho~ Morq U.S. Environmen~ Protection Agency, personal COInmUn.iCatiOIl MY 4, lm.


them can result in high expenses in the future. Somepublic officials, while recognizing the difficulties ofadministering alternative procurement approaches,characterize low-bid procurement as “penny wiseand pound foolish.”83

One alternative to low-bid procurement is basedon life-cycle cost, which takes into account capital,operations, and maintenance costs of equipment orfacilities over their expected life. Bidders must workclosely with the purchasing agency to fully under-stand the performance needs of the owner. Adisadvantage of life-cycle cost procurement is thatpromising technologies seldom have life-cycle costdata to support the analysis, and uncertainty overfuture cost prevents wider use.

Federal agencies have successfully used alterna-tive methods of procurement for construction, par-ticularly when time was limited or the project wascomplex, unusual, and initially difficult to define.84

These nontraditional methods include:

cost-reimbursable contracts that permit pay-ment of allowable costs plus a fee or profit thatis fixed or variable based on performance;

competitive negotiations that involve face-to-face negotiations with a number of potentialcontractors;

a two-step bid process, with evaluation oftechnical proposals followed by submissionand evaluation of cost proposals;

concurrent design-build, which allows the startof the construction phase before the design iscompleted; and

turnkey construction, in which a firm assumesthe responsibility for design and constructionand hands the keys over to the owner uponcompletion. In a variation of the turnkeyapproach, the contractor would also have re-sponsibility for operations and maintenance.

Each of these approaches involves additional con-tract administration effort; and legal, administrative,or political considerations can make them difficult toimplement. 85

The design-build approach in which a single firmis awarded the contract to design and build a facilityhas been used successfully for private constructionprojects. Combining the design and constructionsteps with a contract to operate and maintain isanother possibility, one that is currently being usedfor the Channel Tunnel project linking England andFrance. The contractor won the right to develop thetunnel at its own expense and the concession tooperate the tunnel until 2042 with freedom to settolls. 86 Variations of this approach are possible forother revenue generating projects where privatefinancing is available, although approval by alegislative body is often required.

Standards and Specifications

Design standards help the designer achieve a safeand reliable design and serve to protect the owner’s87The process forinvestment from inferior products.establishing standards and specifications is lengthy,and once developed, standards are difficult tochange. Thus while providing substantial protectionto the owner, they limit the opportunity for introduc-ing product improvements. Standards can rangefrom theory-based, structural design standards tomandated water quality standards for treating mu-nicipal wastewater. They are usually conservative innature and include a safety factor that is a reminderthat our understanding of risks, materials, anddesigns is not always complete;88 as just oneexample, EPA regulations have been described asrequiring wastewater to be treated so that it is cleanerthan the receiving stream without addressing theneed to protect the stream from other pollutionsources .89

83HCW w. We&q vice c~ South Coast Air Quality Management District, remarks at the OTA Workshop on Transportation Infrastructurelkchnologies, July 25, 1989.

~Fede~ com~ction Comcil Comul@ committ~ on fiocmaent policy, Experiences Of Fe&Tu/ Agencies wi~~ Nontraditional Methods ofAcquiring Real Properly, ~hnical Report No. 83 ~ashingtoq DC: National Academy Press, 1986).

85WI&aria, op. cit., footnote 76.86’’ Managing a Megaprojec4° Civil Engineering, vol. 59, No. 6, June 1989, p. 45.sTMic~el ~use, ‘‘Workshop Report-Engineering Standards Versus Risk ~ysi$’ Risk-Based Decision Making in Water Resources, Yacov Y.

Haines and Eugene Z. Stakhiv (eds.) (New Yorlq NY: American Society of Civil Engineers, November 1985).sgFomest WilSO~ “Doctors for Building,” Technology Review, vol. 89, No. 4, May/June 1986, p. 49.89whit ~ Cott, ~o~ssioner of Watm, Tol~o, Ohio, remks at the Om workshop on Envim~en~ ‘Ikchnologies, Sept. 14, 1989, p. 64.


Construction contracts include many specifica-tions and provisions that go beyond the actualproject design. They include general provisionsregarding legal issues such as liquidated damages,project change orders, terms of performance, andmethods and schedule of payment; special provi-sions dealing with system or equipment verification,quality assurance, and contractor deliverables; andtechnical provisions that describe all the specifica-tions that must be met.

Risk and Liability

Each new technology is surrounded by risk due touncertainty. The risk is multifaceted and includes:

●

●

●

●

●

●

technical risk (will the system do what it isdesigned to do?);health risk (will it control disease as effectivelyas other technologies?);safety risk (will it reduce injury and death?);financial risk (will the investment be justi-fied?);political risk (will the technology providedesirable results?); andliability risk (will the potential for failure befinancially bearable?). -

Public decisionmakers are reluctant to purchasenew technology; their basic decision guideline isthat technology should be proven in the field or inrevenue service before being considered for theirjurisdiction. While it maybe an exaggeration to saythat administrative agencies “. . . anguish over newtechnology and the possible effects on soci-ety . . .“90 it is true that public works are not" . . . well-suited for trial-and-error management; thecumulative operating experience is not long enoughto provide a good database on what the risks are.’ ’91

However, if opportunities for introducing newtechnologies are limited by various risks, the valueof seeking better methods for testing and evaluatingnew technologies is great.

Risk-sharing arrangements, which recognize thatno one party can afford to accept all the risk,represent one way to overcome bias against newtechnology. Risk sharers can include all levels ofgovernment that would benefit from successfulapplication, local investors and developers whocould gain financially, and manufacturers and con-tractors who anticipate future sales contracts. Theneed to spread the risk in the United States resultsfrom governmental unwillingness to establish arecognized authority to test and approve new tech-nologies. 92 Efforts such as EPA’s Innovative andAlternative Technology Program (see box 5-C) weredesigned to provide an increased Federal match tolocalities for construction grants.93 Demonstrationprojects that help bridge the gap between a devel-oped technology and Ml-scale implementation in anoperating environment are an effective way toencourage the use of advanced technologies.

Repair and Rehabilitation

Although numerous studies have documented thevalue of good maintenance practices, maintenancefunds are highly vulnerable to budget cuts.94 Easy tooverlook and defer and with little or no politicalconstituency, maintenance has been compared tovisiting the dentist because, ‘‘. . . it’s painful andcostly . . . and it doesn’t get done unless it isabsolutely necessary or catastrophic. ”95 Becausemaintenance budgets are limited, small repairs areoften made with low-grade materials to eliminate animmediate problem and to delay a more costly,longer lasting repair.

Inventories, inspections, and evaluation are allneeded to avoid costly repairs and rehabilitation. Arecent study of New York’s bridges stressed theimportance of preventive maintenance, recognizingthat if maintenance is stopped, even for shortperiods, deterioration accelerates.96 The study alsoconcluded that although modem methods are help-ful, some of the best steps are the simplest. Cleaning,

~peter M&jr, “Don’t Innovate: It’s Dtlu&Tous,” Civi/Engineenng, vol. 58, No. 4, April 1988, p. 6.glW~~rDi~~d, ‘tRisk ~ysis ~d public work ~ision.q,” Engineering AppliCutiO~ Of RiskAnaly~s, F.A. E@ Jr., ~d A. Moghhsi

(eds.) (New York NY: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1988), pp. 39=43.%Iational Council on public Works hnprovemen~ Fragile Foundations: A Report on the Nation’s Public Works, Final Report to the President and

the Congress (Washingto~ DC: February 1988), p. 128.gs~e~m public Works ASSOCiariOU “structuring Demonstration Projects of New lkchnologiea,” Proceedings, Aug. 3, 1987, p. T.XApogee Research ~c., ‘‘Maintaining Good Maintenance,” technical memorandum prepared for the National Council on Public Works

Improvement Sept. 30, 1987.9s~ Co~ Op. cit., footnote 89.%, ~Ffig -t Ain’t Broke, “ Civil Engineering, vol. 59, No. 9, September 1989, p. 69.

Chapter 5—Cross-Cutting Technologies for Infrastructure ● 205

Box 5-C—The Environmental Protection Agency’s Alternative andInnovative Technology Program

Americans’ zest for innovation and the drive to build a better mousetrap fades rapidly when it comes to publicworks. The history of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) efforts to promote nontraditional technologiesfor wastewater treatment highlights the conservatism of State and local officials’ attitudes toward public worksinnovation.

Disturbed that the construction grant program established by the Clean Water Act of 1972 was fundingpredominantly large regional facilities using conventional technologies, Congress authorized the Innovative andAlternative Technology (1/A) Program in 1977 to absorb the financial risks of local experiments with nontraditionalsystem design and construction. If a community used an EPA-approved alternative treatment or innovativetechnology, EPA covered an extra 20 percent (or 75 percent) of project costs, even if they were as much as 15 percenthigher than conventional methods. Communities that chose new technologies were eligible for 100 percent grantsto corrector replace systems that failed. States were required to set aside 4 percent of their total Federal constructiongrant allocations to fund the required bonuses for new technologies.

While providing a proving ground for experimental technology was a prime program goal, only 600 out of the2,700 I/A-funded projects meet EPA’s definition of innovative--using developed, but not fully proventechnologies. l This category includes, for example, new aeration and mixing processes and innovativekinds of clarifiers and disinfection for wastewater treatment, and aerobic and/or anaerobic digestion of sludge. Thevast majority of I/A projects use more orthodox methods EPA classifies as alternative; these include land treatmentof wastewater and sludge, aquifer recharge, and methane recovery—well known, if not widely used, techniques thatare low cost and emphasize environmental preservation and energy conservation. Despite the relatively lowparticipation in innovative projects, EPA reports that the acceptance of ultraviolet disinfection as an alternative tochlorination and technical improvements in sequencing batch reactors for small communities are direct results ofI/A-funded projects.2

Most I/A grants have gone for alternative projects in capital-short, small communities more interested inmoney and low-cost operations than cutting-edge technology. Over two-thirds of I/A projects serve communitieswith populations under 10,000, many of which would have had low priority for Federal or State funding outsidethe I/A program.3 Between 1979 and 1985, over one-half of the States failed to appropriate all their State I/Aset-aside, foregoing millions in Federal funds.4

Funding for I/A projects ended in 1990 when the Construction Grant Program expired. Innovative wastewatertreatment projects are eligible for State Revolving Fund loans, but for most communities, loan repayment is likelyto be a further disincentive to innovation and risk-taking.

1u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Effectiveness of the Innovative and Alternative Wastewater TreatmentTechnology Program (Washington DC: September 1989), p. 66.

2Ibid., p. 67.3Ibid., p. 64.4Ibid., p. 45,

painting, patching, and sealing need to be performedregularly.

Proprietary Technologies

When the private sector develops a better mouse-trap, the rights to it are important because of thecompetitive advantage they bring. Selling the im-proved mousetrap to the public sector may bedifficult, because public authorities want to protect

themselves against price changes or supply prob-lems associated with proprietary technologies.97

Furthermore, the private sector may have to foregosome proprietary rights on a product purchased bythe public sector, thereby sacrificing its competitiveposition. Sole source procurement is possible wherea one-of-a-kind product is available, but proceduresbuilt into the procurement system to protect againstfavoritism make sole sourcing difficult.

97Vakharia, op. cit., footnote 76, p. 21.


Personnel Training, Education, andRecruitment

As promising as many new technologies appear,they cannot be used properly without trained manag-ers and technicians, and there is much evidence thatthe public works field is losing its well-trainedpeople to the private sector and to retirement muchfaster than they are being replaced. Many newtechnologies require new skills; in some cases jobsmust be redefined or job assignments combined, sothat qualified people can be hired at a competitivesalary .98 Some public works departments are provid-ing special training for entry-level employees to helpthem qualify for jobs and for additional technicaltraining.99 The current need for repair and rehabilita-tion in public works increases the severity of theseproblems, because very little engineering trainingand education focuses on emerging methods ortechnologies.

Small systems have particular difficulty in findingtrained personnel to operate and maintain thecomplex treatment systems necessary to meet cur-rent EPA standards. The National Rural WaterAssociation with funding from EPA has developeda circuit rider program (see chapter 4, box 4-E) toalleviate some of the problems created by the lack oftrained personnel, but more help is needed. Qualifiedcircuit riders soon leave the program for moremoney and greater opportunity in larger systems.Thus while it is important to develop specialtechnologies for small systems, helping find thepeople to staff them is even more crucial.

Improved training and education are necessary formany reasons. If procurement procedures arechanged to allow promising technologies to beintroduced more quickly, public works staffs mustbe capable of adjusting to the improvements. Pro-curement decisions based on performance standards,for example, will require abilities that are not nowgenerally available. As one expert puts it, “We

cannot have performance specifications if all wehave are a bunch of contract monitors. ‘‘lWNontradi-tional procurement procedures will also requiremore contract administration and greater coordina-tion between the technical and administrative staffsof public agencies.l0l

The construction industry and its labor unionshave recognized the need for additional well-trainedpersonnel and have initiated a national trainingprogram, spending about $400 million last yearalone.l02 DOT’s university centers, too, are focusingon attracting students to stay in the civil engineeringfield in public works. (See chapter 6 for furtherdetails.)

Conclusions

Although many innovative technologies are availa-ble to help infrastructure managers use staff moreproductively and improve system operation andmaintenance, institutional, management, and finan-cial constraints prevent their adoption by mostpublic works organizations. Moreover, since manyof these originated in fields other than infrastructure,successfully applying them to public works requiresadditional analysis, development, and field testingand evaluation. Yet, despite a multitude of Federaltechnology transfer programs, efforts to implementcross-cutting technologies with application across arange of public works have no institutional home.

Acceptance and use of new technologies isclosely tied to legal requirements and manage-ment and procurement policies that inhibit con-sideration of alternatives without an extensiverecord of operational experience. Although cau-tion is necessary when public funds are used,Federal leadership would be invaluable in devel-oping appropriate safeguards and evaluationprocedures that allow a broader set of technologyalternatives to be considered.

9SU.S. Covess, ~lce of ‘rkchnoIogy Assessmen~ A4&”ng Things Better: CoWeting in Man@a~”ng, s~ (waahingtq DC: Us.Government Printing Office, February 1990), p. 22.

~C~o@ H. OlseU comissioner, Atlanta Department of Water and Pollution Contro~ personal communicatio~ Feb. 7, 1990.l~om ~~hadsom c~~, fi@e@ ~velwent Divisio~ u-s. Army -eering wat~ays fiperiment StitiO& remdts d the O T A

Workshop on Transportation Infrastructure ‘Ikchnologies, July 25, 1989.IOIF~e~ Comtiction Coucfi co~~ co~tt= on fimment poficy, Experiences Of Fe&ru/AgenCieS with Nontraditional Methods of

Acquiring Rea/Prope~, ‘IHmical Report No. 83 (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1986).low. Jwes spel~e, me ~ber Group, persorud communications, my 101990.


Promising Technologies

Computers for scheduling work tasks, monitoringequipment use, ordering and tracking supplies,tracking staff requirements, organizing and trackingdocuments, and performing many other routinefunctions in public works projects have broughtenormous benefits. Public works organizations aremost likely to be using computers; the degree towhich other electronic or advanced decisionmakingtools are used depends on the skill levels ofpersonnel and the agency’s financial resources.

Communications and Decision Tools

Advances in solid-state electronic technologyhave fueled the development of low-cost reliabletools to assist public works managers in assessingtheir systems. These sensing and measuring devices,especially when coupled with information manage-ment systems, can provide extensive infrastructurecondition and performance data for many decision-making and management tasks. They can alsoreduce long-term maintenance costs by helpingmanagers to identify problems when they are lesscostly to correct and to set maintenance prioritieswhen funding is tight. However, budget processesmake it difficult for public works officials topurchase items designed to reduce future expendi-tures or those not directly related to current needs,and most current Federal grant categories precludeuse for this sort of equipment.

Computer-based inventory and decision supportsystems provide efficient means of storing andaccessing infrastructure condition and performancedata. Expert systems and artificia1 intelligenceprograms show promise as training and engineeringtools. Computer systems coupled with appropriatetechnical skills and decisionmaking tools can helppublic works authorities faced with expandinginventories of facilities and limited operating bud-gets operate more productively and efficiently.

