U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

57–562 PDF 2010

OVERSIGHT OF THE HIGHWAY 

BRIDGE PROGRAM AND 

THE NATIONAL BRIDGE 

INSPECTION PROGRAM 

(111–131) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

July 21, 2010 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

BOB FILNER, California 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan, Vice Chair 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

VACANCY 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Come, Joseph W., Assistant Inspector General for Highway and Transit Audits, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation ............ 2 

Gee, King W., Associate Administrator for Infrastructure, Federal Highway 

Administration ..................................................................................................... 2 

Herr, Phillip R., Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability Office ................................................................................................ 2 

Kerley, Malcolm T., Chief Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation ... 2 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

DeFazio, Peter A., of Oregon .................................................................................. 37 

Graves, Sam, of Missouri ........................................................................................ 39 

Mitchell, Harry E., of Arizona ................................................................................ 45 

Oberstar, James L., of Minnesota .......................................................................... 46 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Come, Joseph W. ...................................................................................................... 52 

Gee, King W. ............................................................................................................ 65 

Herr, Phillip R. ........................................................................................................ 94 

Kerley, Malcolm T. .................................................................................................. 115 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Come, Joseph W., Assistant Inspector General for Highway and Transit Audits, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, response to request for information from Hon. DeFazio, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Oregon ................................................................ 63 

Gee, King W., Associate Administrator for Infrastructure, Federal Highway 

Administration, response to request for information from Hon. DeFazio, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, response to request 

for information from Hon. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Oregon .............................................................................................. 76 

Herr, Phillip R., Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability Office, response to request for information from Hon. DeFazio, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon .................................. 113 

Kerley, Malcolm T., Chief Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation, 

response to request for information from Hon. DeFazio, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Oregon ................................................................ 124 

ADDITION TO THE RECORD 

American Road and Transportation Builders Association, written testimony ... 129 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 57562.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 57562.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 57562.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 57562.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 57562.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 57562.006
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 57562.007
xiii 


Insert offset folio 8 here 57562.008
xiv 


Insert offset folio 9 here 57562.009
xv 


Insert offset folio 10 here 57562.010
(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE HIGHWAY BRIDGE PROGRAM AND THE NATIONAL BRIDGE INSPECTION PROGRAM 

Wednesday, July 21, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Peter A. DeFazio 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. The Highways and Transit Subcommittee will now 

come to order. We are holding a hearing today on oversight of the 

Highway Bridge Program and National Bridge Inspection Program. 

I have read the testimony. I think there are some very serious 

issues and deficiencies here in terms of Federal oversight, but it is 

buried. You couldn’t tell it from reading the IG’s testimony or reading the GAO report. I am used to reading these things. The major 

issues were buried in there. There were a couple of oblique references to some problems with States that had a whole bunch of 

bridges that should have been weight limited or closed, and they 

weren’t, but it was just sort of a passing reference. I believe it is 

a much more serious issue, and I would hope that the panel would 

be a little bit more forthright in their testimony in addressing 

these issues. 

It is not acceptable to be putting a lot of Federal investment out 

there, sending it to States, to have tens of thousands of bridges in 

America that are either weight limited, unsafe, structurally unsound or functionally obsolete, and not know how the money is 

being applied or see that the money is being misapplied, and then 

to call a hearing because we think there are some serious concerns 

and then receive this very turgid so-called testimony, which kind 

of dances around this and obliquely refers to it. So I will give you 

a chance to rectify that either in questions or in your testimony. 

If you want to depart from your prepared remarks, which I have 

already read, the staff has read, and I assume the Minority has 

read, that would be great. 

With that, I will turn to the Ranking Member. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing on the oversight of the Highway Bridge Program 

and the National Bridge Inspection Program. 

According to the GAO, the number of deficient bridges in the 

United States declined from 1998 through 2007, which is, of course, 

2 

good news, but additional work needs to be done. This is a very, 

very big program in this country, and there are a lot more bridges 

in this Nation than most people realize. For instance, there are almost 20,000 bridges in my home State of Tennessee alone. 

While the decrease that I mentioned in the number of deficient 

bridges is good news, recent reports from the GAO and the Inspector General have brought to light a variety of issues within the 

Highway Bridge Program and the National Bridge Inspection Program that need to be addressed in order to continue the progress 

that we all want to see made. The 2008 GAO report that we will 

hear about today claims that the Highway Bridge Program’s goals 

are not focused on clear Federal interests, therefore allowing States 

to use Federal funds on a wide variety, perhaps too wide a variety, 

of bridge projects. 

The same GAO report shows no clear tie between the Highway 

Bridge Program funding and improvements to deficient bridges. 

The Highway Bridge Program formula is based on the needed repair to deficient bridges, but does not take into account the State’s 

effectiveness in reducing the number of deficient bridges. And, of 

course, that is a key part of that, or certainly what we should look 

into. 

Today we will also hear from the Inspector General’s Office about 

a report that that office released earlier this year documenting 

cases where FHWA did not adequately oversee State compliance 

with bridge inspection standards under the National Bridge Inspection Program. According to the report, FHWA’s lack of oversight of 

the bridge inspection standards led to Federal highway funds being 

distributed to States that did not comply with bridge safety regulations. 

This hearing provides us an opportunity to discuss the issues 

raised in these reports so that we can address them in the next 

highway authorization bill. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and I thank you for calling this hearing. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the Ranking Member. 

We had had a request for a Member to sit in on this hearing, 

who I don’t see, so I guess we will entertain that if he shows up. 

With that, we would turn then to the panel. And first would be 

Mr. Joseph W. Come, Assistant Inspector General for Highway and 

Transit Audits. 

Mr. Come. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH W. COME, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR 

GENERAL FOR HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT AUDITS, OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; KING W. GEE, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; 

PHILLIP R. HERR, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE 

ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND MALCOLM T. KERLEY, CHIEF ENGINEER, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT 

OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. COME. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Duncan, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to 

update you on our work on the Federal Highway Administration’s 

oversight of these two critical bridge programs. Our work has idenVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:58 Dec 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57562.0 KAYLA
3 

tified significant oversight weaknesses in the programs, and while 

the agency has responded positively to our recommendations, further actions are needed to enhance oversight and maximize the return on bridge investment. 

Let me talk three points that they need to do. First, Federal 

Highway needs to fully implement a data-driven, risk-based oversight approach to target high-priority bridge safety risks. That success hinges on providing clear direction to its division offices on 

how to address identified risks and ensuring States provide accurate bridge data. 

Second, Federal Highway needs to ensure States comply with 

bridge inspection standards. Responding to our report, the agency 

has developed new criteria for determining overall compliance as 

well as procedures its division offices in the State should follow in 

enforcing compliance, but we want to see sustained management 

attention to be sure that this new guidance and criteria are rolled 

out nationwide before next year’s inspection cycle. 

Finally, FHWA needs to strengthen oversight of the States’ use 

of billions in Federal bridge funding. To do so it must capture sufficient data to evaluate how funds are spent and ensure States conduct required value engineering studies for bridge projects. These 

actions can help stretch limited Federal resources. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes the summary of my statement. I 

am happy to answer any questions you or other Members of the 

Subcommittee may have. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. King W. Gee, Associate Administrator for Infrastructure. 

Mr. Gee. 

Mr. GEE. Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan and 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to discuss 

the Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Bridge and National Bridge Inspection Programs. 

FHWA has strong bridge programs that reinforce safety as the 

DOT’s highest priority. We have made significant efforts to address 

recommendations made by the Inspector General and GAO to ensure the continued safety of our Nation’s bridges. In response to 

recommendations from the 2009–2010 OIG audit on our oversight, 

we are developing detailed criteria to help our division bridge staff 

evaluate compliance with the National Bridge Inspection Standards 

on a more uniform basis. 

We are revising policies and procedures for national oversight of 

the Bridge Inspection Program to be data-driven and risk-based. 

We are adding staff to enhance inspection program activities, including implementation of the new oversight approach in 2011. We 

are assessing and disseminating useful information on Bridge Management System implementation by the States. We are taking 

steps to improve the quality of data in the National Bridge Inventory. And we are enhancing the Financial Management Information System to allow improved tracking of bridge projects and obligations. 

The GAO recommended that DOT work with Congress to identify 

specific program goals in the national interest, develop and implement performance measures, incorporate best tools and practices, 

and review the program’s funding mechanisms. FHWA continues to 

4 

work with AASHTO and Congress on these recommendations, and 

throughout the process of the next reauthorization FHWA will be 

pleased to work with this Committee to further improve the condition and the performance of our Nation’s bridges. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes the summary of my written statement. I would be happy to answer questions. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thank you, Mr. Gee. 

Mr. Phillip R. Herr, the Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, 

GAO. 

Mr. Herr. 

Mr. HERR. Thank you. Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member 

Duncan and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting 

me to this hearing on the Highway Bridge Program. I will briefly 

discuss the current state of the Nation’s bridges and the extent to 

which the program aligns with principles GAO developed to reexamine surface transportation programs. 

National Bridge Inventory data indicate that one in four bridges 

are considered deficient. While the number of deficient bridges has 

declined from 1998 to 2009, it was not possible to determine the 

extent of the program’s contribution to this decline because States 

can use bridge funds for a number of other purposes that do not 

necessarily reduce the number of deficient bridges. 

Turning to principles GAO developed to reexamine surface transportation programs and how they can be applied to the bridge program. First, the bridge program’s goals are not focused on clearly 

identified Federal interests and have expanded to include a variety 

of improvements, making nearly any bridge potentially eligible for 

Federal funding. Reconsidering the breadth of this program would 

lead to a better focus. 

Second, the bridge program does not tie each State’s funding 

level to performance improvements. Programs should tie together 

funding, performance and accountability to enhance outcomes. 

Third, the bridge program lacks sufficient tools to determine the 

results of Federal investments. Currently States use tools such as 

bridge management systems to do this. We are encouraged that 

FHWA reports taking steps to address our recommendation to collect information on States’ use of such systems. 

Finally, fiscal sustainability remains a challenge in light of aging 

bridge infrastructure and estimated funding required to upgrade 

bridges built in the 1950’s and 1960’s. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral statement. I am happy to 

answer questions. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thank you. 

And finally for a prepared statement Mr. Malcolm T. Kerley, 

Chief Engineer of Virginia Department of Transportation. 

Mr. KERLEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Malcolm 

Kerley, Chief Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation, and I chair the AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and 

Structures. On behalf of AASHTO, thank you for the opportunity 

to share our views on the Federal-State partnership in ensuring we 

have safe and well-maintained State and locally owned bridges 

across the country. 

I would like to make three points. First, we are facing a perfect 

storm regarding our bridges. A large number, especially those on 

5 

the interstate system, were roughly built at the same time and are 

reaching the end of their useful life. Traffic and truck loadings are 

increasing, our purchase power is decreasing, material costs have 

increased drastically. Preserving the Nation’s investment in our 

transportation infrastructure must continue to be a top priority for 

all levels of government, and funding is just not adequate. 

Second, if we had all the funding we needed, States could immediately reconstruct or rehabilitate all structurally deficient bridges, 

fixing the worst first. If we don’t, the States must take a more strategic approach, working to reduce the number of structurally deficient bridges, while simultaneously investing to prevent an even 

larger number of bridges from deteriorating just enough to push 

them over the edge to structural deficiency. We call these cusp 

bridges, those bridges which we can prevent from becoming structurally deficient and requiring major work if we just invest a lesser 

amount in maintenance or rehabilitation to extend their useful life. 

