Delivering the Goods: Public Works

Technologies, Management, and Financing

April 1991

OTA-SET-477

NTIS order #PB91-197939
Foreword

Traffic jams and bridge lanes closed for maintenance create headaches for travelers and

transportation officials, and public works directors would give their eyeteeth to find a way to

solve leaking water pipe and storm water overflow problems. Such vexing difficulties are the

legacies of years of neglect and underfunding for the infrastructure that provides vital public

works services. In 1988, following a number of national studies calling in vain for more

investment in public works infrastructure, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public

Works and the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation asked OTA to identify

ways to change Federal policies and programs to mobilize management, financing, and

technology efforts to make public works more productive and efficient. The Senate Committee

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Subcommittee on Transportation of the

Senate Committee on Appropriations both expressed their interest and concern by endorsing

the study.

OTA identifies several immediate steps the Federal Government could take. First, new

environmental standards, population shifts, and industrial changes have transformed the

nature of many public works problems, and Federal programs must be refocused to fit the new

circumstances. Second, if we expect to maintain our economic health, the Nation must

increase its investment in public works, despite budget dilemmas. As it stands now, critical

infrastructure, such as bridges, Interstate highways, sewage pipes, and water systems, are

breaking down or wearing out faster than we can repair or replace them. The toll on national

productivity is already substantial, and, because infrastructure investment has been declining

for at least a decade, the situation is likely to get worse before it can get better.

Reauthorization of the Federal highway program is the first piece of major public works

legislation to reach the top of the Federal agenda for the 102d Congress. The priorities that

OTA has identified should help Congress in its deliberations on this and other transportation

and environmental legislation and lead to actions that will ensure the continued vitality of our

country’s infrastructure.

Members of the advisory panel, workshop participants, and a host of government,

industry, and private citizen reviewers for this study provided an invaluable range of

perspectives and information. OTA is grateful for the substantial commitment of time and

energy given so generously by each. Their participation does not necessarily represent

endorsement of the contents of the report, for which OTA bears sole responsibility.

/J’z? &# df4@-- >

JOHN H. GIBBONS

Director
Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Advisory Panel

Carol Bellamy, Panel Chair

Principal, Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.

Jon Lee Craig

Chief, Water Quality Service

Oklahoma State Department of Health

David Davisl

Executive Director

New Jersey Highway Authority

Siro DeGasperis

Vice President, Public Affairs

United Parcel Service

Daniel Dudek

Senior Economist

Environmental Defense Fund

Hazel Gluck2

President

Public Policy Advisors

Anthony Hall, Jr.3

. Chairman

Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority

Austin V. Koenen4

Managing Director for Public Finance

Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.

IFom= fiwutive Dhctor, ~Wort

%3rmer Conunis sioner, New Jersey Department of Transportation

*ormer Memher, Houston City Council 4Foma -ging Director, Shearsom bk ‘Umm ‘C”

5Fom@ fiWutive Dir~tor, Chicago Regional TqrtAion Autho@’

Jerome Kruger

Department of Materials Science and Engineering

The Johns Hopkins University

Fred Moavenzadeh

Director, Center for Construction Research and Education

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

James Poirot

Chairman

CH2M Hill

Harry Reed

Planning Director

Arizona Department of Transportation

Burton Stallwood

Town Administrator

Lincoln, Rhode Island

Michael Uremovich

Vice President of Marketing

American President Companies

Theodore G. Weigle, Jr.5

Vice President and Manager,

Surface Transportation-East, Bechtel Corp.

NOTE: OTAappreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members.

The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full nxponsibility for the

report and the accuracy of its contents.

iv
Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

OTA Project Staff

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA

Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division

Nancy Carson,

Science, Education, and Transportation Program Manager

Edith B. Page, Project Director

Jonathan Atkin, Analyst

Julia Connally, Analyst

Walter Diewald, Senior Analyst

Kevin Dopart, Analyst

Sharon Burke, Research Assistant

Karen Mathiasen, Research Assistant

Daniel Broun, Research Assistant

Marsha Fenn, Office Administrator

Gay Jackson, Administrative Secretary

Tamara Cymanski, Secretary

George Branyan, Research Analyst

Ian Freed, Research Analyst

Ketan Patel, Summer Intern

Miriam Roskin, Summer Intern

Andrew Scott, Intern

Contractors

Analytical Services Thomas D. Hopkins

Apogee Research, Inc. Rochester Institute of Technology

Sarah Campbell Rizwan Salim

Robert Gordon Associates Heywood Sanders

Government Finance Research Center Porter Wheeler

L.E. Haefner Enterprises, Inc.

Other Contributors

Federation of Materials Societies, National Association of Corrosion Engineers

Pacific Northwest Laboratory/Battelle through the Department of Energy
Contents

Page

Chapter 1: Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Chapter 2: Institutional Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Chapter 3: Transportation Management and Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Chapter 4: Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Chapter 5: Cross-Cutting Technologies for Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

Chapter 6: Research and Development for Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Appendix A: Fiscal Capacity and Effort Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Appendix B: List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

Appendix C: Workshop Participants and Other Reviewers and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

Appendix D: Contractor Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

vi
CHAPTER 1

Summary and Conclusions
CONTENTS

Page

Intergovernmental Framework ... .*, *., .*. ,., ... *.. *., .*. .*. ***, ***, +

,**, **, ,@**e, m, 6

Federal Decisionmakers .**. ... ... .*. ..*. ... .*. ... ... *.. ... **. .a**. .. **.*4+..*** 7

States ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .*. m

.. ***. ..** .*. .$** *+*. ..*. **+eq+. ..+* .* c.- 9

Local Governments **. .*. .*. ... ., *..**.,...*..,*...*..*...,**.*.,..*****,,*,**,*+ 9

Federal Public Works Management . .,,**,.*,..*,..**..*...*..,*@*,,+***,,*,,*,,*,, 9

Transportation .*. .*. ... ... ..** .*, ... ... ... ... d

.. ... *,*. .*4, **, ,***, **+*, **, *.+m, 9

Environmental Public Works *.. *.*. ..*. *.. ... ... ... ... ... *., .**, ***, ,,, ,, @****, +4 12

Congress ..*. ... .**. ... ... .*. .,*. .,. *.*. **. .,c***, *a** ***o

, **++, **** *6, *,, *6 **# 14

Investment and Financing: Who Pays and How ● ... .*, ,., ,**, ,****** ***4, **, *e+*, *e+* 14

Investment Issues ... ... ... .., ... .*. .,+

. ..+. ,.*. .+. ,**. **. **o * * 4 * * . * * * * * ***,+*.*+ 15

Financing Transportation .*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Financing Environmental Public Work .*. *.. **. **. ..*. ,*. ,.**, +*40 ****, r,, **q, **q 27

Technologies and R&D-Making Public Works Work Better . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Maintaining a Healthy Infrastructure ., .........+.....,..+......,.,.....,.,,.,,,, . 29

Technologies To Increase Capacity . .*..,,..,..,.***.. ,....** *..***,,*,*,.**,, 33

Technology Priorities *.. ..** ... .,. *., .*. .., ... ... ... .,`, .., *, *****o,***,**,,*,,@ 35

Technology Management in the Public Works Arena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Public Works R&DAlmost an Oxymoron ● **..,*.*,.*,...,..,,**..*.,,**..*+**@ 36

Boxes

Box Page

l-A. Trends Affecting Public Works Infrastructure ● *.*. ..*, ,,**. *.. ..*. ,*, e#**, *,e #** 6

l-B. Predicaments of an Older City .*. *.. ..*. .o

. .*, ... .*, *., .., ,****** .,. **, ,* *****4 17

l-C. Keeping Up With Growth .*. ... *.. ... ... ..*. ... *.. ... **. .**. ..a***. e **.4$*.**, 18

1-D. Small Towns and Big Public Works Problems .**. .+ e, *, . + * . * * * * . *, ., * .,,+...*. 30

Figures

Figure Page

1-1. U.S. Department of Transportation ● *+. .*. .*. ..**, ... ... ,.**4, ,*****, *. .*4,,*** 10

1-2. Projected Impact on States of Reduced Federal Aid for Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Tables

Table Page

1-1. Federal infrastructure Expenditures, 1980 and 1989 ● **+.*.**..,...**..,**+.,***. 3

1-2. Traffic Congestion Increases in 15 Major Cities .***   ** . ..*, ,. ****#*,*,****.* 4

1-3. Public Works Management ... ... ... +.. ... ... ... ... ... ... q+...*...**.

+ +**...  8

1-4. Federal outlays, 1960-90 .** . .,.*.*.,...*..,.....**,..*.....*****..**,*,**,,,, 15

1-5. State Fiscal Summary ... .*. .*. *., ... ,.. ... .., .*. ... *.*. 4*. *.** ., *****#+,****, 20

1-6. Priorities for Increased Annual Federal Infrastructure Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

1-7. Major Issues and Problems in Transportation Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

1-8. Federal Expenditures and User-Fee Revenue for Transportation, 1988 and 1989.,.26

1-9. Policy Choices for Transportation . ..*.....,*,*....,*,**,.*,,*,*****,*,*,*****,* 28

1-10. Options for Federal Environmental Public Works Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

1-11. Technology Priorities for R&D for Maintaining Infrastructure Condition . . . . . . . . . 33

1-12. Environmental Protection Agency Laboratories . ., . ., . . . * * * * *,, * . *,, . . *,*.,..,* 36

1-13. Department of Transportation Public Works Research and Development .,,..,,.. 37
CHAPTER 1

Summary and Conclusions

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we

find it hitched to everything else in the universe—John Muir

Smart cars and highways, high-speed trains and

tiltrotor aircraft, drinking water treatment at the tap,

low-flush toilets, and computer-directed sewer inspection robots—how these exotic-sounding

technologies contrast with the traffic jams, potholes,

sewer system overflows, and air pollution that

regularly plague residents in major cities! Most of us

take the services provided by public works for

granted-until they malfunction at our expense.

However, such complacence is foolish, considering

the staggering size of our country’s investment in

public works infrastructure. The value of the capital

stock represented in the Nation’s roads, bridges,

mass transportation, airports, ports, and waterways;

and water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid

waste disposal facilities is estimated to be about

$1.4 trillion, slightly over 20 percent of the country’s total public and private capital stock.l Federal,

State, and local governments currently spend about

$140 billion annually on building, operating, and

maintaining these facilities.

If the infrastructure is so valuable, and technologies have such promise, why are so many public

works systems across the United States outdated,

inadequate, or poorly maintained? A combination of

three factors is largely responsible. First, most of the

basic infrastructure has been in place for at least

20 years (some is a century old) and needs either

major rehabilitation or replacement. Second, shifts

in population and transportation patterns have

overburdened infrastructure in the major urban areas

and left small, rural jurisdictions and rural States

.

struggling to provide adequate services from shrinking economic resources. And last, but perhaps most

important, Federal, State, and local governments

face major budget problems.

The Federal Government has always played a key

role, through financing and promoting new capital

programs for public works, in spurring economic

development. In 1989, Federal contributions totaled

just over $24 billion (in 1982 adjusted dollars), 2.5

percent of total Federal outlays, down from about

$30 billion, closer to 4 percent, at the start of the

1980s. Environmental public works programs, rail,

and mass transit have borne the brunt of the cuts in

Federal infrastructure support; aviation and highways have fared better (see table l-l). State and local

governments have increased their expenditures for

public works, but not enough to makeup for the drop

in Federal contributions, and nowhere near enough

to cope with their problems.

Economists have expressed concern that slowly

ebbing investment in public infrastructure over a

period of years has caused a portion of the decline in

productivity growth in the United States.2 OTA’s

research indicates they are right. Delays due to

highway congestion in major urban regions already

take a toll of more than an estimated $30 billion

annually (see table 1-2), almost one-half of the

roughly $65 billion total spent by Federal, State, and

Table l-l—Federal Infrastructure Expenditures,

1980 and 1989 (in millions of 1982 adjusted dollars)

1980 1989

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $29,863 $23,609

Transportation infrastructure:

Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,584 11,392

Mass transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,732 2,838

Rail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,531 483’

Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,334 5,378

Ports, harbors, waterways. . . . . . . 1,365 1,137

Environmental infrastructure:

Water supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,017 284b

Wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,300 2,097

a~rop ~ ~&nditure reflects sale of Conmil.

b spending figures for water supply in 19S9 reflect repayments of

Farmer’s Home Administration water supply loans.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991. Based on preliminary

Congressional Budget Office estimates, Office of Management

and Budget historical data, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

estimates.

10’IX es~tes, b~ed On ~icia H. M~el~ “why Has Productivity Orowth Declined? Productivity and Public hNeStLUent,’ New Englad

Economic Review, January/February 1990, p. 14.

21bid.

–3-
4 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table 1-2—Traffic Congestion Increases in 15 Major Cities

Annual cost of congestion

Congestion indexa Percent change Total b Per capita

Cities (1987) (1982-87) (in billions of dollars) (in dollars)

Los Angeles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Francisco-Oakland . . . . . . . .

Washington, DC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Phoenix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Houston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Atlanta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Seattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Detroit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Diego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Philadelphia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dallas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minneapolis-St. Paul... . . . . . . . .

Milwaukee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.47

1.31

1.25

1.23

1.19

1.16

1.14

1.11

1.11

1.10

1.08

1.06

1.03

0.97

0.94

20%

29

31

6

1

30

20

4

11

- 2

38

17

22

24

10

$79

2.4

2.2

0.9

1.5

1.1

0.9

6.8

2.5

1.9

0.6

2.1

1.0

0.5

0.2

$730

670

740

510

550

650

580

430

340

480

280

520

530

240

190

Whecongestionindexisaweighted measureofurbanmobilitylevels, andcitieswithvaluesgreaterthan l.Ohavecongestionproblems.Roadsearrylng more

than 13,000 vehicles per freeway lane per day or 5,000 vehicles per arterial lane per day are considered congested.

bcongestion cost is the estimated cost of travel delay, excess fuel consumed, and higher insurance premiums paid by residents of iarge, con9$st$d ur~n

areas.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Aeseesment, based on Texas Transportation Institute, “Roadway Congestion in .- MeJor Urban Areas, 1982to 1987,” Research

Report 1131-2, 1989.

local governments for highways in 19876 (the last

year of the congestion study), and overcrowding on

the roads has increased every year since. However,

reversing the downward trend in public works

outlays will not be easy. It will require fundamental

changes in governmental policies and spending

priorities, and these do not happen quickly.

The 1990s thus loom as a pivotal decade for

public works. Squeezed by demands for every

conceivable type of public service, State and local

officials have postponed routine maintenance and

rehabilitation of vital infrastructure systems for

years. For example, lining the aged water supply

pipes of a major city could have prevented a leakage

rate of almost 40 percent of treated drinking water

over the past several decades, more than enough to

make up shortages during dry spells. The city,

however, has only recently allocated money for the

project, for decades finding expenditures for police,

schools, and caring for elderly and homeless more

pressing.

But many factors other than fiscal woes keep new

management solutions and technologies that could

bring greater productivity and efficiency from being

integrated quickly into public works. Major populaPhoto credit: American Society of Civil Engineers

Delays caused by highway congestion cost the public

at least $30 billion annually.

tion shifts and industrial and technology changes

have occurred over the past 15 years (see box l-A),

creating new public works needs far faster than the

slow movements in corresponding public attitudes

and government policies and institutions. Because

public works programs are easy targets for budget

cuts and wage scales are low, officials are faced by

critical shortages of expert management and technical personnel to plan for, implement, and manage

6u.s. Dep~ent of Transpo~on, FCXJWSI Highway Administratio~ “Selected Highway Statistics and ChartS 1989,” November 1990, P. 19.

Federal experts unofficially state that the costs of congestion may now equal or exceed total highway expenditures, which were $72 billion in 1989.

Anthony R. Kane, associate administrator, Engineering and Program Development Federal Highway Administration personal ccmununicatioq Jan. 28,

1991.
Chapter 1—Summary and Conclusions ● 5

new technologies. Liability concerns in both the

public and private sectors about the consequences of

a new program or equipment that does not perform

well are further barriers to new technologies.

Even if such obstacles were to be overcome,

reaching consensus on the best approach and choice

among new technologies is a Herculean task. While

most people agree on the importance of protecting

the environment and the quality of life, they do not

agree on how to do this in a way that nourishes rather

than saps economic vitality. Ironies resulting from

attempts to address these divisive concerns can be

seen across the country. Although the Nation has

been a world leader in developing and implementing

environmental protection policies, residents of many

of the largest cities confront air quality problems tied

to traffic congestion that threaten the quality of life

in their communities. Los Angeles, for instance,

installed new computer-managed traffiic signal

equipment, improving traffic flow by 10 to 20

percent: at significantly lower cost than constructing new highway lanes. But the city still has the

worst traffic congestion and air quality in the

country, and public debate continues to rage over

what to do next. Californians (and residents of other

States with large, urbanized areas) must reach

agreement on land-use requirements, travel alternatives, and funding for new transportation options,

and will probably have to accept major changes in

priorities and lifestyles to resolve environmental

concerns.

Finding solutions to such complex problems is

hard enough, even when known technologies can do

the job, but choosing among new technologies (that

might do better) is even more difficult, because so

little is known about how they will actually perform.

Only the Federal Government has the resources to

support large-scale, applied research and development (R&D) programs for public works, and these

have been cut drastically or neglected in recent

years. Now, no significant, comprehensive, Federal

technology research and support programs exist for

State and local governments seeking advice about

solutions to long-range problems. Until appropriate

new technology choices are obvious, governments

will do well to give priority to upgrading and

rehabilitating existing facilities to keep them functioning as efficiently and productively as possible,

while the search for abetter answer continues.

Although budget dilemmas make dramatic increases in Federal spending for public works unlikely, if more investment in certain crucial areas is

not ensured soon, the negative impacts on transportation efficiency, industrial productivity, and national competitiveness will cost the country dearly.

OTA concludes that changes to Federal program

management, investment policies, and R&D are

needed now, if the opportunities that technology

offers for public works are to be fully utilized.

Immediate attention should also be given to

developing programs to determine the most

promising new technologies for public works and

long-term strategies for implementing them. In

brief, the most important steps for Congress to take

now to make public works more productive and

efficient are to:

●

revise Federal investment policies and program

management to address today’s concerns by

making current systems more productive

through available technologies, by maintaining

existing infrastructure, and by planning and

budgeting for future needs, using a comprehensive systems approach to both transportation

and environmental problems;

increase Federal public works funding selectively and use Federal programs to leverage

State and local spending, so as to boost the total

annual national investment in public works by

up to 20 percent initially and to ensure regular,

subsequent, annual increases;5 and

collect information that will enable the government to refocus support for short-term R&D to

target applied technologies that will improve

the condition, extend the life, and increase the

capacity of existing public infrastructure; then,

using the data as abase, develop and implement

long-term systems R&D programs to address

future needs.

Recognizing that Federal policies for public

works urgently need review, Congress asked OTA to

assess infrastructure problems across the country

and to pay special attention to the problems of small

systems and the opportunities for privatization and
6 ● Delivering the GOOdS: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Box 1 -A—Trends Affecting Public Works Infrastructurel

Demographic Trends

The U.S. population is projected to increase by 32 million people between 1990 and 2010, with middle-age

categories showing the most growth. The South and West accounted for 90 percent of population growth in the

1980s. These regions will continue to expand the fastest, and California and Florida will grow the most, Population

in the Midwest is projected to decline. Almost all new population growth is expected to occur in the suburbs of major

metropolitan areas, where almost two-thirds of the metropolitan population already lives. One-quarter of the

population now lives in the seven largest metropolitan areas. Of new metropolitan area jobs, three-quarters will be

in the suburbs.

Implications for Public Works

Strong demand for transportation services by the growing numbers of middle-aged baby boomers and growth

in vehicles per household will cause travel to outpace both population and economic growth, and increase traffic

congestion, particularly in and between suburbs and in newer cities built without consideration of mass transit.

Demand will rise for mass transit and more efficient intercity travel. Already deep, the divide will widen between

service needs and fiscal capabilities of urban and rural jurisdictions. Environmental dilemmas will intensify,

particularly air quality and waste disposal problems in metropolitan areas and water supply issues in Florida and

the Southwest.

Economic Trends

The shift from goods production to service delivery will continue, with production employment dropping 16

percent by 2000 and service employment increasing 13 percent. The Nation’s labor force growth rate will slow,

Primarily because the supply of younger workers is shrinking. More flexible manufacturing technologies will

encourage decentralized manufacturing and just-in-time delivery. Demand for transportation of industrial raw

materials will drop, but overall transportation demand will expand, especially for lightweight, high-value products.

This will put a premium on speed and reliability-values likely to favor air and truck transport, although rail can

be competitive in certain corridors. Changes in communications and transportation will accelerate economic

globalization, encouraging growth around selected deep-water ports and major airports.

Implications for Public Works

Highway travel is expected to double over the next 30 years, putting an enormous burden on existing roadways,

To compensate for the adverse economic impact of slower labor force growth, both public and private sectors may

invest more heavily in transportation to improve the speed and efficiency of travel and transport. Economic

IT~~~& @ ~ysis in this box me based on rnateri~ in U.S. Department of Transpomtio% Natio?lul fi@SpW&@I’0~ $*@@Pt@W@#

W.@ (Washington DC: March 1990), ehs. 1-5, and OTA research. I

public-private partnerships. Building on the conclu- lntergovernmental Framework

sions reached in OTA’s special report to Congress

on State and local public works,

6 this report examines the public works decisionmaking framework

and suggests changes in management, financing,

and technology that could lead to both robust

economic development and environmentally sound

transportation and environmental public works systems. This chapter identifies short-term tactical

options and long-term strategic goals for Congress

to consider, and points to ways to set priorities for

more productive and efficient public works services.

Additional background and supporting details and

findings appear in chapters 2 to 6.

Public works provide environmental and healthrelated services and underpin productive transportation networks, and they must function efficiently or

economic vitality and the quality of life will decline.

Strong, mutually supportive intergovernmental partnerships and continuous interchange with industry

and other concerned groups are essential to shaping

appropriate policies and programs. The Federal form

of government has long served the country well,

because it provides multiple opportunities for debate

and discussion before decisions are taken. However,

the present intricately complicated intergovernmen6u.s. CoWess, Offlce of Twkology ASSeSSrnen& Rebukiing the Foundations. A Special Report on State andhcal Public wOrk5 Financing and

Management, C)TA-SET-447 (Wa.shingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1990).
Chapter l—Summary and Conclusions ● 7

globalization means west coast ports and intermodal connections will become increasingly important as Pacific

trade grows. The need to expand capacity and improve intermodal connections will intensify around international

and domestic airports.

Environmental Trends

The economic and political importance of environmental preservation and restoration issues will accelerate.

While pollution from heavy industry may decrease as a result of economic restructuring, the challange to control

nonpoint sources of air and water pollution will grow.

Implications for Public Works

Communities will continue to invest heavily in air and water pollution control and drinking water system

improvements and in complying with Federal and State standards. Collection and disposa1 of solid waste and facility

siting are becoming dominant issues. Environmental service needs already place a heavy burden on most local

budgets, and as more regulations are implemented the fiscal burden is very likely to worsen (see table A-1). As the

link between transportation and the environment is better understood, the environmental impacts of all proposed

public works projects will be scrutinized carefully by public and private groups. Air quality issues are likely to be

major determinants of public policy on transportation and land use. If worst-case projections are correct, global

warming and rising of water 1evels will affect infrastructure in coastal areas.

Energy Use Trends

Transportation accounts for approximately two-thirds of all petroleum use, an amount that equals imports, and

of that over 70 percent is consumed by highway transport. Substantial increases in world energy and petroleum

demand and uncertainty of supply are expected to lead to much higher energy prices. Fuel efficiency of new cars

doubled between 1973 and 1988, and many see the

potential for further improvement. Table A-l—Public Works Cited as Having

Major Cost Impacts on Cities

Implications for public Works

Despite rising petroleum costs, major modal Percent of cities

shifts are unlikely, although the cost-effectiveness of Public works requirement citing Impacts

transit and other nonhighway transport will increase. Solid waste disposal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7W0

Traffic improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Higher gas priC&S may limit discreti~~ trips ad ~eqemilection a~dt~ea~~”t 66

58 Over the long run encourage I’nore Compact develop- o~”kl”~ ~atw ~uP#Y ~~ trea~n~ 111 42

ment, but unless costs are radically higher, h@way SOURCE: Nat/0~1 ~Que cf (xt~~, city FXWA COMWM h mxI

travel demand will continue to increase. (Washington, DC: July 19%)).

tal framework (see table 1-3) frequently overtaxes oped policy options for each. Over the longer term,

the decisionmaking process and impedes new policy

development in public works as effectively as a

major accident stalls rush hour traffic.

A word about OTA’s approach to analyzing the

broad scope of public works infrastructure is appropriate before beginning more detailed discussion. At

every governmental level, environmental public

works are managed and financed differently from

transportation programs and operations. Longstanding and disparate methods of funding and

Federal/State/local institutional relationships for

each type of service are major roadblocks to

integrating environmental with transportation infrastructure management and programs. Moreover,

successful improvements seem more likely in the

foreseeable future, with continued separation.

Consequently OTA addressed environmental and

transportation public works separately and develincorporating both systems within a comprehensive

Federal infrastructure policy could be useful, but

attempting such a step now would involve too many

changes to existing conditions.

Federal Decisionmaker s

The constitutional separation of powers requires

that the executive branch, Congress, and the courts

share responsibility for developing and implementing Federal policy. For example, to ensure that the

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) carry

out its intent, Congress may write detailed requirements and standards into legislation. This very

specificity may ensure that complex standards find

their way into the courts. (Further information about

these Federal checks and balances of power as they

affect public works will be found in chapter 2.)
8 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table 1-3-Public Works Management

Players Public works role

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Executive agencies controlling public

works construction and regulations:

EPA, DOT Army Corps of

Engineers, and Bureau of

Reclamation

Other executive agencies:

Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OMB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Private sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Interest groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Congress authorizes programs, appropriates funds, and sets regulations. Multiple committee and

subcommittee functions hamper comprehensive policymaking, and may delay change.

Agencies assign, instruct, regulate, and finance public works facilities. Modal and media-based

administrative structure hampers integrating programs; implementation of regulations dominates EPA activities.

Treasury sets revenue policy, including criteria for arbitrage and tax exempt bonds, which affects

cost of raising capital for some public works projects.

OMB reviews agency budgets and regulations and has a strong influence on regulatory and

spending policies.

Courts interpret and enforce legislation and regulations pertaining to public works programs.

Judges set program requirements and standards. Litigation lengthens rulemaking process and

implementation, but resolves disputes.

States fund and construct public works and set and enforce regulations. Activities vary by State

according to philosophy and fiscal capability. States play a major role in highways and enforcing

environmental regulations, and are enlarging their role in other public works areas.

Local governments design, construct, operate and fund public works, set Iocal policy, and deliver

service within Federal and State program regulations. They have full responsibility for

funding and operating most environmental programs. States limit fiscal options of local

governments.

Private firms are major users of public works. Also, they construct (e.g., highways and treatment

plants) and operate facilities (e.g., drinking water and solid waste disposal facilities).

Groups influence legislative and executive branch policies through lobbying, and pursue specific

objectives through litigation.

The public creates service demand, but their resistance to taxes and service charges limits public

works spending and allows maintenance and improvement to be deferred. Individual lifestyle

preferences determine land-use and transportation patterns.

KEY: EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; DOT - Department of Transportation; OMB. Office of Management and Budget.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991-.

Executive branch management is critical in shaping

the emphases of Federal regulatory programs, which

in turn play a major role in affecting State and local

approaches.

Executive Branch

Executive branch responsibility for public works

is shared by a major department (DOT), an important

independent agency (EPA), and parts of three other

Cabinet departments. These are the Department of

Defense (DoD), through the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, which is responsible for flood control,

harbors, and inland waterways; the Department of

the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation,

which has built a number of dams, mostly for power

generation, but some of which supply water; and the

Department of Agriculture, which includes the Soil

Conservation Service, whose water programs affect

both water supply and wastewater treatment.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

uses its authority to mod@ the budget and regulatory proposals of executive departments, a power it

has used extensively to hold down spending for

public works in recent years. Enormous departmental effort must be expended and extraordinary

congressional unity must exist to alter the effects of

OMB review.

Congress

Congress is a key player in public works decisions, with almost one-half of its 304 committees

and subcommittees having jurisdiction over some

aspect of public works. This widespread oversight

authority provides fertile soil for intercommittee

conflicts, discourages good communication between

committees on common issues, and enables executive branch agencies and industry interest groups to

play committees off against each other. An interest

group that has been unsuccessful in making its case

for a special cause to one authorizing committee, for

example, can lobby another committee with related

responsibilities or go directly to a friendly member

in the hope of having a special clause inserted into
Chapter 1—Summaryanci Conclusions ● 9

an appropriations bill after the authorization process

is over. “It’s done all the time.”7

The Courts

The courts are the final participants in the Federal

policymaking arena. Their impact may be gauged by

noting that about 80 percent (see chapter 2) of EPA’s

standards and requirements go through litigation

before becoming effective. Thus the courts’ decisions balance private property and individual rights

against public health and safety in areas of great

scientific uncertainty.

States

Driven by the slump in Federal financing and

stagnation in Federal management and by the

pressing needs of local communities, many States

have developed their own public works strategies.

These include regulatory and land-use management

controls as well as funding partnerships with local

governments. For example, California has moved to

control the environmental consequences of explosive growth, enacting State air quality requirements

more stringent than Federal standards. New Jersey

and Washington State, among others, have created

State support programs to help local jurisdictions

fund public works improvements (see boxes 2-A and

2-B in chapter 2). Florida has enacted a requirement

that local jurisdictions develop long-range land-use

plans tied to capital budgets and regional and State

plans. Oregon has developed land-use guidelines

encouraging high-density housing and development

along local mass transit corridors. Other States must

follow their lead before long, for most have numerous local jurisdictions with the same critical infrastructure concerns.

Local Governments

Responsibility for managing, operating, and

maintaining over 70 percent of all public works

facilities and services is borne by the Nation’s

83,000 local governments. Each worries about

funding schools, jails, and the aging and homeless as

well as potholes, collapsing bridges, leaking water

mains, stormwater-caused sewer overflows, traffic

gridlock, siting a new landfill, or expanding the

airport according to the jurisdiction’s geographic

location, population, economy, natural resources,

and a host of other factors. Most of the fiscal and

political tools that local officials may use to address

these problems are determined by the States.8 Since

the bulk of Federal financial aid goes to States, local

officials, who must face angry constituents directly,

often feel they are being held responsible for

policies, service failures, and other events that are

outside their control.

Transportation arteries and pollution do not stop

at political boundaries, and despite their power over

local jurisdictions, no State, not even large and

relatively prosperous California, can solve all its

public works problems alone. OTA concludes that

the interlocking nature of Federal, State, and

local responsibilities for public works services

makes a compelling case for strong Federal

leadership. It is time for the Federal Government

to acknowledge the broad impacts of its role in

public works and to work aggressively to create

a policy framework that addresses current problems and shapes the future.

Federal Public Works Management

At its best, the system of Federal checks and

balances ensures thoughtful, comprehensive actions. At its worst, it can result in contradictory

policies and stalemate. Federal public works management provides examples of both the best and the

worst; however this document focuses on the latter

to indicate where change is needed most. Although

comprehensive reviews of transportation and environmental issues preceded legislation creating the

agencies, few substantive alterations have been

made to the management framework of either DOT

or EPA since the agencies were formed.

Transportation

Legislation creating DOT in 1966 established

independent administrations for each transportation

mode, a departmental structure that remains unchanged (see figure l-l). Although virtually all of

DOT’s offices have some impact on public works,

those with direct responsibility include the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Railroad

Administration FRA), the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA), and the Maritime

Administration (MARAD). FHWA, FRA, and

T~C~el Ure~OViC4 ~iw ~residen~ Wketing, Ameriean President Companies, personal commtimtio~ Apr. 18, 19~.

8For more dewed ~omtiom See office Of Tw~OlOgy Assessment, op. cit., fOO@lOte 6, ChS. 3 ~d 4.
Figure 1-1—U.S. Department of Transportation

Secretary

Deputy Secretary

I

Office of Board of

Civil Rights Contract Appeals

L I I I

c1Assistant Secretary

for Policy &

International Affairs r

Assistant Secretary

for Budget and

Programs

J

I I I 1

Assistant Secretary

for Governmental Assistant Secretary

Affairs for Administration F== i

I I

Office of

Inspector General

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1990.
Chapter l—Summary and Conclusions . 11

UMTA collect data, set standards, and administer

grant programs for highways, railroads, and mass

transit, respectively, but have no operating responsibilities. Unique among the modal agencies, FAA

regulates, manages, and operates the air traffic

control system, the basic electronic infrastructure for

the aviation right-of-way. MARAD is primarily

concerned with the commercial aspects of ocean

ports and the shipbuilding industry.

The Secretary of Transportation and his office

were given responsibility for coordinating and

managing the modal administrations to create a

multimodal, national transportation system. However, no deputy or assistant secretary position was

created to support a systems management approach,

and the authority given to the modal administrators

has effectively prevented every secretary to date

from carrying out this charge.

In any case, DOT management of a folly multimodal system is impossible, because responsibility

for the harbor and inland waterway infrastructure

system rests with the Corps of Engineers. The Corps

built and continues to operate and maintain the

Nation’s waterways and to maintain the ports. In

these respects, management of the infrastructure for

waterborne commerce is largely Federal.

Systems Management

Industry shippers moving goods from factory or

farm to market need fast, smooth trips, while

travelers of all types want safe, easy journeys. Yet

traffic jams on urban roadways, often made worse by

maintenance projects, cause hours of frustration and

costly delay, and have become major contributors to

air pollution problems. Important segments of the

Nation’s transportation system are overcrowded or

worn out (sometimes both) and need renewal. Yet no

Federal programs collect information relevant to or

target intermodal system improvements that would

make modal transfers faster and easier for either

people or freight.

Finding ways to increase system capacity and

handle greater demand without constructing new

rights-of-way poses enormous challenges. New technologies can marginally increase the capacity of

infrastructure, but they are often expensive and

eventually reach structural limits. A systems management approach that makes full use of all modes

and encourages carrying the same volume of passengers or cargo on fewer vehicles could address

congestion, air quality, and energy use problems.

Intermodal Transport

DOT agencies still manage each mode as a

separate, independent system, rather than a contributor to an integrated system that has complex

intermodal connections in large, metropolitan areas.

The steps taken by Secretary Samuel K. Skinner in

early 1990 to develop a national transportation

strategy and improve systems management by

focusing on intercity movements and the impacts of

economic, social, and environmental factors on

transport are moves in the right direction.9 However,

the Department has missed out almost entirely on the

major industry shift to multimodal transport, which

requires intermodal transfers. DOT has no data

collection or management mechanisms in place to

use in analyzing or resolving the resulting issuessuch as that of overweight maritime containers,

which cause severe highway damage when transferred to trucks.

While recognizing that reorganizations often do

not change longstanding attitudes and behavior,

OTA concludes that unless steps are taken to

institutionalize an integrated, multimodal approach within DOT, the existing strongly segmented modal structure will continue to prevail.

One way to effect change would be to create surface

transportation programs that support intercity passenger, urban, and freight transportation, and connections to ports and airports. Over the longer

term, DOT could be restructured in divisions by

broad mode—aviation, surface, and water transportation-or by function, such as metropolitan

passenger and intercity freight transportation.

Separating any of the current modal responsibilities from DOT would be counterproductive to

long-term national transportation policy goals.

Reforming congressional oversight, by consolidating responsibility for transportation authorization

under fewer committees, could support a restructured DOT.

One way to integrate management of water

transportation into the national system would be

to shift civilian water transportation authority

from the Corps of Engineers to DOT, as was

originally envisioned when DOT was created. The

W.S. Depar&nent of Transportatio~ Moving America: New Directions, New Opportunities (Washington DC: February 1990).
12 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

rationale that the system is necessary for defense

purposes is no longer any more applicable to

waterways than to aviation. Consolidating the waterrelated agencies already in DOT would also make

good management sense.

The Corps of Engineers: Time for a Change

As its defense-related responsibilities dwindle,

the role of the Army Corps of Engineers deserves a

fresh look. The Corps has a vast reservoir of technical

expertise and research and engineering capabilities

that could supplement other Federal resources, for

both environmental and transportation public works.

One possibility is to create, based on the civil

functions of the Corps, a semiautonomous national

engineering agency analogous to, but different from,

the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Such an agency could undertake public engineering

projects, such as the wetlands restoration activities

the Corps is now doing under its agreement with

EPA, and programmatic activities as well. With its

nationwide network of regional and division offices,

the Corps is well suited to develop more effective

applications and transfer programs for technologies

initiated in the national laboratories and technical

assistance programs targeted at public works engineers. The new civil Corps could be an independent

agency or function under the auspices of either the

Department of Commerce or DoD.

The engineering capabilities of the Bureau of

Reclamation overlap to a certain extent with those of

the Corps, occasionally creating competition over

projects. As the roles of these agencies are reexamined, consideration could be given to merging the

duplicative aspects of their respective missions and

redefining the remaining activities to improve governmental efficiency.

Environmental Public Works

EPA’s responsibilities are spelled out through the

specific requirements of a number of laws, such as

the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the

numerous laws affecting pesticides, fertilizers, and

wastes. Standard setting and enforcement activities

for “ drinking water, wastewater treatment, and solid

waste disposal are each overseen indifferent offices,

headed by associate administrators. Although its

complex standards affect public services provided

by every local government and many private entities

and used by every citizen, the Agency has never

Photo credit: Army Corps of Engineers

The Army Corps of Engineers has effective technology

development programs for its engineers across

the country.

been given a substantial budget for planning, technical assistance, or public information and education.

The statutes determining EPA’s activities have

led to creation of an organizational structure under

which each section of the agency pursues separate

activities (see chapter 4 for further details). These

programmatic divisions are reinforced by court

decisions related to specific laws and by State laws

or programs, making setting priorities for overall

environmental protection a daunting challenge.

Standards and Enforcement

EPA has been required by legislation to set and

implement standards for drinking water contaminants, wastewater treatment, municipal solid waste,

and other environmental protection activities simultaneously with a reduction in Federal contributions

for State and local construction grants. The Agency

is thus in the position of having to enforce compliance with standards for public works, which may or

may not provide a jurisdiction with additional health

benefits commensurate with the costs of the facility

and technology. The question must be raised of

whether it is responsible government to take enforcement action for noncompliance with new standards that impose unreasonable costs relative to the

health benefit, if no Federal assistance is available.
Chapter l—Summary and Conclusions ● 13

Figure 1-2—Projected Impact on States of Reduced Federal Aid for Public Works*

I

Relative fiscal impact

I Low to average High

72 percent of the U.S. population 8 percent of the U.S. population

lives in these States Iives in these States

Average and above Very high

17 percent of the U.S. population 3 percent of the U.S. population

lives in these States Iives in these States

 established an arbitrary 50-percent reduction in Federal aid to evaluate the impact on each State.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on information provided by Apogee 

At a minimum, given the widespread gaps in

financial abilities, technical information, and

management know-how, Congress will want to

address the issue of environmental enforcement

policy for public systems facing severe fiscal

stress imposed by Federal mandates. As figure 1-2

indicates, over one-quarter of the States and 11

percent of the population potentially fit this category. One option is development and implementation of a formal strategy and program for staging

compliance requirements. This could be coupled

with stepped up Federal development and fielding of

lower cost technologies for compliance. Adequate

funding for outreach and information programs,

research, and evaluation of enforcement priorities is called for.

Systems Management

The current EPA administrator is attempting to

heighten the awareness of the interactions within the

environment and to take steps to incorporate these

into the Agency’s programs, but it is far too early to

tell whether the efforts will have any effect. Clarification of enforcement policy and the need for
14 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

environmental systems management could be included as part of legislation to make EPA a Cabinet

department to bolster his efforts. However, whether

or not the Agency becomes a department, legislative

direction could help the EPA administrator (or

secretary) to improve policy coordination and communications between the sections of the Agency and

ensure that environmental public works requirements reflect the ways natural systems interact.

Congress could enact legislation requiring EPA

to protect and manage the environment as a

complex system and to clarify the role of the

Agency in assisting public jurisdictions in complying with environmental standards. Such a

mandate would not guarantee improvement; as

discussed elsewhere in this chapter, DOT has such

a mandate for transportation, which it has not

fulfilled. Nonetheless, such an action would provide

additional leverage for broadening the present

media-specific programs. Consideration could also

be given to establishing formal mechanisms for

regular review of cooperative programs for EPA, the

Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Reclamation

to avoid duplication and maximize resources.

OTA concludes that the fragmented congressional and executive branch responsibilities for

public works impede setting policy goals that

could lead to better investment decisions, more

effective management, and better use of technologies. Research for this study showed that better data

collection and program management changes are

needed now, to address the needs of State and local

governments and industry and ensure adequate

investment and wise policy and technology decisions.

Difficult as management changes are, it would be

unrealistic to assume that efforts made now to

update Federal activities would continue to be

appropriate for the indefinite future. Rather, the

reverse is true; Federal public works programs and

policies must be understood as dynamic and subject

to rigorous periodic review and revision to keep

them relevant and focused appropriately.

Congress

The current, atomized congressional oversight

structure for public works is both inefficient and

counterproductive. To cite a recent example, during

the course of research for this study, OTA searched

in vain for staff members on the committees with

authority for financing or tax matters who had

consulted with staff on public works committees

about the impacts on States and municipalities of

changes to the tax requirements for municipal bonds.

The response from every committee staffer contacted was the same, “No, we didn’t look at that.”

It took more than 2 years of sustained effort on the

part of local officials to reverse sections of 1986 tax

legislation that severely hampered their revenue

raising ability .10 Financing, budget, and appropriations committees need to take into account the

broad impacts of Federal tax and fiscal policies

on the other governmental levels responsible for

public works operations, areas in which authorizing committees have expertise.

More thoughtful consideration of the complexities of public works issues and better policymaking

might occur if Congress chose to review and

consolidate widely dispersed committee responsibilities and develop better communications between

committees of jurisdiction. If a complete overhaul of

committee responsibilities is too daunting a task,

special or ad hoc committees could be established to

develop legislation on system problems-for example, to clarify EPA’s mandate and identify important

future directions for the agency.

Congressional oversight and responsibility for

transportation needs reevaluating, with the goal

of diminishing modal rivalries and developing

legislation that leads to integrating the modes

into an effective, national transportation system.

At a minimum, mass transit responsibility could be

consolidated with that for highways in the Senate,

and the committees responsible for railroads could

develop close working relationships with those with

jurisdictions over highways and ports. Annual joint

authorizing committee meetings and more frequent

joint staff meetings to hammer out legislation that

reflects the actual intermodal connections of the

transportation system are other options.

Investment and Financing:

Who Pays and How

[the State’s duty includes] . . . erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public

institutions . . . because the profit could never repay

10A de~~ &mssion may be fo~ in Of&e of Technology Assessment, op. cit., fOotQOte 6 p. 49.
Chapter 1—Summary and Conclusions ● 15

Table 1-4-Federal Outlays, 1960-90 (in percent)

1995d

1960 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990d

(projected)

National defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 42 26 23 27 25 22

Human resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 39 52 53 50 51 56

Physical resourcesb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8 11 11 6 7 4

Net interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7 7 9 14 15 9

Otherc

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 4 4 3 2 9

Total Federal outlays

(in billionsof current dollars) . . . . . . . . $92 $196 $332 $591 $946 $1,197 $1,477

a[nd~es Medbare, income security, and social SSdty.

bl~~e$ tran$wrtation, natuml r=our~, and environmental and community development.

clnducfea general government and undlstributsd offsetting IWeipt$.

d~timat~.

