Remarks by Secretary and FHWA Updatesp.bridges.transportation.org/Documents/FHWAUpdated2009.pdf · NHS into a “State of Good Repair” and preserving the “State of Good Repair”

Remarks by Secretaryand FHWA Update

M. Myint Lwin

Director, Office of Bridge Technology

Federal Highway Administration

Washington, DC

AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and StructuresNew Orleans, Louisiana

July 5-9, 2009

Remarks by Secretary

FHWA Updates

Examples of Successful Partnership

U.S. Department of Transportation


American Recovery & Reinvestment Act

Research, Deployment and Education

NTSB, GAO and OIG Recommendations

The Surface Transportation AuthorizationAct of 2009

Challenges and Opportunities

FHWA – Your Partners forSuccess

M. Myint Lwin

Director, Office of Bridge Technology


Washington, DC

AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and StructuresNew Orleans, Louisiana

July 5-9, 2009

Luling Bridge Cable Replacement Project–Partnering with FHWA for Success!

FHWA: Constructability ReviewFHWA: Constructability ReviewLADOTD: Independent Design ReviewLADOTD: Independent Design Review

Inspection Process Improvement –A Success Story in Partnership

Bridge Inspectors makingBridge Inspectors makingrecommendations for improvementrecommendations for improvement

The Public is our Partner!

Dear Secretary LaHood:

This picture was taken on 18 May 2009 whilewalking across the bridge. The amount ofrust and deterioration is atrocious and theirimpacts look structurally significant ………

WSDOT Bridge Inspection ProgramRecognized!

WSDOT Bridge Inspection Program recognizedby the Washington State Association of CountyEngineers (WSACE)

WSACE President’s Award presented to:– Grant Griffin and Larry Veden, Inspectors of WSDOT

In recognition of WSDOT local bridge inspectionprogram in training and certification to cities andcounties.

U.S. Department of Transportation

SecretarySecretaryRay LaHoodRay LaHood

Deputy SecretaryDeputy SecretaryJohnJohn PorcariPorcari

SafetyEconomic HealthSustainabilityLivability

Federal Highway AdministrationFederal Highway AdministrationFHWAFHWA

Victor MendezVictor Mendezforfor

AdministratorAdministrator

Greg NadeauGreg Nadeau

(Pending confirmation)(Pending confirmation)

Deputy AdministratorDeputy AdministratorActing AdministratorActing Administrator

(Past Deputy Commissioner(Past Deputy Commissionerof Maine DOT)of Maine DOT)

Federal Highway AdministrationFederal Highway AdministrationFHWAFHWA

King W. GeeAssociate Administrator

for Infrastructure

Jeffrey F. Paniati

Executive Director

The American Recovery andThe American Recovery andReinvestment Act of 2009Reinvestment Act of 2009

(ARRA)(ARRA)

EnactedEnactedFebruary 17, 2009February 17, 2009

ARRA HighlightsARRA Highlights

Signed into law on February 17, 2009

$787 billion total investment

$48.12 billion for transportation

Significant accountability, transparency

and reporting requirements

ARRA Transportation FundsARRA Transportation Funds

6.11%$48.12Total

0.00%0.02OIG

0.01%0.10MARAD

0.17%1.30FAA

0.19%1.50OST

1.07%8.40FTA

1.18%9.30FRA

3.49%$27.50FHWA

Percent ofARRA Funds

ARRA T-Funds(Billions)

DOT MODE

Appropriation for Highways-

$27.5B

Less Amount Allocated BeforeApportionment $840M

Remainder Apportioned to States $26.66B

TransportationEnhancements

– 3%

Sub-Allocation forAreas Based on

Population – 30%

For Any Areaof the State –

67%

For IndividualUrbanized Areas

over 200,000 by %of Population

For Areas withPopulation

≤ 200,000

For Areas withPopulation

<5000

Distribution of ARRA Highway FundsDistribution of ARRA Highway Funds

ARRA Funds for Louisiana State

$288,005,816

$10,689,568

$67,379,854

$50,888,406

$12,895,783

$429,859,427

67%Funds for Any Area

Rural Area Distribution

Population < 5,000

30%Suburban Area Distribution

(Population < 200,000)

Urban Area Distribution

(Population > 200,000)

3%Transportation Enhancements

100%Total Distribution

EligibilityEligibility

Restoration, repair, construction andother activities under SurfaceTransportation Program (STP)(See U.S.C. Title 23 Section 133(b))

Including bridges on public roads,seismic retrofit, painting…..

Not including bridge inspection orload rating.