Third, I want to respond to the reports that States are transferring funds from the Federal Bridge Program. States do transfer 

funds to enable them more flexibility in managing their transportation programs. However, States are investing substantially more 

in State dollars on bridges than is provided under the Federal 

Highway Bridge Program. Transfers between Federal highway programs are simply a management tool and do not reflect the actual 

spending level. For example, in 2004, $10.5 billion was invested in bridge reha- bilitation by all levels of government, more than twice the $5.1 billion appropriated through the Federal Highway Bridge Program. 

Bridge safety is one of the highest priorities. We stand ready to 

work with you to deliver a safe and well-performing bridge program through the Federal-State partnership and programs that 

stretch our available dollars. 

Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

We will now proceed to questions. So the first question: the January 2010 Inspector General report, using data several years old, 

from 2007, documented one instance in which a State failed to close 

96 bridges as required by the National Bridge Inventory system 

and two other instances in which States failed to properly post 

with maximum weight limit signs 200 and 500 bridges 

respectfively. Now, what is really disturbing here is that in all 

three instances, Federal Highway Administration bridge engineers 

reported the States to be in compliance. 

So I guess this question would go to Mr. Gee, but anyone else 

is welcome to comment. Was headquarters aware of these instances 

of noncompliance prior to the release of the IG report? What actions, if any, did you take to ensure that the States properly closed 

and posted the bridges? And what procedures will be in place during the 2011 National Bridge Inventory review cycle to ensure that 

these sorts of incidents don’t happen again? 

Mr. GEE. Thank you. In those instances where you cited—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Pull the microphone a little closer, please. 

Mr. GEE. In instances where you cited the OIG’s report, we went 

back to identify which States they were. And in the case of the 96 

bridges, there were data inconsistencies, and the bridge engineer in 

6 

the division did verify what the information showed. In both cases 

those States were actually declared in substantial compliance rather than in full compliance. We have since gone back to follow up 

on the information that the IG has made available, where it was 

available, and worked with the States to rectify the matters. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So are you saying that there weren’t 96 bridges; 

you are saying there is an inconsistency, there weren’t 96 that 

should have been closed? 

Mr. GEE. Correct. That number was not—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. What was the number? 

Mr. GEE. It was less than half of that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So we had about 50 bridges that should have 

been closed that weren’t closed, and that puts them in substantial 

compliance. How many bridges—you know, I mean, I find that— 

you know, is that in the regulations? I mean, like you have got 40, 

50 bridges that should be closed that are unsafe, and you haven’t 

closed them, but you are substantially in compliance. Is that the 

way our system works? If it works like that then maybe we need 

some changes. 

Mr. GEE. We do need some changes. What happens is the bridge 

engineer in our division office has to exercise engineering judgment 

in reviewing the information that is—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So these engineers use these bridges? I mean, it 

is their judgment that these bridges, which should be closed, according to engineering standards, aren’t closed; and they want to 

drive over them with a semi in front of them and behind them? 

Mr. GEE. In some cases it is a matter of reviewing the load rating to make sure that it is something that needs to be closed. In 

other cases the information in the database is not correct. 

Going forward, you asked a third question, which was what are 

we going to do in 2011. First of all, according to the regulations, 

a safety issue is reason for a State to be in noncompliance. So we 

are tightening up the definition of that in the work that we have 

been doing since the OIG’s report. And we have set up a new approach to compliance reviews, which is risk-based, data-driven, and 

based on the 23 compliance factors that are in the regulations. We 

are tightening the definitions. We are setting up a process where 

they have to go through in very narrowly defined tolerance ranges 

to determine what is compliant and what is not compliant. And we 

will be using those to be much more proactive from a national perspective in working with each individual State. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. And these will be implemented when, these 

changes? 

Mr. GEE. Calendar year 2011. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Mr. GEE. We just piloted the process in 12 States because we 

want to make sure that the definitions are uniformly understood 

the same way; we want to make sure that the process is understood by the engineers that have to use it. So we are evaluating 

the pilot right now and will be making the final changes and getting it out and training our division bridge engineers. And we also 

are in the process of hiring additional staff to help with the training and the implementation of the new oversight process. 

7 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Mr. Come, are you familiar with the pending 

changes, and do you think they will preclude a repeat of the problems you documented? 

Mr. COME. We are familiar with the changes. Our 2010 report focused on the question of giving the engineers adequate guidance to 

determine whether a bridge was—a State was in substantial compliance. They themselves told us they didn’t have good guidance. 

They could identify individual standard issues, but they had not 

good guidance on how to produce an overall conclusion. We used 

the information like—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Meaning where you get to the point of compliance, 

substantial compliance, whatever, the overall conclusion? 

Mr. COME. Right. There are five general areas that they had to 

look at. So they could come to conclusions in individual standards 

like inspection frequency and issues like that. But they were on 

their own, more or less, when it came to making a conclusion about 

being in substantial compliance. And they told us that they would 

like to get better guidance. 

We looked at NBIS compliance review data, which is where the 

96 figure comes from, and used that to indicate areas where you 

would think there was a significant problem, but the State was still 

in substantial compliance. 

Now, as to the proposal, we made the recommendation. They responded positively to it. It includes issues we have said should be 

in such a proposal. It establishes minimum standards. We had 

found in the past sometimes that FHWA might give tools to the division offices to use, but they weren’t using them. So it includes— 

from what we hear, it will include minimum standards; it will include risk-based criteria, which is another area we have called for; 

and it will include clear guidance on how to go forward after you 

find a deficiency. 

That was a variation we also found in division offices in regards 

to what to do to enforce a problem. In some States the State responded quickly; in others it took up to 2 years to fix a problem. 

But the States had different policies in place for how to fix these 

problems. 

From what I have heard from Federal Highways, this proposal 

will address those issues. It has been piloted, and we will be monitoring it closely. As an auditor I am paid to be skeptical, so we 

won’t be closing that recommendation until we see the documentation supporting the fact that it has been rolled out nationwide and 

these new criteria and guidance are fully implemented. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thank you. 

I recognize that Mr. Graves has arrived. He is a Member of the 

Full Committee and has asked for unanimous consent to take part 

in today’s hearing. And hearing no objection, he will be allowed to 

take part in the hearing. According to the custom of the Committee, he would get the last question, however, since he doesn’t sit 

on the Subcommittee. 

With that I turn to Mr. Duncan, and I will have a second round. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

8 

Mr. Gee, I notice that in the Department of Transportation’s con- ditions and performance reports, you estimate that $98.9 billion 

could be effectively used immediately to bring all of our bridges up 

to snuff, so to speak. Have you studied that figure? How did you 

arrive at that figure, and do you think that is a realistic or conservative estimate? Is that a ‘‘completing a wish list’’ type of estimate? 

Mr. GEE. It is not a wish list. It is a very analytical process, and 

it is a model. It is not an exhaustive inventory of all the needs out 

there; it is a model that projects what is needed on the 600,000 

bridges that we have in the system. It is based on the structural 

need, but also improvements that may be needed or economically 

justified on bridges that are not structurally deficient. So it is all 

the improvements to bridges that can be made from an engineering 

standpoint and from an economic standpoint. 

Mr. DUNCAN. We have got, according to the material we have 

been given, 603,000 public road bridges, and approximately 150,000 

are deficient. But a little less than 20 percent of those bridges 

carry 71 percent of the traffic. 

Do you think we are doing an adequate job concentrating this 

funding on where the money actually needs to go, on these more 

high-volume bridges? 

Mr. GEE. Under the structure of our Highway Bridge Program, 

which is also true for all the rest of the Federal-Aid Highway Program, it is an eligibility-based program, and it is a program where 

the States are given the prerogative to choose which projects and, 

therefore, which bridges to spend the money on. 

What we have in the Highway Bridge Program is eligibility criteria based on the structural deficiencies, the functional obsolescence and the sufficiency rating of a bridge. So in order to use 

bridge program dollars, the sufficiency rating has to be below a certain threshold for rehabilitation and below a further lower threshold for replacement and the bridge has to be in a deficient status. 

But the prerogative for choosing the projects is the State’s. 

Mr. DUNCAN. If we need $98.9 billion, and you heard Mr. Kerley 

mention that we are targeting roughly $5 billion in Federal funds 

and $10.5 billion, I think he said, from the States, are you advocating within your Department a big increase in the Federal funding for this program, or where do the deficient bridges range in priority within the Department of Transportation? 

Mr. GEE. Secretary LaHood just finished a round of townhall-like 

listening sessions. The last one was just held last week. The Department hasn’t finished considering all the input yet, so I do not 

have a position to represent today. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Mr. Kerley, Mr. Come says in his testimony that, quote, ‘‘current practices do not ensure that States are 

using Highway Bridge Program funding effectively to improve the 

condition of deficient bridges’’. What do you say about that? And, 

secondly, when you mentioned overall funding, how much does the 

State of Virginia receive in Federal monies for this program, and 

how much does the State itself allocate to bridges? 

Mr. KERLEY. To answer your second question first, sir, for fiscal year 2011, we are receiving $111,700,000 and in State funds we 

have $122,400,000, for a total of $234.1 million- is what we have 

allocated to bridges for fiscal year 2011 in our program. 

9 

As it was said also by others up here, the number of deficient 

bridges has decreased over time, and that has been a pretty steady 

decrease, I believe. So to make the statement that they are not addressing deficient bridges, I don’t know if that is completely correct, 

because the numbers are going down. 

The age of bridges in the system nationwide is obviously increasing. We have a large number of bridges—you know, during the 

New Deal area, we have a large number of bridges during the 

interstate area that are getting old in Virginia. The average bridge 

age is 43 years. So you have to make a decision on balancing preventative maintenance, maintenance rehabilitation and replacement. So I think States with the funding that they have are trying 

to address a growing problem they have in the bridge program. 

Mr. DUNCAN. You are here as a representative of all the State 

DOT officials across the country. Where do you think most State 

DOT officials would rank bridge deficiency as one of their problems? Would it be one of their top three problems, or what would 

you say about that? 

Mr. KERLEY. Well, for—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. Are we making a mountain out of a molehill here? 

Mr. KERLEY. From an official AASHTO viewpoint, I would have 

to get back with you on that, but just a top-of-the-head, I would 

say it is in their top five. I can tell you in the State of Virginia, 

for instance, our Commonwealth Transportation Board has highlighted deficient bridges, deficient pavements, but especially deficient bridges, in our 6-year program. But I would get back with you 

on an official thing from the AASHTO viewpoint, sir. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, let me ask you one other question. I am told 

that the House Appropriations Committee marked up a transportation appropriations bill yesterday, and in that bill they transferred $200 million away from the program such as the Highway 

Bridge Program to livability initiative funding that would include 

sidewalks and bike paths. Does the State of Virginia need more 

money being spent on bridge repairs or more money being spent on 

sidewalks and bike paths? 

Mr. KERLEY. From my viewpoint, we would address the bridges 

first. We do support, obviously, enhancement to the quality of life 

for our citizens, but it is a matter of amount of money in the budget that we have. But we do emphasize deficient bridges and deficient pavements. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the Ranking Member. 

Next we will go in the order of arrival. That would be Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

Thank you, Ranking Member, as well, and to our panel for joining us today. 

This is an extremely important issue in my district. In New 

York’s Hudson Valley, in the 19th District, we have 13 bridges designated structurally deficient by the FHWA. These bridges, along 

with countless others, are under local and State control, including 

one that is closed right now on my dirt road in the town of Dover 

Plains, where the Dutchess County clerk and I happen to reside. 