SOURCE: Office of Technology ksessment, 1991, bassd on Office of Management and Budget data.

the expense to any individual. . . though it may

frequently do much more than repay it to a great

society.14

Federal infrastructure programs have developed

over many years to meet the concerns of the period,

usually for purposes of national defense and economic development. As industrial and societal

patterns have changed, the Federal Government has,

with a few exceptions, found it far easier to add

programs and requirements than to refocus or

eliminate the existing ones. (Presidents Carter and

Reagan were among the exceptions; each was quite

successful in reducing the number of Federal support

programs.) Although the importance of modem,

well-maintained public works systems to National,

State, and local economies should be a powerful

impetus for changing outdated Federal policies,

tremendous unmet needs accumulate well before

Federal programs can be restructured to take account

of them.

While several national studies over the past

decade have recommended substantially greater

investment in public infrastructure,15 no sense of

emergency has developed to spark the kinds of

changes in social and fiscal policies and political

attitudes that could make this happen. Over the last

30 years, Federal budget priorities have emphasized

payments to individuals for social and health programs (see table 1-4) over investment in infrastructure. To ensure that some support for public works

continues, dedicated trust funds fed by Federal user

fees have been developed for transportation projects.

Despite these funds, however, the overall trend in

Federal policy and budget decisions has been to turn,

slowly but steadily, to greater cost sharing by States

and local governments.

Investment Issues

Federal programs have long supported economic

development by providing capital support for construction of new facilities and heavily subsidizing

some types of infrastructure while leaving States and

local governments responsible for others. Never

robust, Federal support for environmental public

works, has dropped steadily, while at the same time,

numerous strict environmental requirements affecting suppliers of municipal service providers have

been enacted. Laws mandating Federal standards

for environmental public works that dramatically raise local government costs while simultaneously phasing out most remaining Federal aid

seem perverse. Moreover, the emphasis on capital construction and the prohibition of assistance

for improving operations in most Federal transportation programs is outdated. Lack of space,

high costs, and environmental considerations

sharply limit the opportunities to build new highways or airports in urban areas where more capacity

is most needed. Other solutions are called for. As

Congress considers refocusing Federal investment

policies for public works, the following issues are

important to keep in mind.

14A&In srni~ The Wealth ofNations (Bungsy, hffo~ ~~d: Tk ~~$rpr$$s, 1979), P. 379.

15N~ti~~ comcfi on mbfi~ wor~ ~provaen~ F’@/e FO~~~O~: A ~eporf on A~riCu’S p~zic wor&s (wsshiI@~~: February 1988)

is the most recent. The Council called for up to a doubling of public works expenditures, a general guideline which has since been supported by several

studies of special segments of public works, particularly the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Municipal Pollution Control, 1988 Needs

SurveyReport to Congress (Springfiel& VA: National Technical Information Service, February 1989).
16 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Photo credit:Ameffcan Consulting Engineers Council

As communities in the South and West, such as Las

Cruces, NM, grow at a rapid rate, expansion of

environmental public works becomes necessary.

Fiscal Capabilities

State and local governments must balance their

budgets annually, and right now, many face serious

budget problems, exacerbated by the economic

slowdown in late 1990 and early 1991.13 Competition for revenue is keen among State agencies, with

costs for Medicaid consuming a full 30 percent of

some State budgets—in New York and Massachusetts, for example. Major population shifts and

economic changes, such as the growth in the sunbelt

States and the losses in some “rustbelt” cities and

farm and prairie States, mean that some States will

have much greater difficulty than others increasing

their support for public works.

State fiscal problems can have a devastating effect

on local governments, although some jurisdictions

are in more vulnerable positions than others. Financing public works improvements is difficult for major

urban areas, where public funds must meet other

urgent demands, such as adequate housing, police

protection, and schools. For some older cities where

populations and tax bases are declining, maintenance has been deferred because of tight funding,

causing serious decay in public works. As a consequence, public facilities provide inadequate service

or function inefficiently, and are very costly to

rehabilitate (see box l-B). These cities need help,

but not every State is willing or able to provide it.

In other large urban areas, particularly in the

South and West, rapid suburban growth and weak

planning and land-use requirements have made

developing an efficient transportation network seem

impossible. In many such cities traffic congestion

has slowed rush hour highway travel to 10 miles per

hour averages. While their infrastructure needs are

growth-related, they are likely to be as great as those

of older cities. However, the economic base they can

tap for funding is both broad and deep-and it

includes private sector firms eager to participate in

a growing market (see box l-C).

Another type of problem marks the poorest States

and those with many small, rural systems. These

barely have the resources to maintain existing

systems and will find new construction to meet

Federal environmental requirements prohibitively

costly. (States in this category are indicated in figure

1-2 shown earlier.) Because Federal transportation

grants have targeted capital construction and because of population and economic changes, some

States have more of some types of public works than

they can afford to maintain-such as the miles of

Interstate highways in large Western States like

Montana. Both small and large jurisdictions in rural

States and large, older jurisdictions with huge public

works backlogs and inadequate economic bases

need more financial and technical aid.

As it reexamines public works investment policies, Congress could consider giving more Federal

support to those States (and cities) where economic

resources are limited and service needs are very

high. How high a tax burden a State already places

on its citizens (see table 1-5 for a summary) is

another factor that could be considered. O TA

concludes that Federal investment in selected

segments of public works must be increased to

leverage State and local investment in growth

areas and supplement resources in economically

weak areas. Otherwise, the gap between local

jurisdictions’ ability to provide essential public

services and the need for the services will continue to grow, with potentially serious consequences for the National, State, and local economies. The most important targets for higher Federal

ls~ce of Toclmo]o~ Assessment, op. cit., foolnote 6, pp. 57-61.
Chapter 1—Summary and C-occlusions ● 17

Box I-B—Predicaments of art Older City

The condition of public works in Philadelphia epitomizes the predicament of many large, older central cities.

Capital outlays needed to replace and upgrade its public works contrast starkly to the city’s fragile fiscal condition.

Water and Sewer Needs-Parts of the city’s drinking water and wastewater treatrnent systems are over 100

years old and need extensive restoration and replacement. The City Water Department has proposed a $456-million

capital improvement program for 1991 -96.1 Although drinking water currently satisfies U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency regulations, officials are concerned about the feasibility and costs of meeting anticipatedFedmal

standards for byproducts of corrosion (lead arid copper) and disinfection. Under court order since 1979 to improve

its wastewater treatment system, the city has rebuilt and upgraded treatment plants and eliminated ocean dumping

of sludge, but the system, especially the supply piping, still needs major rehabilitation.

To finance the sewer and water improvement package, the Water Department must raise an additional $44

million annually beginning this year. The department initially proposed a 56-percentrate hike on top of a 20-percent

raise in 1986, but recently adopted a plan to raise $27 million through increased rates and to cut expenditures by

$16 million.2 The department’s high percentage of low-income customers makes covering all improvement costs

through rate increases practically impossible. In fiscal year 1990, department collections fell $20 million below

expenditures.

Transportation Needs—The capital cost to maintain and improve the regional highway and transit system

and build some additional capacity is estimated at $14 billion spread over the next 20 years.3 Projected operating

costs, which include maintenance, are $4 billion for highways and $19 billion for transit. The city must bear most

of the cost because many central city highways and subway facilities are in poor condition, exacerbated by years

of inadequate maintenance. A 1985 study showed the city investing only 35 percent of the funds needed annually

for street and highway maintenance and rehabilitation and 62 percent of those for mass transit’s capital and

maintenance needs. Comparing current outlays for regional transportation with recent needs estimates, the region

will have a 40-percent investment shortfall.4

Fiscal Status--Philadelphia’s fiscal problems are as serious as its infrastructure deficit. While employment

in Center City Philadelphia continues to expand the jobs are increasingly for high-level executives, managers, and

technical support personnel, many of whom live and pay their taxes outside the city. The city’s tax base is eroding,

and fully 60 percent of all work trip travel is now intrasuburban.s In August 1990 the city’s chief accounting officer

warned that in 9 months the city might not have enough money to pay its bills, despite plans to borrow heavily.6

The city’s bond rating has been downgraded to junk-bond level, precluding new long-term borrowing and forcing

officials to put together short-term credit packages to avoid insolvency.7 To reduce expenditures, officials have cut

operating programs; the police force is down 2,200 officers from its high in 1977,8 for example. For help, local

officials are looking for State and Federal aid and authority to raise local taxes and fees.

7-2.

spending for infrastructure are indicated in table 1-6; for transportation by about that amount in the 1990

those with stars need the largest relative increases. budget, which should raise State expenditures, since

most Federal appropriations require State matches.

Although budget negotiations are always arduous, Moreover, State and local public works administraa 20-percent increase in total national infrastructure tors should be able to spend 20 percent more without

investment seems both achievable and relatively being overwhelmed, as they might be by a sudden,

modest. Congress increased Federal appropriations giant leap in funding.
18 ● Delivering the GOOdS: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance — —

Box 1 -C—Keeping Up With Growth

Population in the Houston metropolitan area more than doubled between 1960 and 1980 and now totals about

3.2 million, although the rate of growth has moderated. Houston has no zoning regulations, and unregulated

development and unswerving devotion to private automobiles have created a low-density land-use pattern hard to

serve efficiently with public transportation and sanitary facilities and have overloaded local streets and highways.

Highways and Public Transit—In 1980 voters approved a l-percent sales tax to support the struggling Metro

Transit Authority (METRO). Now 10 years later, METRO is spearheading a voter-approved metropolitan

‘‘mobility plan,’ that includes purchase of new buses to replace the existing, aging fleet, completion of a system

of transit ways to speed bus service, and a $600-million roadway improvement package to widen and resurface

existing streets and build overpasses and underpasses at congested intersections. The roadway improvements were

started first, and over 70 of 200 street projects are complete or under way, financed by the dedication of 25 percent

of the sales tax revenues.l

Development of a rail transit system is the most controversial plan element. Critics complain that a rail system

is not needed in Houston and that ridership can never justify the $1 billion investment, but METRO officials point

to Los Angeles’ freeway gridlock and air pollution problems as an example of what happens when a growing city

relies exclusively on automobiles and highways for too long. The alignment for the rail line is still under discussion

but a decision is expected in spring 1991; the financing package includes Federal funds ($115 million has already

been committed), private sector contributions, and METRO funds.2

Drinking Water—During its years of rapid growth, Houston relied heavily on developer-built groundwaterbased systems, but when subsidence (a sinking of the earth caused by groundwater loss) problems became acute,

the State stepped in, setting up a regional authority to regulate water withdrawal from aquifers. Houston must switch

to drawing its drinking water predominately from local lakes and rivers and is investing millions of dollars, in new

facilities, including a new treatment plant and miles of additional pipelines to transport water to the city.

Furthermore, costs for electrical power for treatment plants and chemicals used in treatment are expected to

increase,3 In addition, the city is replacing lead paint-lined storage tanks and 2,500 miles of small (less than 6-inch)

pipe with larger more reliable lines.4 To finance these improvements, Houston has increased user charges steadily:

l~~ony w.~jr., “we Don’t N4 Another Vote onktil,” Houston chronicle, WY 27, IW) P. 1P”

@unter Koetter, “W Can Help Houston Avoid Los Angeles’ Mistake,” Hozmon Chronicle, June 24, 1990, p. 5F.

sci~ of HOw@ T=w, “~lx Off3cial Statement” regarding Water and Sewer System Revenue Bond Issue, Aug. 15, 1990.

‘%ity of Houston Public Utilities Departmen~ “Water Production” August 1990.

Regulations and Compliance ever, the legislation gives little flexibility for responEPA estimates that total annual costs for the

Nation’s municipalities must rise from about $33

billion in 1987 to at least $54 billion (in 1988

dollars) by 2000 to meet some, but not all, of the new

and proposed solid waste, water supply, and combined sewer overflow standards.14 Small systems,

serving fewer than 10,000 people, will be required to

fund $6 billion in capital improvements to meet just

one set of requirements, those of the 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. Many will

need financial assistance to do s0,

15 and meeting the

standards or deadlines may be impossible.l6 Howsible Federal, State, local, or private sector officials

to develop innovative or cost-effective ways to

comply. Policies that make local governments responsible for meeting Federal environmental mandates without commensurate Federal investment

raise questions of fairness.

User Fees

Policy makers at all levels of governments must

continually balance the objective of user pays with

development goals and issues of ability to pay. To

encourage development and because public works

are regarded as a necessary service, user charges

ldApOgeeReSe~h ~c., The COSr OfEnvlrOn~nta/Pro(eCtlon(Washingto~ DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wlce of tie ComP~olleL

January 1990), p. 14.

W.S. Environment~ Protection Agency, Ofllce of Drinking Water, republished s~data based on the Regulatory Impact Analyses prepared

in accordance with Executive Order 12291, Nov. 27, 1989.

160ff1ce of Technolo~ Assessment, op. cit., footnote 6, p. 11 ‘7.
Chapter 1—Summary and Conclusions . 19 ——

t

21 percent in 1987,9 percent in 1988, and 6 percent in both 1989 and 1990. The typical residential customer uses

7,000 gallons per month.5

While the scale of Houston’s water system requires enormous capital investment, its size also supports the

scientific and management capability to cope with Federal and State compliance requirements, which can

overwhelm smaller systems. After finding that local laboratories could not provide the sophisticated water quality

tests required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at a reasonable price, the city expanded its own

laboratory, increased staff, and invested in automated equipment to do the testing. A special research and regulatory

evaluation group evaluates the effects of proposed regulations on Houston’s system, investigates technologies, and

develops new treatment schemes. City officials maintain the staff work has paid off, because their unit costs are

down, 6 but they remain concerned about complying with proposed standards for contaminants such as radionuclides

and disinfection byproducts.

Wastewater Treatment—In 1987 the Texas Water Commission issued an administrative order fining the city

$500,000 for permit violations and sewer overflows and establishing a compliance schedule for operational and

capital improvements to meet Federal effluent discharge limits.7 Since then, Houston has invested about $800

million in plant upgrading, consolidation, and new construction, and extensive sewer expansion and rehabilitation. 8

While the system now meets all EPA and State standards, the city plans to spend an additional $1.1 billion between

1991 and 1995 to replace narrow, worn-out lines and rebuild lift stations. These improvements are being financed

by EPA grants, revenue bonds, developer impact fees, and user charges. As part of its financing package, the system

will issue approximately $174 million in low-interest revenue bonds through the EPA-financed State Revolving

Fund in 1990. User charges, which back the bonds, are set annually by the city council and currently average $19

a month.9 Rates climbed 22 percent in 1985 and 1986 and more recently have risen about 8 percent a year-a trend

that is expected to continue unless new Federal environmental regulations for cyanide, pesticides, and toxic metals

require larger increases.

sci~ of Ho~to~ op. cit., fOOtnOte 3.

61bid,

7~d.

8Ci~ of HouSton ~blic Ufities Departm@ “Improvements in the City’s Wastewater System 1982- 1990,” AUWt 19W.

%or to 1974, Houston charged a flat household rate of 75 cents for wastewater treatment.

have traditionally been set below full capital, companies, for instance, have long flourished in

operating, maintenance, and replacement costs. 17

General revenue subsidies are usually necessary to

cover capital costs, although in growth areas,

beneficiaries may contribute land or cash to capital

projects, reducing government costs. While user

fees can be increased by every level of government to correct existing underpricing, Federal

and/or State financial assistance for local governments will be essential for most capital projects,

especially for those jurisdictions with low percapita incomes and large public works backlogs.

Privatization and Private Sector Financing

Under circumstances where demand for certain

services is likely to be high, private entities find

investment in public works, particularly environmental services, attractive. Private water supply

many jurisdictions, as have private solid waste

disposal companies. If private companies providing

environmental public services can meet EPA and

State standards, overcome public opposition on

issues such as siting for waste disposal facilities, and

make a reasonable return on investment, they can

find multiple market opportunities.

However, private firms succeed in providing

low-cost services primarily in situations where the

market is large, and stable or growing. Many

communities that must make major investments in

public works are simply unable to generate adequate

revenue from user fees to attract private capital. In

other areas, private firms capture the lucrative

segments of the market, leaving the less profitable

ones for public agencies.

17u.s. Conmss, con~essjo~ Budget OffIce, New Directions for the Natiom’s Public Works (WashingtoIL W: U.S. Government Mting Hl%

September 1988).
20 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . .

. .

. . :: : : : : ; :

. . . . . . . .

. .

. . := : : : : : :

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . 3 8 .

. . . . . .

j ~ ~ : ~ .#j ; .; 4 .-

-& o ~ ~ 3 g= MMOG ax—=—=

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

.O : . .

% : ‘. :

~z;g ~

% $ij g ~ “g

~

i %

.

- 

c “ a

.- .- .- 2X2;;
Table 1-5-State Fiscal Summary-Continued

Fiscal a effort Personal Number of

Per-capita rank, 1988 income tax Gas tax Interstate

income, 1989 (1 = highest revenue per Sales tax rate, 1990 miles rated Wastewater

State (in dollars) effort) capital 1987 rate, 1988 (in cents) deficient, 1988 needs, 1988

L -—

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . .

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . .

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . .

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . .

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . .

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . .

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$15,446

19,269

20,267

23,778

13,401

21,073

15,198

13,563

16,373

14,154

15,919

17,269

17,950

13,654

13,685

14,694

15,702

13,079

16,371

18,927

17,649

12,345

16,449

14,508

12

50

51

34

17

1

39

11

25

33

16

36

23

20

32

42

45

9

21

40

13

41

6

14

Average

No tax

No tax

Average

Low

High

Average

Low

Average

Low

High

Average

Average

Average

No tax

No tax

No tax

Average

Average

Average

No tax

Average

High

No tax

Lowb

Highb

No tax

High

Averageb

Lowb

Lowb

Highb

Averageb

Lowb

No `tax

High

High

Average

lowb

Highb

Highb

Average b

Low

Lowb

Highb

Highb

Averageb

2 2 )

18

16

11

16

8

22

17

20

16

18

12

20

16

18

21

15

19

16

18

22

20

21

9

Low

High

Low

Low

Low

Average

Low

High

High

High

High

Average

Low

Low

Low

High

High

Low

Low

High

Low

Low

High

Low

low

High

Average

High

Low

High

High

Low

High

Low

Average

High

Low

Low

Low

Average

High

Low

Low

Low

High

Average

High

Low

b~lo~bn=lsstaxpermittd.

C ~imat= ~ the relative sate -t t. build all ne~sd pu~~~ oti wastewater tr~tierlt facilities to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.

SOURCE: Offios of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on variety of Federal and State data summaries.
22 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table 1-6-Priorities for increased Annual Federal Infrastructure Spending

(*) Star indicates priorities for largest increases.

20-percent increase in

1989 Federal spending’ spendingb (in billions

(In billionsofdoilars) . Priorities of dollars)

Mass transit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rail (passenger) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Airports and airways total . . . . . . . . . .

Ports and waterways total . . . . . . . . . .

3.5

0.6

6.6

1.0

Surface transportation total . . . . . . . . . $17.9

Highways and bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.8 *Maintain and improve condition of existing

facilities.

*Expand system capacity through

implementation of existing traffic management

techniques, HOV and smaller lanes,

signalization, and automated toll facilities.

R&D on advanced teohnologies, e.g., intelligent

vehicle/highvvay systems.

improve intermodal connections.

Expand transportation system capacity and

efficiencybyadding transit ways and improving

intermodal connections, stations, terminals,

and parking facilities.

Modernize equipment and rehabilitate rails.

Modernize oapital equipment.

*implement high-speed rail in overcrowded

corridors.

Complete National Airspaoe System Plan.

Expand system capacity through other

advanced surveillance, guidance, and

communications technologies.

Expand system capacity with airport and runway

construction.

*improve intermodal connections.

Continue to maintain and rehabilitate existing

facilities.

Expand capacity on a selective basis.

improve landside (intermodal) connections.

Address environmental issues

Transportation total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.5

Environmental public works,

Including wastewater and drlnking

water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 *Construct, rehabilitate, and upgrade treatment

facilities and collection and distribution

systems, especially in large, eider cities and

small communities.

*R&D of low-met technology and technical

assistance for small communities and to

overcome widespread resistance to

innovation.

Data collection and analysis of environmental

system risk and assessment of regulatory

consequences.

$21.5

1.2

30.6

3.4C

7.9

Total Federal spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.3 34.0

Total all levels of government. . . . . . . 140.0 168.0

a F~eral spending totals include some nOnlnff8StrUOture 8Xp817ditUrSS, SUCh x for safety.

b A2&pe~fi i~re~ is hypotheti~l. However, for$ufl= t~nsportation, itappmxi~tes the impaot Ofspndlng the current Highway Trust i%d b$ho$

over a 5-year period.

C -we F~~~l b~g~ pmj~iom for~t~e=~fu~lng forenv]~nmental pb]]cwo~, the $3,4 billlon Wwld b more than a 20-pSil128nt k10rM8

over current plans for Federal spending.

SOURCE: Office of Twhnology Assessment, 1991.
Chapter 1—Summary and Conclusions ● 23

The”. . . potential advantages of privatization are

probably slightly greater in solid waste disposal than

toll roads, . . .“18 and transportation may or may not

provide equally appealing private investment opportunities. The elapsed time between project conception, approval, and completion of construction is

often a matter of years; work has just begun on

publicly funded highway reconstruction projects

that have been on the drawing boards for more than

a decade, for example. This lengthy and uncertain

timeframe poses difficulties for private investors. In

addition to acquiring a site or right-of-way, the

challenges facing private entrepreneurs wishing to

participate in the large public works market include

meeting Federal environmental requirements and

obtaining approval of State supervisory bodies.

Developers seeking to build a private toll road in

Virginia, for instance, encountered numerous delays, first, in acquiring State permits, and subsequently in the Federal environmental impact assessment process. In addition, a real estate slowdown

made some land owners, who had been eager to

donate land for the highway hoping to reap returns

on future development, much less interested in the

deal, and some have held out for payment.l9

Nonetheless, California plans four private transportation projects for construction on State-owned

rights-of-way; arrangements permit return on investment from tolls and the value added by the privately

developed transportation facilities.20 Time will tell

in both States whether the returns will be adequate

to satisfy the private investors and also acceptable to

State administrators charged with protecting the

public interest.

Financing Transportation

The Federal trust funds for highways, mass

transit, aviation, and waterways provide States and

localities with more substantial Federal support for

transportation projects than environmental public

works enjoy. However, the variety of ways that

Federal aid supports each transportation mode has

led to different modal infrastructure problems (see

table 1-7). When the Federal Government takes

financial responsibility for maintenance and operations as well as assisting with capital costs for

construction, transportation infrastructure has generally been kept in good condition. Infrastructure for

harbors, inland waterways, and aviation falls into

this category. While delays occur on the most

heavily used portions of these (basically Federal)

systems, more active demand or traffic management

techniques can eliminate most of these capacity

problems.

Surface Transportation

Surface transportation has drastically different

characteristics, because Federal financing and investment have shaped actions taken by the State and

local governments and some private entities (in the

case of railroads and transit) that are responsible for

infrastructure. State governments provide slightly

more than 50 percent of highway funds, with about

22 percent coming from the Federal side, and the

remainder from local governments. The emphasis in

Federal programs on capital construction has made

the State and local governments the owners of a far

flung road system and a number of bridges, all of

which need regular maintenance if they are to

provide acceptable service. However, operations

and maintenance are left almost entirely to the State

or local owner (for further details, see chapter 3), and

fiscal constraints have caused almost universal

cutbacks and deferrals for maintenance and rehabilitation programs.

Because their revenue raising options are limited

by State laws, many local governments have not

been able to fired road and bridge maintenance

programs adequately. Many systems need operating

improvements, too, to relieve delays caused by

increases in traffic. But most large cities simply have

not invested adequately in basic operational

improvements, such as advanced traffic signal

systems, largely because Federal grants are not

available for the purpose.

Intercity passenger rail (Amtrak) receives Federal

support for capital expenditures and about 30

percent of its operating costs. Intercity freight rail

receives virtually no Federal support, except for

18JO= A. Gomez-Ibanez and John k MeYti, “The Prospects for Privatizing Infrastructure: L%sons From U.S. Roads and Solid Waste,” paper

-~*the titi~emon The Third Deficit: The Shortfall in Public Investment sponsored by the FoderalReserve B@ of Bostou HanvichPo@

M& June 27-29,1990.

%villiatn H. All- vice presiden~ Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, k., ~b~ed remarks at the OTA Workshop on Transportation

Infrastructure Technologies, July 25, 1989.

%~Oti Departmmt of T~“OQ Office of Privatization ‘Cprivatizatiou” unpublished document, October 1989, P. 1.
Table 1-7—Major Issues and Problems in Transportation Public Works

Transport mode Condition Capacity Environment Management and investment

Highways and bridges . .

Mass transit . . . . . . . . . . .

Rail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ports and waterways . . .

Airports and airways . . . .

10 percent of roads and Congestion and delays Air quality; land use; noise

42 percent of bridges rated increasing in many urban and

deficient. suburban areas; excess

capacity in rural areas.

Structural deterioration of rail Excess capacity available in Bus emissions

systems in older, urban areas. most rail and bus systems.

Generally good for large Excess capacity on most lines. Waste disposal on Amtrak trains;

railroads; problems due to for high-speed trains: noise,

deferred maintenance on land use

some regional and shortline

railroads.

With a few exceptions, locks, Locks are the bottlenecks on the Dredging and dredged material

dams, protective works, and inland waterways; delays can disposal; noise, land use, and

channels are generally in good exceed 2 days at a few locks. surface traffic problems at

condition. ports

The condition of airport and The number of available Aircraft noise in communities

airway facilities rarely runways at the busiest airports surrounding airports; surface

impedes traffic. is the greatest capacity traffic congestion due to

constraint. The staffing levels airports

and technological capabilites

of certain airway sectors can

be sources of delay.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

Life-cycle management needed; large

capital investment would be required to

expand urban roadways to meet

demand-a temporary solution, at

best.

Roadway management enhancement

needed to improve bus transit; lifecycle management and financing for

rail transit; little recent R&D investment.

Federal operating subsidies are needed

for Amtrak to ensure reliable commuter

rail services. Adequate, stable capital

equipment funding could be

established to help modernize the fleet

and to expand capacity.

Transportation users, especially on the

inland waterways, require much

greater General Fund subsidy than

other transport modes; no cost sharing

by non transportation beneficiaries of

navigation projects.

Constructing new airports or physically

expanding existing airports will be

difficult for most immunities.

Technology advances could effectively

expand existing capacity by up to

20 percent.
Chapter l—Summary and Conclusions ● 25

small amounts to construct safety improvements at

grade crossings and intermodal transfer facilities,

where highway monies have been used for some

construction. Services provided by both Amtrak and

freight railroads help relieve road congestion in

major metropolitan areas.

Federal Grant Programs-Existing categorical

grant programs for highways, which require only a

10 percent match for Interstate highway construction

and up to a 25 percent match for other types of

projects, have made States target capital construction and Interstate projects in particular, even when

these may not be their most pressing requirements.

To ensure that States also increase their own funding

and that Federal funds are used for projects that are

local priorities, Congress could establish larger

and more uniform match requirements for

grants. For example, if the State and local match

were set at 70 percent for all projects, from

Interstate highways and railroad improvements

to mass transit and airports, local priorities

would not be skewed by the availability of

Federal money for capital construction or for one

mode over another. A slightly higher Federal

match could be made available for States with the

fewest resources. Still a further possibility is to

recognize the level of effort expended by each State

to fund public works programs. For a profile of State

resources and expenditure levels, see table 1-5 again.

Some economists suggest that significantly higher

State match requirements should be accompanied by

open-ended Federal grants to provide maximum

leverage for State spending; however, such a program would be politically very difficult to shape.21

User Pays v. General Fund Subsidies

Many major capital projects could never be built

without Federal support, but the wide variation in

Federal support for transportation modes has meant

that some projects have been constructed that will

never bring adequate financial return on investment

measured in strict economic terms. Some of these

projects, especially mass transit, commuter rail, and

intercity passenger rail, bring transportation system

and other societal benefits that justify even greater

public subsidies. However, users of heavily subsidized systems that have excess capacity, such as

many ports and waterways, and those that provide

premium service, such as peak-hour aviation and

commuter expressways, could pay more of their own

way.

A comparison of the transportation problems

summarized in table 1-7 with the funding patterns in

table 1-8 highlights the need for revising Federal

transportation investment and program policies. One

option is to raise waterway user fees, particularly for

recreational boaters, who are not now subject to the

Federal marine fuel tax. Imposing a Federal axleweight tax on heavy trucks is an equitable way to

recoup the costs these vehicles impose for highway

maintenance and rehabilitation above the amount

they pay in fuel taxes.22 Other options include

eliminating restrictions on highway tolls and other

forms of user funding for public works constructed

with Federal funds. Tax treatment of parking and

mass transit subsidies for employees could be

equalized.

A Federal transportation pricing policy reflecting

the full spectrum of system costs would incorporate

operating and maintenance costs, as well as calculation of pollution and other indirect costs. It would

encourage higher capacity passenger transport operations, such as car pooling, mass transit, and

commuter rail, and mechanisms to reduce total

energy use and environmental damage.

Fuel Taxes-are the major source of Federal

revenues for transportation. Ideally, raising the

Federal gasoline tax would encourage higher vehicle

occupancy and more efficient use of the highway

system, help address traffic congestion and air

pollution problems, and reduce the need to build new

highways. However, politically the Nation does not

seem ready to accept fuel tax hikes of the magnitude

necessary to make these sorts of impacts. Slow,

steady, annual increases are more acceptable politically than large, sporadic escalations, especially

when coupled with plans to raise appropriations

yearly. Furthermore, annual Federal fuel tax increases could assure States of a more reliable

funding stream and enable them to do better

long-range transportation planning. For example, a

4-cents per gallon increase in Federal motor fuels

taxes could be followed by increases of 2 cents per

21~wmd Mo&~ich, ~tF~c@ h&iS&UCtUE Investment: Should Money Be l’htown at the Third Mficit?” paper ~sen~ at ~CO~er~

on The Third Iktkit: The Shortfall in PubIic Investment sponsored by the FederaI Reserve Bank of Bosto~ Harwich Por6 MA, June 27-29, 1S90, p.

5.

22Ke~eth A. Sti et ~., l?OCUJ Work (WashingtO~ DC: The Brook@ htitutioQ 1989), P. 21.
26 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table 1-8-Federal Expenditures and User-Fee Revenue for Transportation, 1988 and 1989

Federal expenditures User-fee revenuesa

Revenues as percent

(in millions of dollars) of expenditures

1988 1989 1988 1989 1988 1989

Highway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14,424b

$13,898 b

$14,288 $15,856 99% 11470

Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,316’ 3,595’ 1 ,019d

1 ,017d 31 28

Rail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570” 594” NA NA NA NA

Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,19215,748f3,189 3,664 61 64

Ports and waterways . . . . . . . . . . 1,3839 1,4369 203h

223h15 16

a DO~ not induds interest reoeived on trust fund bdanCSS.

b lml~= fu~s o~lay~ for F~~al Highwq Administration, National Highway Traff~ ~fety AdminiSt~tion, Forest service for forest roads and trolls, and

Bureau of Indian Affairs for road construction.

c Indud~ ~~tal and operating grants and limited research and development (RaD) spending.

d Revenue ~ur~ is 1 -oent per gallon from motor fUd t-.

e Amtr~ funding and limited Federal RaD spending.

f ~=notim[udeexpenditures fOrNational Aemnauti=and S~~AdrniniStmtiOn, NatiOnalT~nSportatiOn ~fetyward, or Department of Transportation

Office of the Secretary.

9 Corps of l%gineersout[aysforharborswat~ays. Does not include Maritime Administration, Federal Maritime Commission, CoastGuard, or Panama Canal

Company outlays.

h 1~1~= Inland Wateway Trust Fund, Harbor Maintenan~ Tmst Fund, and St. Lawrenm seaway Tok.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Economics, Federa/ Transportation F/nanA/

StatMcs, Rwa/ Years 1979-1989 (Washington, DC: May 1990).

year until the amount dedicated to transportation

doubles the current 14 cents.

Because user-pays policies can adversely affect

some classes of users, Federal decisions about

raising user fees may require complementary actions

to ensure that transportation is available to all. For

instance, if an axle weight or other special tax were

enacted for heavy trucks, this should be considered

when other surcharges affecting trucks are evaluated.

Trust Fund Balances

Regardless of other steps taken to equalize

national transportation support, Congress will need

to find a way to address the issue of the transportation trust fund balances. Set up to be reliable

mechanisms for financing highways, mass transit,

aviation, and ports and waterways, transportation

trust funds currently have large balances that are

constant irritants to State and local officials facing

massive project backlogs. Simply stated, Federal

budget problems have so restricted expenditures that

trust fund revenues (user fees paid for transportation

services) have substantially outpaced allocations for

transportation programs. Congress took a step toward addressing this issue when it raised 1991

spending ceilings for transportation programs; highway appropriations for 1991, for example, are close

to 20 percent higher than those for 1990. By

sustaining Federal spending for transportation at a

level above trust fund revenues, fund balances can

be effectively eliminated over 4 or 5 years. However,

the overall domestic spending limits set in the 1990

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act require transportation to compete with other domestic programs

for increased dollars. Thus, continued controversy

seems inevitable unless a new budget agreement is

forged.

Spending Priorities

The biggest problems for transportation infrastructure are inadequate capacity in major metropolitan regions and substandard conditions in many

facilities across the country. For the short term, the

top priorities are to redirect Federal investment

toward programs for maintaining, upgrading, and

extending the lives of existing systems and for

increasing system capacity through technologies

and management techniques. Under some circumstances, capital construction may be the best option.

Broadening categorical grant programs to permit greater flexibility for State and local governments in using trust fund monies, especially for

maintenance programs, is probably the best way

to ensure that short-term capacity and condition

needs are met.

Next in importance are reshaping Federal policies

so that they encourage fair pricing and efficient

infrastructure use and increase State and local

spending, thus raising the total national investment.

Making more Federal monies available for passenger and commuter rail and mass transit are options

for improving the efficiency of transportation system use. Although commuter rail and transit have

long been considered primarily regional or local

services, a compelling case can be made for their
Chapter 1—Summary and Conclusions ● 27

importance to interstate commerce, since each

represents an alternative way to increase highway

capacity in urban areas. Congress could also permit

States and jurisdictions to use surface transportation

grant funds for mass transit and passenger and

freight rail improvements, if doing so is a priority to

their regional or State transportation system plans.

Because Amtrak provides an invaluable alternative in heavily urbanized regions that have

crowded highways and airports, a portion of an

increase in Federal surface trust fund monies

could be allocated to Amtrak for capital expenditures to enhance rail service. Surface access

improvements that smooth connections to ports

and airports and intermodal connections and

transfers are other potential projects. Traffic

signal improvements using some of the advanced

vehicle and highway technologies reviewed in

chapter 3 could reduce surface traffic congestion

somewhat in urban areas. For rural areas, special

attention could be paid to the mobility and freight

transport needs of small communities, where no

alternatives exist to private vehicles. Table 1-9

shows the trade-offs associated with the choices.

For the longer term, an intensive Federal effort

should be started now aimed at developing and

implementing a strategic policy and applied research

agenda for transportation to evaluate the trade-offs

of alternative ways of addressing overcrowded

intercity corridors and urban traffic congestion. This

program must have funding support and participation from all the transportation modal administrations and from the industries that will benefit.

Financing Environmental Public Works

As Federal support for environmental public

works has declined and new environmental requirements have become effective, many local governments will be hard pressed to meet the costs of

upgrading their systems (see box l-D). Costs will

more than double for about 20 percent of small, rural

systems and some older, urban areas, the very

jurisdictions that are least attractive to private

investment and are hardest hit by declining Federal

funding. 26 Under these circumstances, such cities

are likely to find the aggregate fiscal impacts of

combined sewer overflow control, solid waste disposal, and hazardous waste requirements more than

they can handle in the immediate future. Funding for

programs to comply with the new standards will

compete with higher costs for schools and mandated

social programs.27 Moreover, real interest costs for

public infrastructure have more than tripled over the

last two decades, creating a bias toward short-lived,

lower cost alternatives, which may cost more over

the long term.28

OTA concludes that EPA has not come to grips

with the compliance issues likely to occur because

of the fiscal impacts of multiple new requirements on public works providers. Furthermore,

widespread noncompliance with the new regulations is likely, especially among small systems

and the Nation’s oldest and largest cities, unless

State and Federal financial and technical assistance is increased.29 Options for technical assistance

include development and field demonstrations of

new, durable, and cost-effective technology options

for both small and large systems and development

by EPA of guidelines, based on addressing the most

serious health and safety problems first and staging

those projects where no unreasonable health risk

exists (see chapter 4 for further details). Such

guidelines could be useful for EPA, States, and local

jurisdictions alike for setting priorities to schedule

compliance and avoid enforcement actions.

Dedicated Revenue

Federal budget constraints notwithstanding, OTA

concludes that the costs of compliance will be so

burdensome that a congressional effort to address

the issue is warranted. Congress could consider

establishing a dedicated source of Federal revenue to support State programs that assist localities in complying with EPA standards. The source

could be a broad-based tax, such as a dedicated

income tax surcharge, or a special-purpose fee, such

as a carbon product or waste generator surcharge. If

=Policy Pltinning and Evaluation, k., “Municipal Sector Study: Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Municipalities,” unpublished report

prepsred for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 1988, p. ii.

zv~lce of Technology Assessment, op. cit., f~~ote 6.

~Accordingto estimates by the U.S. Army Corps Of ~s. L. George Antle, chief, NavigationDivisiou Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, personal communicatio~ July 20, 1990.

%vironmental Protection Agency offlciala consulted by OTA are concerned about potential noncompliance, but warn of the difllculty of making

accurate predictions. One agency expert estimated that the number of jurisdictions in noncompliance might quadruple.
28 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table 1-9-Policy Choices for Transportation

Goal Action Trade-offs

Coordinate national “ ‘“- “ ‘- -- “ - “ ‘ “

transportation policies

and treat transportation

as a system.

Encourage proper

maintenance and

management of existing

and future public

infrastructure. improve

condition and ensure longevity of systems.

Ensure that future

transportation

investments reflect

economic and social

needs but are costeffective.

Reduce congestion and

delay, and increase

capacity.

Institutionalize a multimodal system by restructuring the Department of Transportation (DOT).

Consolidate policymaking along broad modal

lines (aviation, surface, and water) or functional

categories (metropolitan passenger and intercity freight).

Make commensurate changes to congressional

committees.

Transfer fiscal and management authority for

water transportation from the Army Corps of

Engineers to DOT.

Modify spending restrictions on Federal funds to

favor maintenance over new construction,

where appropriate; establish incentives for implementation of systematic maintenance programs.

Give State and local authorities flexibie options for

generating revenues for transportation.

Link Federal General Fund payments for transportation more dosely to national transportation

benefits and needs.

Tie Federal capital investment to long-term planning and financial support of system.

Encourage physical expansion of infrastructure.

Support technology development and implementation to increase capacity of existing systems

with technologies.

implement market policies that change transportation demand patterns, such as congestion

pricing, access restrictions on low-occupancy

vehicles, and eliminating tax bias in favor of

parking lots and employee parking. . .

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

Could reduce the number and extent of conflicting Federal

policies and encourage decisions that address both

competing and complementary aspects of transportation systems. But Structural change is difficult and can

be disruptive in the short term. No guarantee of

effectiveness.

Would consoilidate all civilian transportation authority within

DOT. Problems in integrating Corps functions should

disappear overtime. But: Water resources aspects must

be considered.

Would encourage local authorities to give priority to

maintenance. Using Federal funds for operations and

maintenance, training, and supporting technologies

could reduce total infrastructure costs over the longterm.

But Does not address capacity issues.

Could elicit substantial funds from tolls on federally funded

highways, passenger facility charges at airports,

congestion pricing, direct charges for infrastructure

wear. But Programs would require dose oversight to

ensure that new charges are equitable and that the

monies are invested in transportation.

Would provide Federal incentives for more effident system

use. But would require new revenue sources to keep

aviation and water systems operating. Service for

hardship communities depends on continued general

subsidies.

Should encourage transportation system construction

appropriate to the financial resources of users and other

non-Federal interests. But Requires State and regional

planning and funding.

Could be a cost-effective option for increasing capacity.

But Environmental concerns, land-use restrictions, and

high capital costs limit this option. in congested areas,

delay reductions maybe temporary as latent demand

fills the new capacity.

Can provide marginal (generaly less than 20 percent total)

gains in infrastructure capacity. But in most cases,

users would need to invest in new equipment.

Could shift traffic to underused times and locations and

carry the same passenger or cargo volume on fewer

vehicles. But Complementary actions and Federal

oversight to ensure affordable transportation options to

all users would be necessary.

financial assistance is not feasible, a search for other gress could double the remaining authorization to

solutions should be undertaken. $7 billion and expand the programs eligible for

State Revolving Funds funding from SRFs to include drinking water and

solid waste management. Although both water

Short-term options include expanding funding supply and solid ‘waste have traditionally been

and functions for EPA’s State Revolving Fund financed locally, the scale of investment needed to

(SRI?) program. Rather than phasing out Federal meet new standards is beyond the capacity of many

contributions by 1994 as currently scheduled, Con- communities and their State governments.
Chapter I—Summary and Conclusions ● 29

Planning and Training

OTA’S research also indicates that environmental

public works planning for facilities and resource

management is inadequate in most localities, and

that many States and localities have difficulty

attracting adequately trained personnel. Without a

firmer commitment by States to planning and to

implementing a coordinated land-use planning and

capital budgeting requirement, local environmental

problems are likely to worsen. Ensuring adequate

and safe water supplies and providing wastewater

treatment capacity in fast growing regions are

among the types of issues that must be addressed. A

Federal requirement for State funding support for

planning and training is one option. If agreement is

reached on a dedicated source of funds for

environmental public works, a requirement for

each State to use a certain percentage for these

purposes could be included. Table 1-10 summarizes a variety of legislative options and their

trade-offs.

Technologies and R&D—Making

Public Works Work Better

Countless new technologies, such as system

condition assessment and maintenance tools, communications, navigation, and information systems,

and field construction techniques and better materials, have been developed in national laboratories,

universities, and industry research departments.

Many of them, with some adaptation, could help

public works officials address both condition and

capacity problems, do their jobs more productively,

and make their systems operate more efficiently (see

table 1-11). However, the technologies are often

expensive to acquire, require expertise and special

programs to implement and educating and training

personnel to use them, and inevitably will bring new

and unforeseen difficulties with them.

Despite the costs of purchasing and implementing

new technologies, over the long term, they can play

a major role in extending the lives of public works

structures and provide substantial cost savings. For

example, electronic control and data acquisition

systems installed in water and sewer facilities permit

operators in a central location to monitor remote

flows and distribution system conditions in real

time. Operators can use the electronic systems to

optimize pumping operations and bring additional

facilities online to avoid overloading the system and

causing damage. (For further information, see box

4-D in chapter 4.)

Maintaining a Healthy Infrastructure

Although technology needs vary dramatically by

public works category, common factors ensure

healthy infrastructure across environmental services

and transportation modes. The essential elements are

rigorous approval standards from the outset of

planning to the beginning of operations, regular

inspection, quality workmanship and materials,

preventive maintenance, and timely repairs. Meeting

these requirements, even using current technologies,

can save substantial sums of money; indeed, constructing quality facilities and maintaining them

may provide the highest return on infrastructure

investment. 27 If construction quality is poor and

repairs are needed constantly, or if repairs to

well-constructed facilities are postponed until major

reconstruction is needed, the costs of providing

alternate service or of traffic diversion and delays

can equal the capital costs, doubling the total

expense of a given project.