Accountability and TransparencyAccountability and Transparency

““Every American will be able to holdEvery American will be able to holdWashington accountable for theseWashington accountable for thesedecisions by going online to see how anddecisions by going online to see how andwhere their tax dollars are being spent.where their tax dollars are being spent.””-- President Barack ObamaPresident Barack Obama

FHWAFHWAStewardship and OversightStewardship and Oversight

Delivery of the ARRA Projects is the toppriority of FHWA

FHWA is redirecting existing staff andadding additional part-time and full timestaff to support ARRA

ARRA Project SignARRA Project Sign

ARRA Highway Funds Authorized

61%59%% of TotalHighway Funds

Exceeding 50% 10 days ahead of schedule!

$16.25 B$15.70 BFundsAuthorized

5,1895,000Number ofProjects

As of July 2As of June 24

OST TIGER Grant Program

ARRA Discretionary Funds = $1.5 Billion

Applications: Until September 15, 2009

Awards: Before February 12, 2010

Priority:– Greater Mobility

– Cleaner Environment

– More Livable Communities

For More InformationFor More Information

Visit our ARRA website at:http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/economicrecovery

– Summary of Highway Provisions

– Implementing Guidance

– Funding Distribution Tables

– Frequently asked questions

– Best Practices

– ARRA Calendar of Key Dates

Highway Bridge ProgramFY2006-2009

$21.607 BTotal

$4.457 B2009

$4.388 B2008

$4.320 B2007

$4.254 B2006

$4.188 B2005

AuthorizationFiscal Year

Distribution of $1B Additional OL

Use for replacement and rehabilitation ofstructural deficient bridges on the NHS

Not transferable – remain until expended

No earmark by Congress or Federal agencies

Distribution as of June 30,2009:– Made available: $721,502,776.00 to 31 States

– Obligated: $390,725,415.07 by 21 States

The Additional OL must be obligated by9/30/2010

Research, Deployment and Education

Research Study

Integration thru Automation (A proof ofconcept study)

Objective: Integrate Design, Construction,

Operations and Management

Status: Software linking existing commercial

software developed

Demonstration: Hands-on workshops beingplanned.– Contacts: FHWA - Krishna Verma

Contractor - Arun Shirole

Technology Transfer Workshop

Purpose: Knowledge transfer on a jointTXDOT/UTX/FHWA/ Study on Steel TwinTub Girder.

Study Objective: Determine the performance ofsteel twin tub girder after a fracture in onegirder.

Findings: To be reported at the workshop

Workshop Schedule: September 16, 2009.

Where: University of Texas at Austin

Contact: [email protected]

Deployment

Innovative Bridge Research andDeployment (IBRD) Program:

Secretary LaHood announced $5.2Million of IBRD Awards on June 24,2009:

20 projects to 14 States

Education and Training

Funds: SAFETEA-LU core programfunds may be used for Training,Education, and Workforce Development.

Core Programs:– Surface Transportation Program (STP)

– Interstate Maintenance (IM)

– Highway Bridge Program (HBP)

– Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ)

Federal Funding: 100%

Determining Factor: PDH or CEU

Conferences

Fatigue and Fracture Conference – Philadelphia,PA, July 27-29

PCI Convention and National Bridge Conference,San Antonio, TX, Sep 12-16

ASBI Annual Convention, Minneapolis, MN, Oct25-28

World Steel Bridge Symposium, San Antonio,TX, Nov 17-20

NCBC Concrete Bridge Conference, Feb 24-26,2010, Phoenix, AZ

Training

NHI Courses– LRFR 2-day and 4-day courses– LRFD Seismic Design of Bridges – 1 week course– LRFD Seismic Design of Transportation Structures and

Foundations – 1 week course – Sep 2009– Courses are being updated

State Inspection Training Programs Professional Society Courses Industry Training Opportunities Webinars

NTSB Investigations, GAO Auditsand OIG Audits

NTSB Investigations

H-07-15 Develop standards and protocol fortesting of anchors used in sustained tensile-load

H-07-16 Prohibit use of adhesive anchors insustained tensile-load

H-07-17 Establish a Mandatory TunnelInspection Program

Advanced Proposed Notice ofProposed RuleMaking

19 Commenters:

– 9 DOTs

– AASHTO

– MTA

– Industry – ASCE, NFPA, ACEC

– 3 Consultants

– 2 Individuals

NTIS – General Comments

National standards are needed

Tunnel inspections should be required

Tunnel inventory data needed

NTIS should be similar to NBIS

Allow agency flexibility in procedures

Experience with NBIS

NTSB Investigations (Contd.)