Advances in communications and positioningtechnologies may make large-scale traffic manage-ment and control, common today in aviation, practi-cal for other modes of transportation. Surface trafficflow gains on the order of 10 percent are possible,and in congested areas this might result in largereductions in delay. Off-the-shelf urban traffic signalcontrol systems can reduce delay by up to 10 to 20percent.

Construction and Materials

Considerable research is under way on materialsfor highway construction to yield longer life andlower maintenance costs. Improved methods andtechniques for construction and preventive mainte-nance are as important as materials to preventpremature failure. Construction methods that do notphysically disrupt normal operations and minimizethe tra.file delays of traditional methods of construc-tion are available for wider use in public works. Suchmethods are particularly cost-effective in congestedareas and for heavily used facilities, and are alsoimportant for repair and rehabilitation projects.

Advanced tunneling technologies provide oppor-tunities for lower cost construction for transporta-tion and water projects. Combined with electronicguidance and monitoring equipment these technolo-gies can make completing such projects easier andless costly.

Techniques such as soil nailing and jet groutingand using geotextiles make it easier to utilizeexisting soils and terrain conditions, lowering con-struction costs. Such techniques also can be used forcost-effective repairs and rehabilitation and deservefurther exploration and development.

Although their initial cost is higher, advancedmaterials, such as polymers and composites, canyield higher strength, longer life, and improveddurability to public works, making them goodlong-term investments. In addition, regular, preven-tive maintenance and using known techniques cansave the costs and prevent many of the losses due tocorrosion of infrastructure facilities and equipment.

Technology Management

Probably the greatest gains in public worksproductivity and efficiency will be made by focusingon changing management practices. Table 5-7 pro-vides a summary of issues and alternatives.

Changes in the Federal Role

Federal policies could be shaped to encouragepublic officials to make greater use of procure-ment approaches that have proven successful forpublic projects. Using life-cycle costs and valueengineering in making procurement decisions canhelp lower long-term costs without affecting projectperformance.


Table %7—Alternatives for Technology Management

Subiect Issues AlternativeProject design

Procurement

Standards andspecifications

Risk and liability

Repair andrehabilitation

Personnel training,education, andrecruitment

Engineers and designers have few incentives to intro-duce innovative technologies; designers and con-tractors are often legally prohibited from workingtogether on public projects. Project designs directcontractors as to what to construct so they have noincentive to innovate except in construction tech-niques.

Low-bid procurement does not account for quality,performance over time, and future maintenance re-quirements. it encourages adherence to the statusquo and stifles the opportunity for innovation.

Design standards are vaiuabie but they are difficuit tochange and hinder innovation. The scope of projectspecifications has expanded to include many provi-sions that address legal and administrative areas.

Public decisionmakers have little or no incentive tointroduce a new technology; risk aversion is wide-spread in the public sector. industry is highlyprotective of proprietary technology.

Poor and deferred maintenance are known to lead topremature failures and deterioration of capital facilities,and yet decisionmakers often discount the long-termvalue of good maintenance,

New technologies require new technical skills and toofew engineers are entering the field to meet the need.improved training and education is needed so thatinnovative technologies can be put into use quicklyand effectively.

Design competitions, performance specifications,and value engineering furnish opportunities forinnovative approaches.

Alternative procurement methods have proven suc-cessful in delivering higher quality products, oftenat a lower cost. Design-build procurement has beenused to advantage in the private sector for manyyears.

Streamlining design standards and contract specifi-cations would be helpful. A materials testing labora-tory could hasten new technology introduction.

Risk-sharing arrangements are necessary for thepublic sector to embrace new technology. Demon-stration projects can encourage innovative technol-ogies. Funding tied to performance may provide anadditional incentive.

inventories, condition assessment data, and preven-tive maintenance programs together with capitalfunding that is tied to these can force appropriateactions.

Efforts to educate and train engineers and techni-cians that include the engineering profession,universities, consultants, and unions need privateand public support to address the severe staffshortages.


Acceptance of new technologies requires a shar-ing of the financial and technical risks amongdesigners, manufacturers or builders, and govern-ment agencies that finance and operate these tech-nologies. Projects designed to evaluate, refine, anddemonstrate innovative technologies in an operatingenvironment would help promote new technologyand provide a basis for determining their value. Suchdemonstration projects will require considerablepublic-private cooperation, and Congress couldconsider focusing a few R&D programs onpromising technology areas and encouragingpublic-private arrangements.

The establishment of an authoritative institutionfor testing and approving new technologies wouldhelp avoid some of the current problems associatedwith risk and liability. Such an institution willrequire considerable support from the Federal Gov-ernment (see chapter 6 for a discussion of theNational Institute of Standards and Technology). Anindependent, national testing laboratory andnational technology demonstration program

sponsored by the Federal Government couldencourage researchers and facilitate the intro-duction of new products and technology.

Even though preventive maintenance is an impor-tant component in protecting the investment incapital facilities, the value of maintenance is oftendiscounted when the competition for limited budgetsincreases. Congress could consider ways to recog-nize deferred maintenance as a cost item and tohold the capital grant recipients accountable forpremature deterioration of facilities and equip-ment due to improper and deferred maintenance.

Personnel Training, Education, andRecruitment

The complexity of much new technology placeshigh demands on the technicians, operators, andmaintenance personnel involved. The need foradditional training of such personnel and theirmanagers is very great if new technology is to beused effectively. Consultants, manufacturers, pro-fessional organizations, unions, and universities all


can help provide training. Mentor programs thatprovide help to small systems would be particularlyhelpful.

The average age of infrastructure managers in-creases, and the numbers of young graduates inrelevant fields to take the place of the retiringinfrastructure work force are insufficient. TheUnited States faces a serious shortage of qualifiedpersonnel to operate public works. Directing addi-tional funds to programs that support university

research in transportation and environmentalinfrastructure could attract students back totransportation and civil engineering and alleviatethe worsening shortage of qualified engineers todesign, build, operate, manage, and maintaininfrastructure systems. Congress could addressthe need for more engineers and for engineeringcurricula that includes attention to maintenanceand rehabilitation.

Research andfor

DevelopmentPublic Works

ContentsPage

Executive Agency R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215Department of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219National Institute Of Standards and Technology ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226National Science Foundation ** ..+***.....+.....*......*.***.*.*.....*.**...++.. 227Department of the Interior **. ,*, . * . * . *, * ., . . *,, * * * . . . . * . * * * . . . *, . . . . + * . . . . . . . . . . 229DoD and DOE Laboratories ..+. * . . . . . . . . * * * * . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

Technology Transfer ,*. .*** ..*. ***. .?. .+** @*. $*. .*** *.*. .+. .*. *.. *. * . . . 4.*+..... 232Non-Federal R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

State Research Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233State Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234Industry and Association R&D ,, ..****......*.*,**,*.+*.*..,,.*..+..........***. 234

Conclusions and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .235Federal Agency Public Works R&D .,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236Technology Transfer .*. .**. *.. ... ... o.*. .*. *.. .*** ..** ..*. .*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238Technical Training and Expertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .239

BoxesBox Page

6-A. Tunneling: A Buried Research Priority . . , . . . , . , . . . . , . . , . ’ . . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . . . , , . 2146-B. University Infrastructure Research *.** 4*** .*0. * * @ * o * * . * ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2356-C. Ben Franklin Partnerships .* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

FiguresFigure Page6-1. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development

Organization Chart o.. *.. .** ..*..*.**..*...*...*..*.+*..*...*....**....*..*.. 2176-2. Annual Department of Transportation R&D Obligations, 1978 and 1988.........2216-3. Federal R&D Funding for Highways . . . . . . . * . . * . . . * *, . *, . . ., . . . * . . * * * .,.*,.... 2236-4. National Institute of Standards and Technology Total Federal Appropriations,

1980-90 *,. .*. ..**, *.#. ,.** ., . ., . . . ., . . * . . .,, , . . . * * * * . ., ., * ., * .,, , * *,+.,.... 2276-5. Federal Federal for Public Works R&D, 1980-90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

TablesPage

6-L Environmental Protection Agency Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2166-2, Department of Transportation Public Works Research and Development . . . . . . . . . 220

CHAPTER 6

Research and Development for Public Works

Most Federal agencies with major roles in publicworks provide important management and financialsupport for research and development (R&D) intheir areas of interest. They are the primary bodies(and in some cases the only ones) with enoughresources to do this, although, like their State andlocal counterparts, they must allocate resourcescarefully. Furthermore, Federal R&D support oftenranks behind agency responsibilities for fundingconstruction, operations, or grant programs. Theabsence of any comprehensive Federal attention toinfrastructure, the gaps and overlaps in R&D pro-grams, and the competition for scarce funds forFederal R&D mean that attention to future infra-structure needs is inadequate. Only a few non-Federal researchers in State, university, and industryprograms are addressing the resulting voids ininfrastructure R&D.

Among the many infrastructure R&D effortssupported by executive branch agencies are anumber of in-house programs in direct support ofeach agency’s mission and programs to fund univer-sity research and other, more specialized agendas.The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and eachmodal administration in the U.S. Department ofTransportation (DOT) all sponsor mission-relatedR&D programs dedicated to infrastructure. Otherexecutive agencies, including the U.S. Departmentof the Interior, the U.S. Department of Commerce,and the National Science Foundation (NSF), con-duct a smaller amount of public works R&D.

In addition to the primary executive agencysponsors of mission-related R&D, several otherexecutive agencies have programs tangential topublic works, such as the Department of Com-merce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-istration marine R&D and the U.S. Department ofAgriculture’s Soil Conservation Service agriculturalR&D. However, the level of effort related toinfrastructure is small compared with the programsdiscussed in this chapter. Though the relevantprograms of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) are alsolimited, these agencies are discussed because someof their R&D could be applied to infrastructure.

Focusing first on the Federal agencies devoted topublic works, then on those with related programs,and then on DoD and DOE, this chapter will outlinethe patchwork of public works R&D programs,paying special attention to in-house and federallyfunded university research. State efforts and severalrelevant programs, including technology transferefforts, will be discussed, and conclusions reachedabout options for redirecting Federal R&D.

Executive Agency R&DInfrastructure-related R&D under the direction of

executive branch agencies is directly tied to, andlimited by, each agency’s agenda and responsibili-ties. Even though many of the technologies andinfrastructure needs are cross-cutting (see chapter 5),cooperative R&D and coordination between agen-cies-even within a single agency—is relativelyrare. When a specific R&D need is common toseveral agencies, the efforts to cooperate are sonarrow and uncoordinated that the research resultsoften do not reach the public works organizationsthat could benefit. (See box 6-A for an example.)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has both civilworks and military missions focused largely oninfrastructure, for which yearly R&D expenditurestotal about $350 million. In civil works, the researchemphasis is on water resources structures andfunctions primarily related to navigation, floodcontrol, and environmental quality. Corps militaryR&D focuses on design, construction, operation,and maintenance of military facilities; some of thisis also applicable to public works infrastructure.

Although it is within DoD, the Corps has moreextensive contact with State and local governments,the private sector, and other Federal agencies than doother military R&D operations. The Corps’ Con-struction Productivity Advancement Research Pro-gram (CPAR) is aimed at stimulating collaborationon technology issues between Corps laboratoriesand private enterprise, particularly the constructionindustry. CPAR attracted an investment of $7million from the private sector in 1989.

–213-


Box 6-A—Tunneling: A Buried Research Priority

Tunnel research and development (R&D) in the United States has never been a top priority or even a focusedernment agencies, despite its broad applicationsactivity for Federal Gov for public works. Government agencies that

fund tunnel and underground construction projects include the Federal Highway Admin“ “stration, the Urban MassTransportation Administration, the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Transportation (DOT), theDepartment of Defense (DoD), the Department of Energy, the Bureau of Mines, and the Bureau of Reclamation.These agencies generally fund specific construction projects, with occasional attention to subtasks, such astunneling. Most university research is funded by DoD and, to a lesser extent, the National Science Foundation.

In contrast, tunnel research abroad tends to be long term and not tied to a specific project. U.S. projects relatedto underground structure currently underway include the Superconducting Super Collider in Texas and a feasibilitystudy for a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada These efforts could further understanding ofwaterproofing techniques and tunneling through unstable rock. Gummily, however, non-DOT projects have littleapplicability to public works tunnels, even though the technologies developed could, with appropriate development,benefit public infrastructure.

Machine manufacturers contin“ ually conduct re-search to improve cutting and excavation methods, andcontractors occasionally focus on ways to improvefield instrumentation and monitoring methods. Seechapter 5 for a discussion of the difficulties of usingproprietary equipment and procedures for publicworks projects. The National Academy of Science’sNational Cmmittee on Tunneling Technology acts asa technology clearinghouse, provides guidelines onneeded research, and represents the United States in theInternational Tunneling Association.

Most important for tunneling is research to findways of integrating tunnel boring and excavation withadequate tunnel support. Having the initial supportbecome the permanent lining is desirable, but difficult.In excavating, the next big R&D breakthrough will be Although tunnels such as this are crucial to surfacemachines that can cut through ground with variable t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , technologies to constructgeology; water jets and heat are among the technolo- have not been a research and development priority ingies for cutting and excavation now under study. the United States.

Until the early 1980s, Corps civil works R&D was activities and concerns. (For more on the Corps’concentrated on technologies and techniques in administrative structure, see chapter 2.) The combi-support of new construction to develop waterresources. Since 1983, however, the Corps’ appro-priations related to operations and maintenance haveoutpaced those for new construction. While"

. . . technology development has lagged in the areaof operations and maintenance . . .’ the Corps hastaken steps to enhance such R&D as the 6-year,$35-miIlion civil works Repair, Evaluation, Mainte-nance, and Rehabilitation Research program.

The Corps supports 16 laboratories; 6 of thesehave active research programs, while the othersconduct tests related to Corps district construction

nation of experimental facilities, computer model-ing, simulation expertise, and experience in the fieldworking with user communities makes the Corps’large laboratories a unique resource. Because Corpslaboratories do not receive a direct congressionalappropriation, the laboratories work on a reimburs-able basis, with sponsors, most frequently otherCorps’ offices, paying all costs of the work involved.

Three of the Corps’ six main laboratories, theWaterways Experiment Station (WES), the ColdRegions Research and Engineering Laboratory(CRREL), and the Construction Engineering Re-

1U.S. Army corps of Engineers, “Advanced Technologies for Infrastructure,” unpublished manuscript prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, n.d., p. 20.

Chapter 6-Research and Development for Public Works . 215

search Laboratory (CERL), are involved primarily ininfrastructure technology R&D. Each has substan-tial research and testing facilities and in-housetechnical staff.

The WES laboratory complex in Vicksburg,Mississippi, is the Corps’ principal research, testing,and development facility. WES has six subdivisions,which collectively execute engineering investiga-tions and R&D in areas such as hydraulics, soil androck mechanics, earthquake engineering, coastaleffects, concrete, pavements, water quality, anddredged material. Although Corps’ offices are thesource of the majority of WES’ work, WES alsoundertakes studies for other Federal agencies, Stateand local governments, private industry, and foreigngovernments.

CRREL, located in Hanover, New Hampshire,concentrates on the science and engineering prob-lems of cold regions, such as river ice managementfor winter navigation, ice jam flooding, and otherice-related, hydrological problems. CRREL alsoconducts R&D on reducing life-cycle costs ofpavements, buildings, and environmental engineer-ing facilities. CRREL has ongoing cooperativeprograms with the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA), the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA), the Strategic Highway Research Program,EPA, DOE, other DoD organizations, and a numberof State DOTS.

CERL, located in Urbana, Illinois, emphasizesimproving construction quality and energy effi-ciency while still safeguarding the environment.CERL works with nondestructive testing technolo-gies, corrosion prevention, materials, and informa-tion systems, in support of Army programs inmilitary construction, operations and maintenance,and engineering, with some attention to civil works.Technologies developed by CERL applicable topublic works include PAVER, a pavement mainte-nance and management information system. CERLcooperates with DOT’s FHWA and FAA, and withmunicipalities through the American Public WorksAssociation.