Calculations by the Army Corps of Engineers on

the cost-effectiveness of maintaining and rehabilitating locks and dams indicate that regular maintenance and structural repair have effectively doubled

the lifetimes of these large structures. “Barring a

catastrophic event, these structures could last forever with good maintenance. ”28

Management Information and

Communications Systems

Cost-effective public works management is based

on accurate, current information about the location

and condition of the basic infrastructure. Environmental public works managers need to know where

the leaks are and must understand the contaminants

in local drinkin“ g water, the contents of landfills, and

the chemical components of industrial wastewater.

State transportation officials must have similar

information about highway and road systems and

bridges, so they can plan and budget properly.

~u.s. CO~SS, Congressional Budget Offke, op. cit., footnote 17, PP. l~ls.

2sJ~a E. MCDOIM& rcwarch ci~ engineer, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Watenvays Experimental StatiorL U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, personal communication% Oct. 10,1989.
30 ● Delivering the GoodS: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance ——

50X I-D—Small Towns and Big Public Works Problems

Rocksprings, Texas, is a remote agricultural community (population 1,350) 80 miles north of the Mexican

border. i The average per-capita income of residents is under $6,000, and the city’s annual budget is $221,000. How

to provide wastewater treatment and solid waste disposal facilities that meet new Federal standards are pressing

dilemmas for Rocksprings.

Rocksprings has no community wastewater collection and treatment system, and residents are trying to finance

a $3.5-million wastewater treatment plant to meet State and Federa1 requirements. The city applied for a $2-million

wastewater treatment plant construction grant (representing 55 percent of the project’s costs) from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The rest of the $3.5 million would be financed with a Farmers Home

Administration (FmHA) grant for 20 percent of the remaining costs, and an FmHA loan for the balance. However,

FmHA will not anounce grant and 1oan recipients until after the EPA decision is made. If Rocksprings does not

receive the FmHA funds, it will not be able to proceed with the project and will have to return the EPA grant money.

Worse, the city will have spent $43,000 on preliminary engineering work and will have no source of funds to pay

the bill. The alternative to constructing a major wastewater treatment facility would be to continue to permit

individual treatment systems, but require upgrading to meet State standards at a cost to each homeowner of $12,000

to $15,000-more than the value of the average Rocksprings house.

Since 1931, Rocksprings has maintained a landfill just inside the city limits where waste material is burned

weekly and the remaining garbage covered with dirt whenever possible. These procedures became illegal in

September 1989, when Texas terminated all burning permits. Because of its unusual geology--solid rock 1,500 to

2,500 -above sea level-the city does not have enough dirt to cover the waste, and if it complies with the order not

to burn, its landfill will be little more than an open dump-equally illegal. The town does not have enough garbage

to incinerate efficiently or to recycle in saleable quantities, nor are private companies available to provide disposal

service. The area’s Council of Governments is trying to develop a regional plan, but the great distances between

cities, and differing standards between communities make this solution unlikely.

1~~ ~~-~~ ~m %SimOM, mayor, Rocksprings, Texas, at OTA Workshop on State and Local _@UC_FklC@

and I!&lag- July 7,1989.

However, since many infrastructure systems are old

and were constructed in sections over long periods

of time, much of this data must be collected and

stored now. Many factors complicate the collection

of good data about infrastructure condition, including the sheer size of many large systems, the

fragmentation of management responsibilities, and

inadequate personnel and technical expertise in

many jurisdictions.

Technologies to acquire, sort, file, store, and

analyze condition assessment information include

robotics and television for remote and long-distance

scanning, photologging and computer imaging of

the results, and management information and communications systems. A host of nondestructive

evaluation technologies can provide information

about system condition, and when tied to computerized management information systems, permit targeting repairs, maintenance, and reconstruction to

areas of greatest need. (See chapter 5 for further

details.) Managers find these management tools

invaluable; indeed recent calculations indicate that

40 percent32 of State capital budgets are spent on

information and communications technologies.33

Yet few Federal grant programs directed at public

works permit monies to

hardware and technology

Field Construction

Field construction and

be used for purchase of

equipment.

rehabilitation techniques,

such as casting large segments of a facility near the

site, then placing them at night so as to minimize

disruption of normal service, are usually developed

on a project-specific basis, often by the contractor.

Public sector research into this vital segment of

public works is almost nonexistent, and industry

expenditures, estimated at less than 0.3 percent of

—— — —-. ——.——.—.

3WhiS does not include co~~ction; tie fi~e falls to 25 percent of capital equipment expenditures when construction costs me ~corpOrat~.

33Br@ey S. Dugg~, “Technology as a Management Tool, ” unpublished remarks, Governor’s Infmstructure Conference: Managing for

Environmental Quality, Nashville, Tennessee, Jan. 17, 1991.
Chapter 1—Summary and Conclusions ● 37

Rocksprings could solve the problem by unincorporating. State law mandates that all counties with a

population of 30,000 or more and all cities, no matter how small, must provide for the disposal of solid waste within

their jurisdictions. Because Rocksprings’ county has fewer than 30,000 people, the city could un incorporate, close 

its landfill, and be in compliance with State regulations. However, the cost of closing the landfill is $400,000, almost

double the city’s annual budget. Rocksprings is a stunning example of the dilemmas associated with establishing

appropriate national environmental standards.

Ionia, Michigan, a rural community of 6,000 located midway between Grand Rapids and Lansing, was served

by two rail lines until about 10 years ago. However in the early 1980s the Grand Trunk Western Line sold out to

its competitor, Central Michigan Railway (CMR), and now local officials and businesses are fighting to retain the

one remaining line and the two trains a day that connect Ionia to Owosso, a regional center 41 miles to the east. Last

year CMR, a small class III railroad petitioned the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) for permission to

abandon the segment of track connecting Ionia to Owosso, including six stations along the way. The railroad claims

the line’s high operating costs and low projected revenues make service uneconomic and that local businesses can

ship by truck; when the company offered to sell the line to the State on a leaseback basis, the State declined.

Ionia and its surrounding townships boast close to 1,000 industrial jobs. Local industries produce tires and

automotive components on a contract basis for major automobile manufacturers, most of whom require their

contract suppliers to have access to rail service as an option to truck transport-”no rail; no contracts.” Owners

of the lumber companies, the fertilizer plant, and grain elevator claim they cannot switch to truck transport because

specialized trucks and equipment needed to handle their products are not available locally.2 Many of the town’s jobs

could be lost and the prospects for modest growth in the region changed dramatically by the proposed

abandonment; 3 towns east of Ionia fear the proposed abandonment would eventually cut off their rail service.

Local governments are already borrowing to finance a regional wastewater treatment plant, and while the area’s

business community has formed an alliance to fight abandonment, they cannot afford to buy the line. The region’s

economy is currently too good for it to qualify for hardship aid from Federal or State sources, because several State

corrections facilities in Ionia provide stable service jobs. Civic leaders do not know whereto turn for help.

zy~~ M~~~~~, ~r~~id~t Of ~Ke~ Iofia & Chton ~As$oc~f.@ s~mt pm-for the ktt@13tlt& ~ODMllOll% (!OIWkShk

Mne 11,1990,

3Ru~ He~~ ~~utive ~tor, Iofi~r of co~ p(X’SOlld COIJIMOi@iOn Aug. 14,1990.

gross annual sales in 1987, have continued to drop.3l millions of dollars in repair and maintenance costs.32

Keeping any facility operating in as close to normal Using cathodic protection and protective coatings

a manner as possible during repair is a top priority and controlling stray electrical currents help prevent

for public works officials. Consequently, more corrosion and prolong lives of public works strucsystematic attention to techniques for in situ work is tures. (For further information, see chapter 5.)

warranted in public sector research programs. Preliminary results from the Strategic Highway

Materials Research Program (SHRP) indicate that paving

materials perform differently in diverse parts of the

Materials selection, both for new construction and country, and assumptions about the long-term perfor rehabilitation, can make a major difference in formance of many concrete and asphalt pavement

long-term facility condition and costs, if adequate additives are premature (for further details, see

corrosion protection is ensured. Corrosion problems chapter 5). Research on the effect of tire wear on

affect both concrete and steel, the two most com- highway pavement life is ongoing, and before

monly used construction materials. Attention to conclusions are reached about changing truck

corrosion in the design, materials selection, and weight limits, the long-term effects of different tire

construction phases of a project and investment in configurations and truck weights on pavement must

protection up front at small additional cost can save be analyzed. Economists have begun to note the

31u.s. conge.~, ~lw of Te~~~lo~ A~~e~~~en~ “Com~ction ~d ~t~~sRes~ch ~d Development for the Nation’s Public works, ” Std.f

paper of the Science, Education and Transportation Program and the Energy and Materials PrograQ Jw 1987, p. 1-11.

s2Natio~ B~eaU of S(andx&, Ec~n~~”c Effecls of Alpkzllle Corrosion in the United States: A Report to congress @ the Natio~l Bureau of

Standards, NBS Special Publication 511-1, SD Stock No. SN-003-003-01926-7 (Washington DC: 1985).
32 ● Delivering the GOods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table I-l O-Options for Federal Environmental Public Works Policies

Goal Action Trade-offs

Increase national investment Extend and fully fund SRF (State Revolving Loan Helps States meet local needs, provide expected

and assist communities in Fund) authorization past 1994 (current expirameeting costs of complylng tion date).

with Federal environmental

public works standards.

Amend Clean Water Act or enact other legislation

to expand SRF project eligibility to drinking

water and solid and hazardous waste facilities;

increase appropriations.

Increase State match to leverage more State

investment.

Develop and implement a risk management approach for environmental public works to guide

enforcement, and permit local immunities to

address most serious risks first.

Earmark a Federal revenue source for financing

environmental public works-a share of an

existing tax or a new tax (e.g., carbon or other

product related to environmental pollution).

Combine Federal community environmental loans

and grants into a State block grant program

administered by EPA.

Establish Federal bond guarantee program for

small communities for environmental facilities.

Encourage greater use of tech- Combine scattered Federal technical assistance

nologies to bolster efficient op- efforts and form an Environmental Technical

eration of facilities. Assistance Program, administered by the

States.

Provide financial incentives or regulatory requirements that communities initiate and adhere to

facility maintenance programs and provide additional funds for facility planning in conjunction

with regional planning organizations.

Use market Incentives in addi- Impose charges or taxes on pollutants to discourtion to regulations to address age use and to raise revenue (e.g., taxes on

environmental problems. carbon products or waste generation).

Reward local effort to impose user fees that cover

full cost of service as a means of financing

facilities and limiting demand.

Encourage EPA to develop risk Develop policy statement for Inclusion in pending

management guidelines for legislation to elevate EPA to Cabinet status.

public works and systems approach to environmental and

health issues.

ands, and ease planning. But: Requires additional Federal outlays. These could be raised by

new broad-based or special-purpose taxes.

Increases local access to funds for facilities required

by new Safe Drinking Water Act, wastewater

treatment and solid waste regulations; could build

on existing SRF program structure. But: Requires

more outlays and intervention into area of traditional Iocal government and private sector control.

Encourages larger State commitment; gives incentives for better State program management. But

Poor States may be unable to meet higher match;

may discourage program participation.

Makes local compliance more likely because communities can adapt solutions to local needs and

renditions. But Success depends on local risk

assessment and planning, and availability of

State supervision and technical assistance.

Ensures financing for resolving long-term environmental problems that are not suitable for annual

budgeting. But Reduces Federal flexibility by

earmarking funds.

Increases efficiency by combining administration of

programs now scattered throughout agencies;

reduces Federal administration of detailed project

requirements and cuts local costs. But: Adds

responsibility for EPA, which is already over

burdened. Eliminates most Federal control over

spending; agencies often resist losing programs.

Provides many communities with access to private

credit market; limits Federal role. But: Program

costs due to defaults hard to estimate; requires

new administrative entity.

Fills a pressing need for engineering, planning, and

financing expertise, especiallyamong small communities; cost-effective.

Increases efficiency and performance by encouraging maintenance and attention to life-cycle costs.

Efficiency gains from planning environmental

facilities on a regional basis.

Offers alternatives to achieve environmental goals

more flexibly and at lower cost than traditional

regulations; a logical extension of the polluter

pays philosophy. But: Unpopular with the producers and users.

Addresses current undercharging for environmental

services. (EPA requires full cost fees for wastewater facility loans program.) But: Provisions

would need to be made for low-income users.

I Gives EPA a clear legislative directive to evaluate

enforcement priorities for public entities and to

pursue cross-media regulatory programs, research, and planning, with potential to break

down program barriers and reduce conflicts. But:

Media-segmented bias will be hard to change; no

guarantee of success.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.
Chapter 1—Summary and Conclusions ● 33

Table 1-1 l—Technology Priorities for R&D for Maintaining Infrastructure Condition

Technology Uses Status Comments

Nondestructive evaluation equipment;

sensing and measurement

Information and decision systems

Communications and

positioning systems

Field construction

technologies

Materials and corrosion prevention

Measure various physical properties

for monitoring and control; examine physical or mechanical properties of equipment or structure

without affecting it permanently.

Providesdatabaseorganization and

manipulation capabilities for the

wide range of data and information

needed for public works management.

Traffic management and control and

remote infrastructure monitoring.

Improve ease and speed of construction or minimize disruption in

developed areas.

Improve durability and resistance to

operating stress and protect against

premature deterioration and failure.

- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developed for industrial use; public

works market is secondary for

many suppliers, often tied to preventive maintenance programs

and automated inspection systems.

Many database systems are readily

available.

Technology exists for nearly every

need; private sector use is increas-ing. Well established in aviation; crucial to future air traffic

enhancement.

Numerous technical opportunities.

Many new materials and techniques

have been tested and applied;

their use and use of corrosion

prevention is increasing but still is

not widespread.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

importance of materials and to calculate user charges

that could offset the costs of thicker, more durable

pavements, for example.36

The key for policymakers in making technologybased decisions is to remember that any technology

change must be accompanied by the appropriate

policy change, or the benefits may not be realized.

Furthermore, changes in operations by any industry segment, such as airlines or the trucking

industry, to optimize its operations within a new

policy and technology framework may alter the

long-term impacts of any new technology-based

standards and policies. Federal and State decisionmakers would do well to keep in mind the need to

revisit policies on a regular basis because of the

dynamic nature of the way public works services are

used.

Many private sector users; cost and

expert interpretation of results limit

local government use; harsh public

works environment and cost of

high-tech equipment are limiting

factors. Most useful for highways

and bridges, ports and waterways,

water, wastewater treatment, rail

systems.

Cost and technical capabilities are

limiting factors; value of good data

is difficult to evaluate. Useful for

highways and bridges, transit, rail,

water, wastewater treatment, solid

waste.

Microprocessor improvements have

increased reliability and performance and lowered costs. Great potential in all fields. Most useful for

ports, water, air, highways.

Industry is slow to adopt new methods; some methods require new

technical skills. Useful for highways, transit, rail, water, wastewater systems, solid waste disposal.

Industry is slow to adopt new materials and methods; designers are

reluctant to consider approaches

that are not well established. Useful

for highways and bridges, ports and

waterways, water, wastewater

treatment systems, solid waste.

Technologies To Increase Capacity

While the poor condition of the physical system

is the dominant problem for public works in many

urban and most rural areas, highways, airports, and

wastewater treatment systems in large, urban jurisdictions also have capacity problems. These manifest themselves in restrictions on development and

in traffic congestion and delay. Perhaps the most

difficult aspect of capacity problems is that technology can make relatively little long-term impact,

increasing capacity by between 10 and 20 percent at

most. In many cases, any capacity created by new

technology is likely to be consumed immediately by

users who had been finding other means of meeting

their needs. The policy and political decisions to

manage or shift demand, which must accompany

technologies to ensure adequate capacity, are far

more problematic.

%Uifford Winsto~ TheBrookingsInstitutio~ “TheCaseforEfflcientInfrastructure Policy,” paperpresentedat the Conference on The Third Deficit:

The Shortfall in Public Investment, sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Harwich Por$ ~ June 27-29,1990.
34 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

.

Photo credit: American Society of Civil Engineers

As water shortages of the magnitude now felt in southern

California become more widespread, conservation is likely

to become a more attractive choice.

larger commitment to resource conservation in all

user segments. If water shortages of the magnitude

now felt in southern California become more widespread and the cost of new technology-based facilities increases (desalinization is again under discussion in California), conservation is likely to become

a more attractive choice, and the technologies will be

understood as being cost-effective.

Photo credit: American Society of Civil Engineers

Attention to corrosion protection in the design, materials

selection, and construction phases of a project can save

millions of dollars in maintenance and repair costs-and

help ensure safer infrastructure.

Environmental Public Works Capacity

For environmental public works, the most promising technologies to address capacity issues are those

that detect leaks and permit repair without disrupting

service, those that can prevent water loss to evaporation, and those that reduce demand. Among technologies applicable to these needs are a variety of

trenchless technologies (see chapter 5); low flush

toilets; dual water supplies that provide separate

household and outside water; and recycling, reuse,

and source reduction for municipal solid waste.

Although available now, most of these technologies are not in widespread use, because Federal and

State public policy decisions that would make them

cost-effective options have not yet been taken.

Policy tools include full cost of service pricing, with

appropriate consideration of ability to pay, and a

Transportation System Capacity

Technologies that can increase transportation

system capacity, such as radar, improved traffic flow

procedures and signal equipment, computers, and

electronic communications systems, are available

for waterways, mass transit, and highways, but are

not yet widely used, except in aviation. Moreover,

the expansion possibilities they offer (20 percent at

most) are not likely to be large enough to meet

demand for long in fast growing regions. Nonetheless, the short-term benefits in reducing congestion make improving traffic flow a top priority.

Where construction of larger facilities is impossible, planning and land-use controls and pricing or

other incentives to shift demand will also be required

to cope with the expected growth in both highway

and air travel. While substantial investment in

system analysis, equipment, and personnel training

will be necessary, these costs will be offset by

reducing the need for acquisition of expensive,

additional land and construction. Some intermodal

technologies are under research in the private sector,
Chapter l—Summary and Conclusions ● 35

but the work does not address the broader needs of

a national transportation system.

Technology Priorities

Safety and public health concerns and the impact

of a major facility, such as a large, new harbor

development project, on land transportation, on the

environment, and on community life are major

issues that affect public works. The technologies

offering the most potential for shedding light on

these and other complex public works problems

are management information and condition assessment tools, maintenance-related technologies, and techniques for increasing capacity

where new construction is not feasible. O T A

concludes that these are top priorities for immediate attention as Congress considers how to

reshape infrastructure programs. As a practical

first step, Federal grant programs could be expanded

to permit the purchase of management equipment,

including hardware and software. However, without investment in complementary programs (now

missing in almost every public works program) to

ensure a sufficiently prepared work force, no

technology will fulfill its potential role. Any

changes to Federal programs must take these indispensable adjuncts into consideration.

Education and Training

Technologies are useless without an adequately

educated and trained work force to manage, operate,

and maintain them, and the scarcity of trained public

works managers and technicians was a recurrent

theme throughout the course of this study. Managers

and officials hold that the public works sector is

losing its best-trained people to the private sector,

with its higher salaries, and to retirement much faster

than they can be replaced. Moreover, new technologies often require skills that are not taught in

vocational or high schools, and in some cases, not

even in universities. In fact, most university civil

engineering departments, the training grounds for

many public works managers, do not teach courses

in nondestructive evaluation or maintenance management, which will eventually be basic tools for

public works departments. Every level of government needs to give more attention to these

problems. The Federal Government could target

funds to support university research for public works

to attract students back to civil engineering. Federal

programs that support university engineering programs (such as that of DOT’s University Centers)

could require courses in maintenance management

and capacity enhancing technologies and management technique.

States, too, can play larger roles through their

universities and public works agencies. To cite one

model, Tennessee uses the University of Tennessee,

a land-grant school, as an effective public works

technology-sharing arm for its local governments.34

Technology Management in the

Public Works Arena

Exciting as new technologies are, OTA concludes that better system management and making good use of existing technologies can also help

public works managers improve the efficiency

and productivity of their operations. For instance,

the procurement processes used by public agencies

at all levels of government are generally rigid and

inflexible. Developed over time to ensure honesty

and fairness, they have become very effective

barriers to adoption of new products and procedures.

The low-bid procurement process does not always

ensure the most cost-effective or highest quality

purchase, especially if prequalification requirements

are lax. Federal grant requirements need to be

reexamined and reshaped to encourage public

officials to make greater use of procurement

approaches, such as competitive negotiations and

concurrent design-build, which have proven successful for private projects. States may need to

revise their requirements as well. (For further

details, see chapter 5.)

Operational Testing and Demonstration

Public works services are expected to be reasonably priced and reliable; they do not lend themselves

to trial-and-error methods of selection. heal officials use tried and true technologies, because they do

not have the analytical resources to assure the

performance of a new technology and cannot afford

the political or operational risk of failure. Thus,

liability concerns haunt suppliers, manufacturers,

and public officials as well, and manifold difficulties

confront the developer of a new technology for

public works. Many a technology entrepreneur is

frustrated by rejection of numerous attempts to have
36 ● Delivering the Goods: public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table l-12—Environmental Protection Agency Laboratories

Number of Number of 1989 budget

Office laboratories staff (in miliions of dollars)

Office of Modelling, Monitoring Systems, and Quality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . 3 441 $84.0

Office of Environmental Engineering and TechnoIogy Demonstration . . . . . . . . 2 282 78.5

Office of Environmental Processes and Effects Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 407 59.3

Office of Health Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 286 46.2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 1,416 $268.0

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

a development tested so a track record can be

established.

Cooperative, joint efforts between private sector

suppliers and government to demonstrate and evaluate new technologies for safety, durability, and

long-term costs are excellent ways to spread the risk

and overcome some of the difficulties of the

procurement process for new technologies. OTA

concludes that supporting such development and

evaluation programs is an essential Federal

function that has been inadequately supported in

every public works field except aviation and

water transportation. Increasing DOT investment in such programs for highways, mass

transit, and passenger rail by 50 percent and

doubling or tripling EPA’s spending would bring

substantial returns in improved public works

performance. SHRP'S cooperative approach

provides a model.

Public works R&D—Almost an Oxymoron

Although the total dollars spent by the Federal

Government on research for public works are

substantial, a closer look reveals that some areas

have been grossly neglected. Federal R&D has

always targeted specific problems identified by the

funding agency; consequently, research in federally

funded laboratories and institutions is oriented

toward the concerns of the sponsor and usually

involves numerous, disparate projects. For example,

the Department of Defense has supported development of artificial intelligence systems for defense

purposes, and the Corps of Engineers has done a

great deal of work on maintenance for waterways.

(See chapter 6 for further details.) EPA research

laboratories each focus on providing technical

support for apart of the regulatory process (see table

1-12); even the technology demonstration programs

do not target the needs of public works providers

(see chapter 4 for further details). Finally, each DOT

agency funds studies to carry out its mission (as

shown in table 1-13). No agency has focused on

R&D programs to make public works services more

cost-effective and productive.

Moreover, State and local public works officials,

those who stand to benefit most from the results of

Federal R&D, do not utilize research products until

they have been through a long process of development, evaluation, and modification. This length of

time and the lack of investment in technology

development and evaluation have made public

works an unattractive target market for both public

and private research facilities, leaving large gaps.

The Federal Role

The Federal Government is the one entity with

sufficient scope and resources to fund additional

public works R&D, an especially important role for

it to fill since State and local governments are the

primary service providers. However, Federal investment in R&D to address the condition and

capacity problems faced by public works providers across the country is inadequate. Commitment of substantial additional Federal resources

for R&D is called for, with the focus on both

immediate problems and long-term alternatives.

Some additional funding could be provided by

private sector beneficiaries through assessment programs. Care is needed, however, when pursuing

private funding for R&D, and private funds can

never substitute completely for public support. The

R&D agendas for private entities are different than

those of public agencies, and finding the appropriate

ways to capitalize on private sector interest and

resources without skewing public goals presents a

challenge.

Furthermore, to enable even small jurisdictions to

benefit from R&D results, technology transfer and

technical assistance efforts must be stepped up. To

increase financing for R&D, Congress could

require that recipients set aside a percentage of

Federal grant monies to be used for R&D into
Chapter 1—Summary and Conclusions ● 37

Table l-13—Department of Transportation Public Works Research and Development

FY 1991 funding

Agency (millions of dollars) Funding source Comments

Federal Highway Administration

Highway Planning and $51’ A portion of 1.5 percent set-aside of Supports State and local planning,

Research Program Federal-aid construction funds traffic measurement, and other refrom the Highway Trust Fund search

National Cooperative Highway 8 5.5 percent set-aside of HP&R funds Contract research managed by

Research Program Transportation Research Board

(National Research Council)

Staff research 18 Highway Trust Fund 30 percent in-house research; balance in contracts

Strategic Highway Research 30 0.25 percent set-aside from High- Contract R&D focused on highway

Program way Trust Fund construction; 5-year program

Federal Railroad Administration 15 From appropriated budget In-house and contract R&D (does not

include $6.15 million for magnetic

levitation rail initiative)

Urban Mass Transportation 2 From appropriated budget Development projects

Administration

Research and Special Programs

Administration

Volpe National Transportation 115b

Fee-for-service reimbursements Two-thirds of research is for DOT

Systems Center coming out of other administrations’

budgets; one-third is for extramural

clients

Federal Aviation Administration 205 From appropriated budget 63 percent of budget for in-house

R&D

Total $444c

a Total fun~ f~rthe High~a~ planning ad Resear& (Hp&R) ~gr~ are a~ut$153 million, m~tofwhi~ ~ u$4 for planning. The pOrtiOn USdfOrre~arOh

is $53 million.

b Es~imate for Department of Transportation (DOT) research.

C Total does not include the one-third of Volpe National Transportation system cente~$ total bdget that comes from other SOUrMS.

SOURCE: Office of Technolomf Assessment, 1991, based on information from the Federal Highway Administration. Volpe National Transmutation Systems

Center, and the U%. Department of Transportation.

technologies, with an emphasis on those applicable to maintenance. Resources are also needed for

long-term planning (with a stipulation that plans

be based on a system needs analysis and tied to a

capital budget), and for technical assistance,

education, and training. The amount of Federal

money currently available for environmental public

works projects is too small to provide for any of

these priorities. If a decision is made not to increase

Federal environmental grants, special attention to

these needs is warranted during the next legislative

authorization cycle.

Large, Complex Systems Research

A closer look at the research programs of EPA and

DOT highlights the woeful neglect of data collection

and systems-level research for public works problems, especially on the impacts of transportation on

the environment. These are important subjects for

Federal attention, and Congress could consider

requiring both DOT and EPA to develop and

implement comprehensive system data collection

and research programs. Because transportation and

environmental problems are so tightly interconnected by government planning and land-use requirements, the two agencies could also be asked to

develop and fund jointly an interagency research

program through the Volpe National Transportation

Systems Center and one of EPA’s existing laboratories.

Some efforts to integrate research are currently

under way in both agencies. Rigorous top-level

review of long-range research plans developed by

sections of each agency is called for to ensure that

new goals encompass more than a reshuffling of

existing research and address top-priority current

problems. A broad-based outside advisory committee including State and local government and

industry officials could be formed to review any

interagency programs.

R&D for Environmental Public Works

Over the long term, EPA could develop and

implement a comprehensive, strategic approach to

setting standards and facilitating compliance, based
38 ● Delivering the GOOdS: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

on addressing the most serious risks first. A vigorous

research, development, and technology transfer

program is needed into alternative technologies for

meeting standards, particularly for small systems,

where there is “no unreasonable risk to health. ”35

Transportation R&D

Transportation R&D has its own noteworthy

shortcomings. First, with the exception of some

DOT programs under FAA and FHWA sponsorship,

only limited Federal investment has been made in

research into alternatives to existing technologies.

Field construction and maintenance techniques,

high-speed trains of several types, and longer lasting

surfaces for highways are among the many possible

technology alternatives already available in other

countries. However, evaluating the case for a major

shift to a new technology, intelligent highways,

tiltrotor aircraft, or magnetic levitation rail for

example, requires strategic planning for technology

development and careful thought as to the appropriate Federal role, if any. Such a change in a

substantial part of an already large transportation

system would require commitment of Federal funds

and consideration of how to tie new infrastructure

facilities in with existing system components. Such

tasks cannot be undertaken quickly or lightly (or

cheaply).

It is time for Federal officials to think seriously

about the best ways to capitalize on technology

options for addressing public works problems

and develop research and action programs. When

alternatives become essential in this country, the

United States may find it cost-effective to purchase

foreign technologies and adapt them to domestic

needs. The long-term costs and trade implications of

R&D policy decisions could be very large and seem

to warrant a greater investment now in R&D.

Huge discrepancies characterize R&D funding

among the DOT agencies; FAA and FHWA have the

only research budgets worth mentioning. FAA’s

R&D appropriations have held steady because

modernizing air traffic control equipment has been

a top Federal priority, and most of the agency’s

expenditures have been for that purpose. The agency

has a well-structured R&D program that is regularly

reviewed by an outside advisory committee.

Although the FHWA research budget looks large,

a closer look shows that most of the funds come out

of the Highway Trust Fund and are funneled through

the States via the Highway Planning and Research

(HP&R) Program. State DOTS use HP&R funds

primarily for a variety of planning analysis and

evaluation projects; a tiny amount of incremental

R&D and some demonstration programs also benefit

from these funds in some States.

Finally, much more must be done in the area of

transportation systems research. R&D expertise is

narrowly focused in the modal areas. The FAA R&D

program and perhaps SHRP (for highway research)

are two efforts that are somewhat more systemsoriented than any others. However, SHRP reflects

the concerns about pavement durability of the

highway engineers who developed the program, and

does not address traffic engineering, construction, or

other crucial highway performance issues. A truly

strategic program would need to incorporate exactly

such items and address intermodal issues as well.

Using Federal Resources Efficiently

Considerable duplication of research into common public works problems exists in Federal agencies. For example, the Corps of Engineers has major

pavement test facilities and scale models and computer programs that address water scour and erosion

problems of the types that concern FHWA engineers. Under ideal conditions, these could supplement FHWA’s much less extensive facilities. However, OTA found that with few exceptions, if an

agency such as FHWA requests another entity, such

as the Corps, to undertake R&D, the requesting

agency ends up dissatisfied, regardless of the quality

of the technical expertise and facilities, because its

research is given low priority. The requesting

agency often finds itself with project results that are

late and over budget. To stretch Federal dollars,

Congress could require Federal operating agencies to develop better mechanisms to avoid

duplication and to coordinate and carry out

cooperative research. Including as part of an

agency’s formal mission the responsibility to

carry out R&D for other agencies is one way to do

this. No matter what coordinating method is

chosen, ensuring stable funding by the requesting

agency for a project is a priority.

ss~e s~emwatm~~ in S=tiom 141s and 1416, allows for such alternatives. David Schnare, Office of Drinking Water, U.S. Envim.unentrd

fiotection Agency, personal communicatio~ July 15, 1990.
Institutional

CHAPTER 2

Framework

‘~multiplied by the double the usual clip at the EXXOI

ation of millions, station on North Henry Street il

 billion a year to Alexandria.

 earmarked for “Everyone wanted to grab h(

construction and gas before the nickel hits,” said at

:ion. tendant Steve “Tattoo” Avis, whose

: don’t seem to namesakes covered his expose(

forearms and neck.

said Alexandria A Chevron station on Lee High

- 1

)ert Johnson. way in Arlington sold 4,800 gallon:

unintended side of gas Friday instead of the usua

eople are using 3,200 or so. “The busiest day I’ve

. . . . . . . . . . lower-priced regular unleaded ever seen in here;’ attendant Jef

ral gas tax gas yesterday 20 cents less than Basham said.

Southern California Ordered to Save Water J&W%$&? as a whole,” Skinner sai lon increase;” in the fede

as Gas Tax Rises

 - — -- - — — -- — — — — - —

really sell In two dayS,’

Tucker, W h O ‘

---

ConservationPlan, First Since 1976 Droughtf ImA” ---

By Jill Walker

Special toTk Washington Peat
Contents

Page

Federal Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Department of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Federal Highway Administration . ..........46

Urban Mass Transportation Administration . 47

The Federal Railroad Administration . . . . . . . 48

Federal Aviation Administration . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Maritime Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

U.S. Coast Guard ● ..• ● ● . ● . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . ● 50

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development

Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) .,.. 50

The Corps and Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Environmental Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

The Corps’ Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Department of the Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Office of Management and Budget . . . . . . . . . . . 55

The Courts . . .,, * *,, , . . . . .,, ,, . . * . * *.,..,..* 56

Impact of Court Activism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Congress . ...,...,.......,,.0......,.,,,.,, . 57

Evolution of the Committee System . . . . . . . . 57

Interest Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Industry and Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Public Interest Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Governmental Interest Groups .............64

The State Role . . . * * * * . . . . * . * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

States and Public Works Financing . . . . . . . . . 65

Benefit and User Charges .................65

Importance of the Federal Partnership ....,.67

Administration and Planning . . . . . . . . . . . .

Local Government Service Providers . . . . . .

Local Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Management and Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conclusions and Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . .

Boxes

Box

2-A. Highways: From Postal Roads to

Interstate ., . * * . . . . . ., .,, * . . . . . . . . . . .

2-B. Mass Transportation: The Youngest

Federal Transport Assistance Program

● ✎ ✎ 67

. . . 68

+*. 69

● *, 71

.*. 73

Page

,. 46

. . 47

Page

2-C. Railraods and Government: A Difficult

Relationship .,, ... ... .., .. s ., . ..,,,.... 49

2-D. Government and Aviation: A Close

Marriage . .,....,.*......,**.+.*....**. 50

2-E. Anatomy of Recent Congressional

Reforms . .....,.,*.......,*...*..*.,. . 60

2-F. New Jersey Infrastructure Financing ,.,. 67

2-G. Washington State Public Works

Trust Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

2-H. Growth Management and Planning in

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

2-I. SANDAG: Financing Means Planning

Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Figures

Figure Page

2-1. Projected Impact on States of Reduced

Federal Aid for Transportation . . . . . . . . . . 68

2-2. Projected Impact on States of Reduced

Federal Aid for Environmental Public

Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Tables

Table Page

2-1. Public Works Legislation Landmarks . . . . 42

2-2. Federal Infrastructure Expenditures,

1980-89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

2-3. Partial List of Congressional Committees

With Jurisdiction Over Public Works . . . . 58

2-4. Congressional Committees and Their

Roles in Public Works Programs . . . . . . . . 61

2-5. Number of Committees With Jurisdiction

Over Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

2-6. A Selection of Major Industry Interest

Groups . . . . . ., . * . . . * . . . . . . ., * *...*..+. 63

2-7. Selected Public Interest Groups Concerned

With Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

2-8. Major Infrastructure Financing Mechanisms:

Advantages and Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . 66

2-9. State Gas Tax Rates and Yields, 1990 . . . 71
CHAPTER 2

Institutional Framework

. . . it is very hard to get your hands on this interface between transportation policy and

environmental policy. ..1

Public works stakeholders include individual

citizens, public officials, and politicians at every

level of government; congressional committees, at

least five major Federal agencies; environmental

organizations; and industry, trade, and professional

groups of every stripe. Their number and diversity

make developing a coherent framework for either

transportation or environmental public works seem

an unattainable dream.

Moreover, the task of coordinating transportation

and environmental concerns to address their combined impacts on lifestyles and economic vitality is

clearly staggeringly difficult. The year-long process

initiated by Transportation Secretary Samuel K.

Skinner in 1989 of developing a national transportation policy2 did create fresh dialog about issues

between transportation interest groups, such as the

automobile and highway lobbies and mass transit

agencies, which had traditionally clung to their

individual views. Discussion of elevating the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to Cabinet

status could provide an opportunity for the same

type of dialog about environmental public works

issues. This chapter describes the actors and the

setting for the complex theater of public works

policy development.

Federal Role

Federal authority for public works—roads and

bridges, mass transportation, ports and airports,

waterways and water supply, wastewater treatment

and solid waste disposal-has been evolving since

shortly after the Nation was born, when a body of

national engineers was formed. (See table 2-1 for

Federal legislative benchmarks.) Responsibility is

now distributed, often with considerable overlap and

conflicting missions rooted in history, among a

number of departments and agencies. The major

players are the Department of Transportation

(DOT), EPA, the Department of Defense, through

the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Bureau of

Reclamation (BuRec) in the Department of the

Interior, and the Soil Conservation Service in the

Department of Agriculture. Some of these agencies

issue regulations with which State and local officials

must comply; others have tiding, programmatic, or

operating functions; still others have all or some

combination of these responsibilities. Other executive branch agencies also have an impact, and courts

play a role as well. Congress shapes policies and

programs through the legislative authorization and

appropriations processes and regulatory mandates.

Many of the Federal entities responsible for

managing the Nation’s vast collection of public

works infrastructure have recently experienced or

are about to undergo major shills in their missions—

from development and growth to management and

preservation. This fundamental change is evident at

the Corps, which is undertaking more environmental

restoration projects than flood control projects, and

BuRec, which announced in 1987 that it would no

longer be a construction-oriented organization and

would become a water resources management

agency.

3

The Federal role shifted in other ways, too, in the

1980s, with the transfer of a number of programs to

the States and reductions in Federal support for most

types of infrastructure (see table 2-2). For example,

EPA’s construction grant program for wastewater

treatment plants is scheduled to end in 1994, with the

States slated to takeover responsibility.4 At DOT, as

the Interstate highway system nears completion and

IJO c~g potter, fomer A~~i~~t Atitrator for & @ ~~tio~ U*SO ~v~o~~~ prot~tion Agency, k National Transportation Pohy

Alternatives, Proceedings oja CRS Congressional Senu”nar (WMhin@oq DC: Congressional Research Service, June 12, 1990), p. 25.

me process culminated in the release of the first national transportation policy and strategies document. See U.S. Department of Transportation

Moving America: New Directions, New Opportunities (Washington DC: Fe- 1990).

%J.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Assessment ’87, New Directions for the Bureau of Reclamation (WashingtorL DC: U.S.

Department of the Interior, September 1987), pp. 1-2.

dFor ~= d&WSioQ s= u-s. Co=ss, ~ce of T~~olo~ ~ses~en~ Rebuilding the FO&tiOnS: A Special Report on State a?ldbCd

Public Wor&s Financing and Management, OTA-SET417 (Washington, DC: U.S. Govermnent Printing Office, March 1990), chs. 2 and 3.

4 1 –
42 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table 2-l—Public Works Legislation Landmarks

1824

1850

1887

1916

1925

1938

1941

1944

1946

1956

1963

1964

1966

R!

f

lib

B

@

Rivers and Harbors Act authorized the Army Corps of Engineers to improve navigation by clearing

channels and constructing harbors.

Federal land grants to the Illinois Central-Mobile Ohio Railroads allowed the companies to expand

westward. This was the first of massive grants to railroads seeking to reach the Pacific.

Interstate Commerce Commission (lCC) established with limited authority to set rail rates. Legislation

passed in 1903, 1906, and 1910 strengthened ICC’S regulatory powers.

Federel-Aid Road Act authorized grants to States from the general treasury, through the Department

of Agriculture, to help construct postal roads.

AirMall Act authorized the Post Office Department to contract for air mail service with private operators.

The 1926 Air Commerce Act gave aviation regulation authority to the Department of Commerce.

Civil Aeronautics Act created the Civil Aeronautics Authority.

Defense HighwayAct appropriated $200 million for the construction and rehabilitation of roads needed

for the national defense, including access roads to military and defense industry sites.

Federal-Aid Highway Act authorized the construction and building of a secondary and urban system

of roads. The act also designated a national system of Interstate highways.

Federal Airport Act initiated Federal financial assistance to States and municipalities for aviation.

Federal-Aid Highway Act and Highway Revenue Act authorized completion of the Interstate system.

The acts also established the Federal Highway Trust Fund to finance improvements in Federal-aid

system roads. Truck weight and size limits were also set for Federal-aid roads.

Clean Air Act asserted Federal interest in controlling air pollution.

Urban Mass Transportation Act established the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA)

within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In 1968, UMTA was placed under the

jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation (DOT).

*,@ M+

ml%l

?

Department of Transportation Act created DOT from 35 transportation-related programs.

%.~%~ Continued on next page
Chapter 2—Institutional Framework ● 43

Table 2-l—Public Works Legislation Landmarks-Continued

1967

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1976

1977

1978

1980

Clean Air Act amendments authorized Federal standards and enforcement.

National Environmental Policy Act required impact statements on all major Federal actions.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) formed to administer numerous media programs.

Airport and Airway Development Act expanded Federal support and established the Airport and

Airways Trust Fund.

Amtrak formed as a Federal corporation to provide passenger service. In 1973, the Regional Rail

Reorganization Act established the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) for freight service.

Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) set minimum wastewater treatment standards and

established construction grants.

Federal-Aid Highway Act increased the federally funded portion of transit capital projects and allowed

expenditure of Federal-Aid Urban Systems highway funds for qualifying transit projects.

Safe Drinking Water Act set standards for water quality.

Mass Transportation Assistance Act expanded Federal support for transit.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) supported recycling and discouraged landfills.

Clean Air Act Amendments strengthened EPA enforcement.

Airline Deregulation Act abolished the Civil Aeronautics Board and its authority over domestic fares

and mergers,

Staggers Rail Act deregulated rail with the goal of improving the economic health of the railroads.

Continued on next page
44 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table 2-l—Public Works Legislation Landmarks-Continued

1980

1981

1982

1984

1986

1987

1990

Motor Carrier Act deregulated the trucking industry.

Northeast Rail Service Act required DOT to look at ways to return Conrail to the private sector and to

sell it if it achieved profitability. It was sold in 1987.

@

@

Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) boosted the gas tax, giving 1 cent to a Mass Transit

Trust Fund. Truck weight and size limits were also raised, forcing States to permit all trucks meeting size

standards to operate on Federal-aid roads.

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of the RCRA targeted hazardous waste management.

Safe Drinking Water Amendments strengthened Federal requirements.

Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act provided the necessary funds to

complete the Interstate system.

@

@

Clean Water Act Amendments required that wastewater construction grants be phased out by 1991

and replaced until 1994 by capitalization grants to State Revolving Loan Funds.

Clean Air Act reauthorization with additional controls on autos, buses, and trucks.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

Table 2-2—Federal Infrastructure Expenditures, 1980-89

(in millions of 1982 adjusted dollars)

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1989

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $29,863 $24,473 $24,425 $26,237 $24,328 $23,609

Transportation:

Highways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,584 8,284 10,438 12,934 12,188 11,392

Mass transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,732 3,930 3,639 3,007 2,754 2,838

Rail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,531 2,199 1,405 798’ 486 483

Aviation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,334 3,526 4,145 4,722 5,048 5,378

Ports, harbors, and waterways . . 1,365 1,242 1,262 1,046 1,140 1,137

Environmental;

Water supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,017 1,033 700 650 573b

284b

Wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,300 4,259 2,836 3,080 2,139 2,097

aDrop in expenditure refkcts de of -n~il.

kow spending figures for water supply in 1988 and 1988 reflect repayments of Farmer’s Home Administration water supply loans.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates from the Budget of the United States Government,

various years, and from unpublished Office of Management and Budget data. Estimates for ports, harbors: and waterways based on Army Corps

of Engineers data.
Chapter 2— Institutional Framework ● 45

urban traffic congestion makes intermodal transfers

ever more difficult, further changes are likely.

Department of Transportation

The regulatory and programmatic reach of DOT

extends over the Nation’s vast network of roads and

railroads, ocean shipping, airways, and pipelines.

DOT policies and regulatory actions affect State and

local governments directly, influencing land-use

planning, transportation facilities and service

choices, energy conservation, environmental quality, and technological developments.

Formed in 1966 from 35 transportation-related

programs spread throughout the Federal Government, DOT was envisioned by then President

Johnson as a single unifying entity for managing the

water, rail, airway, and road networks.5 The new

agency’s five operating divisions included the following: the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),

an amalgamation of the Bureau of Railroad Safety,

the Alaska Railroad, and the Office of High Speed

Ground Transportation; the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), formerly the Bureau of Public

Roads and Federal-Aid Highway Programs; the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), formerly

an independent agency; the Saint Lawrence Seaway

Development Corp from the Commerce Department; and the U.S. Coast Guard, from the Treasury

Department. In 1967, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) was transferred from

the Department of Housing and Urban Development

to DOT. Later additions include the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Maritime

Administration (MARAD), and the Research and

Special Programs Administration (RSPA), the only

intermodal agency within DOT. RSPA manages

some DOT research and regulates hazardous materials transportation, oil pipelines, and emergency

preparedness.