I think the county is trying to make an example that we don’t get 

10 

special favors by keeping our bridge fixed last. But that is OK, I 

go the long way to town. 

Nonetheless, Mr. Come, in the Inspector General’s January 2010 

report on the Federal Highway Administration oversight of the 

Highway Bridge Program and the National Bridge Inspection Program, your office issued several recommendations on how the 

FHWA can improve oversight of these two programs. One recommendation was that the FHWA strive toward performance-based 

oversight of States’ use of HBP funds in anticipation of reauthorization. In your view, have these extra steps been taken? 

Mr. COME. No. Thank you for the question. 

At this time we are not satisfied with the pace of the Federal 

Highway Administration’s response on our recommendations related to tracking bridge funds. There were three main issues we 

wanted them to address. First, to try to acquire better data so they 

could connect the funding spent on structurally deficient bridges to 

those projects. We recognize that their system for tracking that information doesn’t include that detail. But in response to our report, 

they had told us that by May they would provide us with an assessment of what changes they could make. 

What we also wanted to be done with this information was that 

the information be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the program and perhaps to communicate those results to key stakeholders, such as the States and the Congress, in a—something like 

the performance and conditions report. At this time, as we were 

preparing for the hearing, we did hear from Federal Highway that 

they are now making a commitment to make some enhancements 

to the Fiscal Management Information System that they have that 

will better track the information. We welcome that information, 

will be getting additional information on the specifics of that going 

forward to see if that more fully addresses our recommendations. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Gee, the Inspector General in January of 2010 reported 

that the FHWA’s accounting system does not have the capability 

to track Federal aid spending on structurally deficient bridges. Is 

this problem just a matter of legacy software or is it inherently difficult to track the spending of that level at detail? Are States able 

to track this information reliably? And what could we in Congress 

do to better help you track the impact of or the use of Federal aid 

funding on deficient bridges? 

Mr. GEE. Thank you. 

The answer is yes, that as the program has changed over time, 

the character of the program has changed. We do have a legacy 

system that was not designed to do that kind of tracking, but we 

are looking at a fix to the current system where, when a project 

is authorized, the bridge number will also be tagged to that authorization. The challenge, however, is that in many cases a single 

project has multiple funding streams and has multiple parts to it, 

one of which is a bridge, while others are paving and widening. So 

there continue to be challenges that we are looking at to see what 

we can do to really narrow down what is being spent on each element of a given project. 

We are working on it. There is nothing that I can think of right 

now that we need from legislation. 

11 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. 

And lastly I would ask, since I am running out of time here, the 

report found that there are 1,630 ineligible bridges which are on 

longer inspection schedules than the minimum 24 months required, 

including 633, quote, ‘‘fracture critical,’’ unquote, bridges like the I35 bridge, that were on a delayed inspection schedule. 

Can you explain the process that FHWA uses to negotiate State 

use of delayed inspection schedules, and do States need written approval from FHWA to extend the period of inspection? What steps 

are intended to be taken to remediate the situation? 

Mr. GEE. As you know, in general the rule is 24 months on fracture critical. We require hands-on inspection as well. But in terms 

of longer periods of inspection, there are a number of different factors, including the age and condition of the bridge. So our bridge 

engineer in a given State will evaluate what is being proposed by 

the State and determine if the justification for lengthening the inspection’s frequency is acceptable. The State’s proposal is then forwarded to our headquarters office for final review and approval. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

Henry Brown will be next. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for coming and sharing. 

I know in South Carolina transportation is a major item since we 

have such an influx of tourists. I know in our Myrtle Beach area, 

we have some 14 million visitors a year coming in, and so we appreciate your support in trying to meet some of those congestion 

needs. 

But, Mr. Gee, my question, I guess, will be directed to you. If 

anybody else wants to join in to help with the answers, I certainly 

would appreciate it. The way the funds are generated or distributed among the States, is it based on some formula, or is it based 

on some need formula? Exactly how are those funds distributed? 

Mr. GEE. The Highway Bridge Program funds are distributed by 

a needs formula that is based on the deck area of deficient bridges 

in a State. All of that is aggregated, and then the ratio of a particular State’s deficient bridges and the cost to repair or replace 

them is factored in. 

Mr. BROWN. So somebody makes a compilation of all of the deficient bridges in the United States, and then you would rank them 

by the seriousness of concern, and then you allocate some proportion of those funds to each State to meet those needs? 

Mr. GEE. Correct. Except that the cost that is peculiar to each 

State’s replacement of a bridge and rehabilitation of a bridge is 

factored in. 

Mr. BROWN. And I know that there is some flexibility of how 

those funds are being spent. Tell me how that works. I know that 

if it is bridge money, I understand this program has developed over 

$4 billion that has been actually used for other programs. Tell me 

how that works. 

Mr. GEE. I am sorry, what was the last part of your question, $4 

billion? 

12 

Mr. BROWN. That is the information I have got here that said that since 1992, $4.7 billion of the Highway Bridge Program has 

been used for other accounts. 

Mr. GEE. I think Mr. Kerley answered part of that earlier. There 

are transfers out of the bridge program, and under the current legislation the States can transfer up to 50 percent out of a given program, the Highway Bridge Program being one of them, into any of 

the other programs. Some States do that because the Highway 

Bridge Program is the most restrictive in terms of how the funds 

are to be used. Oftentimes they will move some of the money into, 

say, the Surface Transportation Program but still use it on a 

bridge, but because the use of a combination of funds can be complicated, they can put a project together more efficiently using one 

funding source. 

Now, other monies that are not spent on bridges are spent on 

management and preservation activities, and that is a recognition 

over time that we have a looming bridge problem, and it is not just 

a matter of rehabilitating and replacing, but it is a matter of managing and extending the service life so that we get the best return 

that we can on that investment. 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Kerley, along those same lines, what percent of 

the bridge replacement funds do you get coming into Virginia that 

you actually use on bridge replacement, and what percent do you 

use on other related items? 

Mr. KERLEY. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, we are required 

by budget language from our general assembly to utilize bridge 

money in the bridge program. In the past we had transferred 

money, as I indicated before, but historically we spend almost twice 

as much money on bridges as the amount of Federal bridge money 

that we receive. 

Mr. BROWN. Do you have the flexibility whether to replace the 

bridge or to repair the bridge? Who makes those determinations? 

Mr. KERLEY. As King said, the States have different ways. We 

have a prioritization that we use which takes into account structurally deficient. Most States have a prioritization where they are 

trying to look and balance the money that they have between replacing bridges, rehabilitation of bridges, maintenance of bridges. 

So when we develop our 6-year plan, and when most States develop 

their plan that they are going to do, they take that into account 

to maximize the use of all Federal funds that they receive. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

Mrs. Napolitano is next on the list. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am kind of listening to what you are saying in terms of the 

States being allowed to use transportation money for other 

bridge—not necessarily the bridge repair. My concern or my question would go to is any tracking being done to ensure that that 

bridge continues to be on the list of needed critical repair because 

the money is not being used where it was initially appropriated to? 

And are you tracking it? And does that bridge still continue to be 

on a listing, if you will? And then how do you track it? Do you have 

the software? Are you developing and implementing new processes 

13 

to be able to determine whether the new methodology is being utilized to do the repair? All those things go into the same things that 

I have concerns over. 

Mr. GEE. The National Bridge Inventory has the information on 

all the structurally deficient bridges, so that doesn’t go away 

whether they spend money elsewhere or not. We do track transfers 

out because they do have to request the action of transferring 

money out. And in the last year, six States transferred out a total 

of $300 million. So that is not a lot compared to the total. But there 

is a penalty for transferring money out. In the year following a 

State’s transfer of Highway Bridge Program funds to another program, the transferred amount is deducted from that State’s cost to 

repair or replace deficient highway bridge—the factor used to distribute bridge funds among the States. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. What about the software to be able to do that? 

That is updated, upgraded? 

Mr. GEE. To track the structurally deficient bridges, yes, we have 

that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And are you able to determine whether or not 

the new technologies being used for the repair that might be more 

efficient, less costly? 

Mr. GEE. That is always a function of ours, to promote new technology. We have high-performance concrete and high-performance 

steel that we have been promoting for a number of years now. So 

we are always doing research and disseminating and deploying 

new technology to get the best-performing bridge that we can. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. One of the other questions is the three IG reports presented significant and apparent and chronic questions 

about quality and uniformity of NBI data. Yet it is critical to many 

of the oversight decisions that the FHWA does. And testimony 

noted that—taking steps to ensure that the division office understand that NBI data filed and submitted with significant errors 

would be returned for immediate resolution. When was this done? 

What is the time frame? And have the local authorities been notified to be able to ensure that they are aware of the criticalness of 

this? 

Mr. GEE. Data typically is submitted from the States on an annual basis. Even though bridges are inspected every 2 years, the 

cycles are overlapping, so we get data every year. And we have 

been sending data sets back to the States. Our divisions now have 

a tool with which to evaluate the data set that they receive from 

the State before they submit it to headquarters. So the divisions 

are doing the checking, but then we do a further check, and we 

have sent data sets back. There is one State right now for which 

we are waiting on the corrected submission. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is there enough personnel to be able to do 

every 2 years all the bridges that apparently are in need of inspection? 

Mr. GEE. On the States’ part or on our part? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, do we rely on the States to tell you 

whether they have done it? And, of course, there have been some 

reports of the NBI data problems. 

Mr. GEE. We have three States that are currently not compliant, 

and part of it is due to inspection frequency. And that is typically 

14 

because they don’t have enough staff to do the inspections. They 

are being required to put together a corrective action plan. And in 

two States in the last half a year, we have actually threatened to 

withhold the approval of projects; not on bridge projects, because 

we don’t want to be cutting off funding for bridges that we want 

them to improve. So we are looking at leveraging other categories 

of funds for which we will not approve funds in order to get compliance. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So there is a penalty? 

Mr. GEE. I wouldn’t call it a penalty. You can call it a penalty. 

It is temporary in a sense, because whatever we are withholding 

approvals on will eventually be spent. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And my time is running out, but there is a 

bridge in one of my district areas that burnt because a homeless 

man was building a fire to keep himself warm. Do the bridge construction inspectors consider susceptibility of the bridge to destruction due to human factor? 

Mr. GEE. Human factors and other factors. For example, there 

are birds that put droppings on bridges that really are corrosive, 

so we look at all the environmental factors. When they look at a 

bridge inspection, they do document if there is an issue. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and 

Ranking Member Duncan for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing. And my primary interest today is to address the 

Highway Bridge Program, and I have a statement, not a question 

per se. But all the Committee Members know that the HBP in 

SAFETEA–LU, it required that States expend 15 percent of their 

annual bridge funding on off-system bridges. 

It is my understanding the Committee’s current draft of the surface transportation reauthorization proposal consolidates the HBP 

and other programs into a critical asset investment program, which 

effectively eliminates the 15 percent annual dedicated funding. 

This funding is critically important to States like mine, and Missouri is home to more than 13,000 off-system bridges, and 2,500 of 

those are structurally deficient, and 1,700 of them are functionally 

obsolete. If Congress decides to eliminate the 15 percent set-aside, 

then the roughly 4,200 deficient or inefficient off-system bridges in 

Missouri are going to fall into disrepair. 

I wanted to note that last year I introduced H.Res. 848, which 

is a bipartisan measure, which expresses support for the continuation of the off-system bridge program and a dedicated funding 

source, and I appreciate the Committee leadership’s consideration 

of my request to include this resolution in a future markup, and 

I look forward to continue the dialogue on the possible reinstatement of dedicated funding for the off-system bridges in future 

transportation reauthorizations. 

