Editorial: Fixing bridges the smart way
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Unfortunately, almost everybody wants to spend money on the wrong thing: replacement instead of maintenance. Even if enough money could be found to replace all of the nation's structurally deficient bridges, it wouldn't take long before these shiny new bridges fell into disrepair again.
This column about Massachusetts bridges makes an important point:
Over the useful life of infrastructure like roads and bridges, operation and maintenance generally costs 10 times the original construction price. But public capital budgets almost always focus solely on construction costs. Maintenance expenses come out of agency operating budgets, leaving little money and no incentive to invest in preserving assets.
There's no real incentive for highway departments to properly maintain their bridges. The bridges that are in the worst shape get top priority for federal replacement money, so it's actually in the best interest of local governments to allow bridges to become structurally deficient so they can cash in. It's a race to the bottom to see who can score the lowest rating.
An ounce of maintenance today would be worth a pound of replacement in the future. Simple tasks, such as repainting steel beams, or clearing away salt left behind over the winter, would help extend the useful lifespan of a bridge while boosting its sufficiency rating. But the federal government does not provide windfalls for maintenance, only replacement.
To make matters worse, current policy encourages the construction of Bridges to Nowhere. An old bridge that carries very little traffic, but has a low rating, will be replaced by a huge, overengineered concrete monstrosity.
Take, for example, the Lewis Bridge near Smicksburg, Pennsylvania. According to the National Bridge Inventory, this historic through truss only carries 25 cars per day, but it will cost $1.6 million to build a replacement for a bridge that isn't even structurally deficient.
Let's do some back-of-the-envelope calculations. If the new bridge lasts 75 years, then we we can expect over 680,000 total crossings (that's 25 crossings per day times 365.25 days per year times 75 years). With a price tag of $1.6 million, that means each crossing will end up costing over $2.30. The numbers get even uglier if the bridge doesn't last 75 years. What a waste!
I can't blame local officials for agreeing to replace bridges like this. It's a use-it-or-lose-it situation. No elected official is going to pass up a $1.6 million windfall, even if, from a big picture standpoint, it makes no practical sense whatsoever.
However, if the county or township had to pay for all or most of the replacement expenses instead of Uncle Sugardaddy Sam, then things would be different. Rehabilitation and preservation would suddenly look a lot more palatable. Heck, they might even decide that a bridge only carrying 25 cars per day isn't necessary anymore and that local residents could just as easily use another bridge.
With that said, I would strongly suggest that federal and state bridge programs adopt the following policy statements:
1. A percentage of available funds should be earmarked specifically for maintenance.
2. Rehabilitation should always be preferred above replacement whenever safe to do so.
3. Bridges with very low traffic volumes do not need to be built to the same standards as major highway bridges.
4. Money should be spent on bridge projects which provide the most bang for the buck at the national or state level, paying close attention to the number of people that will benefit versus the total cost.
5. If politicians don't get to attend as many photo-op ribbon cuttings because more money is spent on maintenance or on better projects in other districts, then tough. Get over it.
Government is already spending a fair chunk of change on bridge and infrastructure projects. Instead of resorting to raising taxes, imposing tolls, or floating more debt, let's try to make better use of what we already have.
If Minneapolis was a wake-up call, then it's time we get out of bed.