The Corps works hard on technology transferthrough seminars, conferences, the publication oftechnical papers—WES alone issues over 225,000publications annually-demonstration and transferprograms, input to national standards development,cooperative agreements with universities and theprivate sector, participation in professional socie-ties, and formal training courses. However, theagency acknowledges difficulties in keeping even itsown personnel up-to-date on all the latest technol-ogy?

The Corps probably has the most extensivein-house civilian public works R&D capacity in thecountry, though it is now heavily committed to waterresources development. The Corps is trying todiversify its role, targeting environmental engineer-ing and hazardous waste cleanup as potential newareas of expertise. The Corps could be a more widelyshared resource for other agencies and the privatesector, if prospective client agencies are willing todevelop appropriate R&D programs and able tomake firm financial commitments.

Environmental Protection Agency

EPA conducts much of the Federal environmentalinfrastructure R&D, with most of the agency’s R&Dresources focused on its in-house program in supportof its regulatory activities. Some R&D is written intolegislation, such as the 1990 requirement for contin-uing acid rain assessment and research. Some of theR&D, such as toxics research, is mandated in EPA’sfounding statutes.3

EPA spreads its R&D budget across a number ofmedia-specific programs, as well as in a newlystructured interdisciplinary program. Air-relatedproblems, such as ozone, global warming, and acidrain, have consumed 23 percent of EPA’s R&Dbudget, with 24 percent going to hazardous materi-als, 24 percent to interdisciplinary research, 11percent to water-related issues, and 9 percent totoxics (especially pesticides). Air-related research islargely concerned with health issues, though workincludes research on State controls for ozone andother airborne pollutants.4 Research on hazardousmaterials is concentrated on engineering issues

mid., p. 20.qhericm Assoctition for tie Advmmment of Science, I.ntersociety Working Group, AAAS Report XIV: Research and Development, FY 1990

(wmo~ ~: 1989), p. 100.4AmtXiCtUI Assochtion for the Advancement of Science, I.ntersociety Working Group, AAAS Report XV: Research and Development, ~ 1991

(washi.ngtom DC: 1990), p. 131.


related to disposal and cleanup of hazardous wastesand on interdisciplinary work at EPA’s universitycenters. EPA has recently consolidated some diverseR & D a n d a d d e d n e w p r o g r a m s e m p h a s i z i n g“interdisciplinary research. ” These now comprisethe single largest program type focused on basicr e s e a r c h - e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e a r e a s o f e c o l o g i c a lstudies and human exposure assessments. 5

R&D Resource Allocation

In late 1990 EPA had nine assistant administra-tors, each overseeing several offices that do re-search, and each separate from, but cooperatingwith, the regional administrative offices. EPA’sassistant administrator for research and developmentalone oversees five offices (see figure 6-1) thatadminister R&D laboratories that support EPA’sregulatory activities and responses to legislative andexecutive directives. A sixth office, the Office ofTechnology Transfer and Regulatory Support,serves as the connection between EPA laboratoriesand “clients’ needing direct contact with EPA, andserves as manager for an information clearinghousein Cincinnati. The Office of Research ProgramManagement is a policymaking office, and does notconduct research. In 1979, Congress established theOffice of Exploratory Research to support basicenvironmental research, mainly through researchgrant programs and university-based research cen-ters.

Of the offices that administer laboratories, theOffice of Modelling, Monitoring Systems, andQuality Assurance has the largest combined budgetand staff (see table 6-l). The largest of the office’sthree laboratories, the Atmospheric Research andExposure Assessment Laboratory in Research Tri-angle Park, North Carolina, conducts research focus-ing on quantifying, measuring, and modeling air-borne pollutants and potential controls. The LasVegas Environmental Monitoring Systems Labora-tory, the next largest, does applications-orientedresearch on systems and strategies for monitoringenvironmental and human exposure to pollutantsand conducts field tests and demonstrations ofmonitoring systems. The Cincinnati EnvironmentalMonitoring Systems Laboratory has a similarcharge, but focuses on biological and chemicalassessment methods and operates EPA’s Quality

Table 6-l—Environmental Protection AgencyLaboratories

1989 budgetNumber of Number of (in millions

Office laboratories staff of dollars)

Office of Modelling,Monitoring Systems, andQuality Assurance . . . . . . 3 441 $84.0

Office of EnvironmentalEngineering andTechnologyDemonstration . . . . . . . . . 2 282 78.5

Office of EnvironmentalProcesses and EffectsResearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 407 59.3

Office of Health Research . . 1 286 46.2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1,416 $268.0


Assurance Program, which is charged with main-taining the credibility of many of EPA’s databases.6

The laboratories all have some technical assistanceand technology transfer programs for EPA clients,including public works agencies.

The Office of Environmental Engineering andTechnology Demonstration manages EPA’s mostamply funded laboratory, the Risk Reduction Engi-neering Laboratory, which performs engineeringresearch and provides technical assistance to theagency for drinking water, hazardous wastes, under-ground storage tanks, pesticides, Superfund, toxics,and wastewater. The Air and Energy EngineeringResearch Laboratory in Research Triangle Park,North Carolina, is staffed primarily by engineerswho conduct research on air pollution from station-ary sources, focusing on the industrial sources of airpollution, mitigation and prevention of pollution,and developing equipment for all of these.

The Office of Environmental Processes and Ef-fects Research administers six Environmental Re-search Laboratories that focus on marine and inlandaquatic ecosystems. The laboratories are located inOregon, Minnesota, Florida, Oklahoma, Georgia,and Rhode Island.

Both the Office of Health Research and the Officeof Health and Environmental Assessment supportEPA’s regulatory activities through preparing cri-teria and risk assessment methodology and guide-lines. The Office of Health Research administers theHealth Effects Research Laboratory in Research

51bid., p. 93.CU.S. Envim~en@ protection Agency, TechnicaZAssistance Directory (Washington DC: Mmch 1989).

Figure 6-1 —Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development Organization Chart

Assistant Administrator forf Research and Development I 1t

Office of Research Office of ExploratoryOffice of

Program Deputy Assistant Technology Transfer

Management Administrator Research & Regulatoryh L

I Support

TOffice ofWadeling, Monitoring

Systems &Quality Assurance

AtmosphericResearch &Exposure

AssessmentLab., Research

TrianglePark, NC

EEnvironmentalMonltorfng

Systems Lab.,Las Vegas, NV

Office of Environ-mental Engineering

& TechnologyDemonstration

wm

1

Office ofEnvironmental

Processes & EffectsResearch

m

i

EnvironmentalResearch

Lab., Athens, GA

4 EnvironmentalResearch Lab.,

Narragansett, RI

i

EnvironmentalResearch Lab.,Gulf Breeze, FL

Office of HealthResearch

SOURCE: Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Assesstance Directory(Washington, DC: March 1989).

KHealth EffectsResearch Lab.,

ResearchTrianglePark, NC

Research 1-

3

I

Office of Health &EnvironmentalAssessment

Human HealthAssessment

Group

ExposureAssessment

Group

EnvironmentalCriteria &

Assessment OfficeResearch Triangle

Park, NC

EnvironmentalCriteria &


Triangle Park, North Carolina, which provides abasis for EPA’s health-related regulations, focusingon a broad range of pollutants and media. The Officeof Health and Environmental Assessment adminis-ters two Environmental Criteria and AssessmentOffices, one in Cincinnati and one in ResearchTriangle Park, which focus on data collection insupport of EPA regulations.

The research agendas for all of EPA’s laboratoriesare set by steering committees composed of stafffrom the Office of Research and Development andthe Agency programs. The committees designateand coordinate research for the laboratories, givingthe laboratories little reason for direct communicat-ion with each other. In some cases, a program officeneeding R&D will contact a laboratory directly,7 andthe Office of Technology Transfer and RegulatorySupport provides some coordination among theoffices. However, the laboratories maintain a gooddeal of independence, each producing its ownpublications and making its own cooperative agree-ments for extramural research with universities,other Federal agencies, and the private sector.Although the steering committees are more heavilyemphasized than in the past, media-specific pro-grams still dominate discussions about what re-search will be done at which laboratory.

While the laboratories are allowed flexibility intheir research approaches, R&D is not truly interdis-ciplinary, since the Agency remains dominated byprograms and directives aimed at individualenvironmental media. In addition, EPA researchmust provide a scientific basis for the Agency’sregulations. Outside pressures, such as congres-sional action and lawsuits (see chapter 2), andlimited Agency resources ensure a continued focuson regulations-related research. As a result, EPAconducts little R&D on condition assessment andrepair and rehabilitation technologies, despite theacute interest of infrastructure managers in theseareas (see chapter 4).

University Agreements

EPA funds universities through solicitations andthrough cooperative agreements made between pro-gram offices, laboratories, and universities. Total

annual university awards have been in the $50- to$60-million range over the last 5 years.

The bulk of EPA’s university funding flowsthrough “cooperative agreements” with EPA labo-ratories. A key difference between these flexiblearrangements and other grants is that the cooperativeagreements include substantial involvement of anEPA staff liaison, who chooses to work withuniversity staff because the university is wellequipped in the field or is doing work pertinent toongoing EPA research. More money reaches univer-sities through this direct EPA-laboratory collabora-tion than through EPA centers and competitivesolicitations combined.8 Although EPA seems to beunique in its systematic use of cooperative agree-ments, Executive Order 12591 (April 1987) andPublic Law 96-480 called for this type of collabora-tion at all Federal laboratories. Such collaborationcan bean effective and flexible means of contractingand transferring information between sectors andlaboratories. However, EPA’s agreements tend to belimited in both scope and the potential for innova-tion, because the research is targeted at supportingregulations.

interdisciplinary Research Centers—The Of-fice for Exploratory Research (OER) at EPA sup-ports a competitive grants program and is alsoresponsible for two programs supporting university-based research centers. Based on an NSF model, thecenters in these two programs carry out interdiscipli-nary and collaborative research on diverse environ-mental themes.

The first of these programs, the ExploratoryResearch Center Program, is based on competitivelyawarded cooperative agreements. The eight currentcenters each receive approximately $540,000 fromOER each year, and may receive additional supportfrom EPA laboratories. According to Federal re-quirements, a minimum of 5 percent matchingfunding must come from the university, the privatesector, or other non-Federal sources.9 Centers areencouraged to use EPA funds to leverage additionalsupport for their programs, and efforts to attract aidhave ranged from completely unsuccessful to hugelysuccessful. The director of each center works in

7Jerry GarmarL Gffice of ‘Ikchnology Transfer and Regulatory Suppo~ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication Apr. 10,1990.

%aren Morehouse, Office of Exploratory Research U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication Mar. 5, 1990.

%equired in part by the Stevenson-Wydler Act.

Chapter 6-Research and Development for Public Works ● 219

tandem with an EPA project officer and receivestechnical guidance from an independent ScienceAdvisory Committee. The original eight centerscurrently are being phased out, and a new competi-tion is under way to select four new centers, each tobe funded at approximately $1 million annually over9 years. Each Exploratory Research Center isresponsible for distributing its findings, and most doso through technical project reports, books, articles,and participation in seminars or technical confer-ences.

The projects at the Exploratory Research Centerstend to be problem-specific, pollutant research.Though none of the centers focuses on infrastruc-ture, the research has potential, through new orchanged regulations, to affect methods of andsystems for waste and “drinking water treatment andwaste disposal and facility siting. An example is theEcosystems Center’s work on establishing a meth-odology for ecological risk assessment, which alldevelopers using Federal funds could use in per-forming the required environmental impact assess-ments.

The “Superfund” legislation directed EPA toestablish centers of excellence programs to study allaspects of the manufacture, use, transportation,disposal, and management of hazardous substances,and publish and disseminate the results of suchresearch. The resulting five Hazardous SubstancesResearch Centers, also under the direction of OER,were established in 1989 after a competition. EPAprovides each center with $1 million annually, towhich the centers must add a 20-percent match.Using EPA funds as leverage, the centers have beensuccessful in obtaining additional support from suchsources as DOE, DoD, State appropriations, indus-trial affiliates and organizations, and others.

In addition to the legislated requirements, EPAdeveloped a special structure for the HazardousSubstances Research Centers. The research is prob-lem-oriented, and the centers are supported andadvised twice yearly by a Science Advisory Com-mittee, consisting of scientists and engineers fromacademia, government, and industry. EPA estab-lished a Training and Technology Transfer AdvisoryCommittee and required the centers to direct be-

tween 10 and 20 percent of their budgets to trainingand technology transfer. The centers have satisfiedthese requirements mostly through short courses,publications, demonstration projects, conferences,and consultation and cooperation with industry andregional and State governments to determine needs.All of the programs take a multidisciplinary ap-proach and share advisory panel members anddirectors.

EPA encourages innovative basic research at boththe Superfund Centers and the Exploratory ResearchCenters, although the Superfund Centers also per-form applied research. Many of the projects targetremediation and other applicable R&D that canreadily benefit the region, but since the centers focuson basic research, technology application and devel-opment remain the business of EPA laboratories.EPA also now operates three “line item” centersthat are similar to and cooperate with the HazardousSubstances and Exploratory Research Centers.However, funding for each of these centers wasearmarked in legislation and did not include acompetition; furthermore, none of the centers ismanaged through OER.

Department of Transportation

DOT supports applied R&D of transportationtechnologies (see table 6-2). Most current research isconducted or supported separately by each modaladministration, although in the late 1960s and early1970s, the agency had centralized R&D coordina-tion in the Office of the Secretary. The Departmentbegan to cut back its research agenda in the 1970s,targeting funds at R&D to support technologydevelopment for the National Airspace System(NAS) Plan (see figure 6-2). Basic and broad-basedresearch declined two-thirds from 1975 to 1985,although at the same time, applied research fundingdoubled, with much of the increase going to FAA.10

Though some limited coordination of R&D con-tinues through the DOT R&D Coordinating Council,DOT no longer has a departmentwide R&D coordi-nator within the Office of the Secretary of Transpor-tation. Such a position was briefly re-created in1985, but dropped again after proving ineffective.11

As a result of budget cutbacks and the lack ofcoordination for R&D over the past decade, each

lw.s. Genm~ ACCOWN@ office, Department of Transportation: Enhancing Policy and Program E~ectiveness Through Improved Ma~getnent(Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1987), p. 212.

ll~id.


Table 6-2—Department of Transportation Public Works Research and Development

FY 1991 fundingAgency (millions of dollars) Funding source CommentsFederal Highway Admlnlstration

Highway Planning andResearch Program

National Cooperative HighwayResearch Program

Staff research

Strategic Highway ResearchProgram

Federal Railroad Administratlon

Urban Mass TransportationAdministration

Research and Special ProgramsAdministrationVolpe National Transportation

Systems Center


Total

$51’

8

18

30

15

2

115b

205

$44&

A portion of 1.5 percent set-aside ofFederal-aid construction fundsfrom the Highway Trust Fund

5.5 percent set-aside of HP&R funds

Highway Trust Fund

0.25 percent set-aside from High-way Trust Fund

From appropriated budget


Fee-for-service reimbursements


Supports State and local planning,traffic measurement, and other re-search

Contract research managed byTransportation Research Board(National Research Council)

30 percent in-house research;balance in contracts

Contract R&D focused on highwayconstruction; 5-year program

In-house and contract R&D (does notinclude $6.15 million for magneticlevitation rail initiative)

Development projects

Two-thirds of research is for DOTcoming out of other administrations’budgets; one-third is for extramuralclients

63 percent of budget for in-houseR&D

a Total funds for the Highway planning and Research (HP&R) Program are about $153 million, meet of which is used for planning. The portion used forresearhis $53 million.

b Estimate for Department of Transportation (DOT) research.c Total does not include the one-third of Volpe National Transportation System Center’s total budget that comes from other sources.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on information from the Federal Highway Administration, Volpe National Transportation SystemsCenter, and the U.S. Department of Transportation.

administration’s R&D has become increasinglymodally oriented and focused on supporting short-term program objectives. The lack of long-rangeand systems-oriented R&D has left DOT unpre-pared to address current national needs, such astransportation-related air quality issues and in-termodal and urban capacity problems. While theagency is attempting to makeup for these shortcom-ings now, developing and implementing appropriatenew programs and ensuring adequate funding aremajor challenges.