But I have a full statement and would ask unanimous consent 

to just submit it for the record. And again, Mr. Chairman, I thank 

you and Ranking Member Duncan and all the Members of this 

Subcommittee for allowing me to participate. I appreciate it. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. I note the gentleman’s concern. 

15 

With that, Mr. Arcuri. 

Mr. ARCURI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me. I 

would like to thank you for calling this hearing. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here and for the work 

that you do. 

I just want to start off by saying about 2 years ago I had an experience that one of my State DOT representatives suggested that 

I take a ride with him, and they rented a bucket, and I went up 

in the bucket under one of the bridges that, frankly, was one of the 

main bridges that I drive by every day,and my wife and the kids 

drive over every day. He said, take a hammer and tap on that concrete. And I did, and it was quite sobering to see chunks of that 

concrete fall. And this is one of the—you know, the bridges that I 

would never have known, I mean, basically that most of the traffic 

in my community drives back and forth on. 

And the point of my question—maybe it is a comment, I am not 

sure—my concern is this: We continue to build more bridges every 

year because everyone wants to have more bridges, better bridges. 

And we continue—as we do that, we spend more money, and then 

we continue to need to repair the bridges, and that costs more 

money with each passing year to repair the old bridges. And much 

more, it seems, of our money goes to repairing bridges that already 

exist, that already have defects, building new bridges, and we are 

not—the States are not spending the money on the maintenance, 

you know, that needs to be done. 

I am from upstate New York. We salt our roads. It has a devastating effect on our bridges. What it does, it eats away at the 

concrete, the rebar. I mean, it really has a devastating effect on 

that. And I guess, again, I am not sure if it is a comment or a question, and, Mr. Gee, I will pose it to you, is are we doing enough 

in terms of the preventative maintenance? I mean, are we spiraling 

out of control? Are we going to be able to have enough to appropriate enough money basically to meet the needs of building new 

bridges where they are needed, maintaining the bridges that already exist, and then doing the preventative maintenance to ensure 

that we don’t have problems into the future saving money? Because 

I think the States don’t have the money to do the preventative 

maintenance they need to do. 

Mr. GEE. Thank you for the question. 

Maintenance in general is the responsibility of a local or the 

State agency. But as was noted earlier, we are allowing systematic 

preventative maintenance and preservation activities to be paid for 

with Highway Bridge Program funds, and that is, again, trying to 

get the best return on the longer service life that we can out of our 

bridges. 

Now, in the research program we have actually been working on 

design and material research to come up with a 100-year-life 

bridge. Right now we are shooting for 75 years as the design life. 

We have research under way for 100 years. But on the maintenance side there is a requirement on our overall program that the 

States maintain whatever Federal funds have been put into, 

whether it is a bridge or a roadway, and we actually require certification from the State to that effect, and we follow up. 

16 

Mr. ARCURI. Are we going to be able to continue to meet the 

needs of the bridges that we already have, do you think, into the 

future? 

Mr. GEE. In the conditions and performance report that we submit every 2 years, there is a note that says if we continue funding 

at our current level, the deficiencies will go up. 

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Kerley, do you have a State perspective on that? 

Mr. KERLEY. Well, one, I agree with King’s comments that the 

States work very closely with the FHWA. The flexibility in the program to use money for maintenance and preventative maintenance 

has helped the States tremendously. 

There is probably in the last 3 years a renewed interest, I will 

say, in preventative maintenance. The FHWA and the States have 

worked together to form regional groups working together to concentrate on preventative maintenance; the States and the FHWA 

in the last 5, 10 years emphasizing a more asset management approach to try to address those maintenance problems. 

I assume where you were probably was under a leaky joint that 

maybe, had it been fixed at a time, you wouldn’t have had concrete 

come off when you were under that bucket truck there. 

So there is a renewed interest, and we have worked very closely 

with the FHWA to come up with new materials and new techniques hopefully to address the problems we have. 

Mr. ARCURI. I am going to put you on the spot for 1 second, one 

question. Can we do more on the Federal side to help the States 

with the preventative maintenance? 

Mr. KERLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ARCURI. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Walz. 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for 

this. And thank you all for the work that you do. It is incredibly 

important. 

And I see the Chairman joined us, and I am sure he will eloquently remind us all numbers, inspections and all that, on that 

hot day in Minnesota, that was a father not getting home, that was 

a daughter that will never get home when that bridge collapsed. 

And I think that renewed sense of importance on this, it is unfortunate it took a tragedy like that to do it, but all of us feel it. 

So I have just a few questions, and we see this playing out in 

the States, and Mr. Arcuri might be able to help me with this. We 

have got another bridge across the Mississippi in Winona, Minnesota, Highway 43, that was closed in the inspections that followed the I-35W bridge. It was a gusset plate issue, the same 

thing. It ended up being—I am glad we got the inspections done, 

but those types of situations, there was a 100-mile detour for folks 

that were put along. It is scheduled to be finished over the next 

5 years for replacement. The State has no plan on how to be able 

to afford such a thing. There is an editorial, and I think rightfully 

so, out of the Winona daily paper taking all of us to task on this. 

My question is how are we as a country prepared to handle this 

issue; structurally deficient, obsolete, all of these things? It is only 

a matter of time before it is another one in the river or something. 

And so my question is are we—and this is coming to you, and I 

17 

think Mr. Arcuri’s question was good—are we doing enough to have 

an honest discussion with the American public about what it is 

going to cost to replace and repair and keep our bridges up to 

where they need to be for safety, to move commerce and all of that? 

So I would ask each of you, if you could, and I know it is somewhat subjective, but I just want to know, are we going to get there? 

Because I have no faith right now, and the editors of the Winona 

paper have no faith, that we are working together to address this 

issue on that one bridge in one small town in one State. Couple 

that by thousands across the country. So if you want to just respond, I would certainly be wanting to hear. 

Mr. COME. Thank you. 

Our work has been focused not on how much should be spent or 

where the money should come from, but how to more effectively 

spend the money. So I would say in answer to your question that 

first and foremost we need to be able to effectively assess how well 

we are spending the money we have now. Doing that in the case 

of the Highway Bridge Program requires getting better information 

on funds directed towards structurally deficient bridges. 

In our work we found that systems and tools weren’t in place to 

do that. Management has told us that it will be hard to develop 

better tools. We recognize that these tools aren’t easy to develop, 

but without better tools we won’t be able to better utilize the funds 

we have now. And likewise, on the inspection side, no matter how 

much we are putting towards the bridges, we need to have good inspection programs. 

And so consistent oversight of the State programs is important. 

So from our side it would be getting improvement in those tools 

that will enable us to stretch every dollar we have. 

Mr. GEE. On larger bridges, oftentimes a State doesn’t have 

enough money in the bridge program to do all of the big bridges 

that it has, so oftentimes we find a State will kind of bank the 

money until they get enough. And then in many cases, because of 

the size of the project, project financing has got to be part of the 

consideration. A number of States have used that and used Federal-aid dollars on GARVEE bonds to pay back, because you need 

a chunk at one time in order to do a bridge, and then you can pay 

it back over the life of that bridge with GARVEE bonds. Our concern is the level of debt service that a State DOT may be incurring 

in order to do that. 

Now, to go back to the other part of the question, I think for the 

past 10 years or more, even before the Minnesota bridge, there 

have been articles about the state of infrastructure in this country. 

ASCE does a report card. So I think that there is a lot of information out there. The challenge that we have is that we actually don’t 

have a crisis today, but if we go forward without addressing it, we 

will have a crisis in the future. 

Mr. HERR. Mr. Walz, some of the work that we have done suggests a need to stand back and prioritize and look at the broader 

Federal interest. So in a case of a bridge like this, if something like 

that were in place, it would help a State have a sense of what some 

of those priorities are. And in the sense of a large project, say a 

megaproject like that that is more costly, that may be something 

that could rise up if an approach like that were to be taken. But 

18 

clearly there is certainly a difference between the funding levels 

that are available and the needs that have been identified as well. 

Mr. KERLEY. The State bridges and the national bridges are getting older. As I indicated, in Virginia the average age of our 

bridges are 43 years. In my testimony we have over 1,700 structurally deficient bridges; we have over 4,000 that are getting ready 

to get into that area. 

I agree with King’s statement, we don’t have a crisis right now, 

but I think you can look on the horizon and you can see that more 

funds are going to have to be put into maintenance, a shift, I believe, to asset management to try to maximize as much as possible. 

In the large bridges—that is why I think you see in some of the 

reports that in the large urban areas, maybe your urban area 

bridges, the number of deficiencies are going up because they are 

more expensive, there is more traffic. It is harder to do those, and 

so you are trying to extend those lives as much as possible. 

Mr. KERLEY. The 2006 DOT’s condition report said $8.7 billion in 

capital investment annually is needed to maintain the bridge condition at the current level and $12.4 billion was needed to actually 

improve the conditions to a level. 

So I believe the States are trying to work closely with the Federal Highway Administration and to identify and take the appropriate action, whether to post a bridge or close a bridge, to ensure 

the safety for the traveling public. 

Mr. WALZ. Well, I appreciate all your work. And, as I said, again, 

I think it is for us up here, realizing one of the attributes of leadership is vision. And let’s hope we have the vision to not get to that 

crisis point, to have the courage to get it done before we get there. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I would recognize the full Chairman now. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I just want to intercede at this point, because Mr. 

Walz asked an important question, and I don’t think he got the full 

range of answer that he should have received. 

The Minnesota legislature overrode a Governor’s veto of an increase in the gas tax by 5 cents. And the Minnesota DOT dedicated 

nearly half of the new revenue to bridge replacement. That is how 

States can do it. They can dedicate. 

But that underscores another problem, Mr. Chairman, that we 

have dealt with in this Committee several times and we deal with 

in our new authorization bill. And that is, the current law gives 

States authority to transfer up to 50 percent of their bridge funds 

to other purposes. And they have done it. Then they turn around 

and complain that they don’t have enough money for bridge replacement, when they have used their flex authority to flex money 

out of the bridge program to something else. 

And then they complain—they, the State DOTs—complain to us 

when we try to tighten the noose on them and say, ‘‘You first tell 

us, first develop a 6-year bridge replacement program, bridge inspection and maintenance and replacement program, with annual 

benchmarks of achievement. And then you report back to the U.S. 

DOT and to this Committee and to our Senate Committee on your 

achievements and your accomplishments. And if you have accomplished your goal year by year of bridge inspection, maintenance, 

replacement, then you can flex the money to something else.’’ 

19 

The bridges are the most costly structures in our Federal highway program. Those 545,000 bridges on the National Highway System, of which half now are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, carry half of the bridge traffic of this country. And you can’t 

shut them down, you can’t blow them up and turn them into something else. Some of those are historical structures. That is a problem for the States to resolve. 

But States have not accepted their responsibility, generally. 

There are some States that have excellent records, others that are 

just deplorable. 

In 1987, I held hearings on bridge inspection and bridge safety 

on the 20th anniversary of the Silver Bridge collapse. And a professor of bridge engineering testified at that table, saying, bridge 

inspection, quote, ‘‘is in the Stone Age. We are dragging chains 

over bridges to listen to structural deficiencies.’’ 

Twenty years later, they are still dragging chains over bridges to 

detect structural deficiencies. Meanwhile, we have given tens of 

millions of dollars for studies, for evaluation. There are university 

research centers that are studying it. And we are still in the Stone 

Age. That is unacceptable. 