Despite President Johnson’s goal, the DOT Act, a

political compromise, created strong modal administrators, as Congress wanted, thus maintaining

separate programs for each transportation mode.

However, it also established a strong office of the

secretary, as the President had proposed.6 Modal

administrators have authority to regulate and manage their organizations, extending from budget

formulation to field operations. This independence,

the fact that authority over inland waterways was

retained by the Corps, and the regional administration of key modal programs have worked to prevent

intermodal coordination. To this day, congressional

committee and subcommittee structure and industry

and carrier interests have helped keep the autonomy

of the modal or operating administrations intact.

Situated on top of the DOT organizational chart,

the secretary’s office recommends the department’s

budget to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), formulates national transportation policies,

evaluates programs, and attempts to coordinate the

activities of the modal administrations. Assistant

secretaries serve primarily as staff officers interposed between the secretary and the modal administrators. Since its formation, DOT has had 10

secretaries, several of whom tried to restructure the

department along functional lines to facilitate intermodal strategies and establish a means for disbursing funds more equitably among modes. However,

their average tenure of 2 to 4 years was too short to

leave a permanent mark. Thus the agency has never

implemented a multimodal national transportation

policy requiring a high degree of cooperation

between the separate operating branches. The current DOT initiative to implement the national

transportation policy statement7 seems unlikely to

make a permanent impact on deeply entrenched

modal interests unless the intermodal cooperation

stressed by Secretary Skinner is somehow institutionalized so it survives under succeeding executives.

With a 1990 budget of $28 billion and 64,000

civilian employees, DOT administers user-supported trust funds of considerable size, including the

highway and transit trust funds and the airport and

airway trust fund.8 At present the management of

each mode rests firmly with the Federal Highway

“’Message From the President of the United States, Transmitting a Proposal for a Cabinet-Level Department ofTrampWion Consolidating Various

Existing Transportation Agencies,‘‘ in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Operations, Creating a Department ojTransportation, Part

l: HeanngsBejore aSubcomnu”ttee of the Committee on Government Operations (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing OMce, 1966), pp. 38-39.

6t4Dep~ent of Tr~po~tion ~~$~ co~e~nce Report No. 89, House Report No. 2236, Wt. 12, 1966 to aCComPanY ‘“R” 15963”

~.S. Department of Transportation op. cit., footnote 2.

8TW0 ~d~tio~ ~mpo~tion ~st tids, tie Itdmd Waterway Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintemncs Trust F~d, f~ ~der tie P~i~ of tie

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
46 ● Delivering the GOOdS: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Photo credit: Tom Burke

The Federal Highway Administration in conjunction with

State officials develops safety standards for the design,

construction, and maintenance of bridges and highways

on the Federal-aid system.

Administration, the Urban Mass Transportation

Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Maritime Administration, the IJ.S. Coast Guard, and the

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corp.

Federal Highway Administration

FHWA has primary jurisdiction over highways

and bridges in the Federal-aid system and sets safety

standards for their design, construction, and maintenance and for motor carriers engaged in interstate

commerce. It has divisions responsible for engineering and traffic operations; safety and traffic engineering; research, development, and technology;

planning and policy development; right-of-way and

environment; administration; and motor carrier

safety.

FHWA also administers the Federal-aid highway

program (see box 2-A), which distributes funds to

the States to construct and rehabilitate the 843,000-

mile Federal-aid highway system. Through the

Highway Trust Fund, the government pays 90

percent of construction costs for Interstate highways; 75 percent for primary, secondary, and urban

road construction; and 80 percent for bridge replacement and major rehabilitation. Federal funds cannot

be used for highway or road operation or maintenance, and responsibility for these and the remainder

of the road system rests with States and local

governments. The Highway Bridge Replacement

and Rehabilitation Program, also administered

Box 2-A—Highways: From Postal Roads

to Interstate

Systematic Federal assistance for highways

began in 1916, with grants to States for construction

of roads used to deliver the mail. Roads receiving

Federal highway aid were to be free of tolls, and all

proposed roads and methods of construction had to

be agreed on by the Secretary of Agriculture and

State highway departments.

Federal and State investment of more than $8

billion in the 1920s and 1930s boosted total mileage

of paved roads from 387,000 in 1921 to 1.4 million

by 1940. During World War II, appropriations for

roads needed for national defense, including access

roads to military sites, funded hundreds more

projects totaling more than 2,200 miles.l

In each of the first 3 postwar years, $500 million

in Federal funds was authorized for construction

and funding of secondary roads to connect farms

and small communities to the highway network and

an urban system located in and around major cities+

An Interstate highway system was designated for

connecting principal cities and industrial centers

and connecting with routes in Canada and Mexico.

Today’s highway system, while retaining marks of

all this history, is overlaid by legislation passed in

1956 authorizing completion of the Interstate system under the direction of the Department of

Commerce and State highway departments, To

speed travel, the system was to have no railroad

crossings, traffic signals, or stop signs. In 1988, the

system was 99 percent complete and consisted of

44,590 miles.2 The cost of the system, intimated at

$25 billion in 1956, will exceed $100 billion (in

current dollars) before completion, expected in

1991.

IBob Carpenter, “b the Early Days, Evwyono WW a

Roughrider,” Windows (Texas Engineering Exptwimm Statim

TeJKM A&M University), summer 1988.

Zptiw ~~way A_@tiou Highway i$t@#stks 1~~

(W@@@U~: U.S. Department of Trarqortatio~ ~9%%p.

132.

through States, is the major funding source for

repairing and rehabilitating ‘deficient bridges. States

develop program needs and set priorities based on

information from State bridge inventories and biennial inspections. Although States and communities

that receive Federal matching funds must follow

FHWA rules and regulations, flexibility permits

nonuniform practices among the States. For further

details, see chapter 3.
Chapter 2— Institutional Framework ● 47 —.——..-.-.—..-—— . . .— . . . --- —-- — —

BOX 2-B—Mass Transportation:

The Youngest Federal Transport

Assistance Program

Federal capital grants for mass transit began with

the Housing Act of 1961,1 which provided funding

for demonstrations ($25 million) and loans ($50

million) for mass transit projects to bolster the

private transit industry. The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 19642 established the Urban Mass

Transportation Administration (UMTA) within&@

Department of Housing and Urban Development to

administer capital grants to transit systems on a

two-thirds Federal, one-third local matching basis.

This sparked a rapid conversion of failing, privately

operated mass transit firms into public properties.

The fraction of publicly owned transit system

increased from 5 percent in 1960 to 55 percent in

1980, with the share of publicly owned vehicles

rising from 36 to 90 percent over that period. In

1968, UMTA was moved to the newly created

Department of Transportation, and the Urban Mass

Transportation Assistance Act of 19703 authorized

a $3. l-billion capital grants program Highway and

transit legislation in 1973 and 1974 increased the

federally funded portion of transit capital projects

from 67 to 80 percent, allowed expenditure of some

highway funds for qualifying transit projects, and

increased authorizations for discretionary capital

funding. A population-based, formula grant program for cities was created, which could be used for

either operations or capital projects. Increases in

Federal transit funding came to an end in the early

1980s, reaching a peak of $4,7 billion in 1981.4

175 Stat. 149 et seq.

z“r’i~~ 49, ~~. 1601.1611.

384 s~t, 962.

dur~~ss finspOr@mA-@ati~ Jg#$tUtiSi’iC#l

sum?M ries: GrantAssistance Programs (U%Shir@oQ DC: V,&

Department of Transportation% 1990), p, 11.

vehicle-miles operated by transit systems and 96

percent of all passenger trips by transit,12 but transit

agencncies have never realized the promise offered by

a dedicated revenue source; most trust fund revenue

remains unallocated.

- — .
48 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

The Federal Railroad Administration

FRA has primary jurisdiction over the Nation’s

railroads, promulgating and enforcing safety regulations, administering limited financial assistance

programs (see box 2-C), and conducting research

and development (R&D) for improved railroad

safety. FRA’s Office of Safety implements regulations covering railroad track maintenance and inspection, equipment signals, railroad locomotives,

safety appliances, power brakes, hours of service,

transport of hazardous materials, and operating

practices. The office also directs FRA’s R&D

program and investigates accidents. FRA’s safety

jurisdiction does not apply to light rail or rapid

transit systems in urban areas. In fiscal year 1988,

FRA spent about $40 million on safety activities.

About one-half of this amount was used for regulatory enforcement-providing salaries for about 325

Federal rail safety inspectors and assistance for some

104 State inspectors-and about one-third of this

amount went toward R&D.13

Through its Office of Passenger and Freight

Services and Office of Northeast Corridor Improvement Project and Engineering, FRA administers a

program of Federal assistance for national, regional,

and local rail services that includes: rail freight

service assistance programs, rail service continuation programs and State rail planning, labor/

management programs, and Amtrak.

In 1980, Congress passed the Staggers Rail Act to

improve the economic health of the railroads and

ensure effective competition. Some freight rate

regulation was retained in consideration of captive

shippers,14 but carriers were given greater flexibility

to react to market forces15 and greater freedom to

abandon track. This has spurred significant growth

in the number of shortline and regional freight

railroads, most of which operate as private entities.

(For further information, see chapter 3.)

Passenger Rail

The Federal Government now dominates intercity

passenger rail through Amtrak; it even owns most of

the track and structures along the northeast corridor

between Boston and Washington. In other parts of

the country, Amtrak’s agreements with freight

railroads permit its trains to use their track in return

for fees based on miles traveled and other considerations, including upkeep of the track, bridges, and

signals.

The Federal Government owns all of Amtrak’s

preferred stock, controls the appointment of its

board of directors, and has a lien on most of its

assets, including all locomotives and rolling stock.

Amtrak generated over 5.86 billion passenger-miles

in 1989.16 The corporation receives yearly Federal

grants of about $500 million from the Federal

Government through FRA to cover its operating

deficit.

Federal Aviation Administration

FAA has regulatory authority across the entire

aviation system-airports, airways, aircraft, industry, and people, and FAA itself owns and operates

one of the most complex transportation networks in

the world, the U.S. National Airspace System.

Industry participation in regulatory activities has a

long history (see box 2-D) and has continued to grow

since the 1950s, when Congress authorized Federal

aviation agencies to designate part of the certification and inspection processes to the private sector.

While Federal aviation regulatory enforcement

activities are relatively decentralized, with regional

and district offices having considerable autonomy

and independence, FAA is currently consolidating

some activities in its Washington headquarters.17

Although aviation maintains an enviable safety

record, dramatic growth in air travel, turmoil associated with the firing of air traffic controllers in 1981,

major changes in technology, and Federal budget

constraints have left FAA scrambling to modernize

lqcongressio~ Re~ch Service, Railroad S@ety: Selected Options That Might Promote Sajety, issue brief (w~~toq DC: Feb. 29 1988), Pp.

1-4.

14ScMtor Ernest F. Hobgs, opening statemen~ hearings before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, ~d ~~po~tio% SubCo*t*

on Surface Transportation@ Oversight of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, July 26, 1983.

lsFede~~oadA*~tioQ DeferredMainte~ nceandDelayed Capital Improvements On Class IIand Class ZIIRailroads (Washington% DC:

U.S. Department of Transportatio~ 1989), p. 14. ‘ 9;

IGW.@_C~~or,Jr., President and Chairman of the Bo&dj NationalRsih-oadPassenger Corp., testimony athearingsbefore the House Committee

on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies, Mar. 22, 1989, p. 1.

IT~c~el zmo~e, proj~t ~ag~, Engineering, Federal Aviation Administratio~ ~rsond Communication% J@ 12, 19N.
Chapter 2— Institutional Framework ● 49

Box 2-C—Railroads and Government: A Difficult Relationship

Federal assistance to railroads began as the industry sought to expand westward. Starting in 1850, land grants

were made to railroads as they attempted to reach the Pacific. Federal regulatory power, however, was not

established until 1887, when the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was created and given authority to set

some rail rates. Between 1893 and 1921, Congress passed several rail safety acts and gave ICC responsibility for

implementing and enforcing the regulations. Little important railroad legislation was passed during the next 40

years, and railroad dominance in transportation declined, as Federal aid spurred expansion of the highway system

and growth in the trucking industry.

Starting in 1965, legislation gradually transferred all safety responsibility from ICC to the Department of

Transportation, including responsibility for regulations, inspection, enforcement, accident investigation and

recordkeeping, and some hazardous materials functions. However, ICC retained authority for railroad accounting

and costing procedures, construction and abandonment of rail lines, mergers, acquisitions, and issuance of

securities. ICC also enforced the ‘common carrier obligation,” which requires a carrier to provide service to anyone

who seeks it and is willing to pay the charge shown on rate schedules filed with the commission.l

ICC requirements constrained railroads’ abilities to compete economically with trucks and played a crucial role

in declining rail economic performance. By the early 1970s, seven railroads that had provided freight and passenger

service in the Northeast and Midwest were bankrupt. From their remnants, Federal action created the Consolidated

Rail Corporation @mi.ii), a private freight railroad company with government financing and oversight. At the

same time, the quasi-public National Rail Corporation (Amtrak) was created to provide passenger service on the

routes served by the bankrupt railroads; Amtrak, however, also incorporated the passenger service of other major

railroads serving the rest of the country, to ensure a nationwide passenger system.

Federal funds compensated the bankrupt carriers, rebuilt track and equipment, and covered operating losses.

Subsequent legislation allowed Conrail to make the changes necessary to make a refit, which it did in 1981 and

succeeding years. Conrail was sold in 1987 through a public offering of its stock, 2

lu.s. @Der~ Acco_ Gffiee, problem in Implementing Regulatory AccOWing and CosCfng SySt@?tSfOr Rai!ro@ ~m-~%

~: July 17, 1980), p. 1.

2Nmq Heiser, cO~sSiO~ Resewch Serviee, “Rxkrsl Aid to Domestic Trmspor@tiom A Brief History From tie 1800s to the

1980s,” Report 88-574, Aug. 16, 1988, pp. 5-7.

the system. Ongoing concerns center on whether most of the responsibility for land-use planning and

FAA has the institutional capability and resources to coordinating the surface transportation links to

carry out its operating, standard setting, rulemaking, airports. The Airport and Airway Trust Fund proand technology development functions effectively vides about one-third of the capital for public airport

and to guarantee compliance through its inspection improvements. 19

programs.

l8

To provide support for air traffic control (ATC)

facilities, an Airport and Airway Trust Fund, financed mostly from taxes imposed on airline tickets

and aviation fuel, was created in 1970. Economic

deregulation in 1978 removed Federal controls over

routes, fares, and new entries and transferred all

remaining economic functions to DOT.

Non-Federal organizations, primarily local governments and regional authorities, own and operate

most public airports, and local governments bear

International agreements establish minimum

standards for aviation systems to ensure compatibility throughout the world. Historically, U.S. requirements, with the exception of security items, have

been adopted worldwide. However, future communication, navigation, and surveillance technologies

will permit precise traffic monitoring and control

well beyond domestic borders, possibly worldwide.

These advances may require new forms of international coordination, such as satellite system protocols, and require negotiation of sensitive issues such

18u.s, conWe55, of fIce of TeCho@y Assessmen~ Safe Skies for Tomorrow: Aviation Safety in a Competitive Environment, OW-SET-381

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1988), p. 45.

lgFor tier details on fiincing and management see Oftlce of Technology Assessmen4 op. cit., footnote 4.
50 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Box 2-D—Government and Aviation: A Close Marriage

The Air Mail Act of 1925 authorized the Post Office Department to contract for airmail service with private

operators, greatly stimulating the growth of commercial air carriers, some of which evolved into today’s major

airlines. However, despite strong industry support for Federal aviation safety legislation, Congress was unable to

reach agreement on a statute until 1926, when the Air Commerce Act was passed. The legislation charged the

Department of Commerce with both regulatory authority over aviation and responsibilities aimed at promoting the

fledgling industry. The major provisions of the act authorized the regulation of aircraft and airmen in interstateand

foreign commerce, provided Federal support for airways and weather services, authorized aeronautical research and

development (R&D) programs, and provided for the investigation of aviation accidents. Airport development was

left to local governments.

During the 1930s, industry expansion and increasing traffic prompted a group of airlines to establish an air

traffic control (ATC) system, which was transferred to the Department of Commerce in 1936. Economic regulation

began in 1938, with the creation of the Civil Aeronautics Authority, responsible for safety programs, route

certificates, airline tariffs, and air mail routes. Federal responsibilities for airway and airport development grew

tremendously during World War II and came to include Federa1 financial assistance to States and municipalities.

Surplus military airplanes and pilots and higher performance passenger transports brought enormous commercial

aviation growth during the next decade. However, Federal support for ATC and airport development did not keep

pace; some control towers and communications facilities were abandoned and R&D efforts curtailed.

The impending introduction of jet aircraft and a 1956 midair collision between two airliners led to the creation

of the Federal Aviation Agency in 1958, with responsibility for fostering air commerce, regulating safety, ATC and

navigation systems, and airspace allocation and policy. In 1966, the Federal Aviation Agency became the Federal

Aviation Administration and was transferred to the newly formed Department of Transportation.

as whether U.S. ATC should monitor U.S. carrier Saint Lawrence Seawav Development Corp.

traffic overflying other countries.

Maritime Administration

Established in 1950 and made a part of DOT in

1981, MARAD administers programs to support the

development, promotion, and operation of the U.S.

merchant marine. It administers programs to subsidize U.S. shipping and shipbuilding costs, funds

training for seafaring personnel, and supports industry efforts to develop ports, facilities, and intermodal

transport. In addition, MARAD maintains a National Defense Reserve Fleet of U.S. ships that it

operates when required for national defense.

U.S. Coast Guard

The U.S. Coast Guard has a dual role; it is at all

times a branch of the military services, operating as

part of the Navy in wartime, and it is an operating

agency of DOT during peacetime. Its responsibilities center on the safe and orderly operation of the

Nation’s waterways and ports, including sea search

and rescue operations, law enforcement (e.g., suppression of smuggling and drug trafficking), pollution control, and aids-to-navigation and boating

safety programs.

y I I

The corporation was established in 1954 as an

operating division of DOT responsible for the

development, operation, and maintenance of that

part of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie. Coordinating its activities with

Canadian authorities, the corporation administers all

phases of Seaway daily operations as well as

planning and capital improvements. Its goal is to

encourage traffic through the seaway and fully

develop its commercial potential.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(the Corps)

Responsible for operating and maintaining the

Nation’s waterways and born during the American

Revolution, when army engineers built bridges and

harbor fortifications, the Corps is one of the oldest

Federal agencies. The need for a permanent cadre of

military engineers led to legislation in 1802 creating

the Corps, which has evolved continuously over the

ensuing years to meet national engineering needs.

Since 1977, the Corps has been a major military

command of the U.S. Army, overseen by the

assistant secretary for civil works. The Civil Works

Program directs public waterways infrastructure
Chapter 2—Institutional Framework ● 51

activities, hydroelectric power generation, flood

control, and water supply.

The Corps’ field organization, one of its most

important groups for public works, consists of 9

division offices, which supervise geographic areas

based on river basins, and 36 relatively autonomous

districts responsible for operations, maintenance,

construction, preparation of design studies, and real

estate acquisition. The Corps produces nearly 30

percent of the Nation’s hydropower and 3.5 percent

of the total electric energy; 115 Corps’ lakes store

water for agricultural, municipal, and industrial

use.

20 The agency supports some work of other

Federal organizations, providing design, evaluation,

and construction management assistance on a fee

basis when its schedule permits.21

The Corps and Public Works

The Corps’ involvement in water projects began

in 1824, when it was charged with clearing channels

and constructing harbors. Subsequent legislation

expanded Federal water transport management and

funded the Corps to deepen and widen inland

waterways, ports, and harbor channels. In 1899, the

Corps was authorized to issue permits governing

discharge into navigable waterways, a power it

retains to this day, although now the permits must

comply with EPA regulations.22

Because most Corps undertakings have promoted

local and regional economic growth and large

projects were heavily federally funded23 its agenda

has always been warmly received by Congress.

Throughout the 19th century, the Corps constructed

flood control facilities, including dams, where they

would not interfere with navigation, but the importance of water transport for freight declined significantly in the late 19th century, as railroads expanded

their networks. In 1917, Congress permitted the

Corps to build hydropower facilities at Federal dams

and authorized a Corps flood control program in the

mid- 1930s. Corps authority for navigation improvements was modified in 1944 to include recreation,

erosion control (especially for beaches), water supply, and water quality.

Environmental Concerns

The Corps traditionally used structures such as

jetties and groins to fortify harbors, and levees and

flood walls to control rivers. However, following

passage of the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) in 1969, Corps’ activities came under acute

scrutiny. Environmentalists charged that the Corps’

construction-especially the massive flood-control

dam projects-caused irreparable ecological damage and destroyed wildlife habitats. Nonstructural

solutions were made eligible for Federal funds in

197424 (although costs have prohibited most communities from exploring such options), and Clean

Water Act Amendments in 1972 and 1977 extended

the Corps’ responsibilities to include all water

affecting the commerce chain.

Nonetheless, new project starts ground to a halt

between 1976 and 198625 because of growing

Federal budget difficulties, concern about environmental degradation, disputes about cost sharing

between Congress and the Administration, and

demands from the public and local governments for

participation in the formulation of projects. Legislation in 1978 established modest user fees for barge

operators in the form of a marine fuel tax, and money

began to accumulate in the Inland Waterway Trust

Fund to help pay for lock and darn construction.

Passage of the Water Resources Development Act

of 1986 finally allowed new construction to resume

but increased cost sharing for non-Federal project

sponsors, a provision that scaled back projects26 and

transformed project planning and implementation.

Cost-sharing requirements depend on project type,

ranging from 100 percent for hydroelectric projects

and municipal and industrial water supply from

~.S. Army Corps of Engineering, Secretary of the Army’ sReport on Civil Works Activities, Fiscal Year 1987, vol. 1 (Washgto@ DC: 1987).

Z1l’bid+

ZU.s. ~y Covs of Eq@eer& Digest of Water policies and Authorities (wx~to~ DC: Fe- 1989)”

23Histofi~y, lwgefl~ ~n~ol ~d~nd Mvigationprojwts were f~er~ly wed, while water supply ~d hydropower facility COStS were repaid

by users. Local contributions of land, easements, and right-of-way provided a share of small, local flood control project costs. The 1986 Water Resources

Development Act revised the Corps’ cost-sharing policy.

~Jean Nie~er and David ~“arL Can Organizations Change? (Washington+ DC: The Brookings InstitutiorL 1979), p. 13.

%awrence Mosher, “The Dwindling Federal Role,” Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, vol. 2, winter 1987, p. 44.

~Steve Hughe.s, Congressional Research Service, “WaterResources Development Act: Implementing the Omnibus Project Reforms,” updated Aug.

15, 1989.
52 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Photo credit: American Society of Civil Engineers

Harbor maintenance costs are partially paid from a trust

fund supported by an ad valorem tax for operators of

tankers and seagoing vessels.

Corps managed reservoirs, through 25 to 50 percent

for flood control, to 10 to 50 percent for harbor

construction. The Inland Waterway Trust Fund is

currently sufficient to support replacement of from

four to six projects each decade, only a small

percentage of the construction projected as necessary to improve the fuel-taxed waterway system.

The only water-related user fee that can be used

for maintenance is a tax established in the 1986 act

on the dollar value of the commodities shipped

through a port. The tax feeds the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which covers about one-third of

dredging costs. Virtually all operating and maintenance expenses for the Inland Waterway System are

paid from the Federal General Fund. This contrasts

to operations and maintenance for airports, highway,

and mass transit, which State and local user fees

commonly support.

The 1986 act also required that the Corps mitigate

against fish and wildlife losses for each project,

provided for wetlands preservation, and reaffirmed

EPA’s authority to review Corps’ permits in navigational waters and wetlands. The divergent agency

missions make EPA vetoes of some Corps’ permits

inevitable. Construction on new projects can begin

only after provisions of the NEPA, Clean Water Act,

Coastal Zone Management Act, Endangered Species

Act, Fish and Wildlife Act, and National Historic

Preservation Act have been satisfied.

The Corps’ Future

Over the years the Corps has successfully metamorphosed to address changes in national priorities,

and today represents a rich and valuable civil

engineering resource. Nonetheless, Federal budget

constraints and the national shift to reconditioning

facilities rather than constructing new ones have

dramatically reduced its civil works efforts.27 These

factors and environmental difficulties with many

major water projects mean that the agency must

again look toward change. Drawing on its in-house

talent to assist other Federal agencies is one element

of the Corps’ strategy. It considers its support of

EPA’s hazardous waste disposal (Superfund) and

wastewater treatment plant construction grant programs to be its most significant cooperation effort.28

The Corps also assists States and territories in

comprehensive water resource planning by providing land-use planners with information on flood

hazards and technical assistance for dealing with

floods. Agency officials have offered the Corps’

assistance for the Department of Energy’s radioactive waste cleanup program.

Environmental Protection Agency

Although local governments manage most of the

Nation’s environmental public works, EPA’s guidelines and standards affect Cabinet departments

(DOT, the Corps, and the Bureau of Reclamation),

every sector of the U.S. economy, and virtually

every category of public works managed by State

and local officials. An independent agency headed

by an administrator, EPA’s activities include research; standard setting; monitoring and enforcement for safe drinking water, air quality in large

urban areas with air pollution problems, and operation of wastewater treatment plants; and hazardous

waste disposal. EPA, a White House initiative, was

established by an executive order in 197029 to

“organize rationally and systematically” the Federal Government’s many disparate pollution-related

activities. States had shown reluctance to enforce

27RO&~ w. fige, A~~i~~~t sm~ of ~ ~y (Civil wo~), ~s~ny ath-before he Semk (Jommittee on Appropriations,

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, May 3, 1989.

~Ibid.

~.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganizatio~ Reorganization P/an

Number 3 of 1970 (Environnwntal Protection Agency) (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing OfIice, 1970).
Chapter 2— Institutional Framework ● 53

pollution control regulations against industry,30 and

Federal agencies, like the Department of the Interior

and the then Department of Health, Education and

Welfare (HEW), with longstanding environmental

programs, had not actively enforced their own

standards.

EPA was established by bringing together nine

programs, including the National Air Pollution

Administration and the bureaus of Solid Waste

Management, Water Hygiene, and Radiology from

HEW, and the Federal Water Quality Administraion from the Department of the Interior. When

creating the new agency, the Nixon Administration

debated whether to organize it into functional

programs such as research, monitoring, abatement,

and compliance, or to keep intact the disparate

media-specific pollution control programs inherited

from other departments. The administrative need to

create a single agency out of a number of existing

Federal programs and the political urgency of

vigorous enforcement against polluters pointed to

retaining specific control programs, an organizational decision with results that persist today.

EPA’s role as a guardian of environmental quality

includes both determiningg regulatory guidelines and

enforcing compliance with the regulations, known

as the ‘‘command and control’ approach. The

Agency initially monitored the air and water contamination by a small number of pollutants, but as

the health effects of chemicals in the environment

became better understood, Congress passed laws

requiring EPA to regulate more organic and inorganic pollutants, in soil, water, and air (see table 2-1

again). In addition, the 1972 Clean Water Act

authorized EPA to make wastewater treatment

grants to finance local plant construction.

Today the Agency administers 10 major laws,

including the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking

Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act, and the environmental provisions

of a number of other statutes. EPA’s regulatory

actions follow directly from the many laws it must

enforce (with sometimes inconsistent results). Air

quality standards, for example, are established by

the need for protecting public health; Clean Water

Act guidelines are linked to the technology capable

of removing trace contaminants from wastewater.31

EPA’s divisions include Water, Air and Radiation,

Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and Pesticides and Toxic Substances, each monitoring pollution control efforts in air, water, or soil. Although the

divisions are not autonomous, their programs and

activities are highly compartmentalized. Little effective coordination occurs between divisions,32 despite a statement in EPA’s fiscal year 1990 budget

book that the Agency’s interdisciplinary R&D

program cuts across programmatic lines to consider

environmental problems affecting several media.

Debate about EPA continues as a move to elevate

it to Cabinet status gathers steam. As far back as

1970, proponents of a reorganization plan had

argued that for the effective control of pollution, "

. . . the environment must be perceived as a single,

interrelated system. ’33 But Congress never passed a

law giving EPA statutory authority to view the

environment as a whole, and recent administrators

point out that each division devotes itself to removing toxic chemicals from a single medium, diminishing the Agency’s effectiveness enormously. “The

single medium approach is setup like concrete in the

practical day-to-day administrative operations of

EPA. . . . We have to accept the fact that this general

environmental strategy may be flawed."34 Pollutants migrate from air to water and from water to soil

or follow any number of other routes among the

separate media. Municipal wastewater treatment

plants generate air pollution as well as create sludge

contaminated with toxic chemicals, and the crossmedia impacts pose often serious compliance problems for municipal public works officials.

Studies released by the Agency in 1987 and in

September 1990 assert that EPA is not adequately

concentrating on problems of long-term threats to

%ouncil on Bnviromnental Quality, Environmental QuuZiry, The 16th Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Qual.ily (Washington DC:

1985).

31JW= Q. Wfion (~.), The politics of Regulation (New York NY: Basic BOOICS, kc., 1980), P“ 277.

32Lee h-f. ‘X%OIMS, “Systems Approach: Challenge for BFA” EPA Journal, Sqtdti 1985, p. 22.

SSHOUW Committee on Government Operations, op. cit., footnote 29.

Xmou, op. cit., footnote 32, p. 21.
54 ● Delivering the Goods Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

sider the environmental consequences of their actions, and Federal agencies must file an environmental impact statement with EPA before approving

major projects. NEPA has had significant impact on

DOT’s operations,37 and Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 increase the requirements for environmental sensitivity in DOT programs.

Bureau of Reclamation

Federal reclamation activities were established by

Congress in 1902 as part of the U.S. Geological

Survey in the Department of the Interior to turn

large, arid Western States into rich farmlands

through large irrigation projects. The Reclamation

Service was renamed the Bureau of Reclamation in

1923, and by the 1930s, as expertise was gained from

a number of irrigation dam projects, the agency

began supplying municipal water. Eventually the

Bureau’s tasks came to include hydroelectric power,

flood control, municipal and industrial water supply,

recreational uses of lakes and rivers, and fish and

wildlife conservation. The agency’s golden age

came during the Roosevelt Administration,38 when

huge river basin projects, combining irrigation,

water supply, hydroelectric power generation, and

flood control were conceived and built. The Bureau’s largest projects—Hoover and Grand Coulee

dams-required solutions to complex engineering

problems (a steady water flow for navigation and

power production, periodic and seasonal water

releases for both irrigation and flood control) and

established world records.

As the number, size, and geographical reach of the

Bureau’s water projects increased, so did their

environmental impact, and criticism grew on the

basis of safety, doubtful economic benefits, destruction of historic and scenic areas, and harm to fish and

wildlife habitats. Conservationists began to work

actively against project authorizations, succeeding

for the first time in 1956 with the prevention of Echo

 1987); 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Board, Reducing Risks: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection

 DC: September 

 Advisory op. Cit., footnote 

37Martin “Transportation and the Current in Transportation Policy, Alan (cd.) MA:

Lexington BooIs, 1979).

 of &X2@, 
Chapter 2— Institutional Framework ● 55

Park Dam.39 Similar activism blocked construction

of two dams in the Grand Canyon section of the

Colorado River in the 1960s.40 Congress responded

by requiring consideration of water quality, wildlife

and endangered species protection in project planning, and the filing of environmental impact statements. Nonetheless, recent assessments have shown

groundwater degradation and surface water pollution from fertilizers and pesticides as byproducts of

Bureau projects,41 problems that can affect drinking

water quality and complicate the tasks of State and

local public works officials.

Recognizing that the Bureau had met its original

objectives of harnessing the major rivers of the West

to meet water demands, its officials undertook an

internal assessment culminating in 1987 with a

radical reordering of priorities.42 Henceforth, water

conservation, environmental protection and restoration, and improving system reliability and project

optimization would take precedence over construction of large water projects. Future activities would

be smaller in scale or designed to obtain maximum

efficiency from existing projects and involve nonFederal partners. The new mission includes managing resources, promoting water conservation, removing legal and institutional barriers to water

conservation, and creating more usable water supplies from existing projects. Still under way are two

major water projects—the Central Arizona and the

Central Utah-which will absorb a major portion of

the Bureau’s budget in the coming years. But

beginning in the mid-1990s, the Bureau’s task will

increasingly be operations and maintenance of

existing projects, with possible transfer of these

responsibilities to local beneficiaries.

Department of the Treasury

As the executive agency that formulates tax

policy, including rules for tax-exempt municipal

bonds, the Department of the Treasury has a major

influence on the availability of private capital for

local public works projects. Treasury’s Office of Tax

Policy prepares tax legislation to support executive

branch fiscal goals and protect Federal revenues. To

reduce Federal revenue losses attributable to taxexempt bonds, Congress passed Treasury-sponsored

legislation, as part of the 1986 and 1988 Tax Reform

Acts, to tighten eligibility and reporting requirements for tax-exempt financing and restrict opportunities for arbitrage.43 Passage of the acts undercut

efforts by other executive branch agencies to shift

public works financing from Washington to State

and local governments. However, OTA could find

no evidence of communication over probable impacts on transportation or environmental public

works investment between the tax lawyers at Treasury and program administrators at DOT and EPA, or

between congressional tax-writing committees and

those with jurisdiction for public works.

The immediate impact of the tax code changes

was a dramatic drop in tax-exempt financing for

private purpose projects such as civic centers and

parking garages and a reduction in local use of

arbitrage. Traditional governmental-purpose, municipal bond sales for water treatment plants and

street improvements have returned to their pre-1986

levels after an initial drop,44 indicating that results of

the tax code changes were not as disastrous to

traditional public works financing as local officials

had at first feared.

Office of Management and Budget

Through its responsibility for preparing the President’s budget and its oversight and review of the

organization and operations of executive branch

departments and agencies, OMB wields enormous

influence over the Federal role in public works.

Specifically, the office has authority to negotiate

with departments over their budgets, to review

proposals that Cabinet departments and agencies

want included in the President legislative package,

and to enforce spending cuts agreed to in the 1990

deficit reduction package.

OMB in recent years has played a major role in

advocating governmental policies and in restraining

3?Ibid., p. 93.

‘%Miarn Warne, The Bureau of Reclamation (Boulder, CO: Westview Encore Reprin4 1985), p. 99.

dlMosher, op. cit., footnote 25, p. 45.

42BWW of I&ckuI@o~ op. cit., footnote 3.

@f’he term arbitrage refers to the practice of investing bond issue prOCWX@ mti~y= n~~ ~ securities with interest rates higher than the bond

issue.

44@vmmat F~we Res~ch Center, ‘$F~e~ ~policy and _~ctureF~c~g,*’()~ contractor reporg Sept. 13, 1989, p. ~-4.
56 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Federal spending. In addition to recommending

Federal Program cuts in most areas, OMB has gained

virtual veto power over regulations. In 1981, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12291 that

required departments to prepare cost/benefit analyses for all proposed Federal regulations and that they

be submitted to OMB for review and approval.

OMB’s hand was further strengthened in 1985 by

Executive Order 12498 requiring agencies to submit

a calendar of significant regulatory actions they

planned to take during the following year, thereby

giving OMB more time to shape the development of

regulations.45

OMB can refuse to consider or accept legislative

proposals and departmental policies that do not

conform with the Chief Executive’s fiscal or policy

priorities. Although DOT has a Cabinet officer to

advocate its budget and programs, OMB’s perspective stimulated modifications in the Federal financing recommendations in the department’s longrange policy plan, Moving America.% As a regulatory agency lacking Cabinet representation, EPA is

even more subject to OMB influence.

The Courts

During the last three decades, the Federal judiciary has heard thousands of administrative law cases

dealing with the environment and issued a multitude

of rulings affecting national health and environmental policies. This judicial activism has affected

how Congress drafts legislation, the manner in

which department rules are written, and the way the

Federal bureaucracy functions. The threads of environmental policy are contained innumerous Federal

statutes, rules, and the multitude of orders and

rulings of Federal and State judges, making program

administration and coordination difficult. EPA, as a

regulatory agency, is profoundly affected by court

activism, 47 but judicial rulings have an impact on

DOT, BuRec, and the Corps, too.

While judicial oversight offers vital legal protections and opportunities for interest groups to be

heard, it also lengthens and further fragments the

Photo credit: Dan Broun, OTA staff

Court rulings have become an almost inescapable part of

the Federal regulatory and enforcement processes.

policymaking process and complicates enforcement.

Between 1%8 and 1978, Congress passed more

regulatory statutes than it had in the Nation’s

previous 179 years. EPA was established specifically to administer the environmental laws.48 These

laws included the NEPA, the Consumer Product

Safety Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act,

and a number of the environmental protection laws

(see table 2-1 again). This wave of legislation, aimed

at protecting the environment and shielding citizens

from the risks of all kinds of pollutants, brought the

courts into abroad and contentious arena characterized by scientific uncertainty and conflicting values.

In most regulatory laws passed in the 1970s,

Congress authorized citizens to file suit against

administrators either for taking unauthorized action

or for failing to perform “nondiscretionary’ duties,

so as to protect against bureaucratic foot-dragging

and industry control.49 This liberalization of ‘standing,” or who could sue, gave environmental and

other interest groups new power and guaranteed

court intervention. Moreover, the regulations gave

the courts oversight of a wide range of activities.

Statutes stipulated that every highway project using

Federal funds must include a detailed environmental

impact study; public facilities were mandated to

45Norman J. Vig and Michael E. I@@ Environmenta/Policy in the 1990s (Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1990), p. 42.

46~yWn ~~, ‘~BW Tqotition Policy Is Non-Starter in COIWWS,” Congressional Quarterly, MaT. 10, 1990, p. 746; and David 33rodeq

“Skinner’s Moving America: A CopOu4° The Chicago Tribune, Penpective section, Mar. 11, 1990, p. 3.

47@er 80 Pmcent of we 300” ~e~tiom & ~~mn~ ~o~tion Agency ~sues~~y~d up in the CO-. See Rochelle L. Stani3eld,

“Resolving Disputes,” National Journal, vol. 18, No. 46, Nov. 15, 1986, p. 2764.

4$R. Shep Melnick Regulations and the Courts (Washington DC: The Broolcings kstillltiO1’1, 190, P. s.

4~id., p. 8.
Chapter 2—Institutional Framework ● 57

provide access to disabled persons; and every

business and facility that produced air pollution,

wastewater, and solid waste was regulated to some

extent. To counter criticism that it failed to provide

enough guidance, Congress wrote detailed statutes

requiring specific standards, procedures, and deadlines-creating fertile ground for potential litigants.

Impact of Court Activism

The expanding role of the courts has reduced the

discretion of program administrators, lengthened the

rulemaking process, expanded the scope of many

regulations, and widened the gap between stated

program goals and enforcement. Following the

congressional lead, agency lawyers have learned to

craft very specific regulations”. . . for litigation and

political reasons, [which] say what they must in

order to satisfy those concerns. ’ ’50 However, such

specificity deprives Federal agencies of management latitude; the deadlines written into the Clean

Water Act, for example, give EPA officials no

flexibility to work with communities that have

special compliance or fiscal problems.

Judges, removed from the daily operation of

administrative agencies and exposed to a variety of

scientific advice, often have difficulty adjudicating

the complexity and ramifications of specific issues.

In response to legislation and court rulings, particularly at the appellate level, agencies have expanded

regulatory programs beyond the limits contemplated

by administrators and scientific experts and seemingly without regard for the costs and the feasibility

of enforcement. Setting standards has turned out to

be easier than administering and financing an

effective enforcement program, such as recent drinking water regulations that require local testing for 83

contaminants, many of which occur in amounts too

small to measure. The result is a widening gap

between program requirements and what agencies

can reasonably expect to accomplish, a difficulty

compounded by shrinkin“ g budgets for administration and implementation. Adjusted for inflation,

EPA’s operating budget has increased from only

$1.4 billion in 1975 to $1.5 billion in 1990,51 but its

program responsibilities have burgeoned.

Court intervention has multiplied the time and

money required to prepare regulations. Agencies

that face frequent court challenges become risk

sensitive and institute complex, time-consuming

rulemaking procedures, diverting resources from

research and enforcement. Furthermore, when opposing groups are focused on creating a record for

litigation, negotiations are difficult. Although agencies pursue informal, negotiated rulemaking on

those rules amenable to negotiation, and some

disputes are settled out of court, the likelihood of

litigation is a deterrent to negotiating hard issues.

Congress

Almost one-half of the 303 committees and

subcommittees of the 10lst Congress claimed jurisdiction over some aspect of public works, inhibiting

development of coordinated public policy and ensuring continuing Federal program gaps and conflicts for State and local governments. (See table 2-3

for a list of committees.) This fragmentation has

characterized the long history of Federal involvement in public works. It continues because transportation and environmental infrastructure underpin

and affect a wide range of activities essential to the

economy and public health of every district. Furthermore, congressional history shows that, in most

cases, Congress has chosen to decentralize and

spread decisionmaking, rather than to consolidate

and coordinate the Federal legislative process.

Evolution of the Committee System

Originally established in 1789 on an ad hoc basis

to draft specific legislation, congressional committees have evolved into permanent bodies with

authority to propose legislation, an independence

that has given committees almost unassailable

power over legislation in their specialized areas.52

During the 19th century, standing committees proliferated, gaining more independence from chamber

and party control and acquiring most of their present

day powers; by 1913, the House operated with 61

standing committees and the Senate with 74. Committee chairs wielded enormous power after the

“House revolution of 1910” decentralized leadership, limiting the role of the Speaker by establishing

~James Q. Wilson, Bureaucracy (New York, NY: Basic BOOkS, 1989), P. 285.

Slvig and fiaf~ op. cit., footnote 45, p. 19.

52Judy SC~eider, ~p~tedby@-olfidy, The Co~greSSionalStanding co~”tteesyxte~nzn~oducto~ Guide (w&$h@oIl, w: CO~eSSiOIld

Research Service, May 1989), p. 2.
58 ● Delivering the Goods Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table 2-3-Partial List of Congressional Committees With Jurisdiction Over Public Works

Jurisdiction over Jurisdiction over

environmental transportation

legislation legislation

House committees:

Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, and Rural Development. . . .

Appropriations Subcommittees:

Energy and Water Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

interior. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs Subcommittees:

Housing and Community Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General Oversight and investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Policy Research and Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Economic Stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Budget Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Energy and Commerce Subcommittees:

Energy and Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Health and the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oversight and Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Transportation and Hazardous Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Government Operations Subcommittees:

Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Government Activities and Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Government Information, Justice, and Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittees:

Energy and the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General Oversight and Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Water, Power, and Offshore Energy Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Merchant Marine and Fisheries Subcommittees:

Coast Guard and Navigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oceanography and Great Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public Works and Transportation Subcommittees:

Economic Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .

Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

investigations and Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Surface Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Science, Space and Technology Subcommittees:

Natural Resources, Agriculture Research, and Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Science, Research, and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

investigations and Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .

Transportation, Aviation, and Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Senate committees:

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittees:

Agricultural Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rural Development and Rural Electrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appropriations Subcommittees:

Agriculture and Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .

Energy and Water Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Interior. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Housing and

Urban Affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Budget Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittees:

Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Merchant Marine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Science, Technology, and Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Ocean Policy Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Surface Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x—

—

x

x

x—

x

.

x

x—

x

x

x

x

—

—

x

x—

x

x

x—

x

x

x—

x

x

—

x

x

x

x

.