With the exception of FAA, DOT agencies areincreasingly turning to universities and outsidecontractors to execute R&D. The recent National

Transportation Policy stressed the need to seek outadditional alternative R&D funding and perform-ance sources, directing that programs “. . . fosterincreased public-private partnerships and strengthenthe tools and incentives for innovative researchfunding by the private sector, state and localgovernments, and non-profit organizations.’ ’12

For a number of years DOT has used universitiesas outside R&D resources. About 71 percent of allFederal research funds for universities take the formof grants to individuals for specific research proj-ects.13 DOT invested $31.3 million in such contractsin fiscal year 1988,14 with FAA allocating overone-half of the total.

W.S. Department of Tr~po~tio~ Moving America: New Directions, New Opportunities ~SSh@tOXL DC: Fe- 1990, P. 104.

13U.S. General Accounting Office, “University Funding: Assessing Federal Funding Mechanisms for Uh.iversity Research” unpublished reporg1986, p. 2.

IANatio~ SCienCeFO~datiO~ FederalFu&Sfor&eSearch andDevelopment: Fiscal Years 1987,1988, and1989, VO1. 37, NSF 89-304 ~~hingto%DC: 1989), p. 28.


Figure 6-2—Annual Department of TransportationR&D Obligations, 1978 and 1988

Millions of 1982 dollars160 t 1

wFAA FHWA FRA UMTA

= 1978 ~ 1 9 8 8

KEY: FAA-Federal Aviation Administration; FHWA—Federal HighwayAdministration; FRA-Federal Railroad Administration; UMTA-Urban Mass Transportation Administration.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on datasupplied by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Research and Special ProgramsAdministration (RSPA)

Most RSPA research is carried out at the VolpeNational Transportation Systems Center (TSC) inCambridge, Massachusetts. TSC conducts and man-ages some R&D for most DOT agencies as well asfor outside agencies, and has recently tried to focuson a systems approach to cross-cutting and inter-modal issues.

The center does research on a reimbursable basisfor RSPA, FAA, FHWA, the Federal RailroadAdministration (FRA), the Coast Guard, the Na-tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration, theOffice of the Secretary, and the Urban MassTransportation Administration (UMTA), and is alsoresponsible for administering DOT’s Small Busi-ness Innovation Research Program. Over the last fewyears, FAA has consistently been TSC’s largestsingle source of funds. One-third of TSC’s currentwork is done for other executive agencies needingtransportation-related R&D, including DOE, DoD,and EPA. Although the Corps of Engineers and TSCconduct overlapping research, the agencies have justbegun collaborative work on magnetic levitation

rail, under an agreement with FRA. TSC’s totalcurrent budget is about $147 million.15

TSC seeks to integrate public and private re-sources in projects such as the Track Safety Re-search Program, sponsored by FRA. In this effort,TSC researchers coordinate and promote tracksafety practices with individual railroads, the Asso-ciation of American Railroads (AAR), the AmericanRailway Engineering Association, track producers,universities, consultants, DoD rail-related programs,and a few foreign researchers.

The center is remunerated on a project-by-projectbasis by its client agencies and departments, andresearch is conducted and managed in partnershipwith the sponsoring agency. About two-thirds of theR&D is conducted onsite by teams formed fromgovernment, industry, and university personnel.TSC has substantial contact with both industry anduniversity researchers and currently has over 300different sources for technical support, with approxi-mately 75 percent of the center’s budget going tosuch outside entities. By drawing from its databaseof contractors, the center can award competitivecontracts for technical support within 10 weeks ofmaking an interagency agreement. TSC’s ability tobring multidisciplinary teams of sophisticated in-dustry and university resources together quicklymakes it an attractive R&D broker for DOT andother Federal agencies with transportation researchneeds. operating as an enterprise on a cost reimburs-able basis has helped TSC become more dynamic,cost-effective, and accountable.l6


Accounting for over one-half of DOT’s R&Dbudget, FAA is the only modal agency that hasconsistently invested in applied R&D over the pastdecade. The majority of this R&D is conductedin-house, 17 primarily at FAA’S Technica1 Center inNew Jersey and the Civil Aeromedical Institute inOklahoma. FAA’S R&D program also conductssome cooperative research with DoD and the Na-tional Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA). Over two-thirds of FAA’s R&D budgetsupports its mission to operate and manage theNation’s airways through the NAS Plan and other

~SGWy Wttti, VOlpe National Transportation Systems Center, Research and special fiograms ~“ “stxation, U.S. Department of Tmnsportatiomunpublished memorandum, May 10, 1990.

16~id.

ITNatio~ Science Foundatiorq op. cit., footnote 14, p. 28.


Photo credit: Federal Aviation Administration

The Federal Aviation Administration’s research anddevelopment budget accounts for over one-half of the

Department of Transportation’s total spending on R&D.

surveillance, communications, navigation, and sys-tem management technology development pro-grams. Aircraft safety programs-crash worthiness,fire protection, aging aircraft issues, and explosivesdetection—represent about 15 percent of FAA’sR&D effort. Weather, medical, and effects ofaviation on the environment comprise the remainingareas of research.

While human behavior, capabilities, and inter-action with technologies underpin the safety andefficiency of transportation systems, until recently,FAA (and other agencies within DOT) paid scantattention to human performance research. As re-quired by the Aviation Safety Research Act of 1988,FAA has begun to focus more on ‘‘human factors”areas. To ensure continued and effective R&D,however, consistent long-term support will beneeded, and human factors research must be fullyintegrated into technology development projects.

Much of FAA’s R&D plan for air traffic controland management directly or indirectly aims to im-prove the air transportation system’s capacity. How-

ever, FAA’s R&D plan does not address criticalgroundside access issues. Without dramatic im-provements in surface links to airports, includingserious attention to mass transportation alternatives,the growing numbers of passengers will, at besthinder system efficiency and, at worst, will constraincapacity. More research within FAA, and acrossDOT, on intermodal operations is essential.

Federal Highway Research

Most highway research (more than 80 percent)18

is directly supported by the Federal Highway TrustFund monies that flow through FHWA. The majorresearch efforts include the Highway Planning andResearch Program (HP&R), the National Coop-erative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), theFHWA Administrative Contract and Staff ResearchProgram, and the Strategic Highway ResearchProgram (SHRP) (see figure 6-3).

States are required to set aside 1.5 percent of theirFederal-aid construction funds for highway researchand planning through the HP&R Program and toprovide up to a 40-percent match to the Federal-aidmonies. HP&R funds typically total $150 million to$200 million annually, with two-thirds of the totalgoing to planning and the remaining one-third(about $53 million in FY 1990) going to research.Although States have identified HP&R as a high-priority program, funds have declined 45 percentover the last 20 years.19

NCHRP is a contract, applied research programfocused on national-level, operational problems andfunded by the States through the American Associa-tion of State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO), from a 5.5 percent set-aside of HP&Rmonies. NCHRP is managed by the TransportationResearch Board (TRB) of the National ResearchCouncil with FHWA support. Total NCHRP spend-ing is around $8 million per year, and the States mustapprove funding annually.20

SHRP was established to examine gaps in currentknowledge and the lack of coordinated R&D, and totarget short-term, high-payoff technologies and is-sues. Congress included in Public Law 100-17 therelease of $150 million from the Highway Trust

lgAmeri~Ass~iation of Smte Highway and Transportation Officials, Innovation:A Strategyfor Research, Development, and Technology Tran@~(Washington DC: October 1989), p. ES-11.

l~id., p. 1-8.

=id., p. 3-3.

Chapter 6—Research and Development for Public Works ● 223

Figure 6-3-Federal R&D Funding for Highways

III

HighwayTrust Fund

b

I From national

gasol ine tax

‘-+ Highway Planning andFederal Highway Aid to Research ProgramAdministration States (1.5% set-aside)

(includes contract KZ2~

I and staff g Iresearch program) ?$~


Photo credit: American Consulting Engineers Council

The Federal Highway Administration’s researchemphasizes projects aimed at immediate highway needs,

such as this pile tester being used at a highwayinterchange construction site.

Fund, as a 0.25 percent set-aside from Federal-aid toStates, for a 5-year program. SHRP was intended tosupplement existing highway research and compen-sate for the lack of funding of untried technologies.

National CooperativeHighway Research

Program(5.5% set-aside)

Limiting its efforts to highways and bridges,SHRP manages research with applications in sixneglected areas-asphalt, long-term pavement per-formance, maintenance cost-effectiveness, protec-tion of concrete bridge components, cement andconcrete, and chemical control of snow and ice onhighways. Research is contracted to various labora-tories—mostly university and private laboratories—and subcontracted to the National Institute ofStandards and Technology (NIST) and the Corps ofEngineers’ Construction Engineering Research Lab-oratory. Representatives of FHWA, DoD, FAA, andTRB participate on SHRP’s advisory committee.Because little alternative funding is available forrisky R&D, many technologies not receiving SHRPcontracts or falling outside of SHRP’s narrow areasof research remain untried.

The Contract and Staff Research Program isprimarily conducted at FHWA’s Turner-FairbankHighway Research Center. The FHWA budget forR&D in fiscal year 1990 is approximately $21million ($20 million for contracts, $1.5 million forstaff research). FHWA manages contract research


with the private sector, universities, and otheragencies. 21 The one-tenth of FHWA’s researchfunding going to in-housework accounts for approx-imately 30 percent of FHWA staff time.

FHWA’s research has generally favored short-term R&D aimed at immediate needs in highwaysafety, traffic operations, structures, pavements, andmotor carrier safety. The agency plans a greatlyexpanded research focus on intelligent vehicle/highway systems in 1991, giving overdue attentionto R&D aimed at a specific, long-term problem area.

FHWA disseminates information and results of itsinvestigations to the highway user communitiesthrough technical reports, conferences, seminars,and other typical technology transfer paths.FHWA’s National Highway Institute also offersin-the-field technical training and education forFederal, State, and local highway employees. TheRural Technical Assistance Program, administeredby the National Highway Institute, conducts trainingworkshops, onsite demonstrations, and other trans-fer activities, mostly through rural TechnologyTransfer Centers.

To further stimulate communication, FHWA de-veloped the Nationally Coordinated Program(NCP), a management link between HP&R,NCHRP, and FHWA staff research programs totrack research activities in the Federal-aid programsand prevent gaps or overlap. If used effectively, NCPcould help FHWA transfer technology, set prioritiesfor future Federal research, and allocate R&Dresources accordingly. These issues currently are notadequately addressed in FHWA’s R&D framework.

NCHRP and SHRP are good examples of success-ful cooperation in both applied R&D and technologytransfer among Federal, State, and local highwayauthorities. Although additional technology transferprograms are badly needed, the most significantlimitation for highway R&D is insufficient funding.According to a recent AASHTO report, “. . . fund-ing for research has not kept pace with the growingneeds and opportunities for technological innova-tion in the transportation industry. Highway researchspending as a share of total highway programexpenditures is currently about 0.2 percent. . . .’ ’22

Issues detailed in chapter 3 highlight the inadequacy

of presently used technologies; the current under-investment in highway R&D could lead to widergaps between problems and solutions in the future.

Federal Railroad Administration

Most of FRA’s modest research efforts areconducted with cooperation and cost-sharing fromother research organizations, government agencies,and private organizations, including AAR, TSC,DOE, and individual railroads and universities. In1985, FRA’s 14-member Office of Research andDevelopment was placed under the direction of theassociate administrator for safety, giving priority tosafety R&D. Most testing and simulations of trackstructures and rail vehicles are carried out at theTransportation Test Center in Pueblo, Colorado, afederally constructed facility, leased to and operatedby the Research and Test Department of AAR, undera contract with FRA. Train handling experiments,locomotive environmental assessments, and engi-neer training experiments are performed at FRA’sResearch and Locomotive Evaluator/Simulator inChicago, Illinois, which is operated by the IllinoisInstitute of Technology Research.

In-house research at the Office of Research andDevelopment is divided into a number of programs.The Equipment, Operations, and Hazardous Materi-als Program focuses on rail vehicle design andoperations and those aspects of hazardous materialstransportation peculiar to rail. The Track SafetyProgram focuses on all aspects of track structure,railroad bridges, signal and train control systems,and interaction between the track and vehicle.23 Inaddition, FRA has recently contracted with TSC toconduct major R&D work on magnetic levitationtechnology (see chapter 3), marking anew foray intohigh-risk, high-technology R&D.

Urban Mass Transportation Administration

Transit operations are not profitmaking, and inany case mass transit represents such a small marketthat manufacturers have no incentive to undertakerelated R&D. This makes the Federal Governmentthe only entity with any ability to fund mass transitR&D and take the risks associated with bringingnew products into use. However, UMTA’s R&Dbudget has declined dramatically over the last 15

21ROIXII Kreklau, Federal H@hWay ~‘ “slratio% U.S. Department of Transportatio~ unpublished memorandum, June 11, 1990.~~erim Association of Shte Highway aud ‘llansportation Officials, op. cit., footnote 18, p. ES-11.

‘Federal Raihoad AdministratiorL Office of Research and Development 1988 Research andDevelopmentProgram (Washington DC: August 1988).


years. Estimated R&D outlays for fiscal year 1990were $2 million, down from $52.1 million in 1980.X

The entire 1990 budget expenditures were ear-marked for development of existing mass transittechnologies, including projects on alternative fuels.

Most of UMTA’s budget goes to capital andoperating assistance for State and locally run sys-tems;25 of the $3.5 billion in assistance awarded infiscal year 1989, just under $6 million went to 40projects under the authority of section 6 for Re-search, Development, and Demonstration Projects.26

The average grant was for about $150,000, and mostof the grants supported some type of systemsplanning or management study. Additionally, al-most one-third of the money allocated went to twocongressionally mandated studies. Because UMTAsupports very little technical R&D, either in-houseor in the form of grants to States, very little R&D isdone in this country on mass transit.

University Centers

DOT has a cross-cutting Transportation ResearchCenters Program under the authority of the Office ofthe Secretary of Transportation. The program sup-ports 10 university-based centers, 1 in each of the 10standard Federal regions, and each center has aconsortium-with a total of 68 universities in-volved. In addition to providing applied R&D fortransportation, the centers aim to build an ‘esprit decorps’ among the center students and encourage acommitment to careers in transportation.

The centers were authorized by the SurfaceTransportation and Uniform Relocation AssistanceAct of 1987 (Public Law 100-17) for “. . . multi-modal research and training concerning the transpor-tation of people and goods. ” The authorizinglegislation provides Federal funds from the High-way and Mass Transit Trust Funds and requirescenters to provide dollar-for-dollar matching fromnon-Federal sources. Ultimately, these centers are

intended to become self-sustaining through regionalgovernment and industry support. Although $10million was authorized for each of the fiscal years1988 through 1991, authority to obligate $5 millionfrom the Highway Trust Fund was not provided until1990. As a result, the program received onlyone-half of the authorized funds during its first 2years.

The majority of the projects approved in fiscalyears 1988 and 1989 were systems and policyanalysis; a few had specific products, such astraining manuals and development of existing ma-terials and construction technologies, and a few weredemonstration projects. Projects may reflect re-gional priorities (for example, the University ofAlaska consistently conducts projects on the effectsof extreme cold on structures and materials), but theprogram is as concerned with involving talentedstudents and teachers in transportation research as itis with getting applicable results. In fact, thethird-year projects will explicitly focus on educationover research. At least two regional centers haveformed an advanced institute to serve as the focus forthe educational projects, and many will focus on" . . . a melding of expertise in traffic operations,demand management, trip generation estimation,and public-private negotiations . . . .’ ’27

Federal funding for these centers is limited, andthe hope is that regional and local governments andindustries will provide and even increase funding asthey find the centers valuable. It is not yet clearwhether non-Federal monies will continue to beforthcoming, though DOT may be able to assist withsome funding beyond the original 1991 deadline.28

Another type of center, FHWA’s Technology Trans-fer Centers, is managed under the Rural TechnicalAssistance Program. These centers, mostly run byuniversities, focus on transferring technology devel-oped at the Federal and State levels to county andlocal managers.