I yield back. 

Chairman DeFazio has taken leave. Let’s see. Mr. Duncan, do 

you have—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I have already asked most of my questions, 

Mr. Chairman, but I will take just a moment to—Mr. Herr, you 

just heard the Chairman talk about how States can move up to 50 

percent of their bridge funding. 

Do you have an estimate as to what percentage, on average, most 

States are transferring of the bridge funding out of the bridge program? 

Mr. HERR. When we did our work in 2008, I think the figure over a 7-year period was in the $2 billion to $3 billion range. What we 

noted in that report was that one of the States that made more use 

of that flexibility actually had its funding made up through the equity bonus program. But we—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. I am sorry. I didn’t hear the last thing you said. 

Mr. HERR. One of the States that had utilized that opportunity 

to do flex funding out of the bridge program, Pennsylvania actually 

made up that funding that it lost through the equity bonus program. We noted that in that report. 

But if need be, if the other witnesses don’t have that information, 

I could get updated information for you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. 

Well, we have also seen in the testimony, your testimony and 

others, that you feel there is a lot of important data that is lacking, 

such as comprehensive State and local spending. Can you really 

adequately judge the impact of this program without that kind of 

data? 

Mr. HERR. We think it would be very important to have that 

complementary data to have a full assessment of what the program 

is accomplishing. 

Mr. DUNCAN. We heard earlier that, while the Federal funding was around $5 billion and the States had provided $10.5 billion— 

how much is being provided by local governments on bridge work? 

20 

Mr. HERR. I believe, but I will defer to Mr. Kerley, but I believe that that $10 billion figure—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. The 10.5 was State and local? 

Mr. KERLEY. That was the total for all levels of government, sir, the 10.5. That included the $5.1 billion—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. Oh, that includes the Federal funding, too? 

Mr. KERLEY. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Oh, OK. 

Mr. KERLEY. So it is about double the Federal funding. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Well, then how much of the $5 billion, 

then, is coming from the States and how much from the local governments? Do you have that? 

Mr. KERLEY. No, sir, but I can get that for you. We will get back 

to you on that. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. We would turn now to Ms. Markey. 

Ms. MARKEY. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a district in northern and eastern Colorado. We have 36 

bridges that have been deemed structurally deficient by our State 

DOT. And, actually, one bridge, a couple of years ago, in the small 

town of Ordway, there was a fire in southeast Colorado. Two firefighters were killed because the truck that they were in went over 

a bridge and it collapsed, and they never even got to the fire. So 

it is a critically important issue. 

As I am reading this report, it says an astonishing number, $98.9 

billion, could be invested immediately into looking at our bridges. 

But I am intrigued by the title of this report, which says, ‘‘FHWA 

has taken actions but could do more to strengthen oversight of 

bridge safety.’’ And I think one of you mentioned that you are doing 

quite a bit of oversight of State programs. 

And so the question in my mind becomes, you know, we have a 

limited amount of dollars, and there is a lot of oversight being 

done. And Federal authorities are overseeing State programs that 

are overseeing the bridges. 

Can you talk a little bit about how extensive is the oversight 

role, the Federal Government to the States? I mean, Mr. Oberstar 

said that the States are not always doing their job, and there is a 

Federal role. But, you know, I wonder, do you find much duplication of effort in an oversight role? How much money is going towards those kinds of things as opposed to actually, you know, putting in the new bridges? 

And so I just worry about, when we talk about more oversight, 

what we really want to do is get the money to repair the bridges, 

instead of, to my mind, overseeing Federal programs that are supposed to be doing that already. 

So can you talk just a little bit about the extent of your oversight 

role? 

Mr. GEE. I think that we are actually a very, very small percentage, in terms of the administrative cost, of the oversight that we 

provide to the States. Principally, we have one bridge engineer in 

each of the 50 States and District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. We 

have a complement in headquarters of about 15 bridge engineers 

and another complement in our resource center, of about 10. So, 

administratively, it is not a large amount of money. 

21 

Ms. MARKEY. How much of your budget, would you say, is actually going towards helping States actually fund projects to replace 

or repair bridges? 

Mr. GEE. I would say the vast majority of our administrative cost 

is for project delivery, working with the States. Those bridge engineers I referred to, their purpose is not solely on compliance. They 

actually have to review bridge plans and they have to look at the 

bridge program, not just compliance. 

Ms. MARKEY. OK. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Ms. Richardson, I regret that we went out of order 

there. There was a slight clerical error. So, Ms. Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. No problem, Mr. Chairman. I will just keep the 

chip in the bank. 

OK, Mr. Gee, much has been talked about in terms of the States 

utilizing flexibility. Can you provide to this Committee a State-byState list for the last 10 years of which States have taken bridge 

money and used them for other sources? 

Mr. GEE. We can certainly do that, yes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. OK. Thank you, sir. 

My second question is, in 2009 the FHWA distributed approximately $5.3 billion. We have been talking about that today. However, the GAO report issued in September 2008 found that it’s troubling and there is a flaw; in fact, because many of the bridges and 

the projects, really the deficiency status is not being sufficiently 

rated or used. 

Can you talk a little bit about that? 

And, in particular, what is of my concern: When I first came on 

board, before I was even sworn in, Chairman Oberstar was going 

through the Minnesota bridge situation. And in my district, we 

have the Gerald Desmond Bridge, which brings over 15 percent of 

the entire Nation’s goods. And it has a diaper underneath it, and 

it is my understanding it has an F rating. And yet we can’t seem 

to get funding to replace the bridge. 

So if you could explain to me this whole thing about the ratings 

and why they are not being used or why you are not enforcing that 

they be used, in terms of priority of funding. 

Mr. GEE. The ratings are used, but, as I said earlier, our programs are structured such that it is the States that prioritize their 

projects. We determine, when a State puts a project at the top of 

the list, whether, in fact, it is eligible for the given category of 

funds that it is being targeted for. So our role in terms of the delivery of projects is to make sure that they conform to the requirements within each program category. 

In the Highway Bridge Program, the sufficiency rating and deficiency status are used to determine whether a bridge is eligible for 

replacement or for rehabilitation. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. But if, your example, a State—and I will defer 

to you also, Mr. Come, as soon as I finish this next question, because it appeared you wanted to say something. 

But you don’t provide any oversight if a State decides to repair 

a bridge of a level D and bypasses a level F? You don’t provide any 

oversight or correction to that? 

22 

Mr. GEE. Not on a bridge-by-bridge basis. We may look at an 

overall program and say it may seem a little out of balance. But 

after we talk about it, it is still the State’s prerogative to choose. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. And why is it the State’s prerogative if you 

have an F-rated bridge that is getting ready to collapse? 

Mr. GEE. Because in a section of the law, it is specifically spelled 

out that we do not override States’ choice of projects. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. OK. 

Mr. Come, based upon your report, do you have any suggestions 

or areas that we could focus on here in this body to eliminate this 

problem that you noted in your report? 

Mr. COME. I believe that was the GAO report you are referring 

to. But our work would point to the need to establish data-driven, 

risk-based approaches so that the highest-priority risk can be addressed. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. OK. You were right, sir. 

I am sorry, Mr. Herr. It was your report I was referencing. 

Mr. HERR. Yes. One of the points that we have made in a number of different reports over the years is that standing back and focusing on what the Federal interest would be would help perhaps 

prioritize fixing a bridge like the one you just described. If mobility, 

for example, movement of goods, is a key criteria, that would help 

prioritize things and ensure that a Federal interest—in this case, 

one that might impact goods movement that affects many consumers in the country and businesses—could be given a certain 

amount of attention. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I yield back the balance of my time. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady. 

With that, I would turn to the Chairman of the Full Committee, 

Mr. Oberstar, for his questions. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted you have called this hearing. And thank you and Mr. Duncan for participating and working together to put it together. But 

it is a little depressing to read this report and see we are where 

we were, in many cases, 25 years ago. 

I am going to ask to call up on the screen the Sandstone Bridge. 

Now, unfortunately, you can’t see it very well in this picture, but 

that is the underlying steel structure. This bridge was built in 

1948. It is about 450 feet over a very lovely canoe and kayak river 

in the central part of my district. It is the subject of the Long-Term 

Bridge Performance pilot program that we included in the current 

SAFETEA legislation. It is one of four, I think ultimately six or 

seven, bridges. 

What I wanted—I took this with my BlackBerry. And there are 

wires hanging down from the bridge deck above. And those wires 

are connected to the rebar—right in there—to the rebar in the 

bridge decking itself. The bridge was redone about 20 years ago. 

If you would go to the next one, please. 

There is a snooper crane underneath the bridge. And they are attaching probes and wires to the underside of the bridge, to the 

bridge structure itself, the steel structure that you see in front of 

you. And if you notice the graffiti on the lower right, just a little 

bit above the crane arm, also on the right of the screen, right 

23 

there—and there is more, there is much more graffiti—that steel 

is so corroded that one of the bridge engineers said, in a bit of 

humor, ‘‘Thank goodness for the graffiti. It is helping to hold the 

bridge together.’’ That shouldn’t be. 

The serious part of it is that this bridge is subject to—and then 

underneath you see the very slow-moving river—is subject to severe freeze/thaw cycles, heat/cold expansion/contraction. And it is a 

perfect subject for the kind of analysis that bridge engineers need 

to do, want to do, to better understand bridges. 

What I don’t have, unfortunately, is on the bridge deck itself a 

picture of the ground-penetrating radar machine that I actually 

powered over a good portion of, to see for myself the wavelengths 

of the radar and the anomalies when it strikes corroded rebar or 

water that has accumulated within the bridge itself around rebar 

that then sends this anomaly. 

So now they can cover the entire length of the bridge, find corrosion, drill a hole to the corroded rebar, attach a probe to it, bring 

the probe to the edge of the bridge, and then study the structure 

to get a better understanding of what is happening internally in 

the bridge. 

Now, the George Washington Parkway on the Virginia side of the 

Potomac, under the direction of the Park Service, has four bridge 

overpasses that were done about 20 years ago, I think now, 18 or 

so. Using new technology, using plastic, pinhead-sized particles in 

the concrete that would collapse with the heat of the concrete setting—there we are. There is the ground-penetrating radar machine. Now, that is the technician pushing it. They had untrained 

technician Oberstar pushing it a little bit later. But those little 

dots on the road surface are the points where rebar has been detected, and now the screen is showing the anomalies. 

Before they began this part of the test, Mr. Chairman, the engineers and inspectors actually dragged chains over the bridge, put 

their ear down and listened to it to see, ‘‘What is happening in that 

bridge?’’ So, now they know where it is. Then they can drill holes, 

attach probes to the corroded rebar, and see what is happening to 

it and see the progression of deterioration. 

But going back to the GW Parkway bridge, those little plastic 

globules then heated with the setting of the concrete, collapsed, 

and provided a very tight concrete surface. But they also included 

probes attached to the rebar, powered by solar panels alongside 

those four overpasses, that provide cathodic protection to the rebar. 

I drive that at least four times a week, and I—no, eight times, once 

in the morning, once in the evening—I have not noticed a crack in 

that bridge. 

And I can tell you, I get a pretty good look at it because traffic 

is so slow on that bridge. You are standing there for 5 or 10 minutes at a time, and you get a chance, at least I do, to look out the 

window and see what is happening to the bridge surface. I realize 

that is not a normal practice for commuters, but then I am a transportation guy and that is what I do. 