—

—

—

x—

—

x

x

x

x

x

—

x

x

x

—

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x—

x

(Continued on next page)
Chapter 2— Institutional Framework . 59

Table 2-3-Partial List of Congressional Committees With Jurisdiction Over Public Works-Continued

Jurisdiction over Jurisdiction over

environmental transportation

legislation legislation

Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittees:

Energy Regulation and Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x —

Energy Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . x —

Water and Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x —

Environment and Public Works Subcommittees:

Water Resources, Transportation, and Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Environmental Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x —

Superfund, Ocean, and Water Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x —

Toxic Substances, Environmental Oversight, Research and Development. . . . x

Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Trade,

—

Oceans, and Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x —

Government Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management . . . x —

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on material from Congressional Ye//ow Book (Washington, DC: Monitoring Publishing Co., fall

1989).

seniority as the major criteria for determining

committee chairmanship and moving up in the

ranks. 53

Largely because the decentralized committee

system hampered efficient policy development during World War II, Congress eliminated minor

committees and merged many with related functions

under the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.

The act defined for the frost time the jurisdictions of

each committee and established uniform procedures,

including hiring of permanent committee staff.

These committee jurisdictions, as they have been

modified since 1946, are part of House rule X and

Senate rule XXV.

Responding to the upsurge of socioeconomic,

environmental, and foreign policy issues in the

1960s and 1970s, Congress gradually expanded the

power of committees and their chairs and created a

number of specialized subcommittees. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 opened committee

work sessions to the public, permitted committee

chairs selection based on factors other than seniority,

authorized subcommittees to hire separate staffs,

and set the stage for further organizational reforms

(see box 2-E).

Congress’ internal party organizations in each

house assign members to committees, considering

their preferences, party needs, and the geographical

and ideological balance of each committee. In the

10lst Congress, the Senate had 16 standing committees and 87 subcommittees; the House operated with

22 committees and 146 subcommittees.54 The average Senate committee had five subcommittees,

compared with seven in the House. Every House

member, except top party leaders, served on at least

one standing committee, and Senators served on at

least two committees.

Committee Functions

Committees propose and review legislation, including bills to raise and spend public funds. Most

bills are referred by the House or Senate leadership,

in cooperation with the Parliamentarian, to one

standing committee, but the complexity of public

policy issues means that major bills are often sent to

multiple committees with overlapping jurisdictions.

Individual committee rules determine a bill’s subcommittee assignments, which also can overlap. See

table 2-4 for those committees with important

legislative jurisdiction over public works.

Committees and subcommittees are also responsible for overseeing Federal agencies and programs

under their jurisdiction. As part of oversight activities, agency officials are called to Capitol Hill to

testify. EPA and DOT officials annually testify

before numerous committees, each with a unique

perspective and objective.

Authorizations and Appropriations

Authorizing committees in both houses report

annual or multi-year authorization bills for Federal

programs under their jurisdiction, thereby setting the

maximum amount of money an agency may spend

‘31bid., p. 3.

~h addition, the lolst Congress has 9 special or select committees with 11 subcommittees and 4 joint COIIMIIMt%S w’ifi 8 m~o~tis who=

functions are prirnarily investigative.
60 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Box 2-E—Anatomy of Recent Congressional Reforms

The most recent broad changes in House committee jurisdiction and procedures occurred in 1974, under the

auspices of the House Select Committee on Committees, The committee’s preliminary proposal called for cutting

into the broad jurisdictions of Ways and Means, Commerce, and Education and Labor, while adding to the

jurisdictions of Foreign Affairs, Public Works, Science and Astronautics, and for eliminating several

narrow-purpose committees. The proposal also suggested a mechanism for referral of bills to multiple committees.

The recommendatiom drew immediate fire from committee members, staff, and interest groups, who saw years of

accumulated seniority or political connections threatened by committee dissolution or jurisdictional reduction.

Responding to this pressure, the House chose not to eliminate any committees but required committees with 20

members or more to form subcommittees; it retained provisions for multiple referrals and for increased committee

staffs. 1 Power, particularly in the House, shifted from full committees to subcommittees.

A year later, additional reform measures were adopted, primarily reducing the power of committee chairs.

Election of Appropriations subcommittee chairs was shifted from the committee to the party caucus, an

acknowledgment of their status as tantamount to full committee chairs.2 In 1977 and 1979, the House rejected

further attempts to reform committee organization, such as the consolidation of energy jurisdictions into one

committee, although the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce was broadened and it

was renamed Energy and Commerce.

Senate committee reorganization has been somewhat more successful. In 1977, the Temporary Select

Committee to Study the Senate Committee System recommended a reduction to 12 standing committees organized

along functional lines. The proposal Called for anew Energy and Natural Resources Committee, consolidating most

energy-related functions. Although the proposals required substantive committee restructuring and dissolution of

several committees, the reorganization plan was carefully orchestrated by Senate bipartisan leadership and

passed--with compromise amendments-by an overwhelming margin.3

Political muscle blocked several key consolidations, however. A recommendation to shift jurisdiction over the

coastal zone management program from the Commerce Committee to the new Committee on Environment and

Public Works was eventually rejected by the Rules Committee after strenuous objections by Commerce; jurisdiction

over oceans, weather, and atmosphere was also retained by Commerce.4 In addition, special interest groups lobbied

sucessfully to preserve the Veterans’ and Select Small Business committees and stopped plans to consolidate

transportation legislation into one committee.5 This 1977 realignment has not been changed.

lstevens. smith and Christopher J. Dmring, Co~”ttees in Congress (Washingto~ DC: CO~ssioti Quarterly, kc. 1984), P. *.

%id., p. 47.

31bid., p. 49.

%onglwssional Quarterly, Inc., How Congress Works (Wasb@to~ DC: 1983), p, 84.

‘Ibid., p. !)%

on a specific program. The exceptions are entitlement programs, such as social security and Medicaid, which operate under permanent authorization

and are effectively removed from the authorizing

process. Authorizations are also linked to a budget

resolution, prepared by House and Senate committtees on the budget, establishing an overall ceiling

and limits for major spending areas, like health or

transportation. Authorizing, or legislative, committees and subcommittees are influential through their

oversight functions when major new legislation is

first passed, when an agency is created or its

program substantially modified, and in setting

funding authorizations. During the 1980s, deficit

reduction laws and trends restricting spending,

shortcomings in the budget process, and new programs greatly expanded the roles of the “money”

committees-Appropriations, Budget, and Ways

and Means on the House side and Appropriations,

Budget, and Finance in the Senate-at the expense

of authorizing committees.

Appropriation bills originate with the House

Committee on Appropriations and its 13 subcommittees and effectively control spending, since

authorized funds may not be spent unless they are

also appropriated. EPA’s State Revolving Loan

Funds are authorized at much higher levels than

have been appropriated, for example. Although, in

theory, program policy and oversight is reserved for
Table 2-4-Congressional Committees and Their Roles in Public Works Programs

[Ap = appropriations, Au = authorizes major program areas, a = authorizes specific programs, b = sets funding guidelines, o = oversight of programs, t = jurisdiction over

funding sources such as trust funds]

Mass Water Drinking Solid and

Highways transit Aviation Railroads resources water Wastewater hazardous waste

Senate committees:

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Banking, Housing, Urban

Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Commerce, Science and

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Energy and Natural

Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Environment and Public Works. .

Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Governmental Affairs. . . . . . . . . .

House committees:

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Banking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Energy and Commerce . . . . . . . .

Governmental Operations . . . . . .

Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public Works and

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Science, Space and

Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ways and Means . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Joint Economic Committee . . . . .

a/o a/o a/o

Ap/o

a/o

Ap/o

a/o a/o

Ap/o Ap/o Ap/o Ap/o Ap/o Ap/o

Au/o

b/o

—

b/o

—

b/o

—

b/o

—

b/o

—

b/o b/o b/o

Au/o Au/o Au/o Au/o — — —

a/o

Au/o

—

o

a/o

Au/o

—

o

a/o

Au/o

—

o

—

Au/o

t/o

o

— —

Au/o

t/o

o

Au/o

—

o

Au/o

t/o

o

—

t/o

o

+:0

b/o

a/o

o

a/o /$: —b/o

Au/o

o

—

a/o

Ap/o

a/o

b/o

Au/o

o

—

/$;O

b/o

a/o

o—

a/o

Ap/o

a/o

b/o

Au/o

o

—

—

Ap/o

a/o

b/o

a/o

o

Ap/o

—

b/o —

o

—

Ap/o

a/o

b/o

S/o

A/o

Au/o Au/o Au/o Au/o Au/o Au/o a/o

a/o

t/o

a/o

t/o

AU/O

t/o

o

a/o

t/o

Au/o

—

Au/o

—

o

Au/o

—

o

—

0 0 o 0 0

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.
62 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

authorizing committees, appropriations committees,

which have parallel subcommittees, frequently insert legislative provisions and funding for special

projects into bills. Members, responding to district

and constituent interests, direct appropriations to

public works such as flood control dams, parking

garages, and airport or mass transit facilities. The

environmentally controversial Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway in Alabama and Mississippi, built

during the early 1980s with Federal funds, was

financed in part with appropriations added by the

House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and

Water Development.55 The appropriations committees’ control over spending and tendency to add to

previously authorized legislation creates tensions

and intensifies intercommittee rivalries, particularly

in the House where a smaller proportion of members

serve on the Committee on Appropriations.

Jurisdictional Fragmentation

In Congress, jurisdiction or turf can mean additional staff, publicity, and power, prompting committees to seek broad jurisdictions and resist moves

to narrow them, and perpetuating conflicts and

overlaps. Transportation and environmental issues

are particularly susceptible to fragmentation and

competition because, while they cut a broad swath

across national life, the concept of system integration is relatively new. Historically, each segment

developed independently based on different goals

and objectives and established supportive committee connections and constituencies that are hard to

alter. For example, at least five House authorizing

committees have responsibility for water pollution

policy, regulation, and support programs, while

authority over transportation is spread among three

Senate committees and numerous subcommittees

(see table 2-4 again). In addition, House and Senate

appropriations, budget, and governmental operations committees have broad authority over most

governmental programs.

Because of jurisdictional fragmentation and competition, committees have difficulty dealing comprehensively with either transportation or the environment, much less treating them as interrelated systems. Policy and funding levels are set separately for

highways, aviation, mass transit, ports and waterways, and railroads and applied to each environmental medium, i.e., drinking water, wastewater, air,

and solid waste (see table 2-5). Carefully targeted

lobbying by special interest groups reinforces this

pattern. Furthermore, executive branch bureaucracies that have grown up with each mode or medium

fiercely protect their independent power. Congress

has not found a good legislative mechanism to buck

traditional allegiances and promote needed linkages,

both physical and institutional, among rail, highway,

and water transport, and lacks incentive to fund

research, planning, or demonstrations for intermodal

operations.

Overlapping committee jurisdictions can slow

and even stall policy development and send mixed

signals to the executive branch and lower levels of

government. In 1989, EPA officials testified at 150

committee hearings and responded to 5,000 committee inquiries, enabling executive agencies to play

one committee off against the other and in many

cases maintain an independent path. Committees

that try to develop comprehensive public works

policies are frustrated by the vested interests of their

sister committees, executive

powerful industry lobbying.

branch agencies, and

Interest Groups

Interest groups play major roles in the formulation

of Federal public works funding and regulatory

policy. Of an estimated 6,000 public and special

interest groups active in Washington, at least onethird probably have a stake in some aspect of the

diffuse public works activities56 They employ

technical experts and lawyers to press their cases to

Congress, testifying at hearings, providing privileged information, drafting model legislation, publishing and distributing reports,57 and meeting with

congressional members and staff. Political Action

Committees (PACs), the political arm of private

interest groups, make campaign contributions. The

number of interest groups increased dramatically

during the 1970s and 1980s, at least in part because

of the expansion of congressional subcommittees,

which provided more opportunities for lobbying,

sSDi~e -t,“Sp~~ Report: House Appropriations COhttee,” Congresm”onal Quarterly, June 18, 1983, p. 1216.

~Debofi M. Burek et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia ofAssociazions, vol. 2 (Detmi6 m: Me RMXUC4 ~c., 1989).

~Atl~t~~~tio~ ~t=e~tWoups, ~clu~ the~eficm~s~~tion of S~te~@way~d Tr~~~tionOfflci~s, the AmelicanPublic -it

Association and the Anerican Transportation Advisory Council, have published policy plans for transportation in preparation for the renewal of the

Surface Transportation Act in 1991.
Chapter 2— Institutional Framework ● 63

Table 2-5-Number of Committees With Jurisdiction

Over Public Works

Functions Number of committees

Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mass transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Railroads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Water resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Drinking water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Solid hazardous waste . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

15

14

10

16

14

14

14

SOURCE: Office Office of Technology Assessment 1991.

and greater public participation in executive agency

rulemaking.

An established, well-financed interest group can

be very effective in presenting its case to Congress.

However, the diverging points of view represented

by interest groups concerned with public works

divert policymakers from long-range, comprehensive governance issues and reinforce the existing

policy framework. Executive agencies like EPA and

DOT have become accustomed to the tenacious

oversight of interest groups and to their active

participation in rulemaking hearings-and to the

lawsuits that ensue when interest groups are dissatisfied with Federal legislation or agency regulations.

Industry and Labor

The most numerous interest groups are industry

and labor associations, representing public works

equipment manufacturers, builders and contractors,

facility owners and managers, professional and

employee groups, suppliers, and users. (See table

2-6 for a partial listing.) In addition, a growing

number of corporations employ their own lobbyists.

Industry clearly has an enormous stake in Federal

public works spending and regulatory policies. At

the most basic level, industry relies on public works

systems for essential facilities (water supply and

sewer service), and for transportation (highways,

transit, airports, railroads, ports, and waterways) of

workers and materials and the distribution of goods

and services. International competitive position and

Table 2-6--A Selection of Major Industry Interest Groups

Highways Railroads

American Association of State Highway Association of American Railroads

and Transportation Officials American Short Line Railroad Association

Highway Users Federation Regional Railroads of America

American Trucking Association United Transportation Union

National Private Truck Council

American Road and Transportation Builders

Association

international Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike

Association

international Brotherhood of Teamsters,

Chauffers, Warehousemen, and Helpers

of America

Mass transportation

American Public Transit Association

United Bus Operators of America

American Bus Association

Amalgamated Transit Union

international Brotherhood of Teamsters,

Chauffers, Warehousemen, and Helpers

of America

international Mass Transit Association

Airports

American Association of Airport Executives

Airport Operators Council international, Inc.

National Association of State Aviation

Officials

Air Transport Association of America

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

National Business Aircraft Association

Air Line Pilots Association

Allied Pilots Association

National Association of Air Traffic Specialists

Ports and waterways

American Association of Port Authorities

American Waterway Operators

National Waterway Conference

American Bureau of Shipping

Inland Rivers, Ports, and Terminals

Propeller Club of the U.S.

Rivers and Harbors Congress

international Longshoremen’s Association

Drinking water

American Water Works Association

American Public Works Association

American Society of Civil Engineers

Association of State Drinking Water

Administrators

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

American Academy of Environmental

Engineers

American Clean Water Association

Water and Wastewater Equipment

Manufacturers Association

Wastewater treatment Solid waste

Water Pollution Control Federation National Solid Wastes Management

American Public Works Association Association

Association of State and interstate Water Association of State and Territorial Solid

Pollution Control Administrators Waste Management Officials

Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Governmental Refuse Collection and

Agencies Disposal Association

American Recycling Association

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.
64 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

profit levels are tied to manufacturing and distribution speed, efficiency, and flexibility, all of which

are dependent on high levels of infrastructure

services. Second, the construction of roads, bridges,

sewer treatment plants, and other public works

facilities, and the manufacture of construction and

operating equipment, are pivotal segments of the

national economy, employing millions and generating contracts worth billions of dollars. Finally,

Federal safety and environmental regulations have

profound impacts on industry operations and profits.

Associations less frequently initiate action than

work to influence and shape prospective governmental policy changes. Although their positions

vary on specific issues, their representatives uniformly work to increase benefits to their own

industries and to minimize the impacts of Federal

actions on their members. Trucking groups, for

example, support increases in truck size and weight

limits as a trade-off for fuel tax hikes, and contractors opposed the 1986 Tax Reform Act because they

feared it would curb construction of quasi-public

projects like parking garages and civic centers.

Some accommodation must be reached between

opposing industry and user groups if major legislation is to pass. Thus, while many industries engage

in and benefit from intermodal transportation, only

a handful support intermodal improvements.

Public Interest Groups

Special public interest groups are fewer in number

and organize around issues rather than an industry.

While some are long established, like the National

Wildlife Federation or the Sierra Club, others rose

out of the political ferment of the 1960s. Groups like

the Environmental Defense Fund and Center for

Auto Safety focus on public welfare issues such as

environmental protection and motor vehicle safety.

(See table 2-7 for examples of these groups.) They

are vigorous and often effective advocates for

increased Federal support for environmental and

safety programs and for enforcement of antipollution and public health regulations, positions that

often put them at odds with industry groups.

Governmental Interest Groups

State and local governmental organizations, like

the National Governors’ Association, the National

League of Cities, the National Association of Towns

and Townships, and the National Conference of

State Legislators, forma small but influential group

Table 2-7-Selected Public Interest Groups

Concerned With Public Works

Airline Passengers Association of America

Aviation Consumer Action Project

Center for Study of Responsive Law

Center for Auto Safety

Center for Concerned Engineering

Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways

Environmental Defense Fund

Environmental Policy Institute

Environmental Action

National Association of Rail Passengers

National Audubon Society

National Wildlife Federation

Natural Resources Defense Council

Nature Conservancy

Professional Drivers Council for Safety and Health

Sierra Club

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

on Capitol Hill. Busy with their own agendas, they

are often less assertive than industry in pressing their

views in Congress. However, recently they have

argued effectively for changes to the 1986 Federal

tax law and for grant and regulatory flexibility.

These groups have a major common concern: the

impact on State and local governments of unfunded

Federal mandates coupled with rising social service

responsibilities and costly infrastructure needs.

The State Role

Although for much of this century, the State role

was limited to financing and constructing roads and

highways, the States have assumed both greater

programmatic and technical leadership and more

financial responsibility for public works in recent

years. To encourage economic development and

compensate for Federal program cutbacks, States

have invested heavily in transportation-funding

about 50 percent of highway needs and, in many

cases, transit, air, rail, ports, and harbors as well. As

required by Federal legislative and regulatory actions, all States have expanded their participation in

drinking water and wastewater treatment programs,

and some have assumed a role in addressing solid

waste disposal problems.

At present, State governments admini “ “ster a variety of State funded and Federal-aid programs for

public works and enforce a myriad of Federal and

State regulations; many offer substantial financial

and technical assistance programs as well (see

chapters 3 and 4 for further details). In fact, many

State officials and some experts contend that during

the 1990s, institutional and financial innovations are
Chapter 2—Institutiona/ Framework ● 65

more likely to be found at the State and local level

than in the Federal Government.58

States and Public Works Financing

In general, States have increased their fiscal

autonomy, generating revenues for expanded programs by broadening general tax bases and increasing benefit and user fees. (Table 2-8 shows the major

financing mechanisms.) Furthermore, States have

learned how to negotiate public-private partnerships, and most have aggressive economic development programs. They have adopted new financing

and management mechanisms, such as State revolving loan funds that leverage seed capital to multiply

funds for financing environmental public works, to

deal with increasingly complex public service issues. Most States now operate under the guidance of

5-to 6-year capital improvement programs that rank

and schedule expenditures for major projects.

Backed by well-researched data and with carefully

constructed public information programs, States like

New York and Iowa have won voter support for

long-term transportation improvement plans tied to

targeted tax increases. Some States are helping

localities to finance public works improvement

programs with carefully selected packages of State

fees and taxes.59 Box 2-F describes New Jersey’s

assistance programs.

However, each State’s financial status and fiscal

strategies differ, shaped by its unique geographic,

political, and economic characteristics (see chapter

1, table 1-10 for a fiscal summary of the 50 States).

Large, rural States and others dependent on agriculture or mining did not share the economic expansion

of the second half of the 1980s. Their ability to pay

for public investments-a capability grounded in

economic factors such as per capita income, industrial production, and retail sales-is low, and these

States rely on Federal assistance programs. States

most dependent on Federal aid for transportation and

environmental public works programs are shown in

figures 2-1 and 2-2. In contrast, some States with

strong, diversified economies have the fiscal capacity to generate additional revenue but elect to keep

their tax structure narrow and rates low. (See

appendix A for further information on fiscal capacity

and effort.) At least 20 States, responding to

taxpayer protests, have limited their own fiscal

authority to spend and borrow, and many States hold

local governments to strict bonding, taxing, and

spending limits. Where feasible, they have also

made local projects self-sufficient by offering loans

rather than grants. (See box 2-G for a profile of the

Washington State Trust Fund which offers loans to

communities that have made strong self-help efforts.)

The Federal focus on individual transport modes

and environmental media is replicated in wellestablished, independent State bureaucracies and

strong industry groups. Local officials must deal

with the results of this program segmentation and

comply with a variety of specific Federal regulations, some of which may conflict. In addition, local

managers must find ways to utilize Federal funding

programs that do not mesh for interdependent

facilities like highways and airports. Narrow categorical Federal funding programs afford little flexibility for integrated solutions to pressing problems,

and programs that promote intermodal transportation are major casualties of these conditions. Although new State levies and tax rate increases are

raising more funds than ever before, expenditures

are climbing even faster, and the number of States

struggling to balance their budgets is rising.60 In

particular, the growth rate of education costs and the

State share of entitlement programs are outstripping

revenue, necessitating program cutbacks. Medicaid

costs already consume as much as 30 percent of

some State budgets and are expected to rise to almost

50 percent during the 5 years between 1989 and

1994. 61

Benefit and User Charges

Because general revenues must be used for

entitlement programs, States have turned increasingly to benefit charges, such as user fees, developer

impact charges, tolls, and special assessments for

financing public works capital. Benefit charges are

attractive and effective strategies because of their

revenue potential, voter acceptability, and service

S8D~vjd os~me, ~oratone$ Of Democracy (Bosto~ MA: Fkvmd BUSkM’ School ~~s~ 1989).

-or further informatio~ see Offke of Technology Assessment op. cit., footnote 4, ch. 3.

@National Governors’ Association and National Association of State Budget Officers, Fiscal Survey of the States (WashingtorL DC: 1989), p. 3.

61~wof ~mgement ~dB~dget, B@et o~the UnjtedStates Gover~~t ~~~gto~ ~: U.S. ~v~~tw~ ~lCe, 1989), hktOriCd

tables, p. 293.
66 ● Delivering the Good Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table 2-8--Major Infrastructure Financing Mechanisms: Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages Disadvantages

General fund

appropriation . . . . . . . .

General obligation

bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Revenue bonds . . . . . . . .

State gas tax . . . . . . . . . .

Other dedicated taxes . . .

State revolving funds . . . .

Administrative: appropriations reflect current legislative priorities.

Equity: all taxpayers contribute to capital projects.

Fiscal: no debt incurred, so projects cost less during

periods of inflation.

Equity: capital costs shared by current and future

users.

fiscal: bonds can raise large amounts of capital;

general obligation bonds usually carry lowest

available interest rates.

Administrative: do not require voter approval and are

not subject to legislative limits.

Equity: debt service paid by user fees, rather than

from generaI revenues.

Administrative: established structure allows tax increase without additional administrative expense.

Equity: revenues are usually earmarked for transportation, so users pay.

Fiscal: revenues relatively high compared with other

user taxes.

Administrative: voters prefer dedicated taxes.

Fiscal: provides relatively reliable funding source not

subject to annual budgeting.

Administrative: promote greater State independence

in project selection.

Fiscal: debt service requirements provide incentives

for charging full cost for services; loans can

leverage other sources of funds; loan repayments

provide capital for new loans.

Administrative: infrastructure must compete with other

spending priorities each year; cannot plan long-term

projects around uncertain funding.

Equity: no direct link between beneficiary and who

pays, and current generation pays for capital projects

that benefit future generations.

Administrative: States often impose debt ceilings and

require voter approval.

Fiscal: adds to tax burden, especially if interest rates

are high.

Administrative: require increased reporting and restricted by Tax Reform Act limitations.

Fiscal: usually demand higher interest rates than

general obligation bonds.

Administrative: revenue fluctuates with use of gas.

Equity: fiscal burdens are not evenly distributed between urban and rural areas.

Fiscal: revenue does not reflect differences in infrastructure use which can determine capital needs.

Administrative: reduces districts’ ability to meet changing needs.

Fiscal: major economic downturns can reduce revenues significantly.

Administrative: States bear increased administrative

and financial responsibility.

Equity: poor districts cannot afford loans.

Fiscal: repaying loans will mean increases in user

charges or taxes.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

management opportunities. However, these charges

have major socioeconomic trade-offs, including

administrative issues, equity, and revenue reliability

in the case of a political backlash, an economic

downturn, or real hardship. For example, States with

low economic bases and/or small populations have

great difficulty developing sufficient capital solely

from user fees and other benefit charges.62

Because of the acceptability of financing transportation with State user fees (gas taxes and vehicle

registration fees, primarily), States can provide more

financial support for transportation improvements

than for environmental public works programs. (See

table 2-9 for State gas tax rates and yields.)

Highways, aviation, and, to some extent, transit, rely

on user-fee financing, while State revenues earmarked for water supply or wastewater treatment

programs are unusual. However, inflation has

eroded the purchasing power of per-gallon gas and

fixed vehicle charges, and more fuel efficient

Photo credit: Dan Broun, OTA staff

Charges for vanity plates such as this one area popular

form of State user fees. Drivers can tailor their own license

plates for an extra fee.

62SSS Hlce of TectioIo~ Assessment, op. cit., footnote 4, pp. 114-116 for a more deti~ dis~ssion.
Chapter 2— Institutional Framework ● 67

Box 2-F—New Jersey Infrastructure Financing

The New Jersey State Legislature enacted three infrastructure financing programs in the mid-1980s. The New

Jersey Transportation Trust Fund, established in 1984, uses revenue bonds backed by dedicated motor vehicle fuel

taxes to fund a $320.3 -million program. The trust fund undertakes direct spending programs and finances State aid

to counties and municipalities for transportation system improvements.

The Resource Recovery and Solid Waste Disposal Program, first established in 1980 and substantially

expanded in 1985, authorizes grants and low- or no-interest loans to local governments to cover 10 percent of project

costs for the development of resource recovery facilities and environmentally sound sanitary landfills. The State

Department of Environmental Protection manages the program, which is backed by $168 million ($135 in general

obligation bonds and $33 million transferred from the general fund). The loans are secured by rate covenants or

revenue bond letters of credit. Local payback of the loans commences 1 year after the plant begins operations.

The New Jersey Wastewater Treatment Trust Fund, established in 1985, is an independent financing authority

with the power to issue bonds backed by the trust’s loan agreements with borrower localities. These agreements,

in turn, are secured by user-fee covenants, a State-appropriated reserve fund, and municipal bond insurance. Funds

to localities come from the Wastewater Treatment Trust, an independent authority, and the Wastewater Treatment

Fund, administered by the State Department of Environmental Protection. This program highlights two issues

associated with the substitution of loans for grants, First, when a fiscally troubled jurisdiction considers the

alternatives of environmental noncompliance and exceeding its debt capacity by applying for a loan, rather than a

grant, polluting may well appear the lesser of two evils. Second, although grant allocation decisions are based on

environmental priorities, local financial solvency is a major consideration, and a high credit rating often outweighs

a top spot on the Federal Clean Water Act priority list.

l~tti on New J~s~ infraawcture financing is based on the following reports: Council OXI New Jersey A.f%irS, NeW~erst’Y Z$wf:

Puprxs From the Council on New Jersey Aflairs (Rineetom NJ: Princeton Urban and Regional Reseamh Center, WoodtOW Wilson SChOOl of

Public and International Affairs, March 1988); and Sophie M. KomzylL “State Finance for Local Public Works: Four Case Studies,” OTA

contractor repofi Dec. 19, 1988 (available from NTIS, see app. D).

vehicles reduce the taxes received per mile traveled. Administration and Planning

Over the last 15 to 20 years user-fee revenues per

mile have dropped about 50 percent.63 Most States play an active role in administering

highway arid bridge programs and in enforcing

Importance of the Federal partnership

Public-private partnerships and higher benefit and

user charges are part of the answer for States in

meeting their backlogs of public works improvements. However, their contributions are necessarily

limited by their rates of local growth and by equity

considerations. These limitations and steady growth

in social program costs for States underscore the

importance of reliable Federal financial support.

Although Federal funds contributed less than 20

percent of public works capital investment during

the late 1980s, compared with almost 30 percent in

the 1960s,64 this support was essential in assisting

States and their local governments to upgrade public

works and meet Federal requirements.

Federal and State health and safety regulations.

Generally, State officials accept the need for Federal

regulations and enforcement to protect public health

and safety. However, the sheer number of regulations and the frequency with which they change,

their inflexibility, and the time and costs compliance

adds to the project create administrative difficulties

and frustrations.

State successes in achieving public works efficiency through effective land-use planning have

been uneven, and most Federal grants that supported

State planning efforts ended in the early 1980s.

Some States do not have an official State planning

program and offer no support for regional or local

comprehensive planning. However, a few States,

especially those with sustained growth, such as

Florida, Georgia, and New Jersey, have taken steps

63JefifawiS~, vice ~reSident, ]~es F. mc~~g -gernent consultants Ltd., testimony at hearings kfon we House cornfi~~ on Ba**

Finance and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on Policy Research and Insurance, May 8, 1990.

~Office of Tectiology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 4, P- 36.
68 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Figure 2-1—Projected Impact on States of Reduced Federal Aid for Transportationa

Relative fiscal impact

1 1

I Low to average

72 percent of the U.S. population

Iives in these States

. . . . . . . . . . . . . Average and above

17 percent of the U.S. population

lives in these States

High

9 percent of the U.S. population

lives in these States

Very high

3 percent of the U.S. population

lives in these States

 of effort each State would have to make to replace a hypothetical 50 percent in aid.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on information provided by Apogee Research, inc.

to require coordination between regional land-use

policies and infrastructure development. Florida

requires planning and development reviews at the

State, regional, and local level (see box 2-H).

Pollution and natural resource issues transcend

political boundaries and clash frequently with economic development goals. State administrators often

must coordinate plans for and mediate disputes over

environmental, development, and transportation issues among local jurisdictions, interest groups, State

agencies, and other States. Interstate compacts, such

as the one among Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania,

and the District of Columbia to clean up the

Chesapeake Bay, and State-supported regional planning programs like Florida’s are promising institutional changes.

Local Government Service Providers

Rapidly growing counties, old central cities, and

small towns are all caught in the squeeze between

unfunded Federal and State environmental and

social service mandates and escalating service

demands on the one hand and budget constraints,

weak institutions, and enforcement policies on the

other. Direct links to Washington for grants or

revenue sharing have disappeared, and while the

best solutions are often local, the most difficult

issues are frequently interjurisdictional. The opportunities for dispute have multiplied as communities

have become more interdependent and interest

groups more vocal and narrowly focused. Local

officials must mediate conflicts between economic

development and environmental interests (for exam-
Chapter 2—lnstitutiona/ Framework ● 69

Figure 2-2—Projected Impact on States of Reduced Federal Aid for Environmental Public Worksa

Relative fiscal jmpact

Low to average

63 percent of the U.S. population

lives in these States

Average and above

23 percent of the U.S. population

lives in these States

High

9 percent of the U.S. population

lives in these States

Very high

S percent of the U.S. population

Iives in these States

 the relative of each State would have to make a in 

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on information provided by Apogee Research, Inc.

pie, airport noise and expansion) and between

neighborhoods and other communities over the

siting of new highways and landfills. If institutional

solutions to disputes are not available, stalemate will

aggravate problems of congestion or public health.

Even the threat of losing Federal funds or of frees

may not be enough to trigger action.

Local Financing

Traditionally, the Nation’s 83,000 local governments have financed most capital investment and all

of their operating budgets locally, but their customary broad-based taxes, principally on property, no

longer produce sufficient revenue to finance essential services. Local officials push property taxes as

high as they can, and increase targeted (earmarked)

sales, income, and other taxes. Economically strong

communities have raised user fees for sewer and

water service, established special improvement districts, and charged developers fees for roads and

sidewalks (see box 1-C in chapter 1). But communities with weak economies or a large backlog of

deficiencies have had to defer upgrading their

systems to cut expenditures-about 37 percent of

the Nation’s cities in 1990.65 Communities that

appeal to their State governments for new or

expanded tax authority may be frustrated by State

limits on local borrowing and tax rates, and Federal

 199@” Cities, 1990),

p. v.
70 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Box 2-G—Washington State Public Works Trust Fundl

The Washington State Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) is an example of a successful multipurpose

infrastructure funding program. It emphasizes project self-sufficiency, comprehensive planning, and allocation

according to ability to pay as well as severity of need.

The PWTF grew out of a 1982-83 statewide survey of Washington State infrastructure needs that pointed to

serious gaps in the State’s management of infrastructure. Capital spending for public works was at its lowest in 20

years and was expected to continue declining, while projected needs would require at least a 250 percent spending

increase. These findings prompted the legislature to direct what is now the Washington State Department of

Community Development (DCD) to prepare a plan for replacing and repairing local public works holdings.

As required by its mandate, DCD surveyed over 600 local jurisdictions about their needs and available

resources. DCD found that total projected needs reached $4.3 billion, but that local resources could only meet 53

percent of this. The legislature responded by working with DCD to set up a new loan program and reaching out to

localities, including them in the program design process, and linking the program directly to local needs and

resources. DCD’s subsequent report, Financing Public Works: Strategies for Increasing Public Investment,

provided the design for the Public Works Trust Fund.

Annually DCD invites all Washington cities, counties, and special-purpose districts to apply for low-interest

(1 to 3 percent) loans from the PWTF. The PWTF draws its funds from three sources: water, sewer, and garbage

collection taxes; a portion of the real estate excise tax; and ultimately, loan repayments. A 13-member Public Works

Board evaluates the applications. The Association of Washington Cities, the Association of Washington Counties,

and associations of water, public utility, and sewer districts nominate elected officials and public works managers.

Three members from each of the lists as well as four members of the general public with special public works

expertise are appointed to the board The Governor selects one of these latter four to chair the board.

The board passes its annual project recommendations onto the State legislature. After approving a project list

based on the board’s list of priorities, the. legislature passes an appropriation from the Public Works Assistance

Account to cover the cost of the loans granted. The Governor then signs the appropriation into law.

An important goal in the design of the PWTF was to discourage localities from deferring maintenance and

repair, a side effect of traditional grant allocation systems, which dole money out to the neediest localities. The

PWTF program calls for the Public Works Board to base less than one-half (40 percent) of a locality’s score on

needs, and a full 60 percent of the score on the jurisdiction’s demonstrated commitment to help itself. The board

evaluates local effort by reviewing the jurisdiction’s maintenance strategy, the percentage of local funds dedicated

to public works, and the overall system of financial management. Since 1986, the PWTF has provided 194 loans

totaling $100 million. Local jurisdictions have matched this amount with about $128 million in local funds for the

completion of the projects.

Before it can be considered for a loan, a locality must levy at least a 0.25-percent real estate excise tax

earmarked for infrastructure spending. It also must develop a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the specific

infrastructure category (i.e., roads, bridges, water systems, storm sewers, and sanitary sewers) for which the loan

is being sought.2 For the 1991 loan cycle, DCD will require a comprehensive CIP covering all of the five categories

of infrastructure for which loans are offered. To compensate for potential bias in favor of large, wellfunded

jurisdictions, DCD offers zero-interest loans of up to $15,000 for the development of local, long-range CIPs.

Without comprehensive CIPs, not even small jurisdictions will be able to apply for regular PWTF construction

grants after 1991.

Loans are available only to projects that address existing needs; the funds may not be used for growth-related

projects, allowing the board to avoid the touchy issue of determining where growth ought to occur. The effects of

political interests are further muted by the stipulation that in reviewing the Public Works Board’s list, the legislature

may delete projects but not add any. This helps preclude pork barrel projects and ensure program integrity.

IM[- On the Washington State Public Works Trust Fund is based on Isaac Huang, Washington state DepSrtMmt Of COMMW@

Development, interview, June 1989; and Sophie M. Koxzy~ “State Finance for Public Works: Four Case Studies,”’ OTA contractor -

Dec. 19, 1988 (available tim National Techuical J.nfonnaa“on Service, see app. D).

2~e mblie Works Board defines tie minimum elements of an acceptable Capital Improv ement Plan as: 1) needs assessrnen~ 2)

prioritization of major capital improvement projects for the coming 5 years, 3) project cost estimatio~ 4) proof that the plan has been updated

in the past 5 yem, 5) proof that the plan was developed with some general public input, and 6) formal adoption of the plan by a local legal entity.
Chapter 2— Institutional Framework ● 71

Table 2-9-State Gas Tax Rates and Yields, 1990

Gas tax Yield per penny Gas tax Yield per penny

(cents per gallon) ($millions) (cents per gallon) ($ millions)

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 21 Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 8

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 17 Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 12 New Hampshire. . . . . . . . . 16 5

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 125 New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 34

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 15 New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 15 New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 55

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4 North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 22 39

District of Columbia.. . . . . 18 2 North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 61 Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 44

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 35 Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 16

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4 Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 14

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5 Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . 12 46

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 44 Rhode Island... . . . . . . . . 20 4

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 27 South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 16 18

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 14 South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 13 Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 25

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 19 Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 85

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 23 Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6 Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 24 Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 34

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . 17 28 Washington 22 22

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

15 42 West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . 20 10

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 18 Wisconsin... . . . . . . . . . . . 21 20

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12 Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 26

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on data from The Road Information Program, 1989 State HighwayFundl~Methti(Whingtin,

DC: 1990); and Sally Thompson, analyst The Road information Program, personal communication, Oct. 24,1990.

tax reform legislation increased the cost of borrowed

capital for some types of local projects. The limits of

their fiscal choices make it likely that many communities will be unable to comply with Federal

environmental standards (see chapter4).

Management and Planning

Local officials must coordinate and administer a

staggering variety of transportation and environmental public works programs. When Federal aid is

available, it comes with many strings (environmental impact study and wage rate requirements,for

example) that add years to project timelines and

raise costs dramatically.66 Most large android-size

communities use a 3- to 5-year capital improvement

program (CIP) to schedule and identify financing for

major capital expenditures, a concept introduced

through the Department of Housing and Urban

Development’s planning grant program during the

1960s and 1970s. However, most small jurisdictions

operate without CIPs, and Federal grants to support

their use have been severely cut.

Although most communities are part of regional

planning organizations and Federal programs usually have a comprehensive regional planning requirement, these organizations have not been effective in achieving economic and operating efficiencies for public works.67 Effective regional coordination in highway planning is rare and each jurisdiction fights to maintain its autonomy over land-use

decisions. The most successfull regional planning

groups have reliable funding,68 needed to maintain

core staff and technical and service capabilities, and

clear authority from local governments and State

agencies. In California, San Diego’s Association of

Governments has a major impact because it plays a

key role in both transportation planning and financing (see box 2-I), Although local managers recognize their need for more efficient ways of doing

~Heqt Hujme, former director of Public Works, Arlington COuIIty, VA PCZWti COmm@C*OU -h1989.

~SSS Mice Of Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 4, ch. 4 for* tio-tion.

*~tbac~inF~~fi@ forhousingand environmental progrsmahave lefiDepsrtrnentof Transportationfunding $s the primary Fcderalsupport

for regional planning.
72 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Box 2-H—Growth Management and Planning in Florida

Florida grows by an average of 900 new residents each day, and the State endured a fierce political and financial

struggle over growth management after enacting one of the Nation’s strongest land development regulatory

programs in 1985 and taking a stand in favor of comprehensive planning at all government levels. Having survived

repeated special interest attacks to weaken the law, the State has completed the required State and regional planning

and is halfway through the first phase of the local government planning process. Although State and local officials

are having problems finding the funds to implement the new planning and public works requirements, Florida’s

program can be instructive to other States that are considering a stronger role in growth management.

The State’s role in planning began in 1975 with passage of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning

Act, which required all local governments to prepare, adopt, and implement local comprehensive plans that included

transportation and environmental public works. The initial results of the act were disappointing; most local plans

contained only vague goals and policies that made implementation difficult. In 1982, a State study committee

identified the absence of strong State and regional planning as a major reason the local plans were ineffective and

recommended overhauling the 1975 legislation.1

Convinced of the need for strong State and local controls, the legislature adopted the local Government

Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985. The keystone provision is the

requirement that each of the State’s 67 counties, in conjunction with their respective cities, submit a comprehensive

10-year development plan to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for approval. The plans must be

consistent with the State comprehensive and regional plans and must spell out in detail what types of development

are allowed and where, and where public works systems will go and how they will be financed. Each district must

adopt a 5-year capital improvement program and an annual capital improvement budget. The teeth in the legislation

is the “concurrency” requirement stipulating that a specified service level for highways, sewers, and other public

facilities must be available at the time of the impact accompanying any new development. During the 12 months

after a plan is submitted, a local government may not issue a development permit that will result in a reduction in

the level of service for any facility identified in the plan.2 In effect, the State is requiring local governments to

provide services according to a comprehensive plan that is tied to a capital improvement budget. Twice a year, local

districts may adopt comprehensive plan amendments and submit them to DCA for review. The penalty for

noncompliance is a cutoff of State funds, primarily revenue sharing.

Since DCA began compliance review of local plans in April 1988, of the 248 plans received, 119 have been

approved. Of the 128 plans currently not in compliance, 80 can be approved once changes agreed to in negotiations

with the State have been made.3 Despite some builders’ claims that all development will be stymied unless local

standards are lowered or the State substantially increases funding for public works, no county or city has a

development moratorium.

Although local and State officials agree on the need for comprehensive planning, local governments want the

State to take a bigger and more responsible role in financing needed public works, estimated to cost at least $1.6

billion annually through the year 2000. The State has resisted local pleas for an increase in the State gas tax rate.

Local governments frequently have not included transportation projects, funded by the State Department of

Transportation (DOT), in their local comprehensive plans, because the funding schedule for the projects has been

unpredictable. 4 To remedy this, 1989 legislation enables local governments to count on State monies for the fist

3 years of DOT’s 5-year plan and the State has begun to prohibit State funds to support transportation projects that

are inconsistent with local plans. The legislature has also given local governments authority to levy a l-cent local

sales tax dedicated to infrastructure and a l-cent local gas tax for roads, although both levies are subject to local

referenda, which makes them unpopular with elected officials. Currently, 24 counties have passed the sales tax and

10 have defeated it.5 Furthermore, Florida is establishing new funding mechanisms to help in local plan

implementation, such as the Florida Communities Trust Act, which will provide State funds for local purchase of

land identified in comprehensive plans as needed for environmental protection.

IDtieI W. a’co~ell, ‘{~~ @vernment Comprehensive l%nning and Land Development Regulation Act,” Fforida Environmental

and Urban Zssues, vol. 13, No. 1, October 1985, p. 4.

2SQXe of Flori@ “senate smff Analysfi and Economic Impact Statement,” accompanying Senate Bill 2A, June 3, 1989, p. 1.

3B&~r, le@lative ~tor, Flol-i& S&e Department ofCOmmti~ Aff&% p~sOfld co-ti~tion, NOV. 5, 19~.

4S~te of Florida, op. cit., footnote 2, P. 4.

513&~, op. cit., foomote 3.
Chapter 2— Institutional Framework ● 73

Box 2-I-SANDAG: Financing Means

Planning Power

Although State and local districts are often

reluctant to sham authority with a regional organization, San Diego’s Association of Governments

(SANDAG)is an exception. Designated as the State

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO),

SANDAG plays a key role in both transportation

planning and financing. In 1987, San Diego voters

approved a general sales tax increase for capital

projects identified in the Regional Transportation

Improvement Plan (TIP), and the State designated

SANDAG as the chief administering agency in

charge of allocating the $100-million annual tax

revenue. By virtue of its role as San Diego’s MPG,

SANDAG prepares the TIP, and thus it can develop

and finance the implementation of its own plan-an

unusually strong role for a regional agency.