~U,S. Dep~ent of Trupo~tio~ Oifice of the Budge4 unpublished documents, February 1990. Fi~s are not ad~sted for ~ation.fiU.S. Department of Transportatio~ Urban Mass Transportation ~“ “stratiow 1989 Statistical Summaries: Grants Assistance Programs

(W-O% DC: Apr. 15, 1990), p. 4.~U.S. Department of Transportatio~ Urban Mass Transpomtion ~“ “ tratioq Technical Assistance and Safety Programs: Fiscal Year 1989

Project Directory (Washington DC: January 1990).27~oms ~soq CcMe@oPli~ Co%estion: ~w~s a ~lemble ~ommo~tioq” Transportation Qua~er/y, october 1988. The ~p~d of

‘lhnsportation oftlcials involved in the center’s program cited this article as the quintessence of their program.

~~cie Carter, ~lce of tie Secrem, U.S. Department of Transportatio~ personal wmmticatio~ w. 2. IW.


National Institute of Standardsand Technology

From its inception in 1901, NIST, housed in theDepartment of Commerce and formerly known asthe National Bureau of Standards, has been anational laboratory cooperating extensively withother Federal agencies, universities, and the privatesector. The Institute’s primary mission has been toconduct research leading to setting uniform stand-ards for American industries; the standards aretypically adopted voluntarily by industry.

Over the years, NIST’s work on measurement andmeasurement methods has served a wide variety ofclients; for example, the agency is currently workingto develop international standards for the OpenSystems Interconnection Network to overcomecomputer interface inconsistencies. Its standards forconstruction and materials have had an appreciableeffect on infrastructure technologies, though NISTtends to be oriented toward manufacturing andcomputer networks. The Institute’s spending oninfrastructure research accounts for only 1.6 percentof NIST’s total budget.29

In the process of setting standards, NIST hasdeveloped impressive in-house research capabili-ties-the Center for the Utilization of Federaltechnology lists 57 laboratories within NIST. Oneof the three main NIST laboratories, the NationalEngineering Laboratory, includes the Center forBuilding Technology (CBT), which develops tech-nologies for predicting, testing, and measuring theperformance of building materials, components,systems, and practices, many of which are applicableto infrastructure. The center has a congressionallymandated Earthquake Hazard Reduction program,and performs key research on materials and corro-sion-protective coatings for steel. CBT has taken aleadership role in R&D for high-performance con-crete for both public and private sector componentsof the concrete industry, including SHRP, the Corpsof Engineers, and the American Concrete Institute.In fact, the chief of the Building Material Divisionof CBT is on the SHRP Concrete and StructuresAdvisory Committee, and the center has developedthe impact-echo method for flaw detection inreinforced concrete and techniques for increasingconcrete strength and durability.

Photo credit: Massport

The Center for Building Technology of the National Instituteof Standards and Technology has developed advanced

methods for detecting flaws in concrete structures such asthose in this runway.

Despite CBT’s contributions to public works, theAdministration proposed budgets for fiscal years1984 to 1987 that eliminated CBT, and substantiallycutback funding in fiscal years 1988 to 1990.Although Congress has restored most of the fundingeach year, the center’s uncertain existence hastippled its ability to attract qualified staff to executethe basic research for which it has been an importantsource. CBT has supported itself by doing contractresearch, usually applied, for Federal agencies.Currently, about 60 percent of CBT’s $10-millionannual budget comes from these agencies on aproject-by-project basis, with a small amount fromthe private sector.

Other NIST research transferable to public worksis conducted in its Materials Science and Engineer-ing Laboratory, which focuses on nondestructiveevaluation, corrosion, and plastics. The agency alsoawards some R&D contracts to individuals atuniversities.

29U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment "Construction and Materials Research and Development for the Nation’s Public Works,” staffpaper of the Science, Education, and Transportation and Energy and Materials Programs, June 1987, pp. 2-15.


2 5 0

200

150

100

50

0

Figure 6-4-National Institute of Standards and Technology TotalFederal Appropriations, 1980-90

Millions

19801981198219831984 19851986198719881989 19901991

m 1982 dollars + Current dollars

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on Office of Management and Budget data.

Cooperation With Industry

The 1988 Omnibus Trade and CompetitivenessAct directed NIST to develop “. . . fundamentalscientific and engineering research. . . to improvemanufacturing and to assist industry to transferimportant laboratory discoveries into commercialproducts.’ ’30 The act called for increased directcollaboration with industry, through cooperativeresearch and sharing of NIST’s specialized facilities,and provided authority for Institute laboratories toenter into contracts and cooperative research at theirdiscretion. The legislation also established NIST asa touchstone for other Federal agencies and theindustry and State representatives with whom theInstitute interacts. However, because NIST did notreceive funding at the outset to carry out theseresponsibilities, the promise of a new role in Federaltechnology management has been largely unfilled.31

The fiscal year 1991 budget brought a 33-percentincrease for NIST (see figure 6-4), more than theagency requested, which should permit it to move

toward filling its new role. If NIST’s new technol-ogy transfer and Federal touchstone functions werebroadened to include public works explicitly, Stateand local public works officials would benefit.

National Science Foundation

NSF provides substantial funding for R&D in anumber of engineering and science fields, though theagency itself has no research functions. NSF esti-mates that it will provide $1.7 billion to supportproposals, awards, and individuals in universitiesand colleges to stimulate academic research in 1991.Its commitment to industry research will be muchsmaller-$1 17 million.32 In contrast to the generaldecline in Federal R&D budgets, NSF’s R&Dexpenditures increased steadily throughout the1980s. 33

Although none of NSF’s programs is specificallydevoted to infrastructure research, support worksponsored by the Directorate for Engineering, whichhas fared well in recent years, is relevant. The

~fiblic ~w 10(3-418.

qlJeffrey Mervis, ‘‘Science Hopes Bush’s Proposals Survive Upcoming Budget Battle,” The Scientist, vol. 4, No. 5, Mar. 5, 1990, p. 12.sz~efi~ Association for the Advancement of Science, Op. Cit., fOOttlOte 4, p. 79.331bid., p. 47.


Mechanical and Structural Systems Division of theDirectorate seeks to improve and expand basicengineering knowledge in structures and materialsengineering. Research is directed toward creatingnew technologies in areas that have possible infra-structure uses, such as the processing of newengineering materials and the more efficient con-struction of large-scale structures. Special care isbeing focused on examining and understanding thescience and technology of the deterioration ofconstructed facilities and actions that can be taken todiagnose, repair, retrofit, and enhance the perform-ance of existing structures. These efforts can bedirectly beneficial for public works infrastructure.

In addition to grants to universities, NSF hasseveral programs aimed at education, including theScience and Engineering Education program, andsupports individual fellowships, such as the Presi-dential Young Investigator awards. The awardserves to help universities and colleges attract youngengineering faculty to academic careers where theycan do research on subjects of importance to theNation.

NSF Centers Programs

In addition to granting fellowships and awardingindividual research contracts, NSF has pioneeredresearch ‘‘centers of excellence,” which do notnecessarily target advanced, complex technologies.Instead the centers tend to encourage innovative andinterdisciplinary research on developing and adapt-ing existing technologies, and public works may bebest served by this emphasis. They have the addi-tional charge to educate a new generation ofscientists and engineers. Center grants may be usedto acquire equipment and reference materials, bothof which have become extremely costly for universi-ties.

The 1980 Stevenson-Wydler Act authorized NSFto form cooperative research centers based on anearlier experimental program, with the aim ofpromoting innovative and interdisciplinary research.The Industry/University Cooperative Research(I/UCR) Centers Program, begun in 1981, is theprototype centers of excellence program for Federalagencies. At the end of fiscal year 1988, there were

40 centers, of which 10 were self-supporting. NSFhopes that all the centers will become self-supporting after 5 years of operation. Although the40 centers all do research that can have infrastructureapplications, none is specifically or solely gearedtoward infrastructure.

Earlier collaborative experiments taught NSF thatmultidisciplinary, university-based research done intandem with an R&D-based industry was a success-ful coupling for innovative applied research. Theindustry and university efforts can temper eachother; the industry ensures that projects do not gettoo esoteric and can provide funding, especially forthe important developmental phases. The academicframework ensures an array of multidisciplinaryapproaches and skilled personnel, some of whomindustry may recruit, and each can offer the otherspecialized equipment.

In fiscal year 1988, NSF support for I/UCRcenters leveled at $3 million, while industry andState support totaled approximately $40 million.The substantial industry support gives these centersa regional focus.34 NSF cites the industry commit-ment as evidence of the success of the program,contending that the private sector would not consist-ently commit substantial resources without demon-strable benefits.

The Engineering Research Centers Program isspecifically aimed at education and training ratherthan at regional industry-university cooperation.However, the centers will emphasize applied sys-tems research and are expected to make theirresearch available and attractive to industry, as asubstantial portion of their operating budget (from 9to 61 percent)35 must be supplied by the privatesector. Although each of the 19 centers is scheduledto receive $2 million annually from NSF, they areactually receiving from $300,000 to $1 million lessthan expected, limiting the stability and scope of theprojects.36

Established in fiscal year 1989, the Science andTechnology Centers (STC) program has 11 centers,with total funding of $47.5 million in fiscal year1990, and plans for as many as 14 new centers. Madeup of consortia that usually include a Federal

~Ameri~ Association for the Advancement of Science, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 52.

3%J.s. COngreSS, OffIce of Technology Assessment Making Things Berrer: Competing in iUan@acrzuing, OTA-ITE-443 (W@.@90W ~: U.S.Government Printing Office, February 1990), p. 195.

%id., p. 197.


laboratory, the STCs are expected to undertakesignificant basic research on particular topics moreeffectively and efficiently than the participantscould achieve as individual investigators. For exam-ple, the Center for Advanced Cement-Based Materi-als at Northwestern University, the STC mostrelevant to infrastructure technologies, includesNIST’s Center for Building Technology as a mem-ber of its consortium. Like the Engineering ResearchCenters, STCs are expected to focus on technologytransfer between universities and industries and themultidisciplinary education of engineering students.

Department of the Interior

Each bureau of the Department of the Interiorfunds and manages its own R&D in support of itsobjectives; several bureaus contribute research rele-vant to infrastructure technologies. The Bureau ofMines, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S.Geological Survey each conduct infrastructure re-search and award single-investigator contracts touniversities. The bureaus meet (usually in pairs), asfrequently as bimonthly, to coordinate among them-selves and sometimes with related agencies onresearch of mutual interest.37

The Bureau of Reclamation has historicallyfunded research related to water supply, treatment,conservation, and affilliated materials and sensors.Projects cover water quality, dam safety and mainte-nance, and all aspects of water supply systems; andmuch of the research, especially that in materials, isrelevant to other sectors of infrastructure. TheBureau’s R&D budget, $6.3 million in 1986, de-clined to $3.4 million by 1989,38 partly due to theagency’s shift away from new construction (seechapter 2). The R&D budget is expected to growagain as the agency changes emphasis to waterconservation and management. Research directlyrelated to infrastructure is currently funded at $2million.39

Since 1910, the Bureau of Mines has beenresearching materials, work which now includesplastics for piping. Much of the Bureau’s materialsresearch is relevant to public works and is done in

cooperation with other Federal agencies; joint testswith FHWA of polymerized, sulfur concrete roadsare one example. In addition, the Bureau conductssome research for EPA regulations related to min-ing, and works with universities and private indus-tries. The agency’s overaIl R&D budget in 1987 wasabout $88 million.40

The U.S. Geological Survey has three R&Ddivisions, the Geologic Division, the MappingDivision, and the Water Resources Division, alldata-collecting offices for evaluating national natu-ral resources. Research in minerals, energy andmarine uses, geological mapping, climate, andhazards such as earthquakes and volcanoes isundertaken by the Geologic Division. Geologicalmapping research leads to maps of subsurface areas,which are useful in siting landfills, toxic wastedumps, and other underground infrastructure. TheMapping Division concentrates on topographicmaps and researches aspects of the Global Position-ing System and the Geographic Information System,which have wide applications for public works (seechapter 5). A lead Federal water resources researchagency, the Water Resources Division, collaboratesextensively with EPA, the Corps of Engineers, DOT,the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau ofReclamation. The central division laboratories focuson basic research and data collection, and districtoffices conduct applied research in collaborationwith States and local governments on a cost-sharedbasis. The Water Resources Division also managesa congressionally mandated program supporting awater resources research institute located at univer-sities in each State.

DoD and DOE Laboratories

R&D that is potentially applicable to public worksis conducted at a number of national-level Federallaboratories that have no infrastructure-related mis-sion. The Department of Commerce’s Center for theUtilization of Federal Technology lists over 900laboratories fitting the general description of aFederal laboratory.4l Within this category, 36 labo-ratories are “national laboratories,” or government

37Roger WOlff, wat~ Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, personal Commdcat.ion, my 18, 19W.MD. ~g, Bwwu of Recl~tio~ U.S. Dep~~t of the Interior, unpublished memorandum, MY 21* 19~.

j%id.~ational Science Foundation, op. cit., footnote 14.dlc~ter for Utitition of Federal lkchnoIogy, Federal Laboratory and Technology Resources (Washington W: U.S. mp-~t of co~~e,

1986).


owned contractor operated (GOC0s) laboratories.42

Of the $60 billion that the Federal Governmentcontributes annually to R&D, $20 billion goes tothese facilities.43 Although most of the nationallaboratories are sponsored by DOE, which supports20 laboratories, and DoD, which funds 10, 5 othergovernment agencies sponsor GOCOs, including theDepartment of Agriculture and NASA.

The predominant missions of DOE and DoDnational laboratories are defense, energy, and relatedenvironmental research. Basic research at DOE andDoD has been concentrated in the national weapons-producing laboratories, which have traditionallyreceived the majority of Federal research dollars.Although much of the weapons research at theselaboratories is not relevant to or is too sophisticatedfor public works, some work can be transferred toinfrastructure. However, DOE and DoD are new-comers to formal technology transfer, since com-mercialization is not vital to and may compromisetheir primary missions.44 The transfer that doesoccur is usually tailored to fit commercial, for-profitdevelopment and is managed by an Office ofResearch and Technology Assessment located ateach laboratory and by DoD’s Defense AdvancedResearch Projects Agency.

Formal Technology Transfer

Of the 20 DOE national laboratories, 11 histori-cally have been defined as specialized, “singleprogram” facilities, such as the Fermi laboratoryaccelerator; these are unlikely to explore publicworks applications.45 However, five of DOE’smultiple agenda or multiprogram laboratories—Argonne, Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley, OakRidge, and Pacific Northwest-focus on energyresearch. Each has produced technologies that canbe applied to infrastructure, and in some cases, havehelped technology make the leap to civilian use. ThePacific Northwest Laboratory has identified 14technologies developed at these laboratories that arecurrently ready for commercial public works appli-cation. Argonne National Laboratory has developed

an acoustic leak sensor that could be commerciallyavailable to water utilities sometime this year.46

The development of the acoustic leak detector’typifies the potential for technology transfer from anational laboratory to public works. The researcherworking on the acoustic sensor at Argonne was toldof a utility company interested in developing thetechnology and contacted the utility to discuss thetechnical aspects of the project. After Argonnesubmitted a formal technical proposal to which theutility agreed, lawyers for both parties began todebate the terms. After the lawyers developed acontract, the utility sent Argonne a check. Now thatthe technology is ready, implementing the sensorand contracting with a manufacturing firm to pro-duce it are entirely up to the utility, because of theproprietary rights guaranteed it as the sponsor.