Now, having those probes, having the ability to track—oh, yeah, 

there is another—there is the ground-penetrating radar machine 

up close. 

24 

So this is the Rutgers Center for Advanced Infrastructure and 

Transportation, Long-Term Pavement Performance Program. They 

are doing the inspecting, instrumenting, testing, and monitoring of 

the bridge, and doing it in at least now six, I think, other locations. 

This is the kind of work that we need to have on all of our bridges 

across the country. 

And the replacement I-35W bridge has all these sensors embedded in the bridge to detect expansion, contraction, freeze/thaw 

cycle, penetration of moisture into the concrete structure itself, cathodic protection for the rebar in the bridge. They have sensors 

that can detect wind pressure on the bridge. 

Now, if airplanes have technology onboard the aircraft to tell you 

the tire pressure onboard that aircraft, so before it comes down, if 

there is a problem, you know what you have, we ought to be able 

to do that on the ground on a structure that doesn’t move. We 

ought to be able to apply the lessons from other modes of transportation from one to the other. 

Now, if, as we well know, the reality is that deck life averages 

25 years and you have corrosion delamination, you have expansion/ 

contraction, corrosion of rebar, then there are practices that can be 

put in place to protect that huge investment we make in these 

bridges, like cover thickness, epoxy coating on the rebars, carbon 

fiber or aramid fiber protection before you put on the final seal coat 

of the bridge. 

In the European Union, I met 2 years ago with the ministers of 

transportation for the EU at their annual session. And they discussed membrane layers that are applied before the final seal coat 

is applied that have resulted in substantially extending bridge deck 

life. 

So I want you to tell me what new things you are doing, what 

new ideas you have encountered, and what you are recommending 

for the future of bridge integrity and strengthening and inspection 

and lengthening the deck life and structural life of bridges. 

Mr. Kerley? You look like you are ready to talk. 

Mr. KERLEY. First of all, sir, I appreciate you pointing out the 

Long-Term Bridge Performance Program that the FHWA has and 

the support you have given to that. It is an excellent program, and 

AASHTO supports it and have worked very closely with the FHWA 

on that. 

I think we are doing the same things that you see the European 

people are doing. As Mr. Gee mentioned earlier, high-performance 

concrete, high-performance steel, non-corrosive reinforcing steel, 

the next generation, maybe after epoxy coating, those are things 

that we are looking at. 

The different things that were put on the I-35 bridge are all 

things that are available to States to do. The question is which 

bridges to put it on, how do you use it, what do you do with the 

data, how do you do all those type of things. 

But Turner-Fairbank and the Federal Highway Bridge Program 

have worked very closely with the States. Since the I-35 bridge collapse, we have looked at various different things that can be done. 

I know the FHWA is looking at different inspection techniques to 

be used. 

25 

But one of the things, to be honest with you, it comes down to 

some funding concerns—you know, which bridges do you put it on? 

What is the initial cost? What do you do with the data? Those 

things you are looking at. 

But the States are open to any new technologies we can use. One 

aspect of the AASHTO bridge committee’s strategic plan is looking 

at new materials and new methods to extend the life of the bridge 

structures that we have. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And that is what this project is aimed at. 

Mr. KERLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It is not just the Sandstone Bridge in Minnesota, 

which I said was built in 1948. Structural steel is in better shape, 

although it is rusting and the graffiti is covering up some of the 

rust. The bridge decking itself has a 20-year lifespan, or a 25-year. 

And what they are attempting to do in this experiment is to see 

whether cathodic protection, which has been successful in the pipeline program and which has been successful in the GW Parkway’s 

bridge structures, can work in bridges already in place and extend 

the life of that deck surface. 

Mr. KERLEY. We have used cathodic protection before on bridge 

decks. And also, on the James River Bridge in Virginia on 95, there 

is cathodic protection in the pier caps in there. When we renovated 

that bridge about—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Was that done on the Wilson Bridge, as well? 

Mr. KERLEY. I do not believe cathodic protection was used on the 

Wilson Bridge, that I am aware of, no. 

But so, all the different things that you have mentioned are 

things that States are working on and working very closely with 

the FHWA and their Turner-Fairbank. 

And we have the opportunity to go to Europe a little bit and talk 

with our counterparts over there. And we try to borrow, steal anything we can to make what we do better, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, thank you. Glad you are on top of it. 

Mr. Herr, Mr. Gee, whoever else wants to comment? 

Mr. GEE. I think from the very earliest days of Federal Highways, back 100 years ago, one of our missions has been to promote 

new technology. We have a very active program of promoting and 

disseminating information and best practices that we learn. In our 

research program, we are pushing out new technology. 

And we find technology, as Mr. Kerley said earlier, from overseas, and we bring it back to this country, and we disseminate it 

and we implement it. But we also look for private sector innovations. Under the Highways for LIFE program, we have an active 

program with some private companies to accelerate the commercialization—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes, I think Parsons Brinckerhoff was part of 

this—— 

Mr. GEE. Right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. —consortium. They are participating. 

Mr. GEE. Right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And I am sure there are many other engineering 

companies who have worldwide presence who are also contributing 

their broad experience to this Long-Term Bridge Performance Program. 

26 

Mr. Come? 

Mr. COME. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Over on the Inspector General’s side, we have been looking at 

improvements to business processes. One thing we have called for 

is improvements in the corporate risk-assessment process in 

FHWA, looking at similar programs set up in other agencies that 

have to deal with either thousands of motor carriers or several 

hundred large airlines. So we are looking for them to use, at the 

corporate level, information they have to identify high-priority 

bridge safety risks. 

Another business process we looked at was the attempts to encourage more bridge management system use among the States. 

These are computerized processes that can improve asset management. FHWA doesn’t mandate that these systems be used, but we 

recommended that they gain information on how the different 

States are using these systems, so that they could then target their 

educational and training efforts at the States that could more fully 

utilize these computerized systems. And they have agreed with 

those recommendations and are implementing them at this time. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes, Mr. Herr? 

Mr. HERR. Yes, Mr. Oberstar, we highlighted a similar point, and 

Mr. Come mentioned, and we also had talked about in our report, 

the element-level inspections that are being done to assess the 

structural integrity of bridges. So, the other side of the question 

that you raised is to make sure that States are state-of-the-art in 

that area, and the Federal Government, as well. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, let me then pick up on that point and move 

to another issue, and that is calculating bridge load ratings and 

also understanding better how to conduct bridge inspections. 

One of the salient factors cited by the NTSB in the I-35W bridge 

collapse was that the gusset plate that failed was incorrectly designed. Bridge inspection, up to that point, had assumed the design 

and engineering integrity of the bridge itself. So we will start from 

whatever was built, that it was designed properly, it was built 

properly—no more, no longer. 

It is stunning to go to the NTSB offices over at L’Enfant Plaza 

and see this replica of the gusset plate, a huge eight-foot by sixfoot—it is not the steel; it is a replica of it—and see how big this 

piece of steel should have been. And that it should have been an 

inch thick, not a half-inch thick. 

So now bridge engineering has to include—and I would hope that 

that would be part of the IG report—in conducting bridge inspections, to actually go back to review the design and engineering 

plans for the bridge itself and determine whether they were proper, 

whether they were done according to proper engineering practice. 

If it wasn’t designed and built properly, how can you proceed to 

the next stage and determine load ratings on that bridge? If you 

are counting on a one-inch-thick gusset plate, of which there are 

eight I think, or were, on that bridge, and if any one of them fails, 

the whole bridge fails, then you can’t calculate a proper load rating 

in the real-world application, correct? 

Mr. Kerley, you are a practitioner. 

Mr. KERLEY. Yes, sir, I agree with you. Since one of the recommendations that came out from the NTSB report was to look at 

27 

the quality control, quality assurance of designs when they are initially done, we are working very closely with the Federal Highway 

Administration. They have come up with a draft that we are reviewing right now to ensure that what is designed is appropriate 

for the design at that time based on the design code. 

So, hopefully, we will be able up front to ensure that the design 

is correct. And then you take from the design to ensure that the 

fabrication is correct. Once it get gets out in the field, when the 

bridge inspector is looking at that, he is looking at the properly designed, properly constructed bridge for that location. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And then against that backdrop, if the IG report 

says that 40 percent of load ratings do not match the information 

submitted by States, then we are in a dangerous zone, if you will, 

of bridge use. 

Mr. Gee? 

Mr. GEE. After the NTSB reports were issued and recommendations were made, we did issue a number of technical advisories, one 

of which provided guidance on how to consider and analyze gusset 

plates. That is providing a tighter control of how inspections are 

done. 

I think the risk-based approach to compliance reviews will include a tighter definition of how States conduct load ratings and 

how all of that procedural work is going to be tightened up. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I am a little troubled by use of the term ‘‘riskbased inspection practices,’’ because it tends to have too much reliance on paper rather than on hands-on experience, evaluation. 

Risk-based safety practice in aviation and rail and in maritime are 

common practices, as they are in highway. But, as one FAA maintenance inspector said, ‘‘You have to end the paperwork and be on 

the shop floor. You have to put your hands on the engine, you have 

to put your hands on the airframe to understand what is really 

happening with that aircraft.’’ And the same thing goes with 

bridges; you have to have hands-on at a certain point. 

Mr. GEE. That is why, in 2005, when we revised the regulations, 

we included a requirement for fracture-critical bridges. Previously, 

it was an administrative policy, and we added it in the regulation 

to strengthen the requirement for hands-on inspection of fracturecritical bridges. 

When we talk about risk-based, we are not talking about substituting paper for the hands-on inspection. The inspection still has 

to be hands-on. What we are talking about is looking at the frequency. Given that there are issues of adequate staffing for inspections, the question has come up about how frequently a bridge 

should be inspected. In Europe, they have a sliding scale for timing 

of the inspections, and we are considering that, but we are considering it carefully. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. All of this is very important for the future of 

transportation as we shape the bill that I had intended to have 

passed through the House by now but for other impediments from 

other sources, the Administration included. 

We have to get this thing right. We have to have a sound program for adequate numbers of Federal and State inspectors for the 

bridge program, adequate design and engineering standards, adequate evaluation of existing bridge structures, and employing all 

28 

the non-destructive testing technologies that are available, such as 

those displayed just a moment ago on the screen, and protect this 

massive portfolio of bridge structure in this country. A $98 billion backlog of costs for repair, replacement, reconditioning of bridges—it is immense. Greater than that is the cost of 

not doing it, as we saw with I-35W. The diversion of traffic around 

that bridge, the diversion of people, goods, and movement daily, 

that is a huge cost to the economy. Far better to make that investment in the bridge and do it right to begin with. 

Mr. GEE. We agree with that, Mr. Chairman. And one of the 

issues that I have raised internally with our bridge staff is: An 

emergency shutdown of a bridge is failure. Even though it doesn’t 

fall down, if we close a bridge unscheduled, in an unscheduled 

manner, that is failure. 

So we have an initiative on the way, working with the States 

right now, to look at the management processes and how the States 

look at the NBI data and then the element-level data to come up 

with a process to anticipate problems before they reach a critical 

stage. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. One last question: Has the Federal Highway Administration and have States followed up on I-35W? There are 460 

other bridges that were designed at that same time, the mid1960’s, and built, with fracture-critical bridge structure, meaning 

that if one major piece fails, the bridge fails. 

I understand or recall that an advisory was sent out from Federal Highway to all States. Have all States completed inspections 

of those bridges? And what information have they reported back? 