SANDAG’s financial independence has greatly

increased its power within the region and may well

alter its other roles. Making financing options part

Of the planning process ensures that SANDAG

gives careful attention to setting priorities among

TIP projects, with the result that plans are realistic

and likely to have public support. In addition to

transportation planning, SANDAG has initiated an

effort to identify all regional public works needs

and to develop a regional financing plan.

business, most lack fiscal flexibility to experiment

with innovative materials, technologies, or procedures. The lack of a technically competent work

force, particularly in small and mid-size communities, further deters experimentation with advanced

technologies.

Conclusions and Policy Options

The complex institutional setting for infrastructure makes it difficult for the Federal Government to

focus on either transportation or environmental

public works problems for the two constituencies

with the most pressing needs: small, low-density, or

remote, rural jurisdictions and large, densely populated metropolitan areas. Many of today’s Federal

institutions were developed years ago to meet needs

that have long since evolved and changed.

During the last decade or more, Federal leadership

in public works policy has eroded. Recognizing the

need for system changes and new institutions (e.g.,

for financing, delivering service, planning, and even

conflict resolution), States and local governments

are making independent plans and decisions. While

these may not always be congruent with national

interests, except for DOT’s recent policy plan,

Washington has been passive at a time of enormous

economic, technological, and environmental

change. Federal transportation programs and standard-setting have not kept up with industry, and

trucking companies are integrating with railroads

and shipping companies to form powerful new

transportation organizations. States and international committees are taking the lead and setting

their own policies. This lack of leadership, coupled

with Federal spending cuts, has contributed substantially to the poor condition of the Nation’s public

works systems.

OTA finds the Federal Government has fallen

behind industry, world credit markets, State,

regional and local authorities, the courts, and

international organizations in determining the

national public works agenda. Stronger Federal

leadership is needed to develop integrated, longrange national water resources, transportation,

and environmental policies that will direct and

coordinate intergovernmental and private activities. This effort may result in new goals as well as

institutional mechanisms for achieving them. Of

necessity, new institutions that change the established decisionmaking processes step on the toes of

traditional governmental and private sector interests

and compromise local decisionmaking and individual choice to some extent. But the alternative is

stalemate, characterized by staggering increases in

litigation, and steadily growing inefficiency.

OTA concludes that the time is ripe to review

the Federal oversight structure and management

practices for public works so that policies are

better coordinated and more cost-effective, and

decisions about priorities are made wisely. Key

factors contributing to fragmented Federal infrastructure policies are the splintering of responsibility

among congressional committees and Federal agencies. OTA concludes that EPA’s and DOT’s

effectiveness could be improved significantly in

the near term if Congress insisted that each

agency integrate its programs to reflect the

interdependent nature of transportation and

environmental public works problems. One option is to require this for EPA as part of legislation

elevating the agency to Cabinet status. Another is to

direct EPA and DOT to report to Congress annually

on their program coordination efforts. Clearly better
74 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

advance coordination is required in both Congress

and the executive branch to avoid such snafus as the

conflict between Federal attempts to reduce revenue

loss from tax-exempt bonds in 1986, which worked

at cross-purposes with efforts to encourage local

private investment.

Almost one-half of congressional standing committees and subcommittees claim jurisdiction over

some aspect of public works. The overlapping

jurisdictions and divisions of power among congressional committees engender divisive turf

battles, thwart coordination of Federal public

works policy, and lead to the program conflicts

and gaps that State and local governments

experience. At the same time the current committee

structure, crafted by Congress in the 1970s, has

decentralized power, strengthened individual members, developed committee and subcommittee expertise on specific topics, and provided multiple

forums for the differing points of view of departments, agencies, special interest groups, and constituents.

Congressional leaders could consider restructuring committee jurisdictions. Commonly

suggested options for change include restructuring existing committees to consolidate environmental and transportation functions or establishing new committees that focus on metropolitan or

rural infrastructure system issues, including

public works. One option is to move authorizing

and oversight responsibility for mass transit into

Commerce, Science, and Transportation or Environment and Public Works, the principal infrastructure

authorizing committees. The House may wish to

consolidate authority for environmental programs,

providing a more unified environmental policymaking structure. However, history shows structural change is exceedingly difficult. A less radical

option is the formation of a select committee or task

force composed of fictional area subcommittee

chairs to explore and report within 12 to 18 months

on the feasibility of developing an integrated national policy on public works.

The Nation’s thousands of small communities

must construct, operate, and maintain public service

facilities that impose high per capita costs, but their

fiscal resources are limited because their average per

capita incomes are low and their populations are

generally declining. Although modest Federal-aid

programs exist for small systems, most are targeted

Photo credlt:American Society of Civil Engineers

Older municipalities face traffic delays and massive costs

for repairs necessitated by years of neglecting public

works. Many of these cities are particularly hard-hit

because the value of their tax base has declined.

for transportation. Expanded aid is necessary for

these communities, but large rural States and

others dependent on agriculture or mining lack

the ability to raise large amounts of capital to

share with local governments. The Federal Government has a responsibility to consider financial

and technical support for the States lacking the

fiscal capacity to assist their small jurisdictions

(see figures 2-1 and 2-2 again).

More dramatic in scale, metropolitan area issues

include airport and highway congestion, air and

water pollution, often deficient planning and coordination of multimodal transportation facilities, and

other growth-related problems. Older urban areas

face massive costs for facility reconstruction caused

by inadequate long-term maintenance and new

Federal requirements; for example, the bill for

meeting the EPA requirement to correct combined

sewer overflows in many cities will cost billions of

dollars. The fiscal burden is most severe in older

central cities where the value of the tax base is

declining. Public works, especially maintenance that

can be deferred, has a lower fiscal priority than

schools, new jails, and social welfare programs.

Growing, economically healthy areas have a sufficient economic base to increase revenues from

general taxes and benefit-based fees and taxes and to

attract more private investment. However, older

metropolitan areas in which major public works

systems are at the end of their design lives need

special attention from State and Federal Governments. States must allow local governments

authority to raise revenues, borrow capital,
Chapter 2— Institutional Framework ● 75

spend for needed improvements, and pursue new

financing strategies. Removal of Federal prohibitions on toll financing and restrictions on some

forms of public-private ventures would allow

jurisdictions to pursue a wider range of fiscal

opportunities.

Despite mounting small system and metropolitan

needs, the Federal Government has reduced investment in public works infrastructure. During the

1980s, Federal outlays for all public works categories decreased about 22 percent; and although

environmental public works needs are driven directly by Federal regulations, these programs took

the largest cuts. While State and local governments have accepted an increased share of the

financing burden, they need a reliable financial

partnership with the Federal Government to

ensure the renewal and upgrading of their public

works facilities.

Stronger State and regional planning organizations and land-use controls tied to capital budgeting

requirements are needed to improve the efficiency of

public investment in infrastructure. But local governments resist sharing power, and planning organizations are typically underfunded and lack fiscal or

statutory authority to implement their plans. Cutbacks in Federal funds for housing and environmental programs have left DOT funding as the

primary support for regional planning, and State

commitment to and support for planning varies

widely. OTA concludes that the Federal Government can use regulations coupled with financial

incentives to encourage effective planning at all

governmental levels and more efficient use of

transportation and environmental infrastructure. Florida’s growth management plan and Washington State’s Public Works Trust Fund (see boxes

2-G and 2-H again) provide good models.
CHAPTER 3

Transportation Management

and Technologies

Photo credit:American Consulting Engineers Council
Contents

Page

Transportation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Intermodal Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Physical Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Environmental Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

System Management and Financing, . . . . . . 85

Technology and Management Tools . . . . . . . 86

Surface Transportation Networks:

Highways and Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Management and Financing: Who Owns,

Pays for, and Operates What . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*.*.... . . . 88

Technologies for Highways and Bridges. . . 91

Surface Transportation Networks:

Mass Transit ● ....*.. ..*..*..* .*.,...** 97

Transit Management and Financing .,..... 97

Issues +*..*.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*.,.. ,.. 99

Technologies for Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Surface Transportation Networks: Railroads. . 103

Railroad Management and Financing . . . . . . 103

Rail Issues ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Rail Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Federally Managed Infrastructure: Waterways

and Airways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Ports and Waterways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11O

Federal Infrastructure: Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Conclusions and Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Financing and Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Management Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Transportation Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Boxes

Box Page

3-A. Intermodal Transportation Improvements

in Southern California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

3-B. Video Technology and Pavement

Management . .+,.,.*..,,*..*,..**.+,*. 92

3-C. Bridge Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

3-D. The Automated Traffic Surveillance and

Control System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

3-E. Fast ToII Collection in Dallas. . . . . . . . . . . 96

3-F. Oregon’s Growth Management

Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

3-G. Magnetic Levitation Research . . . . . . . . . . 106

Box Page

3-H. High-Speed Rail , ...... +..... +.....,... 108

3-I. The Massachusetts Port Authority . . . . . . . 124

Figures

Figure Page

3-1. Passenger and Freight Travel, by Mode.. 81

3-2. U.S. Department of Transportation ....,. 87

3-3. Characteristics of the Nation’s Road

System .,, . * . ., * . ., * ., . * . . . * . ..***,.,. 88

3-4. Physical Condition of U.S, Bridges . . . . . 90

3-5. Federal Obligations for Interstate, 4R,

primary, Secondary, and Urban Programs,

by Improvemtmt Type ... +.,..,.,.,.... 91

3-6. Amtrak’s National Rail Passenger

system ● ,.. *.+. ... **. *********+* 104

3-7. The Navigation Systems of the

Continental United States .......... +.... 112

Table Page

3-1. Transportation System Characteristics.. 80

3-2. Major Issues and Problems in

Transportation Public Works . . . . . . . . . . 82

3-3. Federal Transportation Trust Fund

summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

3-4. Highway Mileage and Funding

Statistics ., *,**.****,.*..**.+,*,,.,., 89

3-5. Characteristics of Mass Transit . . . . . . . . 98

3-6. Traffic and Operations and Maintenance

Costs on Inland Waterways, 1986 . . . . . . 114

3-7. Federal Port Operations and Maintenance

Outlays per Ton of Cargo, 1974-84 . . . . 114

3-8. Passenger Enplanements at 25 U.S.

Airports, 1988 .......,.,.,..., . . . . . . . . 119

3-9. Congested Airport Rankings and

Expansion Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

3-10. Enhancing the Performance of Existing

Airports and Airways . . . . . . . . . . + ...,,, 126

3-11. Traffic Congestion Increases in 15 Major

Cities . .....4.....,,...,...,...,,.,. , 129

3-12. Federal Expenditures and User-Fee

Revenue for Transportation, 1989 . . . . . . 131

3-13. Impacts of Surface Transportation

Measures , .+.....,....,......,,...,. , 134
CHAPTER 3

Transportation Management and Technologies

We’re repairing everything at once because they all need it.1

Passengers and goods can move virtually anywhere on the transportation networks in the United

States. But much of the basic transportation infrastructure has been in place for at least 20 to 40

years-long enough to need substantial repair or

rehabilitation, especially in heavily traveled corridors. In jurisdictions where maintenance has been

neglected, deteriorated and congested rail, highway,

water, and air facilities slow travel, hinder national

productivity, and increase costs. In many metropolitan areas, complete corridor reconstruction or major

modification will be required to ensure safety,

alleviate congestion, and improve intermodal connections.

Federal responsibility for transportation rests on

the government’s constitutional mandate to support

interstate commerce and provide for the public

safety. Transportation infrastructure includes highways, bridges, rail and bus transit systems, freight

and passenger railroads, ports, waterways, airports,

and airways. Federal assistance for this infrastructure has always been modally oriented, with separate

programs providing assistance for intercity passenger rail; mass transit; bridges, highways, and highway safety; water; maritime shipping; and aviation.

The Federal agencies that oversee transportation

programs are, for the most part, in the Department of

Transportation (DOT), although the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers has primary responsibility for

harbor dredging and the condition of inland waterways.

Most State DOTS were originally formed to

administer Federal highway programs during the

1960s. During the 1980s, State DOTS expanded and

diversified, taking on additional responsibilities as

Federal infrastructure programs shrank. State spending for transportation rose from $22 billion to $39

billion,2 and many DOTS took on some responsibility for airports and mass transportation; some States

now aid ports and railroads as well. (See table 3-1 for

the major transportation components and figure 3-1

for the share of passenger and freight transportation

for each mode.) However, highway departments still

dominate State DOTS, and almost all administer and

finance transportation programs by separate modes

to be compatible with Federal grant programs.

Counties and local governments are also important

players in operating, managing, and financing transportation infrastructure, particularly roads and airports. Finally, quasi-public, independent, regional

authorities operate many major ports and airports.

With so many different entities responsible for

different aspects of transportation infrastructure, it is

understandable that the transport system does not

always function smoothly. This chapter outlines the

issues and problems that characterize the present

national transportation system and describes the

status of management and technologies specific to

each transportation mode. It also identifies changes

to Federal programs and other approaches that could

make the system work more efficiently and productively.

Transportation Issues

Fast, convenient travel for passengers and cargo

depends on a well-maintained, smoothly functioning

intermodal system with the capacity to handle most

of the demands placed on it. Yet, historically,

Federal planning, funding, regulation, and policy

support in the United States have fostered competitive, modal systems. Modal interdependence, inequalities in maintenance practices, and traffic bottlenecks (capacity problems) that affect total system

performance are not addressed in Federal grant

programs. Intermodal data collection, planning, and

coordination are largely ignored, and successful

efforts to integrate land-use planning and transportation requirements are rare.

Because institutional frameworks and funding

policies vary for each mode, substantially different

ILucius J. Ricc@ New York Civ transportation commissioner, ss quoted ~ An&eW L. Y~ow, “Late Repairs Increase Tmfllc Jams in Regionj”

New York Times, Sept. 24, 1990, p. A-1.

%J.S. Department of Transportation Economic Studies Divisioq Federal, State and Local Transportation Financial Statistics, Fiscal Years

1978-1988 (Washington, DC: March 1990), p. 24.

–79–
Table 3-l—Transportation System Characteristics

Traffic volume

Passengers (billions of InterCity freight

Mode Major components Facilities Vehicles passenger-miles) (billions of ton-miles)

Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Airports and airways . . . . .

Mass transit systems . . . .

Railroads . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waterborne . . . . . . . . . . . .

InterStates

Principle arterials

Total public roads

Public airports

Private airports

Airways

Motor bus

Rapid and light rail

Commuter rail

Demand response

class I

Regional

Local

Switching/terminal lines

Amtrak

Ports

Harbors

Inland waterways

43,000 miles 144,375,000 cars and taxis 1,445 712

138,000 miles 42,524,338 trucks

3,874,000 miles 615,669 buses

5,680 airports 5,028 commercial aircraft 351 9

11,647 airports 209,500 private aircraft

384,691 miles

2,671 systems 60,388 buses 41

27 systems 11,370 railcars

12 systems 4,649 raiicars

2,582 systems 16,100 vans, minibuses, etc.

141,000 miles Freight: 13

16,000 miles 1,239,000 freight cars

15,000 miles 19,647 locomotives

4,000 miies Amtrak:

700 miiesa1,742 passenger cars

312 locomotives

177 deepwater ports 754 U.S. flag vessels

175 shallow pOrtS 5,188 tows and tugs

757 commercial harbors 31,089 barges

178 loals

25,777 miles

N/A

N/A

1,048

a~r~~SO indties 23,000 miles of based t-.

b~m=t~ ton-mi~ only; about 2 billion tons of cargo transfer through U.S. PO*.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on a variety of data summaries.
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies . 81

Figure 3-l-Passenger and Freight Travel, by Mode

Intercity passenger travel

(passenger-miles)

.3%

1.1%

Truck 60

Intercity freight transport

(ton-miles)

Freight revenue by mode

— Rail 26.0 %

)

Water 1.0%

Oil pipeline

Air 7.0%

6.0%

21.2%

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, baaed on information provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Eno Foundation.

infrastructure problems characterize each model

portion of the transportation system (see table 3-2).

Details relating to these difficulties are provided

later in this chapter in the appropriate modal

sections. However, a number of issues are applicable

to the system as a whole.

Intermodal Transport

Efficient intermodal operations have become

critical to shippers, many of whom rely on ‘just-intime” deliveries made possible by speedier and

more consistent door-to-door service. Freight transfers between ship, truck, rail, and barge involve

physical challenges, such as loading, unloading, and

storage of cargo, as well as complex intercompany,

interjurisdictional, and even international agreements. Industry has addressed many of these challenges through innovations. Containers permit cargo

transfer between modes without repackaging, and

automatic equipment identification, electronic data

interchange, electronic fund transfers, and computer-aided operations all speed freight movements.

Intercity travelers and urban commuters also use

multiple modes for daily commutes, business trips,

and vacations. Because passengers and freight

moving through airports, marine ports, and rail

stations rely on trucks and automobiles for most

connections, traffic jams on local roads are often key

sources of delay.

Congestion problems increase personal trip times,

hurt productivity, and add to industry and individual

costs. However, the fractured transportation management framework makes successful programs to

combat congestion extremely difficult to develop

and implement. To a large extent, surface traffic

congestion problems are products of decisions made

by governments and individuals and are outside the

control of a single industry or level of government.

During the 5-year period from 1982 to 1987, traffic

congestion in our major cities, as measured by

volume of traffic per lane of travel, increased by an

average of 17 percent.3

More effective, comprehensive regional transportation and land-use planning spanning modes and

jurisdictions is essential to efficient intermodal

3oT.q ~c~ation based on lkxas Transportation hMhute, “Roadway Congestion in Major Urban Areas 1982 to 1987,” Research Report 1131-2,

1989.
Table 3-2—Major Issues and Problems in Transportation Public Works

Transport mode Condition Capacity Environment Management and investment

Highways and bridges 10 percent of roads and 42 percent of bridges rated deficient.

Mass transit Structural deterioration of rail

systems in older urban areas.

Rail Generally good for large railroads, problems due to deferred maintenance on some

regional and shortline railroads.

Ports and waterways With a few exceptions, locks,

dams, protective works, and

channels are generally in

good rendition.

Airports and airways The condition of airport and airway facilities rarely impedes

traffic.

Congestion and delays increasing in many urban and suburban areas; excess capacity in

rural areas.

Excess capacity available in

most rail and bus systems.

Excess capacity on most lines.

Locks are the bottlenecks on the

iniand waterways; delays can

exceed 2 days at a few locks.

The number of available runways at the busiest airports is

the greatest capacity constraint. The staffing levels

and technological capabilites

of certain airway sectors can

be sources of delay.

Air quality; land use; noise.

Bus emissions.

Waste disposal on Arntrak trains;

noise and land use for highspeed trains.

Dredging and dredged material

disposal; noise, land use,

and surface traffic problems

at ports.

Aircraft noise in communities

surrounding airports; surface

traffic congestion due to airports.

Life-cycie management needed; large

capital investment would be required

to expand urban roadways to meet

demand-a temporary solution, at

best.

Roadway management enhancement

needed to improve bus transit; lifecycle management and financing for

rail transit; little recent R&D investment.

Federal operating subsidies for Amtrak;

Amtrak capital equipment needs.

Transportation users, especially on the

inland waterways, require much

greater General Fund subsidy than

other transport modes; no cost sharing by nontransportation beneficiaries

of navigation projects.

Constructing new airports or physically

expanding existing airports will be

difficult for most immunities. Technology advances could effectively expand existing capacity by up to 20

percent.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.
travel. Using double-deck railcars or increasing

vehicle frequency to expand mass transit capacity is

useless unless intermodal connections, such as bus

feeder lines and suburban park-and-ride lots, are

provided. The program described inbox 3-A typifies

the kinds of major improvements needed to facilitate

intermodal transportation.

Physical Condition

The condition of any part of transportation

infrastructure reflects management and investment

decisions-planning, design, construction, operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation--that span a

system’s lifetime, or “life cycle. ” The waterway

and airway systems are generally in good condition

because the Federal Government has primary responsibility for them and manages and maintains the

systems as investments. Systems for which a number

of separate governmental or private entities share

responsibility, such as highways, bridges, and railroads, are much more likely to have major segments

in poor condition, usually because of neglect due to

fiscal constraints felt by one or more of the owners.

Capacity

The present transportation system in the United

States has plenty of excess capacity-but it is not

available on the busiest routes and at terminals at the

times most people want to travel. Transportation

demand fluctuates across time and location, and

periods of heavy demand create what are called

“peaking” problems. To ensure adequate capacity,

infrastructure must be designed and built to accommodate traffic volumes somewhat greater than

average, However, since facilities can rarely be built

to be both cost-effective and large enough to handle

smoothly the greatest “peaks,’ designs reflect a

trade-off between costs of delay and congestion and

costs to build, operate, and maintain the infrstructure.

Most infrastructure for transportation is supplied

and managed by the public sector. When demand

exceeds supply, delays and safety problems occur
84 . Delivering the Goods Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Box 3-A—lntermodal Transportation Improvements in Southern California

The proposed Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) project in southern California is a

$500-million program1 of highway and railroad improvements that will facilitate freight movement between the

Ports of long Beach and Los Angeles and downtown Los Angeles, where rail yards of three major carriers--the

Union Pacific, Southern Pacific, and Santa Fe Railroads-are located TIM project is intended to improve port access

and mitigate the impacts of port-related traffic on highway congestion, air pollution, grade crossing delays, and train

noise in residential areas. It will involve construction of double tracks for the main rail line between the ports and

downtown, grade separations, and street widening along a route running parallel to the rail line. On-dock,

ship-to-rail container loading facilities will be expanded to reduce truck traffic out of the ports. ACTA officials

estimate that the rerouting of trains of all three carriers onto a single double-track corridor and the elimination of

grade crossings will bring a 90-percent reduction in train-related traffic delays, or a total of about 6,300

vehicle-hours per day.

The improvements will be carried out under ACTA, a joint powers authority that consists of representatives

of some 13 local, regional, and State agencies. Over $300 million of the total cost will be sought from Federal

highway funds. State contributions, totaling $80 million in bond issues, and funds from the Los Angeles County

Transportation Commission, the railroads, and the ports will cover the balance of the cost of the project.2

The Port of Long Beach’s $80-million Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF), whose sole operator is

the Southern Pacific Railroad, provides a fine example of technology’s role in making freight transport more

efficient. The ICTF brings together elements of electronic data interchange and computer control of rail yards to

expedite the movement of containers and the makeup of stack trains, and nearly every facet of the facility’s

operations is overseen by computers. Computers in the control tower are linked with those of ocean vessels, so that

the yard’s computer receives information about each container before it arrives at the Long Beach or Los Angeles

Ports. As containers are trucked into the yard from the ports, drivers are directed to the proper areas for container

inspection and parking. Yard tractors are equipped with mobile computer units to allow location and status updates

for containers and ensure that time-sensitive stack trains are efficiently assembled and dispatched.

IMuchof the information on the Alameda Corridor Transportation AuthotitY~ k derivedfrom “SouthemCalifomia Consolidated

Transportation Corridor” informational dooment, May 1990.

2~~d R. ~, mana~ dilIXt~, R- &~g~ “ Pofi of ~% B*h personal communication Nov. 16, 19$)().

and congestion (especially on highways) is likely to

create air quality problems. If the delays worsen and

persist, officials look for a way to expand capacity.

Building new structures to meet growing demand

has been an attractive cost-effective option, in terms

of direct costs for land, materials, and labor.

However, this is no longer true in many of the

country’s largest urban areas, where congestion is

most severe. For a variety of reasons-large upfront

capital expenses, insufficient land where the need is

greatest, and community opposition to the expected

impacts on the environment and quality of life—

States and localities plan to build few new highways,

airports, or waterways.

About 20 percent more traffic capacity could be

squeezed out of the existing roadways, airports, and

waterways 4 by implementing near-term technology

developments, discussed later in this chapter. However, traffic demand at many busy airports and

highways is expected to outpace the capacity gains

possible through technology.

Managing Demand

Better management is another way to increase the

capacity of the existing system. Reducing peak-hour

trips, minimizing the inefficient mixing of vehicle

types; and carrying more passengers or cargo per trip

by increasing the average vehicle capacity are all

possibilities. These changes could be encouraged by

enhancing alternative networks to draw traffic away

from busy facilities, by rationing access to overcrowded facilities during peaks, and by charging

differential prices to reflect more closely the full

costs of congestion and delay.

Shifting demand away from peaks to underused

times, locations, or other transport modes is a first

step toward reducing delays due to overcrowding; in

congested areas, where the network is close to

4~e -y COWS of E@=rs est~tes a ~ge of cq~i~ inmeases of 5 to 10 percent for small-scale improvements to 30 percent or more. ‘ee

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, “The U.S. Waterway System: A Review, ” unpublished report, April 1989, p. 26.
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies ● 85

Table 3-3-Federal Transportation Trust Fund Summary

Trust fund Date established Revenue sources

Highway Trust Fund:

Highway account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1956 Taxes on gas and diesel fuels and tire sales.

Transit account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1982 A share of the Highway Trust Fund gas tax.

Airport and Airways Trust Fund . . . . . . . 1971 Taxes on airline tickets, way bills, aviation fuels, and international departures.

Inland Waterway Trust Fund. . . . . . . . . . 1978 Taxes on marine fuels.

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. . . . . . . 1986 Taxes on the value of vessel cargo.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

saturation, small reductions or shifts in demand can

prevent many delays. Financial demand management mechanisms, such as quotas or differential

pricing, raise costs to users and create issues of

social and economic equity that are hard to resolve.

These forms of demand management often generate

heated protests when they are introduced, because

travel patterns are closely coupled to home and work

sites, normal working and sleeping hours, and

established and familiar costs, such as parking fees.

Providing alternatives to conventional travel is

another possible way to change demand. New

technology possibilities include a system of tiltrotor

aircraft that would not compete for conventional

airport infrastructure, and high-speed rail or magnetic levitation rail, which could match airline

service at distances up to approximately 500 miles.

However, with the exception of high-speed rail,

which is now operating successfully in several

foreign countries, alternative transportation technologies are still under development. Even if shown to

be cost-effective, new technologies will not be ready

for public use for at least another decade.

Environmental Issues

The environmental impacts of transportation systems, such as some forms of air pollution and aircraft

noise, freely cross political boundaries. Consequently, decisions about financing and managing

infrastructure projects, usually made by individual

jurisdictions, often do not adequately address environmental concerns. Issues such as alternative fuels

for reduced emissions, higher occupancy vehicles,

and land-use planning conducive to environmentally

sound transportation must be jointly debated and

discussed by all the affected jurisdictions.

The financial trade-offs of improvements to

transportation systems required for environmental

protection are not easy to calculate, yet such

understanding is essential for long-term planning.

Public transportation officials must soon make

decisions about alternative fuels for transit buses,

because of the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) emission standards for dieselpowered, heavy duty buses. Concerns over the

environmental effects of dredging and dredged

material disposal already limit channel maintenance

and expansion options, especially for harbors and

ports in metropolitan areas. Noise is a problem for

transport operators across all modes, but is especially serious for airports and airlines. Community

groups fighting to curb the noise of airport operations have restricted present operations and blocked

growth in some instances, limiting airport development across the country.

System Management and Financing

Transportation networks provide enormous benefits to the national economy. However, Federal fisca1

policies-general fired subsidies, grant matching

requirements, trust fund spending restrictions, and

other revenue options-are developed and applied

by mode and often work against economical system

investment and management. Much of the Federal

capital spending for transportation infrastructure is

managed through trust fired accounts established by

Congress for highways, transit, airways, harbors,

and inland waterways (see table 3-3). To ensure that

federally financed transportation programs are user

supported, trust funds are credited with revenues

from dedicated user fees and excise taxes, and the

balances serve as the basis for Federal spending

authority. For example, in 1989 the Highway Trust

Fund was credited with $13.6 billion, raised primarily from gas taxes, and $14.3 billion was spent on

capital projects. Unlike mandatory entitlement trust

funds, such as social security, transportation fired

balances cannot be spent without being budgeted
86 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

and appropriated. 5 Thus the annual transportation

spending agendas must compete with other Federal

priorities. Over the last decade, the highway, transit,

and airways accounts have built up substantial

balances, which transportation supporters claim

should be appropriated now to address the Nation’s

large backlog of needs. However, despite recent

increases in Federal fuel taxes and other transportation user fees, expenditures from these trust accounts, which are part of the unified Federal budget,

will be limited by the domestic spending ceilings

imposed in the 1990 deficit reduction package.

Federal program management does little to promote efficient use of transportation systems. In its

almost quarter century of existence, DOT has never

successfully transcended the autonomy of its separate modal divisions (see figure 3-2) to establish a

leadership or coordinating role for multimodal,

system-based programs. System-based, State and

local investment and management policies and

institutions are lacking too. As one example of the

types of problems that result, ports both contribute

to and suffer from surface traffic congestion, air

pollution, and disputes caused by oversize and

overweight container shipments. But ports are often

independent authorities, and their shipments usually

involve interstate commerce, making it hard for

State or local governments to affect them. Few

examples of successful intergovernmental mechanisms for setting policies or developing and funding

programs to address such problems can be found.

Technology and Management Tools

A number of technologies are available for

managing infrastructure maintenance and rehabilitation, alleviating traffic congestion and increasing

capacity, and prolonging structure life. Many of

these technologies are described in chapter 5. Those

with the most promise for transportation include

computerized inventory management and decision

support tools, sensors for condition assessment and

transponders for communication and flow control,

and a variety of materials for construction and

rehabilitation and construction techniques. Despite

their availability, however, new technologies are not

in widespread use in public works, and technical

advances in equipment and software far outstrip the

skills and financial resources available to most State

and local public works operators.

Surface Transportation Networks:

Highways and Bridges

Roads and bridges are key to moving people and

goods; indeed every traveler and freight item travels

by highway for at least part of almost every trip.

Motor vehicles account for roughly 10 times as

many person-miles of travel as all other transportation modes combined, and trucking accounts for

over 80 percent of all domestic freight revenues and

25 percent of all the ton-miles of domestic freight.6

Management and Financing: Who Owns,

Pays for, and Operates What

Counties and local jurisdictions own and manage

the lion's share of roads and bridges, while States

own and administer Interstates, most arterial roads,

and one-third of collector roads. The few Federal

roads are almost exclusively on Federal property,

such as national parks and forests.7 About one-half

of total national spending for roads (about $69

billion in 1988)8 is provided by States and about

one-quarter by local governments. More than threequarters of the almost 3.9 million miles of public

roads that now lace the country had been built by

1920, although less than 15 percent were paved.

Even today, 1.7 million miles of road remain

unpaved.

All Interstate miles and 97 percent of other arterial

route-miles are considered part of the Federal-aid

system and are eligible for Federal funding aid for

development and maintenance. See figure 3-3 and

table 3-4 for further information about funding and

road characteristics. Federal-aid funding from the

Highway Trust Fund, about $14 billion annually,

represents around one-quarter of total road spending.

Of the nearly 577,000 bridges in the United States,

SJOhKI Hom~~ Tra~o~tion Trust Funds: Econonu”c and Policy Issues (’wdlhlgtOIli m: Cowssioti R~~h S*CO, SCP* 19$@~

p. 2.

6Natio~ COUnCiI On Public Works I.mprovemen~ Highways, Streets, Roads and Bridges (W_Or4 DC: WY 1987), P. 55.

~.S. Department of llansportatio~ Federal Highway A&mm“ ‘stmtion, Highway Functional Classification-Concepts, Cn”ten”a, and Procedures

(%k@iX@OQ DC: March 1989).

$U.S. Department of lkmspomtiom Federal Highway A6ministratiow Highway Statistics 1988 (WashingtoxL DC: 1989), p. 38.
Figure 3-2—US. Department of Transportation

Secretary

Deputy Secretary

1

Office of

Civil Rights D

Board of

Contract Appeals

L25c_JBB

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1990.

I

Assistant Secretary

for Governmental Assistant Secretary Assistant Secreta~ Office of

Affairs for Administration for Public Affairs Inspector GeneraI

3

National Highway

Traffic Safety

Administration

I

~r-----t! I Urban Mass Saint Lawrence

Federal Railroad Seaway Maritime Research and

Administration Transportation Development Administration Special Programs

Administration Corporation Administration
88 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Figure 3-3-Characteristics of the Nation’s Road System

Road mileage Vehicle-miles traveled

(by road type) (by road type)

Other Is

Iectors

21%

Interstate

1%

Minor

Collectors

- arterials

19%

69%

Secondary

11%

Primary

Other arterials

28%

Road mileage

(by funding classification)

7%

1%

Federal

 6%

te

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on information from the U.S. Department of Transportation,

almost 275,000 are on Federal-aid roads, with the

remainder on off-system roads.9

State highway officials administer a wide variety

of State-funded programs and, with the Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal-Aid

Highway Program. States allocate about 60 percent

of all highway outlays, construct and maintain about

22 percent of the Nation’s highway mileage and

43 percent of the bridges,l0 disperse Federal and

State funds to local jurisdictions, and enforce

construction standards and grant conditions. All

States levy motor fuel taxes; in 1990, the average gas

tax was 16 cents per gallon. During the 1980s, 47

States increased their levies—some more than once.

Most, but not all, States dedicate this revenue to

transportation purposes, and their officials view the

large balances in the Federal Highway Trust Fund

with anger, believing the Federal Government is

withholding these dedicated highway user fees for

general budget balancing purposes.

Issues

Local governments design, construct, and maintain the vast majority of the Nation’s roads and

bridges,ll and virtually every jurisdiction has a large

backlog of road and bridge maintenance and repair

needs. These are particularly acute in large, older

cities where infrastructure is heavily used and many

structures have long since reached the end of their

design lives; in New York City, for example, more

traffic lanes will be closed for repairs than will be

reopening under a rehabilitation program that will

 p. 134.

 of Counties, Linking America P. 8.

 Figures DC:

1987), p. 4.
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies ● 89

Table 3-4-Highway Mileage and Funding Statistics

Capital Maintenance

Road classification Miles Jurisdiction funding funding

Interstate Systema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44,000 State 90% Federal 1OO% State

10% State

Federal-Aid Primary Systemb

(excluding lnterstate) . . . . . . . . . . 260,000 State 75% Federal 1OO% State

25% State

Federal-Aid Secondary Systemc

. . 400,000 State 75% Federal 100?40 State

25% State

Federal-Aid Urban Systemd . . . . . . 125,000 State 75% Federal 100% State

25940 State

Local roadse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,751,000 Counties, Not eligible for Local and State

municipalities, Federal aid

and townships

Federal roadsf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226,000 Federal 100% Federal 100% Federal

a R~ut~ that~nn~t pfindpal metrop[itan ar~, serve the national defense, or~fln~t fith mutes of COntiflelltal

importance in Mexico or Canada (subsystem of the Federal-Aid Primary System).

b Intemnn=ting roaa important to interstate, statewide, and regional travel.

c Mqor ~ml ~l[a~rs that assemble traffic and feed to the afierials.

d Urban ~~ena[ ad ~[leetors mutes, excluding the urban extensions of the major primary artedab.

e Residential and [-l $tr$etso

f ROa~ in national forests and parks; roads on military and Indian r$SenfatkmS.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 1988(Washington,

DC: 1989); and U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Our Nation’s

Highways: Se/eoted Faots andl?gures (Washington, DC: 1987)

Over 10 percent of the Nation’s roads have enough

potholes, cracks, ragged shoulders, ruts, and washboard ridges to be classified as deficient; heavy axle

weights, such as those of large trucks, and the

stresses caused by freezing and thawing of harsh

weather are the major causes of pavement damage.13

Nearly 42 percent of the Nation’s bridges are rated

as unable to handle traffic demand or structurally

deficient (see figure 3-4); costs for repairing and

replacing these are estimated at $67.6 billion.14

Maintenance is an easy budget item to defer in

every jurisdiction when resources are low. However,

if maintenance is put off for too long, simple

procedures are no longer adequate, and more extensive and costly work becomes necessary. FHWA

administers five major highway grant programs

(interstate, interstate 4R, primary, and urban and

secondary), which can provide up to 75 percent of

the funds for construction/reconstruction and

rehabilitation of Federal-aid highways. Despite this

availability, less than 25 percent of Federal highway

obligations have been used for these purposes (see

12YSHOW, op. cit., footnote 1.

lsTr~ofitionRese~h Board, Truck WeightLimits: Issues and Options, Special Report 225 (Washington, ~: 1990), P. 27.

ldu.s. Co-ss, House COmmittW on public work and Transportation, The Status of the Nation’s Highways and Bridges: Co?tditions ad

Pe~ormance and Bridge Replacement and Retibilitation Program, Report of the Seeretiuy of Transportation to the United States Congress

~-ou~: U.S. Govment Printing CMke, June 1989), p. 121.
90 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Figure 3-4-Physical Condition of U.S. Bridges

All U.S. bridges

Functionally

108,000 

deficient (19%)

135,000

Adequate (58%)-

632,000

Bridges on Federal-aid roads

Adequate (

195,00

Functionally

deficient (15%)

40,000

Structurally

deficient (13%)

36,000

Functional

deficient (2

68,000

Off-system bridges

Structurally — dedeficient (33%)

~ 100,000

 Adequate (46%)

137,000

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, The Status of fhe Nation’s Highways and Bridges (Washington, DC: June 1989).

figure 3-5) over most of the past decade.15 In fact, of

all the money all levels of government spend on

highways annually, only about one-quarter goes to

maintenance and repair.l6

Costs for rehabilitation and maintenance fall most

heavily on large, rural States because of their

extensive mileage and low populations. They must

maintain miles of lightly traveled roads and numerous bridges to standards that accommodate heavy

agriculture loads, although such heavy vehicles may

use the system only a few weeks a year.

To be eligible for Federal aid, local street and

bridge projects must conform to categorical grant

requirements. With a few exceptions, Federal funds

focus on capital projects, precluding their use to fund

preventive maintenance and traffic management

improvements, such as upgraded signals, ramp

metering, and real-time traffic monitoring, that

could reduce congestion. Because Federal funds

contribute substantially to State and local highway

budgets, it is not unusual for project priorities to be

tailored to fit Federal-aid categories or for reconstruction and maintenance to be deferred because

money is short or Federal aid is not available.

Hard pressed to finance road improvements, local

governments have turned to dedicated portions of

State gasoline and sales taxes, seeking greater State

and Federal support, and in some cases, private

sector partners. Denver’s limited access, circumferential highway, E-470, now under construction,

provides an example of the potential for nontraditional means of highway financing, such as

right-of-way dedication, tolls, and earmarked vehicle registration fees. Such broad-based financing

concepts and public-private partnerships are likely

to be tried more often in the future, because of the

keen competition among government programs for

funds.

 Investments: What Federal Grant Programs? E 

Congressional R 31, 1990), pp. 4-8.

 calculations based on Federal Highway “ “ op. cit., footnote 8, pp. 40, 165-168.
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies ● 91

Figure 3-5-Federal Obligations for Interstate, 4R,

Primary, Secondary, and Urban Programs, by

Improvement

100%

7 5%

50%

25%

o%

Type

I I I I 100%

75%

50%

25%

o%

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89

~ New construction= Capital replacement

= Maintenance m Other

SOURCE: Congressional Research Service from Federal Highway Administration. See Congressional Research Service, Maintaining

Highway and Bridge Investments: What Role for Fe&al Grant

Programs? (Washington, DC: 1989.)

Loca1 roads serving regional needs frequently fall

victim to differing local, State, or Federal management goals and responsibilities, or their planning

and financing become stalled by interjurisdictional

squabbles.17 Furthermore, because Federal and State

grants are allocated by mode, communities have

little incentive to seek intermodal solutions to

areawide transportation problems. Weak land-use

planning and development controls further compound congestion problems. While new technology

can bring some short-term solutions, changes in

land-use management and development patterns,

lifestyles, and institutional arrangements are likely

to be required for long-term solutions in regions

where congestion problems are severe.

Technologies for Highways and Bridges

Technologies can make substantial contributions

to addressing congestion and capacity problems and

to bringing the physical condition of the highway

system to a satisfactory level. If money is available

to purchase equipment, and personnel are trained to

operate and maintain them, the technologies described below can bring major benefits.

Keeping the System in Good Condition

Keeping pavements and bridges in good condition

requires collecting information, careful management, investment in appropriate and durable equipment and materials, and adequately trained personnel. Management and information systems are

essential planning and resource allocation tools.

Decisions about materials and construction are also

key to maintaining a healthy road system.

Pavement and Bridge Management SystemsThe essential components of any pavement or bridge

management system include data collection and

processing, techniques or models for pavement

performance prediction, and setting priorities for

resource allocation. Most current State pavement

management systems resemble that used in North

Carolina and its municipalities. This includes visual

pavement inspection by trained professional evaluators of the entire paved street system, from a vehicle

traveling at about 10 miles per hour. Both State and

local evaluators record pavement condition according to the same, well-defined levels of distress.18

Municipalities use the results to set priorities for

engineering investigation, testing, maintenance, and

resurfacing. The system helps to set priorities for

limited funds and facilitates exchange of technology, information, and training programs.

A somewhat more automated pavement management system, developed by the Army Corps of

Engineers, has the capability to store inventory and

inspection data, analyze pavement condition, predict

future pavement condition, compare costs of maintenance and repair, and plan budgets. It is available for

use by public works officials.19

Advances in electronic sensors and system management software permit automated data collection

and analysis, and these technologies have great

potential to speed up and standardize the condition

assessment process and help set priorities for repair.

Several States have programs utilizing them (see

box 3-B). However, when more data are collected,

more powerful data management tools and speciallyJohII tiyOW ci~ fiice offixr, -eapolia, MN, personal communidom Jme 21, IWO.

lSJSm= B. _“pavement Management for North Carolina Municipalities,” Transportation Research Record1200 (Washington DC: National

Research Council, 1988).

1~.s. ~y CoWs of m~~, Construction hgineering ~e-h LS~rStOIY* “Micro Paver Pavement Management System,” informational

document MSy 1989.
92 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance —

Box 3-B—Video Technology and Pavement Management

Since the early 1980s, the Connecticut Department of Transportation has used a pavement survey van equipped

with a movie camera to record images at regular distance intervals (100 pictures per mile) on all 7,600 miles of

State-maintained road. This process, known as photologging, produces a film of the entire road network which is

then developed, producing some 760,000 images, and transferred to videotape. Images from the videotape are then

transferred onto 15 double-sided laser videodiscs. Connecticut has developed an image retrieval system that allows

any desired stretch of road to be examined on a video monitor to determine pavement distress. When correlated with

road geometry and roughness data which is collected simultaneously with the same pavement survey van, this

information provides highway engineers with a complete database to use in setting priorities for road maintenance.

Connecticut’s surveys are conducted annually and take about 4 months to complete. The State has found that

photologging saves gas, makes more efficient use of labor, eliminates much of the need for field inspections, and

provides better pavement ratings than its previous method, which consisted of 4’. . . two people riding in a seal@

at 40 miles per hour jotting down general impressions. . .“ of pavement quality.1 Other States pursuing videodisc

technology for pavement data acquisition and retrieval include Minnesota, Iowa, Utah, Texas, and Wisconsin.

Future efforts will focus on eliminating the need to use movie cameras or video cameras and writing data directly

onto disc.

IJohn Hudson, photolog supervisor, and Richard Hanky, transportation sefi~ W@=$ co-ti~t w-e~t of T’~~‘o%

personal cwxummications, Nov. 8, 1990.

ized personnel and expertise become necessary,20 Thermal Mapping—An extension of pavement

and these are beyond the resources of many State

DOTS.