Despite some success stories, the process ofnegotiating an agreement to develop a technologytakes 1 to 2 years, mostly because of legal complex-ities, 47 and a 2-year delay in technological innova-tion can be significant. National laboratories work-ing to transfer technology must resolve difficultproblems, such as who owns the technology. Ques-tions about proprietary rights, patents, and copy-rights have the potential to block successful transferto the civilian sector; at a minimum these aresignificant disincentives for public-private coopera-tion.

University Collaboration

DOE and DoD collaborateuniversity researchers, mostly

extensively withthrough mission-

specific contracts, but also through centers ofexcellence and sharing of facilities. In addition toindividual contracts, DOE supports the Oak RidgeAssociated Universities, a consortium of 49 aca-demic institutions, which serves as a link betweenthe agency and U.S. universities. The Ames labora-tory for physical, materials, and chemical sciencehas a cooperative program with Iowa State Univer-

4W.S. General ACCOUn@ Office, Competition: Information on Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (wm~to~ DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, May 1988), p, 1.

43Rolxxt we~sler, stior andys~ Mice of lkchnology Assessment, ffom an unpublished docum~4 Mm. 21, 1990.~otilce of ~hnolo= Assessmen~ op. cit., footnote 35, P. 185.~Rick Chesto% U.S. General Accounting Office, personal communication Mar. 21.1990.~J.W. Currie et al., Battelle Paciilc Northwest ~bOratOw, “A Prototype Catalogue: DOE National Laboratory lkchnologies for Infrastructure

Moderniza tioq” OTA contractor report, January 1990, record 27.01.d7David Kuppermaq Argonne National Laboratory, persoti comticatiou k. 23, 1990.

sity, which includes sharing of facilities and person-nel.

DoD funds about $500 million in basic researchand $250 million in applied research for singleinvestigators at universities and colleges. The inves-tigator awards are proposed in response to generalsolicitations, and the agency currently maintainsbetween 7,000 and 8,000 of these contracts. Al-though many of the projects could be relevant toinfrastructure,48 dissemination of R&D is the univer-sity’s responsibility, and sharing information islikely to be difficult because of the institutionalbarriers between the military and civilian sectors.49

DoD’s University Research Initiatives Program(URI) has provided approximately $100 million todate for grants to ‘‘block research’ teams. These arenot considered ‘‘research centers, ’ primarily be-cause the term implies continuous support over aperiod of time, which DoD is unable to guarantee.Block grants are intended to encourage an interdisci-plinary approach and may be used for acquisition of

large and expensive instrumentation-too expen-sive for a single investigator-and to support severalhundred graduate fellowships every year.

There are between 80 and 100 block researchgrants under the URI program. These awards aremodeled after a discontinued “Army Centers ofExcellence” program. The Massachusetts Instituteof Technology (MIT) and the University of Illinois,Urbana, have been able to use their URI grants,awarded and administered by the Army ResearchOffice, as hubs for centers of construction technol-ogy, and both centers have strong infrastructure-related programs. The University of Illinois alsocooperates with the Army Corps of EngineersConstruction Engineering Research Laboratory,which is located nearby. Over the 5 years of its URIgrant, MIT has allotted $2 million to research, andthe remaining $13 million to equipment and fellow-ships for graduate students.50 Because the construc-tion industry is fragmented and has few resources for

of Defense, 1990. Base,

U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1989), 9.

professor of civil engineering, Massachusetts Institute of unpublished Mar. 2, 1990.


R&D,51 the Army Construction Centers are poten-tially an important resource for technology develop-ment.

Technology TransferThough most Federal agencies have regular chan-

nels of communication with researchers in otherfields and other laboratories, technology transferbetween Federal agencies and from Federal agenciesto industry and public sector entities has generallybeen slow and halting. Over the last 10 years,Congress has attempted to maximize the FederalR&D investment by centralizing planning and bygiving research at Federal laboratories a cohesivefocus and a relationship to the market. Key legisla-tion includes the 1980 Stevenson-Wydler Act, the1986 Federal Technology Transfer Act, the 1988Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act, and theNational Competitiveness Technology Transfer Actof 1989. Although previous acts in 1970 and 1976included technology transfer provisions, the Steven-son-Wydler Act was the first to focus on stimulatingtechnology transfer and to require collaborationbetween Federal laboratories and non-Federal con-tacts.

The Stevenson-Wydler Act also recognized theneed for a body to coordinate Federal technologytransfer, empowering the Center for Utilization ofFederal Technology (CUFT), in the Department ofCommerce’s National Technical Information Serv-ice, to fulfill this role as technology broker. Al-though CUFT retains some of its functions as atechnology information clearinghouse, the FederalTechnology Transfer Act (Public Law 99-502)moved many of CUFT’s functions to the FederalLaboratory Consortium (FLC) in the late 1980s.

Patterned on an earlier DoD Technology TransferLaboratory Consortium, FLC has maintained adatabase of Federal technologies since 1974.52 Aresearcher can contact FLC with a need or aninterest, and a database search will identify theappropriate Federal laboratory contact. At present,with an annual budget of about $1 million, theconsortium is operated by a small permanent staffand consists of volunteers from over 300 Federallaboratories. Though FLC processes a number of

public works inquiries from industries and the publicsector, additional resources would allow it to enlargeits permanent staff, its database, and its customerbank, and shorten the response time for an inquiry .53Most importantly, FLC could actively seek contacts;one reason the database is underutilized for infra-structure is that many potential public works cus-tomers are simply unaware of its existence and itsinexpensive resources.

The Technology Transfer Act amended severalother provisions of the Stevenson-Wydler Act. Oneof the new provisions granted permission for GOCOfacilities to enter into cooperative agreements,giving the non-Federal partner title to a patent.Furthermore, the act permits some agencies to offerroyalties or other cash awards as incentives forFederal researchers or laboratories participating incollaboration. The Omnibus Trade and Competi-tiveness Act was intended to build institutionalcoordination for technology transfer by increasingeach Federal laboratory’s contribution to FLC’sbudget and adding programs at NIST. The 1988 actalso established a Clearinghouse for State and I.mealInitiatives on Productivity, Technology, and Innova-tion, which will be similar to FLC with a focus ontechnology and economic development at the Stateand local levels. The Clearinghouse currently has anannual budget of $250,000; the agency’s effective-ness is likely to be impaired if this support is notexpanded.

The National Competitiveness Technology Trans-fer Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-189) addressedthree fundamental problems in federally fundedresearch; bureaucratic rigidity, lack of cooperationamong institutions, and ambiguous missions androles of Federal R&D laboratories. One provisionallows GOCOs to make cooperative agreementswith a waiver of the Freedom of Information Act fora 5-year period, allowing non-Federal sponsorscertain proprietary rights. Other R&D legislationduring the 1980s concerned tax credits for privatesector firms that increase their R&D funding. Whilethe effectiveness of the tax credit has been subject tomuch debate since its creation in the 1981 EconomicRecovery Tax Act (Public Law 97-34), the credit hasbeen extended three times beyond its originallifetime. The most recent extension under the 1989

sl~lce of Whnolow Assessrnen~ op. cit., footnote 29, p. 3-1.5~rge F, LfidStead~ “~t~g Fede~ Research to the Grass Roots,” Dimellsion$, vO1. 63, J~um~e- 1979”

ss~lce of TechnoIow Assessmen~ op. cit., footnote 35, p. 63.

Chapter 6—Research and Development for Public Works . 233

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation (Public Law 101-239) provided several key changes in eligibility thatshould enhance the incentive effect of the credit.Whether or not the credit is effective and should be

permanent is not yet clear.54

R&D legislation over the last decade was aimedespecially at pushing the national laboratories to-ward market-driven agendas and technology trans-fer.55 However, most of the language directs thenational laboratories toward joint research only;little mention is made of development.56 The FederalGovernment has concluded that development ismore appropriately accomplished by the privatesector, but has devised few mechanisms to ensurethat development actually occurs. Development fortechnologies with public works applications iscrucial and is especially vulnerable as public proj-ects often do not promise enough profit to makelarge investments attractive to the private sector.57 Inaddition, legislation has not effectively counteractedthe fragmentation that characterizes activities inFederal public works agencies and the similardisaggregation in the related industries.58

While several laws address the need to stimulateinter-sector collaboration, the combined effects ofthe legislation need examination, especially for theirpotential impact on public works R&D. Significantuncertainty persists over patents, proprietary rights,copyrights, the threat of antitrust prosecution, andthe effectiveness of the R&D tax credit. Legalchange does not appear to have significantly alteredbehavior patterns for either the Federal laboratoriesor the private sector. In part, this is a result oftargeting the researchers themselves as agents ofchange, while still holding them responsible forproducing mission-related research. To effect majorchange, technology transfer policies “. . . should be

aimed at the Federal laboratory management level inorder to have a defined level-of-effort set aside forthis purpose.”59

Successful models of transfer include the pro-grammatic mechanisms in EPA’s Hazardous Sub-stances Centers, water supply circuit riders (see box4-E in chapter 4), information clearinghouses andbrokers, and in-kind informal collaboration. DOE’srelationship with Iowa State University is based onsuch widely used in-kind exchange; in 1987, about185 scientific facilities in the national laboratorieswere used by 1,623 industry and university partici-pants. 60

Extra funding for the Federal laboratories’ reori-entation toward commercial industry and publicservices has not been forthcoming. In addition,throughout the 1980s, the tension between Congressand the President and their differing concepts of therole of federally supported R&D has retarded changein the Federal laboratories and slowed or eliminatedresearch not directly related to economic develop-ment, space, or weapons development. Over thecourse of the decade, funding for military R&Dincreased 131 percent; civilian funding only 39percent.

Non-Federal R&D

State Research Programs

Despite many efforts, the current technologymanagement structure is not very successful indisseminating the benefits of Federal research touniversity, industry, and State interests. Some ofthese are instituting programs and policies of theirown to stimulate technological innovation, particu-larly for public works. NIST has identified 41State-supported organizations, sustaining 137 tech-

~David L. BI-wIIbu~ Economics Division, Congressional Research Service, “The Research and Experimentation ‘I% Credit,” issue brief, Feb.7, 1990.

55BW Bo~m and h4ichael Crow, “The Environments of U.S. R&D Laboratories: Political and Market Influences,” Policy Sciences, 1990, p.29.

~W~dyH. sc~h~ scie~ Policy Research Divisio~ Congressional Research Service, “Cooperative R&D: Federal Efforts lb Promote IndustrialCompetitivealess, “ issue brief IB89056, Jan. 22, 1990, p. 7.

57sW conclusions to ch. 5.~~lce of TIXhnolo= Assessment op. cit., footnote 29.%_ouis Mosgavero et al., “Federal ‘Ibchnology Transfer: Critical Perspectives,” State and Local Initiatives on Productivity, Technology, and

Innovation: Enhancing a National Resource for international Competitiveness (WashingtO~ DC: Advisory Commission on IntergovernmentalRelations, May 1990).

~.S. Congress, Oftice of ‘Ikdmology Assessment Industry, ‘Ikdmology, and Employment Program, “Federal Labs,” unpublished paper,November 1989, p. 7-37.


nology research centers of excellence with 2,000private sector firms participating.6l

State Programs

Some State universities with engineering schoolshave developed multidisciplinary R&D programs,and several have focused on public works. TheUniversities of Cincinnati, Virginia, New Mexico,Nebraska, and Oklahoma all have infrastructureresearch programs within their engineering schools.Like the NSF centers, these infrastructure centers tryto capture a broad funding base and emphasizeuniversity-industry collaboration and cooperation.The University of Nebraska Infrastructure Centerhas, for example, a 5 to 1 ratio of external to centerfunding. Several universities have developed inno-vative internal structures to maximize the opportuni-ties for Federal and industry support (see box 6-B).

Although State support for R&D has grown over63 percent in the last decade, State dollars stillrepresent less than 1 percent of the total spent onR&D in the United States.62 Instead of heavy directfunding, States have established networks of supportfor regional R&D, often comprised of a cross sectionof efforts, involving Federal, State, local, industry,and university resources. The Ben Franklin Partner-ship Fund (see box 6-C) in Pennsylvania is asuccessful State university-industry R&D program,which has been described as:

. . . comprehensive. . . decentralized; it catalyzessignificant private investment . . . the commer-cialization of research, the transfer of technologyfrom academia to industry, the generation of riskcapital, the birth of new firms, and the integration ofadvanced technologies into mature industries.63

The Ben Franklin program probably helped toattract NSF Engineering Centers to Lehigh andCarnegie-Mellon Universities (Pennsylvania is theonly State with three NSF engineering centers), aswell as other individual Federal grants and projectsat all of the centers. While the Ben FranklinPartnership is a successful model for collaborativeR&D, it does not focus at all on public works. ThreeState goals the program meets, however, are encour-aging the private sector to use available academic

resources, altering the university approach to R&D,and activating cooperation among local businesses,academia, and the government. All of these needshave potential to pay off for public works, and themodel could be used for a similar program with anexplicit charge to consider public needs.

Industry and Association R&D

A variety of industry and professional associa-tions have research programs for their areas ofspecial interest or for market development. TheAmerican Trucking Association sponsors the Truck-ing Research Institute, and other modal associations,such as the Air Transport Association and theAssociation of American Railroads (AAR), sponsorsimilar R&D closely related to member interests.These associations, especially AAR (see chapter 3),work with the modal administrations at DOT. Mostof the association-sponsored transportation researchstudies are related to policy and safety development,and are only tangentially connected to infrastructureor public services.

A few associations are initiating R&D programsto address areas of research that they consider to becomplementary to or inadequately covered by Fed-eral programs. Among the new efforts is that of theAmerican Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE),which has recently formed a Civil EngineeringResearch Foundation focusing on R&D relating torepair, rehabilitation, and maintenance of publicworks. Initially funded by the Foundation at$500,000, ASCE plans to expand the scope of theprogram. The American Water Works Associationalso has a small, new research foundation with alimited budget and plans for future growth.

The Water Pollution Control Federation ResearchFoundation, another recently formed organization,expected a $4 million budget in its second year. TheFoundation is a consortium of 37 subscribingmunicipal and industrial wastewater treatment facil-ities, with 50 municipalities planning to join. Mem-ber facilities range in size from plants processingonly 9 million gallons daily to those responsible formore than 1 billion gallons per day. Though theFoundation works closely with EPA’s Office of

61u.S. Dep~entof Comer&, Natio~~ti~te of s~~ds ad ~~ology, promoting TechnologiCalEXCel[ence: TheRole ofStateandFederalActivities (Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing Offlce, 1989), p. 21.

62Natio~ Science Fo~~tioq Research undDev~10p~ntEqendi~re5 Of stare &VernmenrAgen&?S: Fiscal years 19&’ and 1988 (wdlk@OQ

DC: January 1990), p. 3. Numbers are from 1988 and are adjusted for inflation.@David os~me, Laboratories of Democracy (Bostou MA: Harvard University Press, 1988), P. a.


Box 6-B—University infrastructure Research

Established and successful university centers of excellence programs attract substantial Federal, State, andprivate sector support enabling them to build strong, coordinated well-funded R&D programs. With an overallresearch budget of $700 million,l the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has Environmental ProtectionAgency, National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Transportation (DOT), and Department of Defense(DoD) centers of excellence contracts. MIT’s Department of Civil Engineering houses several federally fundedprograms related to infrastructure, including the DOT University Transportation Center, the NSF Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers Program for Composites and Polymer Recessing, and the DoDUniversity Research Initiatives Center for Construction Research and Education. Other major programs, includinga New England Regional State Center, a Center for Transportation Studies, an industrial liaison program, and anacademic program, also share faculty and students and sometimes announce solicitations throughout thedepartment. The Center for Transportation Studies alone had 126 ongoing projects in 1989. The programs cooperatewith one another and with other regional schools, and interdisciplinary research is pursued as a departmental rule.

Another type of university center, at the University of Cincinnati, is planned to provide leadership indeterminin g cost-effective and reliable solutions to public works maintenance and rehabilitation problems. TheOhio Infrastructure Institute was established to foster the development of new technology and lead the way intechnology transfer to ensure that innovations are put into practice to maximize the impact of tax dollars spent onthe repair and maintenance of”infrastructure. The Institute hopes to formulate and develop new technologies thatcan extend the useful life of public works.