H-04-30 - Develop an effective motoristwarning system to stop motor vehicle traffic inthe event of a partial or total bridge collapse(Sep 9, 2004)

H-08-1 Load rate gusset plates in steel trussbridges (Jan 15, 2008)– Published FHWA Gusset Plate Load Rating Guide– Conducted Seminar on Load Rating of Gusset

Plate at IBC– Will conduct a Webinar ……….

Webinar onLoad Rating of Gusset Plates in

Steel Truss Bridgesby the LFR Method using thePennDOT Rating SpreadsheetSeptember 24, 2009 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Sponsored by FHWA in Cooperation with PennDOT

PennDOT Targets:State owned bridges analyzed by December 31, 2009Local owned bridges analyzed by December 31, 2010.

NTSB Recommendations

H-08-17 Bridge Design QC/QA Program toassure accuracy in final PS&E(March 2010)

H-08-18 Supplement Visual Inspection withNondestructive Evaluation(June 2010)

H-08-19 Update NHI Inspector TrainingCourses to specifically address gussetplate inspection. (December 2010)

GAO Recommendations

September, 2008 Report:“Highway Bridge Program: Clearer Goals andPerformance Measures Needed for a MoreFocused and Sustainable Program”

US DOT to work with Congress:– Define National Goals.– Develop Performance Measures.– Align Funding with Performance Targets.– Establish a sustainable Federal Bridge Program.

OIG Recommendations

Phase I – Data-Driven, Risk-Based Oversight of theNational Bridge Inspection Program (1/12/09):

– 1: Implement data-driven, risk-based oversight inNBIS compliance review.

– 2: Develop a comprehensive plan for conducting data-driven analysis to identify bridge safety risks.

– 3: Correct promptly data inaccuracies in NBI data

– 4: Increase use of element level data.

– 5: Provide technical assistance and training inimplementing effective bridge management systems.

Semi-Annual Report to Congress

House Report 110-418 on the OmnibusAppropriations Act of 2009

FHWA is directed to:

– Complete initiatives in using risk-based, data-driven approach for oversight

– Provide semi-annual updates to the House andSenate Committees on Appropriations

OIG Audits

Phase II – Oversight of States’ Usage of the

Highway Bridge Program Funds

Phase III – Comprehensive review of FHWA’s

Oversight of the National Bridge

Inspection Program

Reauthorization

H.R. 3999

Refocus, Reform, Renew

Rough Roads Ahead

Reduce Fatalities

Mitigate Congestion

Livable Communities

Peformance-based Management– National Performance Goals/Targets

– Quantifiable Performance Measures

The Surface Transportation AuthorizationAct of 2009

H.R. Bill Introduced by Chairman OberstarCommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure

U.S. House of RepresentativesJune 18, 2009

FHWA currently manages 62 programs

The Act consolidates 16 programs

The Act terminates 24 programs

Consolidated Bridge Programs

Highway Bridge Program

– Critical Asset Investment Program (CAIP)

– Surface Transportation Program (STP)

Interstate Maintenance Program


National Highway System Program


– Freight Improvement Program (FIP)

– Surface Transportation Program (STP)

Terminated Bridge Programs

Highway Bridge Discretionary Grant Program

Highway for LIFE Pilot Program

Interstate Maintenance Discretionary GrantProgram

National Historic Covered Bridge PreservationProgram

Sec 1106 Surface TransportationProgram

Now includes safety inspection of tunnelsand bridges.

Sec 1110 Critical Asset Investment Program

Purposes:

– Establish National priorities and goals to bringNHS into a “State of Good Repair” andpreserving the “State of Good Repair”.

– Focus Federal investments on preserving andimproving the condition of highway bridges onthe NHS.

– Strengthen connection between Federal fundingand national performance outcomes.


Eligible Projects:

– Preservation, rehabilitation, protection orreplacement

– Consistent with the State’s investment strategy

– Strengthen connection between Federalfunding and national performance outcomes.

– On NHS and Federal-aid Highway.


Other Eligible Costs:

– Development and implementation ofmanagement systems.

– Inspection activities for bridges and tunnels.

– Training of personnel in inspection and loadrating of bridges and tunnels

– Data collection to monitor condition ofhighway bridges


Performance Targets:

– Establish Performance Targets – not later than6 months and every 6 years

– Performance targets shall apply for 6 years

– Reduce structurally deficient bridges onInterstate System and NHS


Performance Measures:

– Measure of highway condition or structuraladequacy

– Quantifiable measures


State CAI Plans:

– Document on condition of eligible facilities,and Multi-year investment strategy.