Bridge lnventories—Investigations into the collapse in 1967 of the Silver Bridge between West

Virginia and Ohio, which killed 46 people, revealed

a lack of uniform reporting standards for bridges and

a need for a national inventory of bridges, improved

inspection standards, and inspection training procedures. While a national bridge inventory that includes condition ratings is now in place, recent

bridge failures have demonstrated that significant

inspection, maintenance, and repair issues must still

be addressed (see box 3-C).

Computerized bridge inventory systems can coordinate bridge condition analyses, set priorities, and

budget for maintenance and repair. For example, the

bridge inventory for Texas is a database that

includes 140 different entries for each bridge. The

data help the engineers determine a sufficiency

rating for every bridge in the State, and those that are

classified as deficient are eligible for FHWA

funds.21

management for deicing and ice prediction applications, thermal mapping requires mounting infrared

thermometers on vehicles to measure pavement

temperatures along stretches of road. Thermal mapping can be used to position permanent sensors in the

road, to determine how many sensors are needed to

provide adequate temperature profiles, and to redesign salting routes. Thermal mapping trials have

been carried out in several counties in England.22

Paving Materials-Composites, ceramics, plastics, and higher strength cements, are gradually

being used more frequently in bridges and highways.

They can provide faster curing, weight, and durability advantages over steel and concrete when properly

used and in the right conditions. Quick-curing

concrete can produce a road ready for vehicle traffic

inside of 24 hours, minimizing the need for rerouting

traffic, an inconvenience that can last for weeks

under traditional paving operations. Though fasttrack construction adds $1 to $2 per square yard to

the pavement costs, the increase is offset by reductions in traffic rerouting and liability .23 Extensive

tests performed on U.S. 71 in Iowa showed promise

————..——.—.—— — — ———.

20~5 KOUWOp)UIOS, ‘‘Automated Interpretation of Pavement Distress Dat%’ Cofisruction, newsletter of the Center for Construction Research and

Educatio% Massachusetts Institute of Twhnology, winter 1989, p 10.

‘lJane Mills Smith, ‘‘Middle Age Crisis, Wirdowt, Texas A&M LTniversity, summer 1988.

~~en~ Mapping IntC~tlu~~], Ltd.. Birmingham, England, informatioml brochure, n.d.

~M~lin K~utson ~d Rande]l Riley, ‘ ‘Driving m the Fast Track, ’ Civil Engineertn~, vol. 58, No. 9, September 1988, p. 56.
Chapter 3—-Transportation Management and Technologies ● 93

-. -- —— —...... ——— —- —.— —

Box 3-C—Bridge Inspections

The 1989 failure of the Hatchie River Bridge in Tennessee highlights some of the inadequacies of present

bridge management practices. Four passenger cars and one tractor-semitrailer fell into the river when the bridge

collapsed during a flood. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) identified several contributing factors,

including migration of the main river channel beneath the bridge and the failure of authorities to evaluate and correct

the resulting problems. A lack of redundancy in the bridge design also contributed to the severity of the accident,

Channel migration and scour, or wear, exposed the bridge piles to as much as 10 feet of water, reducing their ability

to support the bridge. Although a 1987 onsite inspection identified the piles’ vulnerability to water, no settlement

or leaning was noticed in the supports, and the bridge was given a “poor” rather than “critical” rating, thus not

making it a priority for repair. NTSB determined that State officials did not recognize the potential for scour from

the inspection report, and that overweight vehicles were frequently permitted to cross the bridge, further weakening

the structure.1

After its investigation, NTSB issued 19 recommendations for improved inspection and maintenance

procedures for the Nation’s bridges, stressing the need for dealing with the effects of channel migration and river

course changes, overweight traffic loads, and scour on the integrity of the bridge support structures. The

recommendations also highlight the need for raising qualification standards for evaluators of bridge inspection

reports and for the creation of a system to set priorities for bridge repairs.2

INatioml Transportation Safety BoMd, “Safety InfortnatioK” informational document, June 5, 1990.

21bid.

for quick-curing concrete technology. The Strategic

Highway Research program (SHRP) has sponsored

fast-track. concrete pavement overlay experiments in

Missouri on Route 67 with a pavement mixture

designed to harden in 12 hours.24 (See chapter 5 for

further discussion of advanced materials.)

Pavement additives for deicing, developed in

Europe and tested in the United States, include

particles of ground rubber or calcium chloride

particles covered with linseed oil. These are mixed

into the material used for the road surface. These

additives can double or triple paving material costs

and are not effective in all climates or under all

highway conditions. 25 Salt, currently the cheapest

and most available deicer, has been widely used in

this country, although it causes extensive corrosion

to unprotected pavement. (See chapter 5 for further

details.) Laboratory and field tests have shown

calcium magnesium acetate to be comparable to rock

salt as a deicer, while lacking many of the adverse

side effects. However, its price, 15 to 20 times that

of rock salt, prevents extensive use.

loads and member strengths as if they were known

with roughly equal certainty, rarely the case. LRFD

recognizes that some loads (the bridge’s own

weight, for instance) and material strengths can be

calculated with a fair amount of certainty, while

others (the wind load from a hurricane, for example)

can only be guessed. LRFD takes uncertainty into

account by multiplying each load by a load factor

and each member strength by a resistance factor,

with both reflecting the probability that each particular number is wrong. In many structures, LRFD

allows the use of smaller members or lower strength

steels, reducing the cost of the structure. Load factor

design (LFD) was adopted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

(AASHTO) in 1969 as an alternative method for

both steel and concrete bridges. Most States now

recognize LFD as an acceptable design method,26

and by 1992, AASHTO bridge design and construction specifications will be revised in the LRFD

format. However, LRFD takes time to learn and

requires educating staff and converting or replacing

computer programs that use conventional design

Design and Construct ion—bad and resistance

formulas.

factor design (LRFD) is a promising alternative to Primarily because they can be constructed

standard allowable stress design, which treats all quickly, segmental bridges minimize traffic disrup-

— ——————— —————.—. —-.——— — —

24S@ate@ Highway Research ROW, ‘ ‘FOCU S, ’ :lWSktteI’, Auglist 1990, p. ~

~Kevfi Stew@ pavement RCsearC~ ~lvlslon, ~~~ra] H]gh~ay AdnlinistratiOn,persoml Commtication, Apr 24, 1990.

26’ ‘Steel Desl~’s Reluitfi~.t Revolution+ Lnxlneering A’tws Record. VOI 2?3, No 19, NOV. 9. 1989, pp. 54-60
94 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

tion, since contractors can place precast or cast-inplace segments from above or below.27 The behavior

of the joints between the precast segments involves

complex interactions, however, and great care must

be taken to ensure that shear forces are transferred

across the joints.

Two promising technologies for strengthening

existing bridges are the reinforcing arch for truss

bridges and the post-tensioning system for steel

girder bridges. If critical truss bridge members are

reinforced with superimposed steel arches, chord

supports, and additional floor beams, the carrying

capacity and service life of the bridge can be

increased at a significant savings compared with the

cost of a new bridge. High-strength steel tendons

bolted to the ends of the girders and tightened reduce

the stress on the bottom of the girders. This process

enables the bridge to carry heavier weights, minimizes traffic disruption because work is done above

the roadway, and is significantly less costly then

replacing single-span steel girder bridges.

Increasing Capacity and Managing Traffic:

Smart Cars and Highways

Present strategies for overcoming congestion

include building new roads, adding lanes to existing

highways, creating high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)

lanes, and promoting car pooling and public transportation. However, no city, even those using all of

these techniques, has achieved more than modest

success in solving its congestion problems. Intelligent Vehicle/Highway System (IVHS) technologies

can help reduce congestion and improve highway

safety, and two of these-advanced traffic management (ATM) and automatic vehicle identification

(AVI) and billing-are particularly applicable for

public works and are available now for wider use.

More advanced IVHS technologies—collision

warning and avoidance, driver information and route

guidance, and automatic vehicle control-both

steering and headway-are under development.28

Advanced Traffic Management—ATM systems include urban traffic control systems, incident

detection systems, and freeway and corridor control

systems. Hardware consists of sensors, traffic signals, ramp meters, changeable message signs, and

communication and control devices integrated into

a single system. Urban traffic control systems

coordinate traffic signal operations throughout a

given area, based on traffic patterns as measured by

detectors in the roadway. Freeway control systems

include sensors of all types to monitor congestion

and transmit the data to driver-information signs and

ramp meters to control access. In the United States,

freeway systems are almost always separate from

urban traffic control systems. Although several are

planned, only a few integrated systems are in place.

One of these, Information for Motorists (INFORM),

is a traffic monitoring and control system, sponsored

by FHWA, along a 35-mile east-west corridor on

Long Island.29

Because current traffic detectors, usually embedded in the roadway, are susceptible to frequent

failure, more reliable methods of measuring traffic

are being investigated, including infrared sensors

and machine vision systems (video cameras linked

to a computer that analyzes the images to generate

traffic flow and congestion information) .30

The Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control

system (ATSAC) in Los Angeles (see box 3-D) is

one of the most advanced ATM systems presently in

use in this country. Pathfinder, an in-vehicle driver

information and route guidance demonstration in the

Los Angeles area, recently began preliminary testing, and TravTek, an Orlando-based project using

similar technology, will begin operation during

1991-93.

Only about 6 percent of urban freeway mileage is

covered by ATM systems. While most large, urban

areas have arterial traffic signal control systems,

many are old and inadequate for current needs, cover

too small an area, and do not respond well to

2-7ttcontioversid Bridges Scruti.tdz.txl at confer~ws “ Civil Engineering, vol. 60, No. 2, February 1990, p. 20.

~For~erde~s, seeu+s. coges~, ~lce of ~~olog ~s=ment, “~v~~d vehicle~ghwaysystems ~dlJrb~T~lc Problems, ” S~

paper of the Science, lllucatio~ and Transportation Program, September 1989.

Z%yle &mto~ assistant for advanced technical systems, FedersI Wghway~“ “ tratio~ personal communication, July 24, 1989.

30pmos ~c~opo~o~, professor, Dep~~t of Civil ~d ~er~ EK@ee@, University of -eSo@ ~d RoM Behuke, Research

Administration and Development, Minuesota Department of Transportation “’llsting and Field Implementation of the Minnesota Video Detection

System,” unpublished documen~ n.d.
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies ● 95 —-.———— —.... . . . . .- ————

.

Box 3-13-The Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) System

One of the more advanced urban traffic control systems in place in this country is the ATSAC system, a

computerized traffic signal control system installed in Los Angeles. It is based on the Urban Traffic Control System

(UTCS) software package developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and was put into operation

several weeks prior to the 1984 Olympic Games. Initial installation included 118 intersections and 3% detectors

in a 4-square-mile area centered at the University of Southern California and the Los Angeles Coliseum. It has since

expanded to include areas of the San Fernando Valley and central business district for a total of 371 intersections.

The airport and Westwood areas are targeted for later implementation, and in 1991, the system is planned to include

1,600 intersections. ATSAC is funded by a combination of FHWA monies, a traffic mitigation fired financed by

developer fees, and distributions from the Petroleum Violation Escrow Account fundi

From their workstations, ATSAC operators can monitor any portion of the surveillance area at any desired level

of resolution, from traffic flow data at intersections to traffic behavior over a region. ATSAC gives the current status

of any traffic signal in the network and gives traffic flow data for any loop detector in the network. Since it was first

installed, ATSAC has evolved into a signal timing system that automatically selects (and switches) timing plans

by matching current traffic patterns against historical data Signal timing can be fine-tuned by manual override or

automated control to relieve local congestion. Figure D-1 depicts a typical system.

Closed-circuit television cameras,

installed at important intersections assist

in incident management and confirm

incidents. ATSAC has improved traffic

flow and economic benefits: travel time

(-13 percent), number of stops (-35

percent), average speed (+15 percent),

fuel consumption (–12 percent), and

vehicle emissions (–10 percent). Computerized signal control also provides

rapid detection of faulty sensors and

unusual traffic patterns due to incidents.

Estimated cost savings to motorists

(business and truck trips only) as a result

of lower operating costs and time saved

recovered the $5.6-million construction

cost of ATSAC after only 9 months of

operation. The annual operating costs are

recovered within the first week of operation every year.2

However, ATSAC relieves street

congestion only, not freeway congestion,

since freeway traffic falls under the

authority of CALTRANS. Recognizing

this limitation, the major transportation

agencies in the Los Angeles area have

begun the Smart Corridor demonstration

project, which integrates selected cityoperated surface streets and Stateoperated freeways in a single traffic

management system.

Figure D-l—Typical Automated Traffic Management System

.

7 Vehicle Signal

Qi\

)7I

~

detector controller

Al

- -—4—— – — – ~– 311L Two-way data

transmission network

. —— -

Real-time computer

*

I +--- —

Input/output programs —— ‘

- r — ——-– +----l

L

On-line + Signal Signal

optimizers + timings

+ :::; y

LJ

t communications Y

1

Display of traffic and

system information

SOURCE: Ferranti Computer Systems, GEC Traffic Automation Ltd., and Plessey

Controls Ltd., “Dynamic Urban Traffic Control,” SCOOT brochure, 1985.

1~~ Rowe, general maoager, Department of Transportation% City of Los Angeles, personal CtXM.llUtkiCZttiOm, Aug. 19 W 30, 1989.

%Mwin Rowe et aI,, ATSAC Evaluation Study (3AM Angeles, CA: City of bs AWelf% ~P~ of Trmqmrtatiow M& 1987).

-— —.--.. .-- ——.——. .— . — . .-— .————— —.
96 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

nonrecurring congestion.31 Over one-half of all

vehicle-hours of delay are caused by nonrecurring

congestion or incidents (vehicle accidents and

breakdowns that tie up traffic). Incident management programs use a variety of ATM tools to detect

incidents, including conventional traffic surveillance, service patrols, closed-circuit television,

roadside and mobile telephones, and citizens-band

radio.

Automatic Vehicle identification—AVI systems are a promising option for automatic billing on

toll roads and bridges.32 Radio or microwave transponders on a vehicle can be “read’ by equipment

placed along a route or at a point where information

exchange or billing needs to occur, such as toll

facilities, weigh stations, and ports of entry. Additional AVI technologies include optical and infrared

systems, inductive loop systems, and surface acoustic wave systems.

Because AVI-equipped vehicles need not stop for

data transfer, widespread use would substantially

reduce delay at these normal congestion points. AVI

could also be used to control access to facilities and

to provide traffic data for travel flow and congestion

monitoring. Such systems are operating at the

Coronado Bridge in San Diego, the Mississippi

Bridge into New Orleans, the Lincoln and Holland

Tunnels in New York City (for buses), the Grosse Ile

Bridge in Michigan, and the Dallas North Tollway.

The Dallas (see box 3-E) and New Orleans systems

are the most heavily used, with 20,000 and 13,000

subscribers, respectively .33

AVI also makes possible congestion pricing, or

charging automobile drivers for driving in congested

areas during peak hours. Congestion pricing provides more funds for system improvements, and may

cause some motorists to shift to public transit, make

fewer trips, or plan their trips during nonpeak hours,

thus reducing delays.

Weigh-in-Motion —WIM systems use roadmounted sensors to determine the weight of moving

Box 3-E—Fast Toll Collection in Dal!as

The Dallas North Tollway is one of the largest

automatic vehicle identification (AVI toll roads in

the Nation, Since August 1989, all of its toll lanes

have been equipped with reading equipment capable of interrogating transponders (toll tags) attached

to the inside of the windshields of subscribers’

vehicles. The credit card-sized toll tags can be

purchased in $40 increments bymail or at a tag store

located near the tollway. Tag users pay an extra

5 cents per transaction over the usual toll as well as

a $2 service charge for use of the transponder. After

a successful transaction, a “valid tag-go” sign is

flashed to the driver. If the toll tag credit is used up,

a‘ ‘call tag store” sign is fIashed and the driver must

pay the toll in cash. Before the system began

operation, an average of 350 vehicles per hour

passed through a toll plaza lane during rush hour.

Now, 800 vehicles per hour pass through lanes for

drivers with toll tags or with exact change, and

AVI-only lanes, which will be implemented in late

1990, are expected to process 1,200 vehicles per

hour, based on a vehicle speed of 10 miles per hour.

At present, the tollway has some 30,000 AVI

subscribers, accounting for over 1 miIlion AVI

transactions monthly.1

IKtXI ~C~, director of toil cO&XtiOn, Dallas No*

‘IbIlway, personal commurdeatiom Nov. 7, 1990.

vehicles by taking into account axle weights, vehicle

length, and vehicle speed. By also calculating axle

spacing, WIM devices can classify vehicles and

determine their compliance with weight standards.

Technologies used for WIM include piezo-electric

sensors, load cell systems, shallow weighscale

systems, bending plate systems, and bridge systems.

The most accurate WIM systems currently have

accuracies within 10 percent of true vehicle weight,

limiting their usefulness for enforcement purposes,34

although the information they provide about truck

weights has proven useful for highway research and

pavement design.

— .

3*Gary Euler et al., ‘‘Final Report of the Mobility 2000 Working Group on Advanced Traft3c Management Systems (ATMS),’ unpublished report,

March 1990, p. 2.

szAuto~tic vehicle idmtil~tion t~hnology is also sometimes referred to as electronic toll ~d ~~lc management.

33Maureen Gallagher, director of research and member services, International Bridge, Tbnnel and Tbrnpike Association PrsO~ comm~~tio~

May 31, 1990.

~Ned -OK~~=r, Cufle Rock Consultants, personal communication Apr 28, 1989.
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies ● 97

Automatic Vehicle Location—AVL systems

currently have their primary application in commercial fleet operations, since they typically identify

vehicle location and transmit it to a central facility

for monitoring or dispatch purposes. An AVL

system consists of equipment to locate the vehicleusually based on dead reckoning, map matching,

proximity to roadside beacons, or radio determination—and mobile communications equipment,

which relays this information to the central location.

AVL can provide real-time information on shipment

status and eliminates the need for time-consuming

driver-to-control-center communication.

Surface Transportation Networks:

Mass Transit

Mass transit refers to regional and municipal

passenger transportation systems, such as buses,

light rail, commuter rail, trolleys, and subways (see

table 3-5). Early mass transit service was provided

by private horsecar in the mid-1800s, and cable cars

and electric streetcars served numerous urban riders

between 1880 and 1920. The versatility brought by

buses and automobiles caused rail transit ridership to

decline slightly during the 1930s. During the immediate postwar years, transit patronage and revenues

fell again, and local governments began to takeover

the systems from private operators. The establishment of a Federal grant program for transit in 1964

and substantial increases in Federal support in 1970

(see chapter 2 for further details) brought a large

increase in public takeovers of transit agencies.

Transit Management and Financing

Today, most cities and towns with populations

over 20,000 have bus systems, usually operated by

a municipal transit authority; over one-half (58

percent) of all systems are located in towns with

populations of less than 50,000. Local governments

manage transit systems as operating departments or

through a public transit authority. Transit buses,

operating on established routes on set schedules,

account for over one-half of all public transit

vehicles, passenger trips, and vehicle-miles operated. 35 Seattle, Philadelphia, Boston, Dayton, and

San Francisco transit agencies still operate some

electric trolleys. Rail transit, rapid rail, light rail, and

commuter rail systems are usually owned by municipal transit agencies, although some commuter rail

services are run by State governments or operated by

Amtrak.

Paratransit operators maybe municipalities, special purpose agencies, or private entities. Services

include dial-a-ride, van pools, subsidized taxis, and

shared rides in minibuses or vans; paratransit can

provide more direct origin-to-destination service,

and operates on demand rather than on a fixed

schedule. The primary residential users of paratransit are the elderly, handicapped, and children; airport

shuttles are heavily used by business people and

travelers.

Of total transit revenues in 1988,36 percent came

from passenger fares, 53 percent from State and local

assistance, and 6 percent from Federal capital and

operating assistance, which totaled $3.3 billion (in

current dollars) in 1988,36 down about 40 percent

from 1980 (see chapter 2, table 2-2). Quadrupling

from about $1 billion in 1980 to almost $4 billion in

1988, State aid to local and regional transit now

surpasses Federal aid.37 At least 40 States provide

local mass transit with some funds from general

revenues, a dedicated portion of the general sales

tax, or motor fuels and vehicle taxes. States support

transit because it is one of the few options available

for relieving auto congestion and air pollution in

urbanized regions, and seven heavily urbanized

States contribute 80 percent of total State aid.

Federal capital grants may be used to finance bus

and subway car purchases, rail construction, and

other capital improvements, but these programs

have been criticized for not meeting community

needs. Some cities receive more capital funds than

they can use, encouraging large construction budgets, which may cause them to shortchange maintenance. Others, often those with older rail systems,

are substantially underfunded38 and in desperate

need of capital equipment and track rehabilitation.

About 70 percent of transit operating costs are labor

“

39 

expenses, these are not eligible for Federal assistss~en~ ~blic Transit Associatio~ J989 Transit Fact Book (W-~ ~: 1989), pp. 1~13.

%~d., pp. 24-27,74-75.

37u,s. Dep~ent of Transportation op. cit., footnote 2, p. 24.

3SU$S0 COWSS, Cowessiod Budget ~lce, New Directiom for t& Nation’s P@lic Works (WMh@OU ~:Nov_k 1989), p. 37.

qg~efi~ Public Transit Association op. cit., footnote 3% P. 33.
Table 3-5-Characteristics of Mass Transit

Type Right-of-way Fare collection Maximum speed Power source Places in use Funding

Bus City streets and

dedicated

bus lanes

Heavy rail Dedicated underground, surface, or elevated

Light rail City streets and/

or fully gradeseparated

tracks

Commuter Railroads

rail

In vehicle or 35 mph on city internal combus- Virtually all urban areas

station streets, 55 mph tion engine

on highways

75 mph

55 mph

in station Third rail New York; Chicago; Boston; Philadelphia; Atlanta; Washington, DC; San

Francisco; Los Angeles (under construction)

In vehicle or Overhead New Orleans; San Francisco; Philadelstation catenary phia; San Jose; Portland, OR; Boston; Sacramento; Buffalo; Cleveland; San Diego; los Angeles; Long

Beach

In vehicle 100 mph Diesel/electric San Francisco Bay area; New YorkIocomotive New Jersey; Boston; Philadelphia;

UMTA discretionary grants (sec.

3), formula grants for operating

and capital expenses (sec. 9),

and operating and capital assistance for rural areas (sec.

18)

UMTA formula and discretionary

grants (sees. 3 and 9)

UMTA formula and discretionary

grants (sees. 3 and 9)

UMTA formula and discretionary

grants (sees. 3 and 9)

Chicago; Washington, DC-Baltimore; Miami-West Palm Beach

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) information.
ance. Critical to urban movement, public mass

transit is not a profitmaking venture anywhere in the

world. In the United States, farebox revenues cover

less than 40 percent of operating costs on average,

and service is usually subsidized locally from State

or local general funds and earmarked taxes. Buses

receive substantially higher subsidies than rail

transit systems.

Issues

Transit agencies are not typically an integral part

of local and regional transportation and land-use

decisionmaking which undermines transit’s potential role in solving local and regional transportation

problems. While transit is subsidized in most

communities, its competitive position as a transportation alternative is reduced by municipally subsidized parking and by Federal policies that do not tax

employees for parking benefits, but do tax most

transit allowances. Furthermore, the costs of alternative capital improvements (a new highway lane, for

example) are often underestimated.

Transit systems are important alternatives for

increasing surface transportation capacity in congested urban corridors. However, transit must complement strong growth management programs, such

as those applied in Oregon (see box 3-F), if transit is

to be more effective at alleviating congestion.

Bus transit systems have made major efforts to

upgrade their maintenance programs, because vehicles in poor condition break down frequently,

making schedules hard to keep. However, many

operators of smaller buses, such as those used in

small communities or in paratransit, encounter

problems with brake wear, corrosion, electrical and

air conditioning systems, wheelchair lifts, and vehicle handling. 40 Maintenance costs are thus high for

these small operators.

40Charles Dickson, director of training, Community Transportation Association of America, personal Communication, May 31, 1990.
700 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Box 3-F-Oregon’s Growth Management Program

Oregon is using growth management to control urban sprawl and cut public works costs. All Oregon cities must

incorporate urban growth limits and public facilities plans into their State-mandated comprehensive plans and adopt

consistent zoning ordinances. State legislation, adopted in 1973 to protect prime agricultural land from haphazard

urban development, requires that comprehensive plans show an urban growth boundary, which defines the extent

of urban expansion permissible over a 20-year period. The boundary is based on forecasted land-use needs, physical

characteristics of the land and local growth policies.1 Although it took over a decade to achieve, all cities and

counties now have State-approved comprehensive plans. State actions, including those of the Highway Department,

must be compatible with local plans.

In addition to comprehensive planning requirements and urban growth boundaries, State housing policy is an

important growth management tool, because it requires cities to zone for high-density development as a means of

stimulating construction of affordable housing. To a greater extent than in most other States, development in Oregon

in recent years has followed high-density patterns; in 1989 Portland had the highest percentage increase in

multifamily construction in the country and from 1985 to 1989,54 percent of all residential construction in the State

was multifamily.2 Developers generally support the high-density zoning policy because it reduces per-unit

construction costs and because the mandated consistency between zoning ordinances and comprehensive plans

eliminates lengthy and unpredictable rezoning proceedings. Local officials find compact, highdensity development

provides the market needed for mass transit, reduces other municipal service construction and operating costs, and

increases affordable housing. Heightened interest in light rail transit, instead of more highways, is another benefit

of this policy.3

While State officials are optimistic about the long-term effectiveness of growth management to reduce

transportation and other facility costs, pockets of existing development outside the urban boundary undercut the

effectiveness of growth limits. These low-density unincorporated areas, largely exempt from the strict limits on

development in effect elsewhere, continue to grow. In the Portland region, they have absorbed only 5 percent of

residential growth, but in other fast growing areas one-quarter to over one-half of residential development occurs

in these unregulated places, complicating regional planning and financing for highways and public utilities, Even

within urban growth boundaries, new development is not necessarily contiguous to old and gaps occur, which

increase public works costs and inefficiency. The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development is

conducting a major study to evaluate the impact of current growth management programs and how to improve

them.4

IHCOwerva@n and Development Commi ssio% Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals, 1990 (Sale~ OR: 1990), p. 14.

2Jok Kelly, project manager, oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Commission+ P@!W@ COlllllldtXt@l, Nw.

1, 1990.

3J’&id,

‘%id.

—

For r-ail transit systems the components most in rail transit systems to a level ‘‘. . . consistent with

need of rehabilitation or replacement are railcars, current standards of safety, reliability, and aesthetics

power substations, overhead power wires, mainte- for new rail systems . . .“ have been estimated at

mince facility buildings and storage yards, and $17.9 billion.41

bridges. All also require high degrees of ongoing

maintenance. Facilities and equipment in the poorest Technologies for Transit

condition are usually the oldest, such as those in Fleet and facility management and regular mainNew York City, Chicago, and Philadelphia, some of tenance are of primary importance in extending the

which are more than 50 years old. Rehabilitation and lives of mass transit vehicles, in controlling costs,

modernization costs to bring the Nation’s existing and minimizing environmental effects.

. — —

olGaett Fleming TrmSpO~tiOn l%gincefs, Inc. et d., Rail Jlodernization Smdj, Report No. UMTA-PA 06-MB9-86-1 (Was~@oU DC: us.

Department of Transportatio~ Urban Mass Transportation Administration, April 1987), p. 2.
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies . 101

Buses

Busways-One traffic management strategy implemented by many cities is the creation of exclusive

bus lanes on which only buses and commuter vans

may travel. Busways have reduced travel times

significantly and cost far less than new rail lines.

They can be grade-separated, created from widening

existing roads, or by simply dedicating existing

lanes to bus traffic.

Automatic Vehicle Monitoring—AVM systems can locate transit buses and communicate

information to drivers, dispatchers, central traffic

control computers, and passengers. Methods for

locating buses include LORAN C, dead reckoning,

satellite referencing, and roadside beacons and

detectors. (See chapter 5 for further discussion of

location technologies.) Radio channels can provide

voice communication or data transmission links

between the bus and the central control. To speed

travel, buses with communication links to the

municipal traffic control system (as in some French

and Dutch cities) can be given signal priority at

intersections. AVM technologies are used by transit

authorities for automated bus-to-dispatcher communication, as well as for collection of data on bus

travel times, stops, and adherence to schedules, and

thus can bean important source of data for planning

and management.42

Communications technologies, such as cable

television, videotex, telephone, video screens, and

speaker phones, can provide schedule and status

information to passengers on the bus, at bus stops, or

at home. Speaker phones and automatic telephone

information systems can supply patrons with bus

arrival information specific to each bus stop. Cable

television enables bus passengers to view map

displays of routes and bus locations, while video

screens at bus stops give passengers bus schedule

and arrival information. Onboard systems display

upcoming stops and connections with other modes

of transportation.

Electronic Control Systems-Such systems can

reduce emissions, smooth shifting, increase acceleration, and quiet operations for engines and transmissions and electronically controlled power and drive

trains. The ability to diagnose engine and transmission problems electronically should reduce maintenance costs and allow vehicles to stay in service

longer. 43

Bus systems in cities with serious air pollution

problems must comply with new emissions standards by 1994. Emission control equipment and

reformulated (’‘clean’ diesel fuel or alternate fuels

are among the alternatives, and agencies must weigh

the trade-offs between capital costs, fuel costs,

maintenance, and relative reduction in emissions in

making decisions. Regardless of the ultimate choice,

different equipment and/or fuels will bring new

maintenance concerns.

Particulate Traps-These consist of a metal-clad

ceramic falter, which captures particulate from the

exhaust stream of a diesel engine. Tests conducted

in California demonstrated that particulate traps can

remove some 70 percent of smoke and soot emissions from the engine with no sacrifice in performance. However, the reliability and durability of the

traps over the life of a bus remains in question. Tests

of diesel particulate trap oxidizer systems are in

progress or planned in nine North American cities.44

Methanol—This is the alternative cleaner burning fuel that has been tested most thoroughly for bus

use. It is producible in the United States from natural

gas, coal, and biomass. It has one-half the energy

content of gasoline, meaning that 1 gallon of M100

(pure methanol) gives about one-half the mileage of

1 gallon of gasoline. However methanol is toxic,

corrosive, and highly flammable, so different handling procedures and redesigned fuel and exhaust

systems are necessary. Lastly, a distribution system

comparable to the existing system for gasoline and

diesel fuel will be needed before methanol can be

available for nationwide use.

Natural Gas-Used in motor vehicles since

World War II, natural gas now fuels primarily

light-duty van and truck fleets. The largest current

program for buses is in Vienna, Austria, where 400

buses run on liquefied natural gas. Compressed

4XZUMdian ur~T-it &SOci&m, prOceed@S: The International Conference on Automatic Vehicle Location in Urban TraM-t SYste~

(’lbronto, Ontario, Canada: September 1988).

da~orge Ix, Pmgm m~ger, OffIce of Engineering Evd~tioIIs, urb~ ~s ~spo~tion~“ “stratiom personal communicatio~ May

31, 199Q and “NJ Transit Gins Advantage With Electronic Engine and Transmission Control Systems,” Bus Ride, vol. 26, No. 1, March 1990, pp.

48-49.

44~~x~rs of Emission con~ols &~~tio~ “’f’rap Oxiber con~ol s~~ Repo~’$ ~ubli~ed document, Novemk 1989, pp. 8-10.
102 ● Delivering the GOOdS: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

natural gas (CNG) is the most common form

considered for bus use in this country, however. In

contrast to methanol, CNG is not corrosive, causes

less engine wear, and gives longer engine durability,

although as for methanol, larger onboard fuel tanks

and new distribution facilities would be needed.

CNG vehicles can require substantially more time to

refuel than methanol or diesel fuel vehicles, a

particular concern for bus fleets, which can afford

little down time.45

Rail Transit

Track Inspection Technologies—These include

automated track measurement systems, which operate either as dedicated vehicles or measuring devices

fitted to passenger cars. The equipment uses electrooptical or electromagnetic methods to give dynamic

measurements of track geometry under loaded

conditions. It measures and records track location,

gage, profile, and alignment in a fraction of the time

required by a track walking crew. However, the

automated track geometry measurement system

does not detect other track characteristics such as rail

fatigue, tie fastener problems, or concrete cracks.

Newer track geometry cars can be equipped with

video or other equipment to record information such

as overhead clearance, third rail alignment, foliage

clearance, and tie condition. Dedicated rail flaw

detection cars are used to test rails ultrasonically for

defects, which usually result from fatigue. Track

data of all kinds can be stored in computerized data

management systems to help in setting priorities for

further inspection and maintenance.

New Rail Propulsion Technologies—Such

technologies as alternating current (AC) traction

motors can save substantial energy costs. AC

traction motors are operating successfully on rail

vehicles in Europe and Japan and have been

introduced in New York City and Philadelphia;

trolley buses and light rail already use them. AC

motors can reduce energy consumed in starting,

braking, and heating; reduce maintenance and repair

expenditures because they have fewer moving parts;

and reduce slipping, skidding, and wheel and rail

wear.

Offsetting these benefits is the greater weight of

the line filter, which must be added to smooth line

current and reduce signal interference. The cost of

converting existing cars to run on AC is substantial-about $200 million for one regional agency.%

Control Systems—Most modem train control

systems now use pulsed currents through the track

circuit to communicate allowable speed information

and employ cab signaling, rather than wayside

signaling, which allows quick response to changing

traffic information. While older, wayside signaling

conveys information only at block entrances, cab

signaling gives signal displays within the cab of the

train, and displays are updated continuously in

response to the condition of the track ahead. This

enables trains to run with a higher level of safety

than with wayside signaling (see box 3-D again).

Automated Guideway Transit—AGT typically

provides slow-speed continuous service along dedicated, isolated guideways; cars are controlled by

microprocessors. They function automatically and

do not require onboard operators, but they do require

exclusive right-of-way and security systems, such as

anti-intrusion devices at stations and on the right-ofway. They can use steel wheels on rails, rubber tires

on concrete guideways, or even magnetic levitation.

Fare collection takes place in the stations. Examples

of AGT include people mover systems in Detroit,

Miami, Jacksonville, Tampa, Morgantown (West

Virginia), VAL in France, SkyTrain in Vancouver,

British Columbia, the M-Bahn in West Germany,

and numerous shuttle systems in airports, and

amusement parks.

Personal Rapid Transit—Concepts for PRT

systems include new configurations of existing

technology and feature:

small, fully automated vehicles (without

human operators or attendants), available for

exclusive use by an individual or a small group

traveling together; and

vehicles captive to a small, dedicated guideway, located above ground, at or near ground

level, or underground, which provide direct

origin to destination service on demand without

stops or transfers.

PRT systems face difficult environmental hurdles in

the form of objections to above-ground guideways

and stations, which duplicate the road network to

some extent. Security concerns center on the driver4SL.R. Davis, d~tor, Equipment -w-e, Southern California Rapid Transit DistricL personal comnmnicatio% w. 22, 1990.

-cials from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, personal communication, Jan. 22, 1990.
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies . 103

less cars and unattended stations, while safety issues

include whether many small, closely spaced vehicles

can run safely on a single-lane guideway.

Surface Transportation Networks:

Railroads

Rail service in the United States is provided by a

mix of public and private entities. The quasi-public

National Rail Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), created in 1971, is the primary intercity passenger rail

company (see figure 3-6). Because of the importance

of public sector support to the continuation of

passenger service, discussion in this section will

emphasize passenger service and the Federal role.

However, hundreds of private freight railroads play

an equally critical part in the national transportation

system, carrying bulk materials, such as coal and

agricultural products, and about 50 percent of the

market for long-haul transportation of manufactured

commodities. 47 Freight railroads compete with

barge lines for shipments of large bulk commodities

and with tractor-trailer trucks for smaller bulk

shipments. To counter the faster, more flexible

service trucks can provide, rail companies have

concentrated traffic and investment on fewer, highdensity lines48 and introduced double stack and

rail-highway vehicle services. The largest, or Class

1, freight railroads, account for over 90 percent of

railroad traffic and employ over 90 percent of the rail

work force.49

Regional railroads are usually defined as those

with between 250 and 1,000 miles of track, while

those with less than 250 miles of track are classified

as shortline or local railroads. Most of these 32

regional lines are privately owned. However, 1 of

them, and 31 of the over 400 shortline or local lines

are owned and operated by State and local governments (although they operate on privately owned

track). Since the Staggers Act (see chapter 2), the

number of shortline and regional railroads has grown

significantly, providing continued service for many

localities. 50

Railroad Management and Financing

The private sector owns and operates most rail

infrastructure, including 97 percent of the total track

mileage, as well as most bridges, control systems,

communications systems, yards, service buildings,

vehicles, and support equipment.51 Amtrak owns

much of the track along the Northeast corridor

between Washington and Boston (its busiest routes)

and some along the Chicago-Detroit corridor, a total

of 600 miles. The Corporation contracts with 15

private freight railroads to provide train dispatch and

track maintenance services outside these corridors.

Its operating fleet includes some 300 locomotives

and 1,900 passenger cars, most of which it owns. Of

its almost 39 million passengers in 1989, about 44

percent rode on commuter rail systems operated by

Amtrak on a contract basis; the rest were intercity

passengers.

52 In 1989, Amtrak trains carried more

travelers between Washington and New York than

any airline.53

Each year, Amtrak receives a Federal operating

subsidy of about $500 million, which it splits

equally between its intercity long-distance routes

and its shorter distance Northeast corridor operations. In fiscal year 1989, the Corporation earned

$1.27 billion in revenues, enabling it to cover 72

percent of its operating costs from its own sources.

About one-half of Amtrak’s yearly capital expenses

come from internal sources, and the rest come from

Federal aid.54

States play a relatively minor role in financing,

operating, or regulating railroads. Nonetheless, at

least 20 States provide assistance to local rail service

from earmarked taxes and general appropriations,

and most maintain a State Rail Plan that includes an

dT~omtio~ material prepared for C)TA by the Association of American Railroads, J~. 31, 1990.

~Federal Railroad AdmmI “ “stratiou briefing document prepared for O’IA, 1989.

4~,s. ~ner~ &cow@ ~lCe,znfo-tiOn on R~@afO~ Ref~~ Utier the sfuggerSRuilACfOf 1980 (wM~o~ DC: Aug. 17, 1983), p. 1.

WFederal Railroad Adnum“ “stration and Interstate Commerce Commission A Survey of Shipper Sati~action With Service andRates of Shoreline and

Regional Railroads, joint staff study @%#dngtoq DC: August 1989), p. 1; and Association of American Raihoads, Profiles of U.S. Railroadr,

supplement No. 1 (WashingtorL DC: 1990).

slFede~ ~~oad Administratio~ op. cit., footnote 48.

5~omuta Semic= operated by ~~~clude tie ~5ach~e~ Bay Tr~it Au~ori~ ~~) ~d he -Md MI commuter SCrViCC

Wa

53Natio@ Railroad Passenger Corp., Annual Report 1989 wttdl@3% ~: 19$0.

~Natio~ ~koad p~~nger Corp., “ 1990 Legislative Report,” unpublished document, Feb. 15, 1990, pp. 5-9.
104 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies . 105

inventory of facilities and a ranking of proposed

projects. A few large, urbanized States, California

and Pennsylvania, for example, subsidize or supply

intercity passenger train service. Other State aid is

distributed as grants or loans to small, shortline

freight carriers. Local governments have few direct

responsibilities for railroads, although commuter

railroads are major highway traffic relievers in

congested metropolitan areas.

Rail Issues

Amtrak hopes to achieve full operating selfsufficiency by the year 2000, but needs to replace its

aging fleet of cars and upgrade track along several

corridors to maintain and expand current levels of

service. It could operate far more efficiently with

new locomotives and by using double-deck passenger cars on heavily traveled lines. To meet demand

on sold-out long-distance routes, Amtrak plans to

purchase at least 75 two-level sleeping and food

service cars. On several routes, these cars will

replace single-level cars, which can be used on other

routes to expand capacity.

Although Amtrak must purchase a good deal of

new equipment to sustain revenue growth, doing so

requires large amounts of capital, which the railroad

has few means of accumulating. Yield management,

higher fares, and efficient utilization of equipment,55

its current sources of increased revenue, are unlikely

to generate the dollars needed. Improved track,

maintenance facilities, locomotives, and passenger

cars are expected to cost the Corporation about $300

million annually during the 1990s and require sums

far greater than the current Federal capital grants of

about $30 million annually.

Rail facilities are strategically located in most

cities and offer often underutilized capacity, which,

under the right circumstances, could bean economical option for moving people and goods within and

between metropolitan areas. However, funding constraints often prevent railroads from making the

investments necessary to keep customers. Shortline

and regional railroads that have formed from railroad lines where maintenance was deferred and

neglected face rehabilitation needs far exceeding

their ability to pay. A Federal Railroad Admin“ “stration survey of small railroads found the one-time

costs of track and roadbed rehabilitation-replacing

ties and ballast and improving track surfaces-to be

higher than annual revenues for many lines, about

$428 million in total. Modal subsidies, embedded in

Federal programs for other types of transportation

assistance, provide support for other modes in ways

that would benefit railroads.

Labor issues are a final management concern for

railroads. Federal regulations requiring a supplemental retirement system for railroad employees,

raihoad-funded benefits for employees made jobless

by a consolidation, line sale, or abandonment,56 and

railroad workers’ compensation statutes are particularly hard on shortline and regional railroads because

of their small size and scale of operations.

Rail Technologies

Railroad technology in the United States is not

characterized by rapid change; for instance, the air

brake system is the same conceptually as when it

was introduced, and standard track still consists of

steel rails, spikes, and wood ties mounted on ballast

of crushed stone.57 (For a potential exception, see

box 3-G.) However, new technologies for railroad

operations have developed rapidly in recent years.

Electronic data information systems, radio communications, advanced train control systems, and other

propulsion innovations have enabled many railroads

to operate more efficiently and productively.

Keeping the System in Good Shape

Track condition has benefited from a new emphasis on longer wear rail metallurgy, continuous

welded rail, profile grinding to extend rail life,

concrete cross ties, new fastening systems for both

concrete and wood ties, track geometry measurement systems, track maintenance planning tools,

new inspection technologies, and more mechanized

and automated maintenance equipment.58

Track Maintenance Management SystemsSuch systems function as decision support tools for

55W. Graham Claytor, Jr., president and chairman of the boar~ National Railroad Passenger Corp., testimony at karings before the House

Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, Mar. 22, 1989, pp. 2-3.

fi’l”he hters~te Commerce Commission which has the authority to exempt line sale from kbor protection ketdex~tions to most of *

newest regional railroads.

‘7Federal Railroad Administration op. cit., foomote 48.

ss~id.
106 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Box 3-G-Magnetic Levitation Research

The High Speed Ground Transportation (HSGT) Act, passed in 1965, established the Office of High speed

Ground Transportation in the Department of Commerce whose objectives were to explore advanced intercity

ground transportation technologies. Most early work on magnetic levitation (maglev) occured around the time of

the act’s - at Brookhaven National Laboratory the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and a

number of private industry research facilities. However, other than feasibility studies and technical assessments,

U.S. maglev work essentially ended in 1975, with the expiration of the HSGT Act.

The Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, and the Army Corps of Engineers have recently

begun anew effort, the National Maglev Initiative, to assess the engineering, economic, and environmental aspects

of maglev and determine its feasibility for the transportation system. The budget appropriation for fiscal year 1991

include $10 million for the Federal Railroad Administration an d $2 million for the Army Crops of Engineers to

begin work. A major program report planned for March 1991 will include technical and economic assessments,

plans for developing U.S. capability to surpass existing foreign technologies, and recommendations on whether to

pursue further development.

Currently, maglev research is most active in Germany and Japan whose efforts have been underway way since the

late 1960s. Research in Germany, sponsored by the Federal Ministy of Research and Technology has focused on

electromagnetic suspension designs, while the Japanese are investigating both electromagnetic and electrodynamic

designs.