As a third example, the New Mexico Engineering Research Institute, part of the University of New Mexico,operates the Infrastructure Development Assistance Program (IDAP) for the State of New Mexico. IDAP serves tostrengthen local infrastructure management capabilities through a statewide program of technical assistance,training, and technology development. Similarly, the Virginia University Transportation Center, a coordinatedresearch and training program associated with the Virginia Department of Transportation, focuses on intermediateto long-range transportation problems and issues. Areas of concentration are new technique and technologies fortransportation service, planning and management, and research in new structures and materials. The University ofNebraska-Lincoln has established a Center for Infrastructure Research with the goal of using research to improvethe economic potential and quality of life for the people of Nebraska, the Nation, and the global community. Thecenter’s research agenda is ‘‘market driven,’ which means that the priorities and scope of the projects flow fromusers-those who design, build, operate, maintain, and regulate infrastructure--to researchers. This results in thedevelopment of technologies and systems that can be transferred rapidly into use.

1Robert Weissler, senior analyst Industry, TechnoIogy, and Employment Program, Office of Technology Assessment, personalcommunication May 21, 1990.

Municipal Pollution Control, it is addressing R&D Conclusions and Optionsissues that EPA often does not address, such asmunicipal and wastewater treatment, residuals man-agement, and water quality effects. Through work-shops and forums, the subscribers themselves set theresearch agenda, and the Foundation’s level ofsupport indicates the high level of interest, espe-cially in municipalities, for such operations-orientedR&D.

The American Public Works Association has asmall, longstanding research foundation that exe-cutes a variety of studies in cooperation with localgovernments, and sometimes with States or Federalagencies. These studies are generally intended totransfer technology and information to local govern-mental clients.

Public works providers need ongoing R&D pro-grams to identify new technologies that can helpmeet changing public service needs. Despite this,relevant R&D programs are generally underfunded,scattered, and directed at diverse, specific programobjectives. Thus Federal and other public worksagencies are ill prepared to address future needs andsystems problems, such as those that cross transpor-tation modes or environmental media categories.Given the likelihood of continued governmentalbudget austerity, the outlook for public works-related R&D is bleak, unless a way can be found tocapitalize on the extensive individual efforts tobenefit public infrastructure.


Box 6-C--Ben Franklin Partnerships

In the early 1980s, as the steel and coal industries‘ dwindled and the economy became increasely depressed,Pennsylvania was searching for industrial“ revival. The Pennsylvania General Assembly created the Ben FranklinPartnership Fund in 1982 and continues to support the effort, appropriating $28 million for fiscal year 1990-91.1

The State’s aim is to promote innovative development, application“ ,and marketingg of techndogies, a comprehensivecradle-to-maturity strategy not found at the Federal level.

The Ben Franklin Partnership operates out of regional centers where university laboratories and privatesector sponsors collaborate in censor@tia, with general management provided by the State. To date, the State hascontributed $110 minim; non-State support has reached $400 million. From 1983 to 1988, Ben Franklin funds werematched by a total of $39 million m Federal funds. Though the program is well coordinated and the State ultimatelyhas control over funds, administration is decentralized, allowing for close ties to local needs and available resources.

The links between universities and businesses ensure that R&D is focused on issues critical to the private sectorsponsors, which the participants generally see as a positive union. However,responding to industry criticism, Statemanagers removed the locus of control from the universities and incorporated each of the centers. Now each centeris governed by a board consisting of representative of the private sector, the schools, and the regional or local government.2 The program emphasize quantitative results, because the General Assembly must be convinced ofthe wisdom in providing about $30 million annually. The biggest selling points have been job creation--although this is not inherent in technology development--and profitability of new products.

Although most of the projects focus on commercial technologies, some deal with construction, materials,robotics, and sensor technologies relevant to public works. The Penn State Technology Center is, for example,currently conducting a demonstration project on roller-compacted concrete in cooperation with the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Transportation. A market demand for such technologies must exist for the Ben Franklin Partnershipto pursue a project,3so there is no guarantee that the Partnership, which is designed to encourage economicdevelopment will benefit public services.

Federal Agency Public Works R&D

Federal public works R&D efforts tend to be lowprofile and are often overshadowed by the obviousproblems of infrastructure upkeep and construction;R&D programs often fail to weather the first anddeepest cuts when departmentwide budgets shrink(see figure 6-5). In the short term, Congress couldconsider authorizing and appropriating agencyR&D budgets on a separate line-item basis toguarantee executive agency commitment andgreater financial stability for R&D programs.

more effective or efficient alternatives for treatingenvironmental pollutants. Federal R&D and tech-nology sharing programs for environmental pub-lic works are inadequate. Increased R&D di-rected at alternative, lower cost technologies formeeting standards and at improving operations,especially for small systems, is a top priority.Congress could require EPA to develop a com-prehensive program of research, development,and demonstrations to meet these needs. If thisoccurs, adequate funding should be ensured.

EPA DOT

EPA’s R&D is task-oriented due to the Agency’s While DOT provides direct support for regionalcongressional mandate, its administrative structure, transportation, it commits its resources on a modalthe immediate need for support of regulations, and basis, with R&D support heavily skewed towardlimited funds.64 The research now under way on FAA and FHWA. Data collection on travel andbroad environmental issues is focused on how to shipping patterns has been neglected. As a result,meet regulations, with little attention to identifying alternatives to current and future transportation

64National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Detailed Historical Tables

for Fiscal Years 1955-1990 (Washington, DC: 1990). .


Figure 6-5—Federal Outlaysa for Public Works R&D, 1980-90

Millions of 1982 dollars600

[5od

400 -

+ I n t e r i o r

300 - + DOT— E P A

200

I

+ Corpso I 1 I I 4 I I1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 (est)

KEY: DOT Department of Transportation; EPA_ Environmental Protection Agency; NIST National Institute ofStandards and Technology

aD~~ not in~~e reimbursements.

SOURCE: National Science Foundation, Division of Soience Reeources Studies, Fe&a/ Funds for Research andDevelopment: Detailed Historical T&/es for Fkoa/ Y- 19S5-1990 (Washington, DC: 1990).

patterns are not pursued, and one outgrowth is thedearth of R&D on intermodal connections. Bothpublic and private transportation officials haveidentified the lack of information about intermodallinkages, such as airport-ground and port-to-railheadaccess, as a stumbling block to developing policiesthat support growth and increased capacity. Revi-sion of current modally defined R&D is longoverdue, and DOT needs to develop R&D pro-grams to address intermodal needs and capacityenhancing transportation alternatives. Congresscould require DOT to collect and analyze freightcommodity and passenger flow data and to consti-tute and institutionalize a mechanism to ensure thatall its R&D takes into account interdisciplinary andintermodal issues. Options include establishing atransportation data office or center, strengthen-ing the R&D Coordinating Council, and creatingan effective Secretary-level R&D coordinator.

The Corps of Engineers

The Corps has considerable public works researchcapacity, and has been successful at networking withits clients, especially the administrative Corps per-sonnel. But the Corps’ traditional specialty, waterresources development, is declining as a national

priority. Federal agencies have been unwilling (orfinancially unable) to make firm commitments tocontracts with the Corps of Engineers, and inresponse, the Corps has remained committed to itsown missions, limiting its value as a resource forother Federal agencies, which could benefit from itsexpertise and facilities. Restructuring the Corps andmoving parts of it to other agencies is an optiondiscussed in chapter 2. A less drastic option forCongress to consider is directing the Corps toreorient some of its R&D toward basic environ-mental missions, such as water treatment andsupply systems, to make the agency a morevaluable shared resource. For example, the Corpscould help EPA fill the research gap for environ-mental public works operations and small systems.

Coordinating Existing Research

If substantially greater funding is not available,the three main public works agencies, the Corps ofEngineers, EPA, and DOT, must renew efforts toensure that a substantial portion of their R&Dresources address end-users’ needs and to maximizethe use of existing resources. These resourcesinclude TSC, NIST, the interdisciplinary universitycenters, and existing Federal technology transfer


programs. Special programs, such as SHRP, whichtarget neglected areas of R&D, should be integratedinto more comprehensive programs and receiveadequate support. Many of these existing programsare underfunded, underutilized, or otherwise lackagency commitment. However, with adept intra-agency resource allocation, they could be strength-ened and used to leverage the return on public worksR&D investment.

Agencies that perform public works R&D aregenerally underfunded, while DOE and DoD receivesubstantial Federal R&D commitments. Regardlessof funding level, a reallocation of dollars is needed.If Congress does not increase R&D spending, itmay want to consider reallocating some R&Ddollars from laboratories doing advanced re-search to EPA and DOT, where R&D for publicworks is significantly underfunded. A systems-oriented management structure for public worksR&D could be developed, aiming for comprehen-sive financial leveraging, management, and review.

Past executive-level public works R&D coordina-tion efforts, such as the now defunct Water Re-sources Council, have not been successful, becausesuch entities require joint congressional and admin-istration commitment to function effectively. Givensuch a commitment at their highest levels, theexecutive agencies alone could coordinate researchwithout compromising their mandated missions.Establishing a framework for coordinating FederalR&D could be a long-term goal, for both theAdministration and Congress. Existing institutions,NIST or the Federal Laboratory Consortium, forexample, could act as Federal R&D coordinators.Another option is to establish anew agency, such asthe proposed Advanced Civilian TechnologyAgency, and include public works R&D in its scope.

Technology Transfer

Throughout the 1980s, Federal research policyarticulated in legislation has been aimed at the“national’ Federal laboratories, with the goal ofstimulating economic growth and technology trans-fer to the private sector. Using technology as a tool,Federal and State Governments have encouragedtransfer of laboratory research to industry develop-ment through law, incentives, and centrally plannedprograms.

The Federal Government has already provided animportant mechanism for technology transfer to thecommercial sector by centralizing technology man-agement in NIST, the Federal Laboratory Consor-tium, and other Federal technology clearinghouses.Most Federal laboratories have been required toconsider technology transfer to the commercialsector, and allowances for Federal researchers toshare in profits and royalties are provided asincentives. For the most part, however, collaborationis slow in coming due to complex legal problemswith patents and proprietary rights and some uncer-tainty among Federal laboratory personnel abouthow to go about making deals with the privatesector. Moreover, although many technologies havetremendous commercial appeal, those developed forapplication to public works often do not have anobvious market because of the propensity for publicofficials to stipulate familiar equipment (see chapter5).

The Federal Government has sought to bolsterpublic works R&D by stimulating cooperationamong academic institutions, Federal laboratories,and industries. The mix of academic, public, andprivate sectors in technology transfer efforts tends totarget technologies according to their potentialprofitability. However, these groups do not have along history of cooperation, and overly mission-specific grants and disagreements over intellectualproperty rights and administrative control inhibiteffective collaboration.65 Transfer of public workstechnologies from Federal and academic labora-tories to private sector production and publicsector use is unlikely to occur without specificmechanisms-such as the Technology TransferAdvisory Committees and technology transfer re-quirements for the EPA Hazardous SubstancesResearch Centers. This limitation must be kept inmind as Federal support for the centers is evaluated.Technology transfer is crucial to infrastructuretechnologies, but there is no guarantee that theFederal transfer process as it is now most firmlyinstitutionalized will include the needs of publicworks. Should Congress consider new legislation,an emphasis on technology transfer to public workscould provide a much needed stream of innovativeR&D and a connection to industries that can adaptadvanced technologies for public sector uses. In anycase, a periodic review of technology transfer

~o~bme, Op. cit., footnote 63, P. 58”

Chapter 6—Research and Development for Public Works . 239

laws-how and by whom they are implementedand their effect on the ownership and develop-ment of technologies-could provide Congresswith information on how well the goals of the lawsare being met.

Multidisciplinary programs using academic, pri-vate, and public resources can be useful sources ofinformation, expertise, and facilities. Coordinatingprograms, such as the university centers of excel-lence and NIST, can be an effective way to allocatescarce R&D dollars. In addition, other Federalpublic works-related research could be coordinated,and cooperative agreements such as those managedby EPA and authorized by the Federal TechnologyTransfer Act (Public Law 99-502) could ensure gooduse of existing resources. NIST, TSC, and the Corpsrepresent valuable resources, which can provideanalytical and applied research support to DOT andEPA. Nonetheless, with few exceptions, these re-sources are not being fully utilized for sharedFederal research.

Technical Training and Expertise

Time and again during OTA’s research, the needfor more well-trained personnel for public works

was emphasized. Although the efficacy of Federaluniversity center programs in improving the pool ofengineering talent is difficult to evaluate in the shortterm, it is clear that the center programs do not yethave a large, stable financial backing or substantialstudent involvement. Only a small percentage of thestudents attending the 280 universities in the UnitedStates that offer engineering education will beinvolved in the multidisciplinary programs spon-sored by Federal agencies. For example, OTAestimates that only 1 percent of engineering under-graduates and 4 to 11 percent of graduate studentsparticipate in the NSF engineering centers.66 OTAconcludes that the focus on education and train-ing is as important as research to improvingpublic works. A generous Federal funding com-mitment for engineers, scientists, and other uni-versity centers is needed to meet the extraordi-nary need for well-trained public works officials.Federal support is especially crucial if the univer-sities are to cooperate with the private sectorwithout becoming so oriented to private sectorgoals that they risk their mission to educate.

%ffice of ‘Ikchnology Assessmen~ op. cit., footnote 36, p. 65.

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A

Fiscal Capacity and Effort Measures

Fiscal capacity is a concept developed by the U.S.Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations(ACIR) to measure the relative revenue-raising abilities ofStates and their local governments, including taxes andnontax revenues, such as user charges. ACIR definesfiscal capacity as the relative amount of revenue Stateswould raise if they used a “representative” tax andrevenue system, consisting of national average tax ratesand charges applied to 26 commonly used tax and revenuebases. Therefore, State capacities vary because of differing tax base characteristics, such as property values, salestax receipts, and mineral production. For example, theeffect of lower energy prices would adversely affect thefiscal capacity of those States that rely on energy-related

Table A-l-State Fiscal

taxes and user charges to raise a significant share of Staterevenue. The method developed by ACIR is only one ofseveral methods to measure fiscal capacity, and somebelieve an analysis based on per-capita income, thoughmuch simpler, is equally useful.

ACIR also measures fiscal effort, or relative taxburdens, across States. (See table A-1 for State capacityand effort indexes and rankings.) Revenue effort isdefined by ACIR as the burden that each State places oneach revenue base relative to the national average.

Because the ACIR analysis is based on 1988 datachanges have undoubtedly occurred in the index, but thegeneral trends and relationships remain valid.

Capacity and Effort, 1988

Fiscal Capacitya Fiscal efforta Fiscal Capacitya Fiscal efforta

Index Index Index Index(Ioo=U.S. (Ioo=U.S. (100=U.S. (1 OO=U.S.average) Rank average) Rank average) Rank average) Rank

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Arkansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . .California . . . . . . . . . . . . .Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Connecticut. . . . . . . . . . . .Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . .District of Columbia . . . . .Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Massachusetts . . . . . . . . .Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Minnesota. . . . . . . . . . . . .Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . .Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77255

9774

115106142120126103

93111

7610088

8491808497

11113196

1036589

461

225010

14285

17

2711491936

413043392312

324165132

95122978698948394

1378798

111989596

118104899799

10289

11211710886

313

294827

364937

24626

8243530

4154328221944

75

1047

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New Hampshire . . . . . . . .New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . .New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . .New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . .North Carolina . . . . . . . . .North Dakota . . . . . . . . . .Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . .Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . .

South Carolina . . . . . . . . .South Dakota . . . . . . . . . .Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . .Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Washington . . . . . . . . . . . .West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . .Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8489

12912312688

1108985

92879195

100

7878849576

102104987690

118

4034

47

6351333382837292520

44454226471815214831

9

102106756695

103141

91107

9895

1049399

102958989

10910090

10590

117105

181250513417

139112533163823

20324245

921401341

614

%ased on State and local tax bases and other revenue sources, such as user charges, relative to the national average.