Mr. GEE. We believe that all of the States have complied with 

that technical advisory. There were only a handful of bridges that 

were found to be of concern, and those have been followed up on. 

I think the findings from the NTSB report we have also disseminated, so that the best information is available to all the States, 

and we are working with them. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Kerley? 

Mr. KERLEY. I agree with that. I believe all those bridges have 

been addressed. And as King was saying, we are also doing research on the gusset plates. The initial information the FHWA and 

guidance they put out on how we should properly look at these 

things are being followed. 

And then, working with the FHWA, AASHTO, and the FHWA, 

through NCHRP, is doing a detailed analysis and research at their 

Turner-Fairbank on the gusset plate so we can clearly define for 

people exactly what they need do in that regard. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

Thank you very much, all of the panel. This is going to be a continuing inquiry of the Committee. I apologize to my colleagues for 

proceeding at such length, but, as you can see, this is a matter of 

great passion and concern for me. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. [presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Chair. And any 

time that you have questions, I would more than be happy to allow 

for that line of questioning simply because of your background and 

expertise. So thank you, sir. 

Mr. Duncan? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. 

29 

And, Mr. Gee, you started to get into something that I wanted 

to go into—just a couple of other questions. And one was, you earlier said that you don’t have the authority to override a State’s decision on where they spend their money. 

But, in your oversight role, if one of your inspectors came to you 

and told you that a bridge was very unsafe or very dangerous, 

what would you do in response to that? A moment ago, you said 

there are only a handful of bridges that you feel are of concern and 

they have been followed up, or something to that effect. What happens? 

Mr. GEE. That was in response to the Chairman’s question about 

the I-35W type of bridges. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Right. Oh, just that type of bridges. 

Mr. GEE. Right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman would yield, that was in response to my question about that relatively discrete category of 461 

or so bridges built at the same time, mid-1960’s, with this design 

and engineering. He was not speaking generally. 

Mr. DUNCAN. OK. All right. 

Mr. GEE. But to answer your questions about what oversight we 

exercise if we are aware of an unsafe bridge, we will go to the State 

and, first, make sure we have the most recent inspection report. 

And if, indeed, it does need to be shut down and the State hasn’t 

shut it down, we will basically force the State to shut it down. 

There was a bridge in Puerto Rico most recently that we have 

been going around with the Commonwealth on. In that case, the 

city kept reopening it. The Commonwealth was shutting it down, 

the city kept reopening it. So I think we finally got to a situation 

where it is protecting the safety of the motorists. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. And then earlier I mentioned that, you 

know, there are 603,000 public road bridges, but there were only— 

less that 20 percent, or 115,000, carries 71 percent of the traffic. 

So I said, well, we need to maybe make sure we concentrate the 

funding on those more high-volume bridges. 

But what I am wondering about is, how many inspectors at the 

Federal and State level are there devoted to bridge inspections? I 

know they have to be inspected once every 24 months, unless given 

a waiver to go longer. How many Federal bridge inspectors and 

State bridge inspectors are there? Do you know? 

Mr. GEE. The Federal Highway Administration doesn’t own any 

bridges, and so the responsibility of inspecting the bridges is on the 

owners. And the vast majority of the brides are owned by the 

States and locals, and they are the ones that have to have the inspectors. 

Now, the Federal Highway Administration does have a core 

group of inspectors to do inspection on federally-owned bridges, like 

the National Park Service and bridges like that. 

I do not have a count of how many State bridge inspectors there 

are. 

Mr. DUNCAN. How many do you have, Mr. Kerley? Or do you 

know nationwide how many—— 

Mr. KERLEY. Nationwide, I don’t know. But for Virginia, I can 

tell you we do about 10,000 bridge safety inspections a year. We 

have 100 people that are bridge inspectors. And about 20 percent 

30 

of our inventory we use consultants to supplement our people. And 

we spend about $22 million a year on bridge safety inspections. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. 

And one of the things, Mr. Gee, you did mention was that you 

have looked at some of the new technology in Europe and other 

areas, and are also looking at the outside, the public sector. What 

about UTC, the University Transportation Centers, are they being 

part of trying to find the solutions for some of the issues? 

Mr. GEE. We very much work with the University Transportation 

Centers. Oftentimes, they have the funding for different areas of 

work that they have identified, so we try to align what their interests are with what we consider to be the national needs. We work 

very closely with the individual centers to see what they will come 

up with. 

We also use the individual university centers for training and 

getting information back out to the local governments. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Does the Department fund the universities? 

Mr. GEE. Yes, they do. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And you wait for them to tell you what they 

are going to look at? 

Mr. GEE. Often, they will identify the area of concentration that 

the consortium is putting forward. Part of the RITA, the Research 

and Innovative Technology Administration, passes on which UTCs 

get funded. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But if there is specific technology that you are 

looking for, do you not suggest to them that they need to start looking at what can be used, what is being used in Europe, and then 

apply that? 

Mr. GEE. As part of the international scanning program that we 

have, there is an implementation plan that has to be part of the 

effort so that we don’t just find something and it languishes. They 

have to individually identify which are the best mechanisms to advance that technology, and sometimes it may involve a UTC. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, maybe they can begin to work and look 

at European methods and test—or at least provide you with some 

information as to the validity. 

Director Herr, none of the State DOTs you visited in preparing 

your 2008 report were able to provide comprehensive data on total 

State and local investments in bridges. In the GAO’s work since 

that report, have you found any evidence that States are now better able to track and report State and local bridge spending? 

And I would also like for Mr. Kerley to comment on that. 

Mr. HERR. I am not aware of any change that has occurred since 

2008 when we issued the report. 

Mr. KERLEY. We set our budget, so we know what is set in the 

budget. But, as I think Mr. Gee mentioned earlier, we do use multiple funding on some projects, and we don’t have a system now 

where we actually go in and pull out to report what is in bridges 

and what is in those different categories. 

So we will probably spend more than what we actually have 

budgeted in the bridge program that are in other programs included in other projects. 

31 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is there a standardized tracking system that 

is used in the industry to be able to input information and be able 

to keep track of the status and the funding? 

Mr. KERLEY. Not that I am aware of. And I think that is what 

showed up in one of the reports here that came out. We just don’t 

track it from that viewpoint. If we are not using bridge funds, it 

may fall in in a different category. And there may be bridges on 

there that may not get picked up. It doesn’t automatically pull it 

out when you want to—for instance, you would query the system 

on all expenditures on bridges. It may have been included in a segment of a road construction, and you wouldn’t have pulled it out 

in that regard. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, with the advancement of technology and 

innovative software, you would think there would be something to 

be able to provide the States the ability to do some of that tracking. 

And, also to Mr. Herr, you have testified on GAO’s previous finding that, since the mid-1990’s, increases in Federal highway funding have been accompanied by decreases in State highway spending and have recommended Congress consider a maintenance-of-effort requirement on States that receive Federal highway funding. 

Mr. Kerley has stated in his written testimony that an MOE provision would reduce funding in an already-strained time. Wouldn’t 

an MOE increase, rather than reduce, highway spending? 

And based on your experience, would you have reason to believe 

the States would reduce their State-level spending if it required 

them to leave Federal funds on the table? 

And, in this regard, isn’t an MOE requirement fundamentally 

similar to the required non-Federal share, which is a long-established requirement for most Federal aid highway programs? 

And Mr. Kerley again or anybody else who would like to comment. 

Mr. HERR. Yes, one of things that we have noted over the years 

based on some prior work the GAO has done is that there has been 

some reduction in State spending. The key concept behind maintenance of effort is that States maintain their level of expenditure. 

And, in fact, with the Recovery Act, with the maintenance-of-effort requirement that is included there, there is an interesting opportunity, although during a time of a lot of fiscal difficulty for 

States, to take a look at how that has been operating. And, in fact, 

we have an open recommendation to DOT that they produce a report by this fall that talks about the maintenance-of-effort experience at the State level, provide some lessons learned, how that has 

worked, and whether or not States, in fact, have left some money 

on the table. 

I think, given the identified needs that we have discussed today, 

especially with the bridge program, it would be somewhat surprising if States did leave funds on the table. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. Kerley, any comment? 

Mr. KERLEY. States are spending more money on their bridges 

than they receive from the Federal Government for the bridge program. Even though they transfer funding to other categories, they 

could still use them on a segment of a road that have bridges in 

it; they are just not reporting it in that way. So—— 

32 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Isn’t that to their detriment, though? 

Mr. KERLEY. It would appear to me, yes, depending on how you 

are going to look at it, yes, ma’am. 

If the reporting requirement was there, the States would report 

it that particular way. They try to manage their funds to maximize 

the use of all Federal funds they receive, and that is the bridge 

program and all the other programs that come from Federal Government. 

So if they shift bridge funding around, they are probably 

supplementing that with State funding. For the total of what they 

are spending per year, it would be greater than what they receive 

from the Federal Government. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, you just stated you can’t track what the 

State spends on bridge projects and bridge repair, or at least, you 

know, that goes in and out. If so, what was the basis for the numbers you are citing on how much the States spend on bridges? 

Mr. KERLEY. I will get back with you directly on that, other than 

the amount of State money that is being spent, plus the amount 

of local money, plus the amount of Federal money. So you may 

have shifted some Federal money to other programs that maybe 

you are not tracking, but you supplemented that with the local or 

State money. 

But I would be happy to get back with you exactly on that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. If you would, please. I am sure the Subcommittee would like to be enlightened on that. 

Mr. KERLEY. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. Oberstar, any further questions or comments? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. One follow-up to the 

question Mr. Duncan raised. 

Mr. Gee, what tools has the Federal Highway Administration 

used to enforce compliance? Has Federal Highway, for example, 

ever withheld State funding for noncompliance? 

Mr. GEE. It is not a matter of withholding funding as much as 

withholding approval on projects. We have threatened on a number 

of occasions, but those particular States have taken steps to address our concerns. So, in my memory, we have not actually withheld any approvals. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You have not withheld approvals. 

Mr. GEE. Right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. But that is a tool available. 

Mr. GEE. It is. And we have threatened it at least twice in the 

past 6 months. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, the threat is good; carrying it out is more 

important. Mr. Kerley probably doesn’t like to hear that, as a practitioner on the front line of highways. 

I am going to give Mr. Kerley, Mr. Gee, Mr. Come, an opportunity to give us your priorities for the future of bridge construction, inspection, maintenance, and oversight for the next 6 years of 

the surface transportation program. 

Don’t all speak at once. 

Mr. COME. I will be glad to start first. 

First of all, we think Federal Highways needs to roll out their 

improved national bridge inspection program, their improved overVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:58 Dec 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57562.0 KAYLA
33 

sight of the States’ annual program. It has to be data-driven. It has 

to have minimum standards. It has to identify key problems and 

then be able to present whether a State is in substantial compliance or not, using consistent guidelines. And then they need consistent guidelines for enforcing those actions. I think those would 

be beneficial for the health of the program, and they will also provide the States with consistency, as well. 

Secondly, we want them to fully implement efforts to address 

high-priority, nationwide bridge safety risks. They have developed 

a corporate risk program that identifies risk, but on top of that you 

need to link those risks with action plans at the division level. So 

we are calling for more clarity on what direction the division offices 

have in order to address those high-priority risks. 

And, third, the last point that was touched on, this whole problem with collecting and analyzing sufficient expenditure information. Because you can’t, right now, tell how much a State is spending on structurally deficient bridges, particularly important ones on 

the National Highway System that carry the bulk of the traffic. 

