In the time since the tragic collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minnesota, we have learned that structural problems, both major and minor, plague a significant portion of bridges in the U.S. As you know, a bridge has a life expectancy—just as humans do. If our personal health is in jeopardy, we take action. The same should be true of our infrastructure.
According to a national bridge inventory, 73,764 bridges around the U.S. (12.4%) were classified as “structurally deficient” in 2006, including the bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in 2005 gave the nation’s bridge infrastructure a C grade in its Report Card for America’s Infrastructure because of the large number of deficient bridges.
I want you to know that this is unacceptable to members of Congress like me. I’m frustrated that there isn’t a centralized system that the federal government uses to further classify structurally deficient bridges as suffering from dangerous structural conditions, and I am frustrated that research and new technologies exist but are underutilized because of cost concerns, lack of training and lack of awareness.
I firmly believe that we need to do a 180° shift in our way of thinking about our infrastructure, especially bridges. We’ve got to approach the problem differently if we’re going to successfully meet the nation’s infrastructure needs in the near and far term. The smart approach to the problem is to invest in high-quality short- and long-term research and good tech transfer programs that help get the results of that research out into the community. We also need to build a tech-savvy and innovative workforce of engineers and inspectors who are comfortable integrating new technology or techniques into their work.
Doing the above successfully is going to take a coordinated effort on the part of federal research and training entities like the Federal Highway Administration’s Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration’s University Transportation Centers, state DOTs, industry and academia. Those groups are doing a good job of coordinating through the Transportation Research Board and other groups, but they especially need Congressional support for research projects.
In September, as chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, I convened a hearing to examine the status, feasibility and affordability of the research and inspection tools we have both on hand and in progress. We learned a great deal.
In transportation fields, technology transfer is a special challenge because no solution works well for everyone. Differences in traffic loads, climate, size and shape and other bridge characteristics mean that new engineering designs, materials and technologies may work well for a bridge engineer in California but not in New York or Florida.
Thus, technology transfer efforts must include both determining the customer’s unique needs and transferring the appropriate technology.
We must learn a lesson from Minnesota’s tragedy. Solving the nation’s infrastructure challenge will take a long-term, dedicated effort on the part of all stakeholders. I hope you will work with me in an effort to take advantage of innovative research and development to design and maintain bridges that will remain stable and safe for generations to come.
