the fhwa bridge and tunnel programssp.bridges.transportation.org/documents/2015 scobs... · 2015....

The FHWA Bridge and Tunnel Programs

A presentation to the AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and Strcutures. April 22, 2015

Joseph Hartmann

Director, Office of Bridges and Structures Federal Highway Administration

• Funding

• National Tunnel Inspection Standards

• National Bridge Inspection Standards

• Changing the language of the Federal-aid bridge program

• Transportation Performance Management – Bridge Performance Measures

Contents

Funding Highway Trust Fund

As of today, $8.1B balance

Based on current spending and revenue trends, projected to be out of funds in July

When it gets below $2B, “cash management procedures”

Highway Bridge Program Final year to obligate funds or they will expire

Currently nearly $470M in unobligated funding

MAP-21 Expired September 30, 2014

Current extension expires on May 31, 2015

Reauthorization

Reauthorization and MAP-21 Avg. Annual Funding at FY12 Levels (+ inflation)

NHPP $21.8 STP $10.0

HSIP $2.2

Railway-Highway

Crossing $0.2 CMAQ $2.2

Transportation Alternatives

$0.8

Metro Planning $0.3

$37.7 billion/year in

formula funding

Note: Amounts in $ billions; individual

program amounts do not add

exactly to total due to rounding

Reauthorization

Administration’s Proposal: GROW AMERICA Act

Generating Renewal, Opportunity, and Work with Accelerated Mobility, Efficiency, and Rebuilding of Infrastructure and Communities throughout America Act

GROW AMERICA Act

Proposal originally transmitted to the Congress on April 29, 2014.

Authorizes total of $478 billion for surface transportation programs for FYs 2016-2021.

Funds for highways, highway and motor vehicle safety, motor carrier safety, public transportation, rail infrastructure and safety, and surface transportation research.

Stabilizes the Trust Fund for 6 more years and provides funding certainty.

Advances project delivery efficiency, improves planning, and offers innovative finance options.

GROW AMERICA Act $261.1B in apportioned funding over 6 years ($43.5B/yr)

Surface Transportation

Program ($54.8)

National Highway Performance Program

($140.8)

Highway Safety Improvement Program ($14.1)

Cong. Mitigation/Air Quality Improvement($14.7)

Transportation Alternatives ($5.3)

NEW: Critical Immediate Safety Investments ($29.4)

Metropolitan Planning ($2.0)

6-year funding in billions of dollars

Critical Immediate Safety Investments Program

– $29.4B for 3 Initiatives

– Interstate Bridge Revitalization Initiative

– 25% to 75% for SD on the IHS

– Systemic Safety Initiative

– 25% to 75% for safety improvements on local roads

– State of Good Repair Initiative

– Up to 50% for NHS state of good repair

– Match can come from any eligible program

Bridge to Sustainable Infrastructure Act

• Bi-Partisan House Bill – Renacci (R-Ohio)

– Pascrell (D-N.J.)

– Ribble (R-Wis.)

– Lipinski (D-Ill.)

• T&I or Ways and Means

• Temporarily patches the HTF

• If Congress doesn’t find a permanent solution in 3 years, a gas tax hike is automatically triggered and indexed to inflation

• If no solution after another 3 years…another hike

National Tunnel Inspection Standards (NTIS)

2008 ANPRM

2010 NPRM

2012

Final Rule was prepared

MAP-21

2013 SNPRM

“Current” expected publication date 06/26/2015

TOMIE Manual and Specification for the National Tunnel Inventory (coding guide) will be published concurrent with NTIS

NHI Tunnel Safety Inspection Training

• FHWA will sponsor – 2 from each State DOT – 1 from each Division Office

• Each State will be assigned to a session

• Possible locations – Baltimore – Atlanta – Matteson, IL (Chicago) – Boston – Lakewood, CO (Denver) – Seattle – Sacramento – Richmond

National Bridge Inspection Standards (Risk-Based, Data-Driven)

Establish and maintain risk-based, data-driven inspection standards

Establish risk-based, data-driven frequency of inspections

Establish procedures for reporting critical findings and monitoring

corrective actions

Requirement to conduct annual compliance reviews

Maintain a bridge inspection training program

Nationally Certified Bridge Inspectors

“Currently” expected to be published September 6, 2015

• FHWA will likely address more than just the MAP-21 required elements once the rule-making process “opens up” the NBIS regulation

• Please comment on what you like in addition to what you don’t like…also, offer us solutions

Opportunity!

Goal…Eliminate Federally instituted but sometimes confusing, unclear, alarming or misleading terms from the language of bridge engineers!

This is language that has served us well and we have “owned” it, but recognize it does not translate well in a transparent world.

Changing the Language of the Federal-Aid Bridge Program

• Sufficiency Rating

• Functionally Obsolete

• Fracture Critical

• Structurally Deficient

The Guilty


View of the I-5 Skagit River Bridge looking west…May 24, 2013.

Sufficiency Rating

The Sufficiency Rating (SR) for the Skagit River Bridge was 53.8. Was that unsafe?

• 4 Components (Appendix B) – Structural Adequacy and Safety (55%)

• Items 59, 60, 62 and 66

– Serviceability and Functional Obsolescence (30%) • Items 28, 29, 32, 43, 51, 53, 58, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72 and

100

– Essentiality for Public Use (15%) • Items 19, 29 and 100

– Special Reductions (up to -13%) • Items 19, 36 and 43

• So….was 58.9 unsafe?