– Submit plans to the Secretary

– Not later than 4 months after establishment ofperformance targets

– Biennial updates


State Annual Reports:

– Submit annual progress report to the Secretaryby July 31, 2011 and annually thereafter

– Document State’s progress in meetingperformance targets.

Oversight:

– The Secretary shall conduct oversight activitiesto assure State’s use of funds is consistent withthe State’s investment strategy

Annual Report to Congress – Sep 30, 2011

Sec 1512 Highway Bridge Inventories,Standards, and Inspections

Inventories:

– Highway Bridges on Public Roads

– Identify structurally deficient and functionallyobsolete highway bridges

– Assign risk-based priority for rehabilitation orreplacement of structurally deficient bridges

Sec 1512 Highway Bridge Inventories,Standards, and Inspections (Cont.)

National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS)

– Establish a procedure for national certification ofbridge inspectors

– Establish a procedure for reporting critical findings,monitoring activities and corrective actions

– Establish procedures for conducting and reviewingNBIS compliance

– Detect and monitor rate of growth of fatigue cracksas small as 0.01 inches


Frequency of Bridge Inspections

– Annual inspection of structurally deficient bridges

– Annual inspection of fracture critical members

Alternate Approach to Determining InspectionFrequency:

– Condition

– Structure type and age

– Traffic type and volume


National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS)

– Develop and Implement a plan for bridgeinspection

– Develop and Implement a plan for rehabilitationand replacement of non-NHS bridges that arestructurally deficient.

Bridge Management System

– Develop and Implement a Bridge ManagementSystem


State Inspection of Privately Owned orOperated Border Bridges

– Compliance with NBIS

– Make inspection information available to the public

– Submit inspection report to the Secretary


Independent Review by the NationalAcademies:

– The process for assigning risk-based priorities inthe inspection of structurally deficient bridges

– Not later than 18 months.

Report to Congress by the National Academies

– Report on the results of the review

– Not later than 30 months


Qualification of Program Managers and TeamLeaders:

– Program Manager shall be a Professional Engineer

– Team Leader for inspection of complex bridges orfollow-up inspection of a critical finding shall be aProfessional Engineer

– Effective Date: Not later than one year afterenactment of the Act


Reports on Critical Findings resulting in BridgeClosure in the NHS:– State reports to the Secretary: 15 days after the

critical finding

– Secretary to Congress: Not later than 15 days afterreceiving report from the State

Regulations on Bridge Management System:– BMS required not later than 2 years.


Study of Effectiveness of Bridge Rating System:

– The Comptroller General shall study theeffectiveness of the FHWA Bridge Rating System

Structurally deficient

Functionally obsolete

– Provide recommendations for improvement

– Report to Congress: Not later than one year

Sec 1513 National Tunnel InspectionProgram

National Tunnel Inspection Standards – notlater than 2 years

National Tunnel Inventory

Training and Certification Program for TunnelInspectors

Challenges and Opportunities

Top Three Finance and BudgetChallenges

Quote from Mal Kerley, Chairman ofAASHTO Highway Subcommittee onBridges and Structures:

Funding

Funding

Funding

Top Three Program Challenges

Bridge Program Delivery: Assure thesafety, reliability and security of theNation’s bridges through quality, on time,and cost-effective project delivery

NBIS Compliance: Condition inspectionand evaluation of highway bridges

NBIS Compliance: Scour evaluation andplans of action for scour critical bridges

NBIS Compliance: Scour evaluation andplans of action for scour critical bridges

July 15, 1991 – Established policy for reportingprogress in bridge scour evaluation

January 1997 – Target date to complete bridgescour evaluation

– Average 90% scour evaluations completed

– Today, average about 95% complete

July 24, 2003 – Beginning to focus ondeveloping and implementing “POA” on scourcritical bridges.

Scour evaluation and POA (Cont.)

January 13, 2005 – NBIS updated through therulemaking process.– Preparation of POAs for scour critical bridges is a

requirement

January 4, 2008 – FHWA AssociateAdministrator for Infrastructure issued memoto the Field Offices emphasizing theimportance of scour evaluations and POAs.– November 28, 2008 to complete scour evaluations

– April 29, 2009 to complete POA’s on State NHSand non-NHS scour critical bridges

Let our successful partnershipcontinue to keep

our Transportation Infrastructure“in a state of good repair” -

Safe, Reliable, Efficient and Sustainable!