SOURCE: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1988 State Fkwa/Capac/tyand HYort(Washington, DC: 1990), p. 33.

–243–

APPENDIX B

List of Acronyms

—Association of American RailroadsAASHTO —American Association of State Highway

and Transportation OfficialsAC —asphaltic concreteACIR —Advisory Commission on

Intergovernmental RelationsACTA —Alameda CorridorTransportation Authority

(California)ADS —automatic dependent surveillance

—automated en route air traffic controlAGT —Automated Guideway TransitAM/FM —automated mapping/facilities mapping

—automatic meter readingASCE —American Society of Civil EngineersATC —air traffic control

—Advanced Traffic ManagementATSAC —AutomatedTraffic Surveillance and ControlAVI —automatic vehicle identificationAVL —advanced vehicle locationAVM —advanced vehicle monitoringBuRec —Bureau of ReclamationCADD —computer-aided design and draftingCBT —Center for Building TechnologyCERL —Construction Engineering Research

LaboratoryCFCS —chlorofluorocarbonsCFCF —Central Flow Control Facility

—crash, fire, and rescue (services)CIP —capital improvement planCNG —compressed natural gascorps —U.S. Army corps of EngineersCPAR —Construction Productivity Advancement

Research programCRREL —Cold Regions Research and Engineering

LaboratoryCSO —combined sewer overflow

—Center for Utilization of FederalTechnology

DCA —Department of Community Affairs(-Florida)

DCD —Department of Community Development(Washington State)

DCS —Distributed Control SystemDOT —Department of TransportationDoD —Department of DefenseEPA —U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyESPs —electrostatic precipitatorsFAA —Federal Aviation AdministrationFHWA —Federal Highway AdministrationFLC —Federal Laboratory ConsortiumFmHA —Farmers Home Administration

—Federal Railroad AdministrationGA —general aviationGIS —Geographic Information System

GOCOGPSHEW

HFHOVHP&RHSGTI/AICAOICCICTF

IDAP

ILSIVHS

JAL

LLWASLRFD

—Government Owned Contractor Operated—Global Positioning System—Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare—high frequency—high-occupancy vehicle—Highway Planning and Research—High Speed Ground Transportation (Act)—Innovative and Alternative Technology—International Civil Aviation Organization—Interstate Commerce Commission—Intermodal Container Transfer Facility

(California)—Infrastructure Development Assistance

Program—instrument flight rules—instrument landing system—Intelligent Vehicle/Highway System—Inland Waterways Trust Fund ‘—Japanese National Airlines—Japanese National Railway—load factor design—low-level windshear alert system—load and resistance factor desire

MARAD —Maritime AdministrationMCL —maximum contaminant levelMGD —million gallons per day

—meter interface unit—Massachusetts Institute of Technology—microwave landing system

MSW —municipal solid waste—master terminal unit

NAS —National Airspace SystemNATM —New Austrian Tunneling MethodNCHRP —National Cooperative Highway Research

ProgramNCP —Nationally Coordinated ProgramNDE —nondestructive evaluationNEPA —National Environmental Policy ActNHTSA —National Highway Traffic Safety

AdministrationNPDES —National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

SystemNPS —nonpoint sourceNRWA —National Rural Water AssociationNTSB —National Transportation Safety BoardNWS —National Weather ServiceOER —Office of Exploratory ResearchOMB —Office of Management and BudgetPACE —Program for Airport Capacity Efficiency

(Massachusetts)PCBs —polychlorinated biphenylsPCI —Pavement Condition IndexPOE —point of entry

-244-

Appendix B—List of Acronyms . 245

POTWPOUPRTPVCPWTF

R&DRCRARDFRORSPA

RTRI

SCADASDWASHRP

—publicly owned treatment works—point of use—Personal Rapid Transit—polyvinyl chloride—Public Works Trust Fund (Washington

State)—research and development—Resource Conservation and Recovery Act—refuse derived fuel—reverse osmosis—Research and Special Programs

Administration—Railway Technical Research Institute

(Japan)—Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition—Safe Drinkin g Water Act—Strategic Highway Research program

SOCsSRFSTAASTCsSWTRTBMTECTHMs

TSCUMTA

VE

VOCs

—soluble organic compounds—State Revolving Loan Fund—Surface Transportation Assistance Act—Science and Technology Centers—surface water treatment regulations—tunnel boring machine—trenchless excavation construction—trihalomethanes—Transportation Research Board—Transportation Systems Center—Urban Mass Transit Authority—University Research Initiatives—value engineering—visual flight rules—volatile organic compounds—Waterways Experiment Station—weigh-in-motion

APPENDIX C

Workshop Participants and OtherReviewers and Contributors

State and Local Infrastructure Managementand Financing Workshop, July 7, 7989

Burton Stallwood, Workshop ChairTown Administrator

Lincoln, RI

John AmbergerExecutive DirectorSoutheast Michigan Council of Governments

Mary BoergersDelegateMaryland House of Delegates

Wayne CollinsCounty EngineerMaricopa County Highway DepartmentPhoenix, AZ

Settle DockeryDevelopment DirectorYork Properties

John GunyouFinance OfficerCity of Minneapolis, MN

John HorsleyCommissionerKitsap County, WA

Anthony KaneAssociate AdministratorFederal Highway Administration

Byron KostePresidentWestinghouse Communities

Ian MacGillivrayDirector, Planning ResearchIowa Department of Transportation

Donald MorseSecretary/TreasurerKentucky Infrastructure Authority

Heywood T. SandersAssociate ProfessorTrinity University

H. Gerard SchwartzVice PresidentSverdrup Corp.

Mary SimoneMayorRockSprings, Tx

Ron WagenmannTown ManagerUpper Merion Township, PA

Morgan KinghornDeputy Assistant AdministratorU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

–246-

Appendix C—Workshop Participants and Other Reviewers and Contributors ● 247

Workshop on Transportation and Infrastructure Technologies:Slow Motion Progress in a Fast Forward World, Ju/y 25, 1989

John J. Fearnsides, Workshop ChairVice President

The Mitre Corp.

William H. AllenVice PresidentParsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.

Carol BellamyPrincipalMorgan Stanley & Co., Inc.

Harry CookePresidentNational Waterways Conference, Inc.

Chris HendricksonProfessorCarnegie-Mellon University

Gill HicksManager of Transportation PlanningPort of Long Beach

Richard R. JohnDeputy DirectorTransportation Systems Center

Damian J. KulashExecutive DirectorStrategic Highway Research program

Richard MarchiDirector of Aviation, Planning and DevelopmentMassport

Mel OlsenVice President for Capacity PlanningAmerican Airlines

Robert E. ParsonsDirector, Program on Advanced Technology

for the HighwayUniversity of California-Richmond

Craig PhilipVice President, Intermodal DivisionSouthern Pacific Railroad

Thomas RichardsonChief, Engineering Development DivisionCoastal Engineering Research CenterU.S. Army Engineering Waterways Experiment Station

Albert J. SobeyConsultant

Vern WagarPresidentNational Association of County Engineers

Henry W. WedaaVice ChairmanSouth Coast Air Quality Management District


Workshop on Environmental /infrastructure Technologies:Finding the Balance Between Performance and Regulation, September 14, 1989

Al Aim, Workshop ChairSenior Vice President and Director

Science Application International Corp.

John ConveryDeputy DirectorRisk Reduction Engineering LaboratoryU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Patrick GilliganManagerBrookings-Deuel Water System

Neil GriggDirectorWater Resources Research Institute

Joseph KavanaughSenior Process EngineerCH2M Hill

Trudie LaySmall Systems Program ManagerAmerican Water Works Association

G. Wade MillerPresidentWade Miller Associates, Inc.

William RossVice PresidentRoy F. Weston Co.

H. Gerard SchwartzVice PresidentSverdrup Corp.

Edgar SmithCivil Engineering Research LaboratoryU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Whit Van CottCommissioner of WaterToledo, OH

Hendrik WillemsDirector, Washington Liaison Office for Engineering

and ResearchU.S. Department of the Interior

Charles Larry WilsonDeputy DirectorArkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology

Henry M. PeskinPresidentEdgevale Associates, Inc.

Appendix C—Workshop Participants and Other Reviewers and Contributors . 249

Materials Technology and lnfrastructure Decisionmaking Workshop,October 5, 1989

Robert BaboianPrincipal FellowTexas Instruments, Inc.

Stanley BarkinAssociate DirectorNational Materials Advisory Board

George F. BraunDirector, Engineering and Housing Support CenterThe Society of American Military Engineers

John P. BroomfieldTechnical Contract Manager for Concrete and StructuresStrategic Highway Research programVictor ChakerCorrosion Research and Materials EngineerPort Authority of New York and New JerseyEdward EscalanteMetallurgistNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyMilon EssoglioliDirector, Research and DevelopmentNaval Facility Engineering Command

John J. GaudetteAssistant Executive DirectorProgram and Capital DevelopmentChicago Regional Transportation Authority

Hazel GluckPresidentPublic Policy Advisors, Inc.

Robert E. GreenDirector, Center for Nondestructive EvaluationThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBetsy HoustonExecutive DirectorFederation of Materials SocietiesJerome KrugerProfessorMaterials Science and EngineeringThe Johns Hopkins University

Carl E. Locke, Jr.Dean, School of EngineeringUniversity of KansasStanley V. MargolinPresidentNetwork Consulting, Inc.Eugene DeMicheleDirector, Technical ServicesWater Pollution Control Federation

Dale MillerDirector, Membership and Public AffairsNational Association of Corrosion EngineersTomoki OkaManager, Research EngineerNational Institute of Standards and Technology

Luis OrtegaChief ArchitectCivil Engineering DivisionU.S. Coast GuardThomas J. Pasko, Jr.Director, Office of Engineering and Highway Operations

Research and DevelopmentFederal Highway AdministrationRayne G. PoussardManager, Public AffairsUnited Parcel ServiceRick RickerGroup Leader, Corrosion GroupNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyMurray A. SchwartzProgram Manager for MaterialsU.S. Bureau of MinesCarl ScipleAssistant Director of Engineering for ConstructionMassachusetts Port AuthorityRichard H. Sullivan

Associate Executive DirectorAmerican Public Works Association

Gilbert M. UgianskyPresidentCortest Engineering Services, Inc.Y. Paul VirmaniResearch ChemistFederal Highway AdministrationDonald M. WatersVice PresidentPSG Corrosion Engineering, Inc.

Harold H. WeberDirector of Industrial ProgramsThe Sulphur Institute

John D. WoodProfessorLehigh University


Other Reviewers and contributors

Blake AndersonOrange County Sanitation Districts

Eugene DeMicheleWater Pollution Control Federation

Neil N. DiehlIngram Barge Co.

L. George AntleU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Arlene L. DietzUs. Army corps of Engineers

Amy BakerFlorida Department of Community Affairs

Gordon EnglishQueens University, Canada

R. Darryl BanksDepartment of Environmental Conservation

Norman D. FalkUniversity of New Mexico

Robert BastianU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Malachy FallonStandard & Poor Corp.

David BergU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

John FischerCongressional Research Service

Robert K. BestCalifornia Department of Transportation

Brian FrenneaInland Rivers, Ports and Terminals, Inc.

Ray BeurketAmerican Public Works Association

Robert FriedmanOffice of Technology Assessment

Rosina BierbaumOffice of Technology Assessment

Geoffrey FrohnsdorffU.S. Department of Commerce

Peter BlairOffice of Technology Assessment

Jerry GarmanU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Rebecca BradyNational Conference of State Legislatures

Rich GradyIntergraph Corp.

John P. BroomfieldStrategic Highway Research Program

Joseph F. CannyU.S. Department of Transportation

Campbell GraeubTransportation Research Board

James B. GroffNational Association of Water Companies

William CarpenterMartin Marietta Energy Applications, Inc.

Elliott chamberlainSverdrup Corp.

Ruth HewittIonia, Michigan Chamber of Commerce

Robert M. HillSRI International

Frank CihakAmerican Public Transit Association

Robert ClarkU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

John HornbeckCongressional Research Service

Claudia CopelandCongressional Research Service

M. Leon HyattBureau of Reclamation

Charilyn CowanNational Governors’ Association

Thomas IseleyLouisiana Tech University

Rich DavisSouthern California Rapid Transit District

Larry JenneyTransportation Research Board

Michael DeichCongressional Budget Office

Peter JohnsonOffice of Technology Assessment

Appendix C—Workshop Participants and Other Reviewers and Contributors ● 251

Dan JonesOffice of the MayorHouston, TX

Joseph KavanaughCH2M Hill

John KellyOregon Department of Land Conservation

and Development

Elaine KingTransportation Research Board

Ken KirkeAssociation of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies

James KreisslU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Richard KuchenreitherBlack & Veatch Engineers

Lester P. LammHighway Users Federation

Thomas D. LarsonU.S. Department of Transportation

Jerry F. LavelleTri-City Regional Port District

Howard LevensonOffice of Technology Assessment

Sue LiorRoy F. Weston, Inc.

Steven LockwoodFederal Highway Administration

James ManwaringAmerican Water Works Association

Wayne MarchantU.S. Department of the Interior

Kathleen MarcucciLehigh University

Francis MayoFlorence, Kentucky

Kenneth MeadU.S. General Accounting Office

Dale MillerNational Association of Corrosion Engineers

Elizabeth MinerU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Arrigo MonginiU.S. Department of Transportation

Jeffrey MomUrban Mass Transportation Administration

Karen MorehouseU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mike MulbargerCambridge, Massachusetts

Robert NiblockOffice of Technology Assessment

Don NiehusU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Reed NielsenBechtel National, Inc.

Kent A. OlsenFluor Daniel, Inc.

Robert B. Oswald, Jr.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Constantine N. PapadakisUniversity of Cincinnati

Lee PasarewU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Thomas J. Pasko, Jr.Federal Highway Administration

Michael PhillipsOffice of Technology Assessment

Beth PinkstonCongressional Budget Office

Richard PowellAmerican President Lines

Yvonne PufahlU.S. General Accounting Office

Karen RasmussenCalifornia Trucking Association

William ReillyTransportation Research Board

John ReithAmerican Trucking Associations

Victor RezendesU.S. General Accounting Office

Rip RiceRice International Consulting Enterprises

Gary T. RitterTransportation Systems Center

Judith RohrerU.S. Environmental protection Agency


Donald Rote Thomas WehriArgonne National Laboratory U.S. Department of Agriculture

David Sanford, Jr. Jacqueline Williams-BridgerU.S. Army corps of Engineers U.S. General Accounting Office

David Schnare Carl WilliamsU.S. Environmental Protection Agency California Department of Transportation

Neil D. Schuster Roger WolffInternational Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association U.S. Department of the Interior

Sarah J. SiwekSouthcoast Air Quality Management District

Dennis R. SmithUs. Army corps of Engineers

Ken StromDames & Moore

Stephen J. ThompsonCongressional Research Service

John TraxNational Rural Water Association

Leslie WollackNational League of Cities

Richard N. WrightU.S. Department of Commerce

Darwin WrightU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

David YorkFlorida Department of Environmental Regulation

Michael ZywokarteFederal Aviation Administration

APPENDIX D

Contractor Reports

Copies of contractor reports done for this project are available through the U.S. Department of Commerce, NationalTechnical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 4874650.

1. Analytical Services, “State Finance for Local Public Works: Four Case Studies,” PB 91-119529.

2. Analytical Services, “State Finance for Local Public Works: Implications for Federal Policy,” PB 91-119537.

3. Apogee Research, Inc., “Impact of Federal Funding Changes on State/Local Infrastructure FinancingResources,” PB 90-171703.

4. Campbell Associates, “Regional Planning: Opportunities for Infrastructure Development,” PB 91-119503.

5. Government Finance Research Center, “Federal Tax Policy and Infrastructure Financing,” PB 90-171729.

6. Thomas D. Hopkins, “Benefit Changes for Financing Infrastructure,” PB 90-171711.

–253– U. S, GOVERNMENTPRINTING OFFICE;IWl_CW-~

delivering the goods: public works technologies

Documents