Sufficiency Rating

• Legacy Term (MAP-21)

• Used as a means to apportion Highway Bridge Program Funding to States

• An early attempt at performance(?) management

• Still in many of our programs, guidance, etc. (SI&A) but the Federal-Aid program will soon no longer use it

• Not a measure of structural safety

Sufficiency Rating

Functionally Obsolete

The Skagit River Bridge was Functionally Obsolete (FO). Was that unsafe?

• An appraisal rating of 3 or less for – Item 68, Deck Geometry; or – Item 69, Underclearances; or – Item 72, Approach Roadway Alignment

OR • An appraisal rating of 3 for

– Item 67, Structural Evaluation – Item 71, Waterway Adequacy

• Is a FO bridge unsafe?


• Legacy Term (MAP-21)

• Used to incorporate some of the functional parameters of a bridge into the allocation decision on funding

• Still in many of our programs, guidance, etc. (SI&A) but the Federal-Aid program soon will no longer use it



The Skagit River Bridge was Fracture Critical (FC).

Was that unsafe?

Fracture Critical

• Rooted in two bridge failures

• Reliability v. redundancy – Material standards

– Fabrication standards

– Hands-on inspection

• (No FC members on I-5 failed!)

• Need to retain the notion, but not a measure of structural safety

Fracture Critical

• The I-35W Bridge was Structurally Deficient (SD). Was that unsafe?

Structurally Deficient

• A condition rating of 4 or less for – Item 58, Deck; or – Item 59, Superstructures; or – Item 60, Substructures; or – Item 62, Culvert and Retaining Walls

OR • An appraisal rating of 2 or less for

– Item 67, Structural Evaluation – Item 71, Waterway Adequacy

• Is a SD bridge unsafe?


• Condition and physical adequacy parameter for SR • No longer needed for funding apportionment, but unfortunately

still in MAP-21 (bridge penalty provision) • Performance Measures Rule-Making…Good/Fair/Poor • Structurally Deficient vs. Poor

– A condition rating of 4 or less for • Item 58, Deck; or • Item 59, Superstructures; or • Item 60, Substructures; or • Item 62, Culvert and Retaining Walls

OR – An appraisal rating of 2 or less for

• Item 67, Structural Evaluation • Item 71, Waterway Adequacy



• SR and FO => will you keep them?

• Fracture Critical => need to retain in some form

• Structurally Deficient => Poor?

• What else do we need to tell our story?

• A decade of effort?

• What bridges are unsafe?


Open bridges are safe, unsafe bridges are closed.

Safe. Unsafe!

Title Subtitle

Meeting Date

Office of Transportation Performance Management

Pavement and Bridge Condition Performance Measures Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Transportation Performance Management

NHS Bridge Condition Performance Measures (490.407)

31

Bridge Condition Performance Measures

Percentage of NHS Bridges Classified as in “Good” Condition

Percentage of NHS Bridges Classified as in “Poor” Condition

Subpart D (490.400s)


Data Sources and Components of a Bridge

32

DECK

SUBSTRUCTURE SUPERSTRUCTURE


Bridge NBI Items

Item 58- Deck

Item 59- Superstructure

Item 60- Substructure

Culvert NBI Item

Item 62- Culverts


9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

NBI Bridge Condition Rating Thresholds for NHS Bridges

33

≤4 5 or 6 ≥7

Poor Fair Good

≤ 4 5 or 6 ≥ 7

≤ 4 5 or 6 ≥ 7

≤ 4 5 or 6 ≥ 7

Deck (Item 58)

Superstructure (Item 59)

Substructure (Item 60)

Culvert (Item 62)


Bri

dge

NBI Rating Scale (from 0 – 9)


Deck Superstructure

Bridge Classification Example

34

Example for bridge

G: >=7; F: 5 or 6 P: =7; F: 5 or 6; P: =7; F: 5 or 6 P:


Calculating NHS Bridge Condition Performance Measures (490.409)

35

Structure Type

Bridges Culverts

Overall Bridge

Condition Rating

3 metric classification (58-Deck,

59-Superstructure, 60-Substructure)

1 metric classification (62-Culverts)

Measures

Good All metrics rated

“Good” Metric rated

”Good”

percentage of deck area classified as in “Good” condition

Poor Any metric rated

“Poor” Metric rated

“Poor”

percentage of deck area classified as in

“Poor” condition

Fair Minimum rated

metric “Fair” Metric rated

“Fair”



Minimum Condition and Penalty for Structurally Deficient Bridges (490.411 and 490.413)

Minimum condition level: ≤ 10% of total deck area of NHS bridges classified as Structurally Deficient

Penalty: If for 3 consecutive years the minimum condition level is not met, State must set aside and obligate NHPP funds for eligible

projects on bridges on the NHS

36 Subpart D (490.400s)

100.0 x 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑘 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑁𝐻𝑆 𝐵𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑠 𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑘 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑁𝐻𝑆 𝐵𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑎 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒

Calculation:

• Docket closes May 8, 2015 (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highway)

• www.federalregister.gov and search “bridge performance measures”

Performance Measure Comments

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/17/2015-03138/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-pavement-condition-for-the-national-highwayhttp://www.federalregister.gov/

Shay Burrows, Team Leader – Safety, Preservation and Management Team

– [email protected] or (202)366-4675

Brian Kozy, Team Leader – Structural Engineering Team

– [email protected] or (202)493-0341

Samantha Lubkin, Senior Bridge Engineer

– Safety, Preservation and Management Team

– [email protected]

Recent Staff Changes at FHWA HQ

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Q and A

[email protected]

Thank you!
mailto:[email protected]

the fhwa bridge and tunnel programssp.bridges.transportation.org/documents/2015 scobs... · 2015....

Documents