Acquiring the information to do that is going to be hard, but if 

we don’t start now to improve our current tools, we won’t meet our 

goal. 

So those would be the three major things we would like to see 

done, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Very good. Very, very doable. Very much in line 

with what we were already thinking in our surface transportation 

bill. 

Mr. Gee. 

Mr. GEE. I think the first priority is to make sure that we know 

what we have out there not just in terms of how many bridges that 

we have, but the way they stand not just in terms of structural deficiency or functional obsolescence, but in terms of how much remaining service life we have on individual bridges so that we know 

what the size of the problem is that is coming at us and that we 

can manage it. 

So obviously preservation is a huge part, asset management is a 

huge part of that, to make sure that we manage what we have so 

that we can deal with the challenge in a very comprehensive, systematic and a logical manner. 

Oversight is an issue. We very much appreciate the GAO and the 

Inspector General’s audits. As you know, it was Secretary Peters 

who asked the Inspector General to review us. The reality is that 

in the 1970’s, we had our own auditors, but then we ceded all the 

auditors to the IG through a reorganization, so we don’t have that 

function to be able to audit ourselves in a sense. But we have since 

created a program management improvement team that will continue to help us to improve on our own management of the program. 

The other thing that happened was through some reorganizations more than 10 years ago, we lost some consistency from State 

to State to State. And with these new oversight processes we are 

planning to implement in 2011, we will have a strong assurance 

that we will be able to regain that consistency. And that process 

actually will augment our risk assessments. That tightened overVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:58 Dec 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57562.0 KAYLA
34 

sight process will actually help us identify risk areas throughout 

the country. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is a very important contribution, very important statement. Thank you for that. 

Mr. GEE. And the last point is performance management. As I 

noted in my testimony, the program is very much an eligibility program from our perspective. We have been monitoring bridge performance for over 20 years, but it has been a process of monitoring 

and encouraging the States to address the trend. So we have aspirational goals for the performance, but we do not have the legal 

mandate to engage in an oversight role on the performance side. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You need a legal—you need more legal authority 

for that practice? 

Mr. GEE. I am not prepared to say that yet. But we have been 

working very closely with AASHTO through their Standing Committee on Performance Management to identify performance 

metrics and to begin to talk about what appropriate targets may 

be. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. That is very helpful. 

Mr. Herr. 

Mr. HERR. One thing that we think would be useful in setting 

a broader framework or vision for this would be to define goals, 

have a better understanding of what the national interest is. With 

that there could be a shared vision in terms of where the program 

would be going, and developing metrics that would permit assessing success or the lack thereof. So with regard to bridges, for example, you may have metrics to measure change in condition, but 

those could be tied back to expenditures. 

Some of the questions today that we have been wrestling with 

are how much is being spent, and what are we getting for that? So 

with that kind of framework in place, that would hopefully put all 

of us in a better position in a few years when we come back to look 

at this issue again. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

Mr. KERLEY. As an owner of bridges, I would probably say funding, funding, funding for the top three, sir, but I will give you some 

other thoughts also. 

One, I think that we need to emphasize asset management; we 

need to address those deficient bridges; we need to think about all 

those cusp bridges that are getting ready to fall in that category; 

how can we maximize the money that we have, and the most costeffective thing we can do. We need to emphasize preventative 

maintenance in that particular area. 

And third, we need to go state-of-the-art, both in the inspection 

program and design program, the type of materials that we are 

using for long-term performance supporting, since this is a longterm bridge performance that you mentioned. Those are the things 

that we need to concentrate on now: asset management, preventative maintenance, and use of the state-of-the-art things for the future. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. On that score, and those are very well thought 

out, very pragmatic recommendations that you have made, but go 

back to a point I raised earlier, that we in our future of transportation require State DOTs to develop 6-year strategic investment 

35 

plans. In exchange for compressing the 108 categories of Federalaid highway programs that exist today into four formula programs 

with more flexibility within those four formulas—in exchange, 

States are required to develop 6-year strategic investment plans 

with annual benchmarks of performance and annual reporting so 

there is accountability, transparency and clarity about what States 

are planning to do with the Federal increase—substantially increased Federal funding we will provide in this bill; that within 

that structure, as I just described it, to require States to—this is 

what we have proposed to do—require States to certify they have 

addressed the bridge needs or the surface transportation state-ofgood-repair needs—this would be in our first category—and have 

fully addressed all of the needs they have set forth in their plan, 

and then have flexibility to address such things as capacity out of 

that state-of-good-repair category of funding. 

What is your reaction to that? 

Mr. KERLEY. I guess my first reaction would be the devil is in 

the details, sir. The States are not opposed to performance plans, 

et cetera. I would imagine it would be interesting to see at what 

levels or what performance targets people are setting out there, 

and is there sufficient funding based on where the system is right 

now to meet that goal. So I think as any new program, getting it 

up and running, getting the kinks out, consistency across the country, the implementation of that would probably be a concern that 

we would have initially. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. What we have today is essentially a revenuesharing program. The Federal Government collects the taxes, by 

formula redistributes or distributes those dollars to the States. The 

State DOTs have in the past said, all right, fine, give us the 

money, we will do the job. Now we are saying, we will give you the 

money, but give us a plan first of all; show us how you are going 

to use the money, be accountable to your public and to the national 

public, and through the Council on Intermodalism, which we establish in this bill, to establish a national program. 

Now, that doesn’t mean that Virginia roads are built to the same 

standards as Minnesota roads or to New Mexico roads where the 

temperatures go to 114, 115 degrees, or to ours where they go to 

80 below zero once in a while, but certainly 50 below zero with 

some frequency in the winter, and the snow and the salt loadings 

or the melt material. There are all these variations in climate, geography, geology and travel use that we have to account for. But 

nonetheless, there should be a national program, not just a revenue-sharing distribution program. And where we give States flexibility, as we have seen with the bridge program, they shift the dollars out of the bridge program and then complain to the public and 

to the Congress that, well, we need more money for bridges, when 

they have transferred up to half of the money out of the bridge program to use it on other purposes. That doesn’t resonate well here. 

So, yes, there are a lot of details in this. And we have them all 

available, and we will send you by e-mail the provisions of our restructuring of the surface transportation program, and love to have 

your comments on it. 

All right. Madam Chair, thank you very much for—and to all of 

the Members of the panel for your responses, for your contribution 

36 

today. We will continue this inquiry over the coming weeks and 

months. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your great clarity on some of these issues that are very, very key to us. And I am 

submitting a question for the record in regard to Alameda Corridor, 

Alameda Corridor East, in a race to the train route that goes to delivery of goods to the rest of the Nation, and any of those bridges 

that will be utilized on the train route, whether or not they are in 

need of critical repair, because the Chairman brought up that 

issue, and I think it is important to start dialoguing on that. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I believe this adjourns today’s 

meeting. And we thank the witnesses for their eloquent testimony 

and for being with us today. This meeting is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

37 


Insert offset folio 11 here 57562.011
38 


Insert offset folio 12 here 57562.012
39 


Insert offset folio 13 here 57562.013
40 


Insert offset folio 14 here 57562.014
41 


Insert offset folio 15 here 57562.015
42 


Insert offset folio 16 here 57562.016
43 


Insert offset folio 17 here 57562.017
44 


Insert offset folio 18 here 57562.018
45 


Insert offset folio 19 here 57562.019
46 


Insert offset folio 20 here 57562.020
47 


Insert offset folio 21 here 57562.021
48 


Insert offset folio 22 here 57562.022
49 


Insert offset folio 23 here 57562.023
50 


Insert offset folio 24 here 57562.024
51 


Insert offset folio 25 here 57562.025
52 


Insert offset folio 26 here 57562.026
53 


Insert offset folio 27 here 57562.027
54 


Insert offset folio 28 here 57562.028
55 


Insert offset folio 29 here 57562.029
56 


Insert offset folio 30 here 57562.030
57 


Insert offset folio 31 here 57562.031
58 


Insert offset folio 32 here 57562.032
59 


Insert offset folio 33 here 57562.033
60 


Insert offset folio 34 here 57562.034
61 


Insert offset folio 35 here 57562.035
62 


Insert offset folio 36 here 57562.036
63 


Insert offset folio 37 here 57562.037
64 


Insert offset folio 38 here 57562.038
65 


Insert offset folio 39 here 57562.039
66 


Insert offset folio 40 here 57562.040
67 


Insert offset folio 41 here 57562.041
68 


Insert offset folio 42 here 57562.042
69 


Insert offset folio 43 here 57562.043
70 


Insert offset folio 44 here 57562.044
71 


Insert offset folio 45 here 57562.045
72 


Insert offset folio 46 here 57562.046
73 


Insert offset folio 47 here 57562.047
74 


Insert offset folio 48 here 57562.048
75 


Insert offset folio 49 here 57562.049
76 


Insert offset folio 50 here 57562.050
77 


Insert offset folio 51 here 57562.051
78 


Insert offset folio 52 here 57562.052
79 


Insert offset folio 53 here 57562.053
80 


Insert offset folio 54 here 57562.054
81 


Insert offset folio 55 here 57562.055
82 


Insert offset folio 56 here 57562.056
83 


Insert offset folio 57 here 57562.057
84 


Insert offset folio 58 here 57562.058
85 


Insert offset folio 59 here 57562.059
86 


Insert offset folio 60 here 57562.060
87 


Insert offset folio 61 here 57562.061
88 


Insert offset folio 62 here 57562.062
89 


Insert offset folio 63 here 57562.063
90 


Insert offset folio 64 here 57562.064
91 


Insert offset folio 65 here 57562.065
92 


Insert offset folio 66 here 57562.066
93 


Insert offset folio 67 here 57562.067
94 


Insert offset folio 68 here 57562.068
95 


Insert offset folio 69 here 57562.069
96 


Insert offset folio 70 here 57562.070
97 


Insert offset folio 71 here 57562.071
98 


Insert offset folio 72 here 57562.072
99 


Insert offset folio 73 here 57562.073
100 


Insert offset folio 74 here 57562.074
101 


Insert offset folio 75 here 57562.075
102 


Insert offset folio 76 here 57562.076
103 


Insert offset folio 77 here 57562.077
104 


Insert offset folio 78 here 57562.078
105 


Insert offset folio 79 here 57562.079
106 


Insert offset folio 80 here 57562.080
107 


Insert offset folio 81 here 57562.081
108 


Insert offset folio 82 here 57562.082
109 


Insert offset folio 83 here 57562.083
110 


Insert offset folio 84 here 57562.084
111 


Insert offset folio 85 here 57562.085
112 


Insert offset folio 86 here 57562.086
113 


Insert offset folio 87 here 57562.087
114 


Insert offset folio 88 here 57562.088
115 


Insert offset folio 89 here 57562.089
116 


Insert offset folio 90 here 57562.090
117 


Insert offset folio 91 here 57562.091
118 


Insert offset folio 92 here 57562.092
119 


Insert offset folio 93 here 57562.093
120 


Insert offset folio 94 here 57562.094
121 


Insert offset folio 95 here 57562.095
122 


Insert offset folio 96 here 57562.096
123 


Insert offset folio 97 here 57562.097
124 


Insert offset folio 98 here 57562.098
125 


Insert offset folio 99 here 57562.099
126 


Insert offset folio 100 here 57562.100
127 


Insert offset folio 101 here 57562.101
128 


Insert offset folio 102 here 57562.102
129 


Insert offset folio 103 here 57562.103
130 


Insert offset folio 104 here 57562.104
131 


Insert offset folio 105 here 57562.105
132 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 106 here 57562.106