1. Snapshot of Member States’ Feedback after the Minneapolis Bridge Collapse - Summary of Information Collected via Recent Surveys Malcolm Kerley, Chair – Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures Kelley Rehm, AASHTO Program Manager Bridges and Structures

2. Actions Conference Call – August 10 th  46 States, FHWA, AASHTO represented  Informal Survey of states – 40 responding Two Further Informal Surveys  Responses requested to prepare testimony for several congressional hearings  1 st Survey – 30 states responding  2 nd Survey – 35 states responding

3. Survey Questions – Survey 1 How many bridges (deck trusses) had to undergo special inspection? How long did those inspections take? What is your funding need to repair or replace any of these structures (or any other type that is considered non-redundant or fracture critical) What type of Bridge Management system do you have in place? Do your state inspection requirements go beyond just what NBIS requires? How do you feel about the terms “structurally deficient and functionally obsolete” – are these terms being misused or are they misleading? Does your state release NBI data to the media or public? Is it a security issue that the FHWA still freely releases this data?

4. Survey 1 Responses Bridge Management Systems  Pontis Software– 43 states use Pontis, but many use only the data organization capabilities  Of the 40 responding states, 7 mentioned using element level capabilities within Pontis  17 states mentioned using in-house asset management systems either as stand alone, or in conjunction with Pontis  Further information on this was collected in a later survey NBIS  24 States mentioned, when surveyed, that their inspection programs go above and beyond the requirements of the NBIS.

5. Survey #1 Response Structurally Deficient and Functionally Obsolete Release of NBIS data to the public  6 states mentioned that they DO NOT release bridge inventory data to the public.  7 states mentioned that they only release data on request for a specific bridge, only partial information or only after consideration of the specific request.  8 states believed that the release of this information by FHWA or by their own state was a security issue  Many states mentioned that releasing information on fracture critical bridges may be a large security risk

6. Survey #2 – Questions of Interest Survey prepared for the House Science and Technology Committee Question 1 A) What technologies and techniques do state departments of transportation currently use to inspect bridges? B) What research is needed to improve inspections? Question 2 A) For those bridges deemed structurally deficient, how do state and local governments prioritize repairs and replacements? B) What are the possible short and long term consequences of maintaining the current level of bridge repair and replacement efforts (if no changes are made to the current systems)?

7. Inspection Technology

8. Top Research Needs

9. Further Responses Prioritization of Bridge Needs  structurally deficiency ratings  load ratings  field conditions  available funding  importance of the bridge (criticality)  average daily traffic  detour length.

10. Further Responses Consequences of Not Changing  Short Term  Long Term

11. Survey #3 – Further Data Collection 1) What, if any, Federal government rules or regulations are standing in the way of your state utilizing available federal funding for bridge preservation, maintenance or repair? (for example, the "10 year rule", environmental regulations against bridge washing, etc) 2) Does your state have an FHWA approved systematic preventative maintenance program for bridges? If so, please describe briefly. 3) What, in addition to the reinspection of deck truss bridges, has your state done in immediate response to the Minneapolis bridge collapse?

12. Issues Hindering the use of Federal Funding in Bridge Preservation Types of Hindrances to using Federal Funding for Bridge Preservation Percentages of States that Mentioned this Hindrance (of 35 states responding) Environmental (waterway and other)31% HBP fund usage too restrictive29% Environmental (washing)17% 10 year rule14% Environmental (painting/sanding)11% Historic Structures11% Local Match is not available9% Need HBP money for other projects beside preservation9% Not allowed to program funds from prior years6%

13. Systematic Bridge Maintenance Program

14. Responses to Bridge Collapse Actions taken by states include:  Responding to media, public, surveys (like this one!), and congressional requests  Review of all steel bridge inspection records  Review of all past critical inspection findings to make sure they have been addressed  Several states mention preparing comprehensive condition reports for their state leadership  Review of bridge inventory data for coding errors  Posted NBI data and other bridge information on state websites  Reminders and memos sent to construction staff dealing with storing materials and equipment on bridges  Establishing a re-inspection program to revisit all structurally deficient or fracture critical bridges

15. Questions? The society of users, who are in fact willy-nilly the stewards of the world’s bridges…must recognize that every artifact that has been or ever will be created, whether in now traditional steel and concrete or in the composites of the future, must be maintained as well as used -Henry Petroski, Engineers of Dreams - 1995 Contact Information: krehm@aashto.org 859-433-9623