One of the Japanese systems, an electrodynamic“c suspension design was originally developed by the Japanese

National Railways (JNR). Work began in 1967, and research and development (R&D) costs through mid-1988 were

$416 million. Since the priva ”tization of JNR in 1987, development of this system has come under the responsibility

of the Railway Technical Research Institute (RTRI) one of 12 offshoots of JNR. RTRI receives funds from the Japan

Railways Group, a Consortium including six passenger railway companies the Japan Freight Railway Company,

and the Japanese govermnent (Ministry of Transportation).l The vehicle has a top speed of over 300 miles per hour,

but has been tested only over short distances at a test facility in Miyazaki. This system is the only maglev technology

that uses superconductivity. This Japanese technology require less sensitive tolerances between track and train than

the German system and thus maybe less costly to construct and maintain Although recent advances in developing

high-ttemperature superconducting materials are not likely to affect the overall feasibility of this maglev technology,

using high-temperaturee superconductors for mshlrb could bring modest gains in energy efficiency cfficiency and reliability.

railroad engineers, technicians, and planners for locomotives, which it is now evaluating in revenue

identifying physical track assets, inspecting and

evaluating track, identifying work needs, and planning and priority setting. Information is collected

and stored in large databases and includes installation information; track segment inventory; inspections, traffic levels, maintenance records, and repair

costs; and work crew history. These systems can also

handle information about operations and store data

on planned and completed maintenance and repair

work for each track segment.

AC induction Motors-AC motors can be

adapted to passenger rail and could extend the mean

time between motor failures from 11/2 years to more

than 5 years.59 Amtrak has acquired two AC traction

service. The motors have fewer parts than DC

motors, require less maintenance, and are smaller,

lighter, and less noisy. Amtrak has not yet determined whether its future locomotives will use AC or

DC traction.60

Concrete Cross Ties-Concrete ties provide

track with greater stiffness and stability than wood

ties and may be more durable, if track and vehicle are

well maintained. However, concrete ties are susceptible to cracking or fracture from impact loads, such

as those caused by irregularities in track or wheels.

Widespread use of concrete ties has therefore been

primarily on modem systems that are maintained to

high tolerances, such as the TGV in France, and in

59K.M. Watkins, director, Motive Power, Amtrak, personal communication, May 25, 1990.

60Terry Brunner, general superintendent of Iocomotives, Amtrak, personal communication Nov. 6, 1990.
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies . 107

A 27-mile test facility is under development in Yamanashi prefecture, and an extensive 4-year test of the system

is expected to commence in 1993. About $3 billion will be invested over the next 7 years for construction and testing,

and the Yamanashi“ test track may become part of a possible revenue line between Tokyo and Osaka.

The other major Japanese system is the High Speed Surface Transportation (HSST) system, an electromagnetic

suspension design with a top speed of 180 miles per hour. Development of this system began in 1975 by Japan

Airlines, but in 1985, the technology was transferred to the HSST Corporation. Since 1981, the HSST system has

received no government funding; this system is still under development with no estimated completion date. HSST

maglev has been demonstrated extensively but has never realized its top speed during these demonstrations because

test track length has always been less than 1 mile. Because of its relatively low maximum speed in relation to other

maglev designs the HSST system will probably not compete with the RTRI system over longer routes. However,

the technology is more mature, and applications could begin much sooner.

Modem maglev technology in Germany began in 1969, when the Federal Ministry for Transport commissioned

a study on high-speed, track-bound, ground transportation. In 1977, the Ministry of Research and Technology

decided to concentrate development work on electromagnetic suspension designs, and between 1970 and 1980,

provided funding in support to the Transrapid consortium As of mid-1988, over $800 million had been spent on

the Transrapid R&D program. The TRANSRAPID 07 vehicle has achieved a top test speed of 280 miles per hour

and accommodates about 200 seated passengers. The Emsland test facility has a 19.5-mile track which has been

in operation since 1983; more than 15,000 miles of tests have been accumulated on the system. Although German

Transrapid technology is currently the most advanced of the prototype systems many feel its precise tolerance

requirements could lead to high maintenance costs. The Transrapid is estimated to cost $20 million per

double-track-mile, not including right-of-way acquisition and station costs.2

In December of 1989, the German government approved a 33-mile revenue route between the airports of

Cologne/Bonn and Dusseldorf, later to be extended to Essen for a total of 51 miles. However, the government has

stipulated that the DM 3.6 billion in capital costs must be shared by private industry, the airports and airlines, and

the state of Northrine- “ Westphalia and it is unclear whether this condition can be fulfilled.3 Recognizing the bleak

outlook for maglev in Europe because of the likely dominance of conventional high-speed rail systems-the French

TGV and German ICE, for examp--Transrapid is pursuing corridors and feeder routes in foreign markets, such

as the USSR, Saudi Arabia, Canada and the United States, to showcase its technology. A 13-mile route from the

Orlando, Florida, airport to the Disneyworld vicinity maybe the first high-speed revenue maglev system.

this country, Amtrak’s Northeast corridor and program to identify technologies capable of retainheavy-duty “height lines with extensive curvature.61

Rail Head Lubrication—This can increase fuel

efficiency and reduce track and vehicle wear. Trains

traveling over straight sections of lubricated track

consume between 3 and 10 percent62 less fuel than

trains traveling over unlubricated sections, and

lubrication may save costs for car and locomotive

wheel replacements as well.63

Passenger Waste Disposal—Criticism for

releasing untreated human waste from trains en route

led Amtrak in August 1989 to initiate a research

ing up to 72 hours of waste. Prototype systems have

been installed on Amtrak trains, and their durability

and the costs associated with providing and operating equipment on existing trains are being assessed.

Increasing Capacity

High-speed train technology alternatives can increase capacity and efficiency without requiring

major acquisition of new right-of-way (see box 3-H)

in crowded intercity corridors. In the Northeast

corridor, electrifying the entire line and utilizing tilt

trains could reduce travel time between New York
108 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Box 3-H--High-Speed Rail

With substantial government assistance, high-speed rail has become both successful and efficient in Prance,

Japan, and Spain over the past several decades. The TGV France’s high-speed rail system, began operations in the

early 1980s. Construction on the newest line of the TGV, the Atlantique, began in 1985. The Y-shaped line consists

of a main trunk between Paris and Courtalam“ and two auxiliary branches. The Western Paris-Le Mans branch was

completed in 1989, and the southwestern Paris-Tours line was completed in 1990. Total estimated cost is 16 billion

francs ($3 billion) for construction of 163 miles of track and rolling stock. The line includes 13 miles of tunnels,

2 miles of viaducts, and seven flyovers to keep trains from crossing“ existing tracks. Maximum design speed is 300

kilometers per hour (km/hr) (186 miles per hour (mph)), with turnout crossing speed of 160 and 220 km/hr (100

and 136 mph).1

Land belonging to the SNCF (the French national railway company), the government, or alongside existing

rail or highway right-of-way was used for 60 percent of the Paris-Courtalain stretch. To avoid level crossings, there

are more than 310 structures along the line, including 164 road bridges and 139 rail bridges. Continuous welded

rail and reinforced concrete crOSS ties are used throughout. The line is electrified and uses five power Substations.

A control center at Paris-Montparnasse has telemetry and remote control equipment for the crossovers, spaced at

approximately 14-mile intervals, between the two tracks. It also controls electric power feed and can interven via

radio Iinks with all trains on the line. Fifteen satellite stations house safety equipment for each crossover site. The

track-to-locomotive transmission system sends signaling information to the cab, where the driver reads it on the

control panel.2

The TGV’s power and adhesion, and “ d dedicating the high-speed corridor to passenger service with its light

loads, made possible a line with gradients of up to 3.5 percent (on the Paris-Sud Est Iine--the maximum grade on

the Atlantique line is 2.5 percent), instead of the usual 0.5 to 0.8 percent gradients. As a result, the line could be

routed over plateaus where large-radius curves could be easily laid out, and thus avoid valleys, which are often

sinuous, densely populated, and furrowed by waterways and roadways--all of which increase construction costs.

The TGV lines are compatible with existing track, so that the trains can penetrate city centers and serve all major

station on the way.3

The Japanese Shinkansen (Bullet Train) long -

 distance high-speed railways include two groups, the Tokaido

and Sanyo Shinkansen, which run Southwest from Tokyo, and the Tohoku and Joetsu Shinkansen, which serve the

regions to the northeast. The Tokaido line began service in October 1964, while the Sanyo Shinkansen began

1

SNCF, Direction de la communication, ‘The TC3V Atlantique: Construction of the New Line," June 1986.

2Tbid.

3SNCF, Direction de la communication,“The Railways of France,” brochure, n.d.

and Boston to under 3 hours from the present 41/a data communications link. Display screens in each

hours. Equipment and right-of-way upgrades could

lower the time between Washington and New York

to under 2 hours 15 minutes. While requiring

substantial public investment, these improvements

are important in the short term, because they could

relieve traffic congestion in air and highway corridors.

Advanced Train Control Systems-ATCS are

computer based and give precise data on train

position, condition, and speed. Location and speed

are determined by coupling locomotive odometers

with either in-track transponders or a satellite-based

Global Positioning System (GPS). Information is

transmitted between the central dispatch computer

and the locomotive through a UHF or VHF radio

locomotive cab show train location and speed,

upcoming route profile, speed limits, and other

authorities from the dispatch center. The dispatcher

can send instructions directly to the locomotive

engineer and receive precise information on train

location and speed. Efficiency is improved by better

coordination of train movements, precise meet and

pass planning, and more efficient use of crews and

equipment. Sensors mounted on the engine, electrical and air systems, and fuel tanks can collect data

and monitor locomotive performance in real time.

Transmitted to dispatchers and maintenance facilities, these data can reduce troubleshooting times and

maintenance costs. Safety is improved, because if

the engineer does not follow speed instructions or
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies . 109

operating in March 1972. The Tohoku Shinkansen which runs north from Tokyo, began operation in June 1982;

its east-west connecting line, the Joetsu Shinkansen began service in November of the same year. Maximum speed

for the line is now 150 mph.

When the Japanese National Railways was privatized in 1987, these lines became the property of the new

Shinkansen Holding Corporation, which leases them to three passenger railway companies: the East, Central, and

West Japan Railway Companies. A total of 2.7 billion passengers have been carried on the Shinkansen without

injury. The Shinkansen’s ability to take passengers directly from city center to city center makes it competitive with

airline and expressway transportation, and five additional routes are scheduled for future construction.4

Shinkansen tracks are equipped with snow-melting facilities to prevent railway switch points from freezing

in cold weather. Additional steps, such as covering the lower parts of the cars and using centrifugal snow separators,,

which remove snow from the intake air,s are taken for the lines that pass through areas with heavy snowfall. Trains

operating in areas prone to earthquakes are protected by a combination of earthquake detection and control systems,

including seismometers installed every 20 to 80 km along the line. If land cables are damaged by large earthquakes,

a communications satellite system will be used to transmit information.6

Tilt train technology is based on car bodies capable of tilting when moving through curves to reduce passenger

discomfort. Development of one tilting train, the Spanish TALGO, began in the 1940s. The latest TALG0 model

is designed for a maximum speed cm straight track of 125 mph and for rounding curves safely at speeds 25 percent

faster than conventional trains.7 The TALGO trainset is made up of a succession of rigid cars articulated so as to

permit the train to negotiate curves without vertical or transversal displacement between cars.Acceleration felt by

the passenger due to displacement when the train rounds a curve depends on the tilt of the car and is significantly

reduced if the car is tilted in toward the center of the curve. The suspension system in TALGO cars is above the

center of gravity; the air springs of the main suspension behave elastically, allowing the car to tilt naturally around

curves as a result of centrifugal force. The TALGO trains also have an automatic gage changing mechanism to

accommodate different track gages.a Other tilting train configurations are manufactured by Bombardier of Canada

and Asea Brown Boveri, a Swedish-Swiss consortium. These are active tilt systems, which employ powered

actuators to cause the desired roll.

4

East Japan Railway Co., Shinkansen brochure, n.d.

5

Ibid.

6

Ibid.

7RENFE , "TALGO: An Up-to-Date Train; A Long History,” informational document, n.d.

8RENFE, “TALGO Pendular,” informational brochure, n.d.

conditions along the route require emergency con- traffic in major double stack lanes fell 25 percent

trol, 64 speed can be remotely controlled.65

Perhaps the most dramatic recent development in

increasing the efficiency of rail freight transport has

been the introduction of double stack service.

Double stack cars consist of skeleton car spines,

each capable of carrying two containers. This

reduces weight and aerodynamic drag and cuts by

roughly one-half the amount of power needed to

move trains at market-competitive speeds; that is,

100 containers on double stack cars require 4

locomotives, the same number needed to haul 50

containers on conventional cars. Double stack has

been a major competitive success; long-haul truck

between 1985 and 1988, even though long-haul

trucking in the rest of the country grew 33 percent

during the same period.66

Fuel Efficiency Measures-Approaches include

automatic devices to prevent or reduce fuel spillage,

recovering and recycling spilled fuel for heating and

air conditioning railroad sheds and buildings, improved aerodynamic designs of railroad equipment,

and calculating the optimal mix of power, weight,

and speed for maximum fuel efficiency under

various operating conditions. Other technologies

under study for increasing fuel efficiency include

64Steven R. Ditmeyer, “A Railroad Command, Control, and Communications System for the 21st Century,” paper presented at the International

Conference on Technology and Technology Exchange, New York, NY, June 30, 1989.

65Association of American Railroads, op. cit., foonote 47.
110 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Photo credit: Port of Long Beach

Double stack cars carry almost twice as many

containers, but use only slightly more energy than a

conventional freight train.

alternative fuels, such as mixtures of diesel fuel

distillate with lower grade fuels, and the burning of

coal in diesel engines. Rail electrification is another

energy alternative, but the high initial cost of

converting to electrification might be a barrier,

considering the current cost and availability of diesel

fuel. 67

Data Management and Transfer—These are

key to efficient operations, and Amtrak has in place

a management information system that serves the

railroad well. (See chapter 5 for further details on

such systems.) Freight railroads have found many

benefits in electronic data interchange, the electronic

transmission of administrative data, such as tracking

materials and supplies, revenue, car accounting

records, and freight loss and damage claims. Freight

railroads plan to shift to electronic data exchange

rather than paper, when cars are interchanged, and

some railroads already allow shippers direct access

to their information systems.

Federally Managed Infrastructure:

Waterways and Airways

In the two transportation areas where the Federal

role in operations and maintenance is largePhoto credit: Port of Long Beach

Many operations at the Intermodal Container Transfer

Facility in Long Beach, CA, are computerized for speed

and efficiency. Computers in the control tower are linked

with those of ocean vessels, and the yard receives

information about each container before it reaches port.

waterways and airways-the infrastructure has generally been kept in good physical shape and provides

convenient transport except at periods of peak

demand. With proper maintenance and rehabilitation, locks and dams can remain operable indefinitely,

68 and safety requirements help ensure the

reliability of air traffic facilities. When facilities,

such as a major lock or a runway at a busy airport,

must be removed from service for rehabilitation, the

Federal managers work with all concerned parties to

develop ways to minimize delays.

Ports and Waterways

Historically, communities and industries developed near ocean and riverfront ports, which handled

raw materials or finished goods primarily for local

consumption or from local suppliers. Today, the

United States has the world’s largest port69 system,

with about 200 major ports, each handling at least

250,000 tons of cargo annually or having channels

GyAss~~tion of Americ~_~s,“when It Comes to Fuel-Elllciency, Railroads Lead the Transportation Pae~” background Paper, SOp@&r

1988.

6sU.S. ~y COWS of Engineers, XnStitut.e for Water Resoumes, “The U.S. Waterway Transportation System: A Review,” unpublished repo~ April

1989, p. 24.

% this sectio~ “port” means land-baaed facilities as oppo,sed to offshore, midstream, or other nontraditional transfer locations for cargo or

passengers. Commercial ports are links in a transportation network serving passengers, freight, and bulk cargo, and do not include facilities used solely

for recreation or fishing.
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies ● 111

deeper than 20 feet.70 Critical junctures in the

national transportation network, ports often combine

truck, rail, pipeline, barge, and ship operations for

transferring most of the 2 billion tons of cargo

moving into or out of the United States every year.

Less than 2 percent is handled directly by offshore

facilities and pipelines.

Fifteen percent of total U.S. freight ton-miles are

produced by commercial barges and tows carrying

bulk commodities, such as petroleum, grain, and

coal, on the Nation’s shallow draft (less than 14 feet)

inland and intracoastal waterway system.71 The

Mississippi River, its tributaries, and connecting

waterways are the Nation’s major inland water

transportation network. (See figure 3-7 for a map of

the inland waterway system.) Waterway transport

offers the lowest ton-mile costs to shippers.

After a decline during the recession in the early

part of the decade, total waterborne commerce in the

United States grew at about 3 percent per year during

the 1980s. Continued growth at that rate would place

heavy demand on certain landside facilities,72 although adequate port capacity exists to meet U.S.

commerce needs.73 The waterways can also handle

more freight shipments, and limited traffic demand

makes system expansion unlikely.

Management and Financing

Waterside facilities are constructed, maintained,

and operated primarily by the Federal Government,

through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the

Corps), which supports virtually all U.S. ports of

national significance.74 The U.S. Coast Guard furnishes communication and navigation safety facilities. Until the late 1980s, virtually all navigation

infrastructure costs were paid out of the Federal

General Fund. Port project location and size were

established on a project specific basis, rather than as

part of a national system. Thus, the practical effect

of many harbor deepening projects has been to

maintain competition among ports rather than to

meet transportation system needs.

To support economic development, the majority

of States with navigable waterways provide grants

for construction of landside port facilities and water

cargo terminals. Currently these grants, which total

about $500 million annually, are administered

through State DOTS, economic development agencies, or State port authorities, which coordinate the

public works components of major improvement

projects. Most States are reluctant to take over

responsibility for inland waterways from the Federal

Government.

The largest ocean and freshwater port facilities are

owned and managed by a municipality or public or

quasi-public agencies, such as the Port of Seattle or

the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

These ports consist of bulk facilities, often privately

owned, and general cargo facilities, many of which

are leased to private operators.75 Inland waterway

terminals are usually privately owned.

Ports raise operating funds locally from user fees

and capital from revenue bonds and State appropriations. Since 1986, port operators have been required

to share dredging costs with the Corps, through an ad

valorem tax paid by shippers into the Harbor

Maintenance Trust Fund on all cargo loaded or

unloaded at U.S. commercial harbors. Anon-Federal

sponsor, often a local government or port authority,

must share up to 60 percent of the costs of

constructing new or deeper channels. The nonFederal sponsor must finance at least 50 percent of

the maintenance dredging costs for new channels

deeper than 45 feet.76 The tax, which finances a

portion of harbor maintenance costs, was more than

tripled in the 1990 budget agreement, from 4 cents

per $100 of cargo to 12-1/2 cents per $100. Since trust

fund outlays are limited to 40 percent of the total

Federal expenditures attributed to commercial naviW.S. Army Corps of Engineers, op. cit., footnote 68, p. 2.

71UOS. ~y Corns Ofm=, ~ti~te for Water Reso~es, The 19881nland Waterway Review, IWR Report 88-R-7 @. Belvoir, VA: November

1988), p. 26.

72u.s. kyCoqs of Iq@eers, Institute for WaterResources, “TheUZ$. Port and Harbor System: A Review,” unpublished repo~ September 1989,

p. 6. port demand depends lmgely on cargo volume; deepwater harbor requirements are determined by ship size.

731bid., p. 13.

741bid., p. 5.

75Jo~ ~pi- C{pofi Dmelowent ~ tie ufit~ s~tes: s~~s, ~~es ~d ~~oo~” paper present~ at tie six~IIti ~tiolld Association

of Ports and Harbors World Ports Conference, Miami BeaclL FL, Apr. 22-28, 1989, p. 13.

T%e Water Resowes Develo@nent Act of 1986 (I%blic hw 99-662).
112 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies ● 113

gation in harbors, annual increases in surplus trust

funds are likely.

Because of the tax, users are funding gradually

increasing portions of deepwater channel operations, maintenance, and new construction. Requests

for expansion projects are fewer and scaled back

since the cost-sharing requirements became effective; the Corps estimates that project size has been

reduced by two-thirds from the levels initially

requested or authorized.77

Waterways-The Corps has modified all commercial waterways with locks, dams, bank protection, and dredging to allow passage of 9-foot draft

vessels. The number and size of lock chambers

determine the maximum through speed for vessels

on segments of the waterway. The Corps has

standardized lock chamber sizes, and barges have

been designed to make the most efficient use of this

capacity.

Perhaps because the Federal Government has

always supported maintenance for water-related

facilities, waterway maintenance costs have not

compounded as locks and dams have aged.78 Sitespecific conditions, such as geology, climate, water

quality, and usage, affect maintenance and replacement needs more than age. Most locks have been

replaced because traffic growth has overtaken their

capacity and long backups occur at peak periods, not

because they have physically deteriorated.79

Barge operators pay a fuel tax that feeds the Inland

Waterway Trust Fund (IWTF), which finances 50

percent of construction costs, and applies on the

11,000 or so miles80 of waterways that account for

over 90 percent of inland waterborne commerce. The

Inland Waterway Users Board, a federally established body that advises on waterway priorities, has

emphasized replacement projects on the Mississippi

and Ohio systems and has specifically discouraged

spending user fees for new waterways or rehabilitation. 81

Issues

With limited fiscal resources available to maintain and physically expand the system, Federal

investment decisions pose important questions for

water transportation. In addition, Federal environmental requirements for protecting wetlands have

created difficult and costly construction and

dredged-material disposal problems. Thus, fiscal

and environmental issues frame the biggest challenges for decisionmakers concerned about ports

and waterways.

Fiscal Concerns-Congress has chosen to appropriate more water-related project monies from the

General Fund than for any other transportation

mode. Presently, 60 percent of harbor maintenance

costs and 100 percent of inland waterway operations

and maintenance expenses are paid for from the

General Fund. In addition, the General Fund pays for

roughly 50 percent of all capital costs for both

waterways and harbors. In comparison, less than 5

percent of Federal highway expenditures come from

the General Fund. In contrast to other public

transportation networks in the country, waterway

user fees cover no operations or maintenance expenditures.

Projections of future IWTF revenues indicate that

they will support approximately five lock and dam

replacement projects per decade.82 Although scheduled increases will raise the industry contribution,83

the annual fuel tax revenue is now less than 10

percent of the total annual costs (for construction,

operations, and maintenance) for the portion of the

inland waterway system subject to the tax. Certain

segments of the inland and deepwater system

generate disproportionate costs relative to the

amount of traffic carried (see tables 3-6 and 3-7).

Traffic levels on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, completed in 1985, are far below the projec77~.s. ~y corps of Engineers, Op. Cit., foomote 729 p. 

14

.

76U.S. ~y COWS Of Engineers, op. cit., footnote 68, p. 24.

7?Ibid., p. 24.

~@er 25,OOO miles of navigable waterways exist in the United S@@S.

gl~d Waterway Users Board, “The Second Annual Report to the Secretary of the Army and the United States Congress,” unpublished report,

December 1988.

82L. Gorge ~fle, ~ti~te for Water Reso~~es, U*SO bycorps of Engin+rs, re~~ at “mgingthe hvestment fiomss fOr ~~t

Channels and Inland Waterways,’ the 1990 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington DC, Jan. 9, 1990.

gsCoWcssio~ Budget OffIce, op. cit., footnote 38, p. *3.
114 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table 3-6-Traffic and Operations and Maintenance

(O&M) Costs on Inland Waterways, 1986

O&M costs O&M costs

Ton-miles (millions of per ton-mile

Waterways (millions) dollars) (dollars)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Upper Mississippi . . 12,871.9

Middle Mississippi . . 17,504.7

Lower Mississippi . . 100,058.3

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,505.9

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61,603.6

Gulf Intracoastal

Waterway . . . . . . . 19,119.6

Mobile . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,746.2

Atlantic Intracoastal

Waterway . . . . . . . 367.1

Columbia-Snake53.5

16.9

84.2

12.6

87.2

37.8

23.3

15.8

0.0042

0,0010

0.0008

0.0015

0.0014

0.0020

0.0041

0.0430

Willamette . . . . . . 1,228.2 9.0 0.0073

Total . ..............227,005.6 340.2 0.0015

NOTE: Segments of each waterway have a wider range of operations and

maintenance costs per ton-mile.

SOURCE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, institute for Water Resources,

The 1988 /n/and Waterway Rewiew, iWR Report 88-R-7 (Ft.

Beivoir, VA: November 1988).

tions used to justify its construction.84 These discrepancies raise a number of difficult equity and

access issues.

Despite the importance of ports to local economic

development, few cities have integrated transportation systems that link ports to pipeline, rail, and truck

services. Paradoxically, a port’s success and its

contribution to the local economy increasingly

depend on its intermodal transfer capabilities rather

than solely on the local demand for its waterside

services. 85

Environmental Concerns-Few U.S. channels

and harbors have natural depths greater than 20 feet,

and ship dimensions set the demand for waterway

depth. Bulk carriers and tankers often load to depths

of 50 feet, while freighters, including modern

containerships, can normally use 40-foot deep channels. However, no minimum standards have been

established for ship maneuverability to guide those

who must decide how to modify channels. The

creation of navigation channels and structures, such

as breakwaters and jetties, changes preexisting

Table 3-7-Federal Port Operations and Maintenance

Outlays per Ton of Cargo, 1974-84 (In 1985 dollars)

Ports Average Minimum Maximum

All ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.22 0.001 270.25”

Large ports (more than

10 million tons

per year) . . . . . . . . . . . 0.17 0.001 0.99

Medium ports (100,000

to 10 million tons

per year) . . . . . . . . . . . 0.50 0.001 23.30

Small ports (less than

100,000 tons

per year . . . . . . . . . . . 11.68 0.050 270.25

aHi@Owrations and maintenance (O&M) COStS uslJaiiY aP@Y to f~eral~

maintained harbors with little commercial service. The benef.klaries are

often fishing veseeis and recreational users, neither of whom pay fees for

O&M.

SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office calculations using data from U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers.

currents and sedimentation. The design and siting of

channels and their protective works are thus crucial

factors that determine dredging and maintenance

requirements and environmental effects.

In the past, dredged material was often placed

within a mile of the dredging site, since transportation to upland or ocean disposal sites added substantially to total costs. However, population growth in

coastal areas and wetlands protection requirements

now limit land disposal possibilities, and about

one-third of dredged material is disposed of in the

open ocean.

86 ‘‘The most prevalent single environmental issue facing ports in the U.S. is the proper

disposal of dredged material, without which channel

improvements would simply come to a halt. ”87

Although only a fraction of harbor bottom sediments

meet the contamination criteria under which disposal in costly containment areas is required,88

gaining approval for dredging projects from a long

list of government and environmental groups can

take years. In some cases (Gary, Indiana, harbor, for

example), maintenance restrictions have caused

waterways to become shallower and narrower,

severely limiting the types of vessels they can

accommodate.

‘Ibid., p. 87.

8SU.S. ky COWS of Engineers, op. cit., footnote 68, P. 16.

S6U.S. con~~s, (lffke of ‘lkchnology Assessmen4 Wastes in Marine Environments, OTA-O-334 (’Washington DC: U.S. @Vernm~t prin~

office, A@ 1987), p. 237,

STW s@Orn&~, p~Siden~~ericmASSW~tion of Port Authorities, quoted inJohn M. Pissni, PotiDeveZopmentin the UnitedStates.’ St@s, ZsSUes

and Outlook, prepared for the Sixteenth International Association of Porta and Harbors World Ports Conference, Miami Beach FL, Apr. 22-28, 1989

(’Iokyo, Japan: The Iaph Foundatio~ 1989), p. 27.

88u.S. Army Corps of -~~, Op. cit., footnote 72, p. 31.
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies ● 115

Photo credit: Us. Army Corps of Engineers

Maintenance technologies advanocs developed by the

Army Corps of Engineers’ laboratories have helped the

Corps double the lives of many of the Nation’s dams.

The lengthy process from authorization to completion for channel and harbor construction (which

averages 22 years, according to the Marine Board)

has weakened the effectiveness of port and waterway planning and design. In many cases, fleet

demand and market economies change drastically

before a channel can open for business, making the

design inappropriate for current use.

Technologies

The Corps has research, development, and evaluation projects for maintenance, construction, and

rehabilitation technologies and methods ongoing at

each of its laboratories and has established an

effective technology transfer system through its

many offices. Addressing structural problems in

locks, dams, jetties, and breakwaters, setting priorities among competing needs, and determiningg when

and where modification is economically appropriate

are all water system activities that can benefit from

recent technology advances. Decisionmakin“ g tools

can help industry and government alike to operate

more efficiently.

Corps Technology Aids-Nondestructive evaluation technologies (examination methods used

where visual inspection is impractical) can give

managers more extensive information about structural conditions and maintenance and repair needs.

Although visual inspections followed by core sampling are the most common ways for lock and dam

technicians to find structural problems, visible

defects are often indicative of a chronic problem that

is costly to repair. Sonar is used to find defects on

underwater surfaces and electromagnetic sensors

and pulse/echo ultrasound devices are used to probe

inside solid structures. (See chapter 5 for further

details.)

Models and simulations of the physical and

economic characteristics are valuable tools throughout the life cycle of a system, and can aid in

planning, design, and making investment decisions

for infrastructure. For example, techniques for

observing and modeling local circulation and sedimentation can help design engineers locate and

orient piers, wharves, and other pile-supported

structures, so that a structure does not cause accelerated shoaling.89 The Corps has good modeling

capabilities at the Waterways Experimental Station.

(For further details see chapter 6.)

Two Corps’ programs to coordinate infrastructure-related work at the laboratories and in the

private sector are the Repair, Evaluation, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation Research Program and the

Construction Productivity Advancement Research

Program (see chapter 6). Field-tested projects include in situ repair of deteriorated concrete, precast

concrete for lock wall rehabilitation, and rollercompacted concrete for dams. (See chapter 5 for

details on these technologies.)

Structural Technologies-During icy winter

conditions or prolonged drought, vessel operators

must carry lighter loads, use higher power (which

increases operating costs), or find an alternative

route. The natural channels of most inland rivers

vary with seasonal rainfalls, and controlled releases

by the Corps from water reservoirs help maintain

suitable river stages throughout the year. However,

some dredging is necessary to clear silted and

shoaling channels.

Dredging-Dredging’s two major components

are extracting material and disposing of it. Extractgwatio~ReW~hCo~cil, Marine Board, Dredging CoastalPorts:An Assessment of thelssues (WaahingtoxL DC: National tid~ymss, 1985),

p. 103.

%bid., p. 101.
116 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Photo credit: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Although dredges are now more efficient, environmental concerns about the proper disposal of dredged material have slowed

channel dredging projects

ing techniques and technologies have benefited from exponentially with height. 94 The number and size of

automation, sensing, and positioning advances (see lock chambers, fock filling and emptying rates, and

chapter 5). The same dredging equipment is em- the types of tows and other vessels determine the

ployed generally for both maintenance and construc- traffic flow through a waterway. A typical lock can

tion.9 1 transfer vessels between pools in a 20- to 30-minute

Bank Protection--Articulated concrete slabs and operation. Tows too large for a lock chamber must

be split and the two groups of barges passed through gravel prevent channel migration and permit self

dredging channel designs. Dikes and other structures separately and then reassembled. Such double lockdeflect or stabilize currents within a channel. 9 2 ages take about 11/2 hours. 95

Lock and Dam-Slackwater systems are used The capacity of the lock system can be increased

where dredging, river embankments, and flow regu- by adding locks, rehabilitating structures, or replaclation are insufficient for commercial navigation. 9 3 ing existing locks with larger ones. Since funds for

Several dams are usually required to make a long new construction are very limited, smaller, affordawaterway navigable. The higher that dams are built, ble projects with immediate benefits must be considthe fewer are necessary, but a dam’s cost increases ered. Alternative, lower cost, vessel lift technologies

93Open channels are generally less costly to construct and operate and support much greater traffic levels than lock and dam system

94U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, op. cit., footnote 92, p. B-153.

95Ibid,
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies . 117

and methods have been developed, but are not

economically feasible for the locations analyzed by

the Corps.96 Lock-based tow haulage equipment

could increase the capacity of some locks by 30

percent by pulling unpowered barge cuts (from

double lockages) through the chamber.97

Other relatively minor structural improvements

include extended guidewalls to permit recombining

double lockage tows outside the chamber.98 New

coupling equipment (fixed rigging and permanent

winches for tows and barges) to permit faster double

lockages and tow work is a cost-effective option for

smaller navigation locks.99 Structural changes that

modify river currents, as well as protect locks from

tow collision damage, can improve lock approaches

and allow tows to position more quickly and safely

for lockages.

Traffic Management Options—Although no

safety reasons require Federal control of waterway

traffic, the low cost and wide availability of communications and surveillance technologies make systemwide traffic management a technical option.

Scheduling access to congested facilities would

allow better planning by industry and could reduce

operating costs, since vessels often operate at

inefficient fuel consumption speeds (too fast) given

that delay at the next lock is likely. Tow breakage

delays could be reduced by a “ready-to-serve”

policy; vessel operators would need an extra towboat in each tow, or they could combine resources

and station helper boats near each lock. Another

traffic management option at locations with single

locks is to give commercial traffic priority when

traffic is heavy. Recreational vessels could be

allowed transit only at scheduled times or on a

space-available basis. Safety precautions prohibit

mixed lockages of tows and recreational craft.

Locks operate more efficiently when traffic

moves in a single direction, because the next tow can

be positioned while the lock is cycled. For two-way

traffic, the next tow must remain a safe distance

away and wait for the departing tow to clear the

chamber and approach area. Orderly one-way operation alternates a fixed number of lock cycles

(commonly three to five) in each direction, increasing lock flow through by up to 15 percent over a

random first come-first served policy100 and reducing average delays. This method is similar to traffic

management on one-lane bridges or during road

construction.

While total system capacity will not change with

better traffic management and scheduling, industry

operating costs will be lower. Industry initiatives,

such as new coupling equipment, system scheduling, and better fuel monitoring equipment,l0l 

can

achieve substantial economic benefits.

Technologies for Industry Efficiency-System

monitoring and performance data, such as traffic

measurement, are essential for decision analysis,

leading a number of ports to setup electronic service

centers. Shipping documents transmitted by computers route and track cargo, and release import

freight. The United Nations has developed EDIFACT (Electronic Data Interchange for Admini “ “stration, Commerce and Transport) as a standard for

the current disparate computer/data management

systems.

Other alternatives for economic marine transportation are vessel operating changes, new forms and

locations for ports, and vessel design modifications.

Short-term alternatives include some of the operating practices already in use today-calling at

shallow ports with less than a maximum load, timing

movements with tides (or other conditions), and

midstream cargo/fuel transfers. These measures are

more expensive for carriers than larger vessels

operating fully loaded without delays for the tide or

lightering. l02

9@J~l Bi,lbrou~ U.S. AMly Corps of m=, “Middle Columbia Rivez Study: Ship Lift Alternatives,” Transportation Research Circu&r

Number 350: Ports, waterways, Interm&l Termi&s, and International Trade Tramiportation Issues (WAingtoq DC: Transportation Research

Boart my 1989), pp. 66-72.

~.S. Army Corps of Engineers, op. cit., footnote 68, p, 26.

~-,~~dge & C~P~ll, “Upper Mississippi River Transportation Economics Study: Final Repo@” study sponsored by the U.S.

Department of Agricultwe et al., April 1989, p. 25.

%id., p. 3.

:~.s.~y CoWs of Engineers, op. cit., fOOtnOte 68> P“ 26”

IOl~Pr, c~~dge & Campbell op. cit., footnote 98.

10~o ~rge~~e, chief, N~v@tionDivisioQ ~ti~te forWa~rR~o_, U.S. ~yco~s of -~,~o~COIIIIUUldCtiO~ July 10,1990.
118 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Loading additional cargo or fuel after the vessel

passes restrictive channels is considered the most

cost-effective option,103 and at present coal colliers

can load in midchannel below New Orleans, while

tankers can load and unload in the Gulf offshore

from Louisiana.l04 Alternative vessel designs include a proposed jumbo barge carrier three times the

size of the largest ship today. Cargo from the main

carrier would be offloaded to barges, which could

serve ports that would not need deep-draft channels

or large load center facilities.105

Building a large “island” offshore in 80 feet of

water in the Delaware Bay has been proposed.

However, the operational feasibility of such a major

offshore terminal would depend on multi-State

agreements and substantial new investment in landside infrastructure, and its economic success would

depend on diverting much of the traffic from other

ports. The potential environmental impacts of construction and operation have already led to strong

opposition. l06

Intermodal Advances—The major recent

changes in maritime-related, intermodal operations

have occurred in the private sector—in containers

and technologies that support fast vessel turnaround,

including ship design, cranes, truck chassis, double

stack railcars, and electronic information management. The Shipping Act of 1984, which permitted

single bills of lading for intermodal cargoes, spurred

demand for these technologies. Containers eliminate

the handling of individual cargo, improving loading

and unloading efficiency and transfer to railcars or

truck chassis. New container vessels called “post

panamax” ships, because they are too large to pass

through the Panama Canal, carry up to one-third

more containers than the previous generation. Since

these huge vessels have high operating expenses and

are designed for transferring cargo efficiently, they

must use ports that can provide fast turnarounds if

they are to operate economically.

Federal Infrastructure: Aviation

Air transportation is truly a national system in the

United States; the effects of a thunderstorm in an air

traffic control (ATC) sector near Chicago or a closed

runway in Denver ripple across the country in

delays, missed connections, and rerouted aircraft.

Airlines and the military operate under a uniform set

of Federal regulations and fly in a relatively centralized public airspace and ATC system.107 Each

element of the system—pilots, controllers, and other

aviation personnel, aircraft, and airports-must

meet Federal safety standards and be certified by the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Airports

and airways are the public works portions of the

system.

Management and Financing

Although the routes and airspace or airways

linking airports are defined electronically and procedurally, they are nonetheless public works. The

federally operated ATC system, established principally for flight safety, coordinates and directs all

flights to and from U.S. airports, and comprises one

of the most complex transportation operations in the

world.

For ATC purposes, the airspace above the United

States is partitioned according to airport locations

and the amount of traffic into three broad categories:

terminal, en route, and oceanic airspace. Terminal

airspace surrounds airports, and is characterized by

aircraft changing speed, direction, and altitude, as

they maneuver after taking off or prior to landing.

The airways connecting airports make up the en

route airspace, while oceanic airspace begins over

international waters, with much of it lying beyond

sight of land. Costs for the system, managed and

operated by FAA, are paid out of the Federal Airport

and Airways Trust Fund and the General Fund.

The National Airspace System (NAS) P!an—

First published in 1981, the NAS Plan is FAA's

comprehensive program for modernizing air traffic

facilities and equipment, and consists of more than

90 separate projects. Relying on advances in automation that are part of the NAS Plan, FAA expects

loqNatio~ Resm~ Counci~ op. cit., footnote 89, p. 5.

l~~fle, op. cit., fooinote 102.

IOS~ta A. Heel, ‘‘me and Intermoda.1 Transportation: Issues and ~exlges, ’ TR News, No. 144, September-October 1989, pp. 15-19.

lm~~e, op. cit., footnote 102.

107~ere me ~ge S=torS of ~con~olled ~wme amoss tie Ufited s~t~, gene~ly below 12,000 f~t, often US~ by general aviation.
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies ● 119

Table 3-8-Passenger Enplanements at 25 U.S. Airports, 1988

Total

enplanements a Cumulative

Airport Rank (in thousands) Percentage b

percentage

Chicago O’Hare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 28,850 5.8 5.8

Atlanta Hartsfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 23,573 4.8 10.6

Dallas-Fort Worth . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 23,029 4.7 15.3

Los Angeles International . . . . . . 4 22,179 4.5 19.8

New York JFK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 19,415 3.9 23.7

Denver Stapleton . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 15,015 3.0 26.7

San Francisco International. . . . . 7 14,683 3.0 29.7

Miami . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 14,316 2.9 32.6

Boston Logan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11,802 2.4 35.0

New York LaGuardia . . . . . . . . . . 10 11,790 2.4 37.4

Newark International.. . . . . . . . . . 11 11,580 2.3 39.7

Honolulu International . . . . . . . . . 12 11,081 2.2 41.9

St. Louis International . . . . . . . . . . 13 10,139 2.1 44.0

Detroit Metro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10,044 2.0 46.0

Phoenix Sky Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9,559 1.9 47.9

Pittsburgh International . . . . . . . . 16 8,971 1.8 49.7

Minneapolis-St. Paul. . . . . . . . . . . 17 8,939 1.8 51.5

Houston Intercontinental . . . . . . . 18 8,142 1.7 53.2

Orlando . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8,122 1.6 54.8

Washington National ., . . . . . . . . 20 7,888 1.6 56.4

Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7,789 1.6 58.0

Seattle-Tacoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7,659 1.6 59.6

Las Vegas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7,658 1.6 61.2

Charlotte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7,613 1.5 62.7

Baltimore. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5,363 1.1 63.8

alncludes US. certifi~t~ route air carriers, foreign flag carriers, supplemental, air commuter, and dr tmis.

bBX~ on 493.8 million passenger enplanemeflk.

%umulative percentage is a running sum: e.g., the top five airports have 23.7 percent of total U.S. enplanements.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, EAAAvktiorI /%mcasfs:Fisca/ Years

1990-2001, FAA-AP090-1 (Washington, DC: March 1990).

to address current constraints due to controller Airports—Airports, most of which are not federworkload, computer processing capacity, hazardous ally owned, provide landing and takeoff areas for

weather detection, and communications. aircraft and facilities for transferring passengers and

When it was first presented to Congress, costs for

the NAS Plan were projected to be $9 billion over 8

years, but adding new projects and changing existing

ones may raise total costs to $25 billion by the year

2000. 108 Complexities of implementing technology

changes in a large operating system have caused the

major projects within the NAS Plan to fall behind

their original schedules by 1 to 5 years.109 FAA also

maintains a plan for research, development, and

engineering to examine technologies outside the

NAS Plan.ll0

cargo to other transportation modes. The large and

small commercial airports, which offer cargo and

passenger airline service, are owned primarily by

municipalities or special authorities and by 13

States. A relative handful of these facilities handle

most commercial airline passengers—almost onequarter of total passengers board flights at just five

airports (see table 3-8). Of the over 17,000 airports

lll in the United States, most are public-use

general aviation (GA) airports owned by municipalities, counties, or private groups and used primarily

by personal and business aircraft.

lo13u.s. Gener~ Accounting Offke, Continued Zmprovernents Needed in FM’s Management of the NM Plan, GAO/RCED-89-7 ~~ato% ~:

November 1988), p. 3.

l%id, p. 3.

1l~.so ~~ent of Transportation, Federal Aviation ~“ “stratioq “Federal Aviation Adrmm“ “stration Plan for Research Engineering, and

Developmen~” vol. I, draft manuscript, September 1989.

1lIu.s. Dep~ent of Transportation Federal Aviation ~“ “ tratioqFM Statistical Handbook ofAviationfor Calendar Year 1987 (Sprin@el~

VA: National ‘Ik&nical Information Service, 1987); included in the “airport” count are heliports and seaplane bases.
120 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

The concentration of commercial passengers at

major airports permits them to be largely selfsupporting from landing fees, airline rents, and

revenues from parking and concessions. Management and oversight of groundside facilities differs

drastically from airport to airport. Airlines typically

lease terminals and gates112 from the airport operator, obtaining exclusive-use rights, and the major

lessors often gain a strong voice in decisions on

whether and how to expand ground facilities. Under

the 1990 budget agreement, airports are permitted to

levy up to $3 per passenger charge, providing anew

source of revenue, for use solely on airport improvements.

Medium and small airports rely on Federal or

State help in meeting their funding needs. Almost all

States have airport aid programs, usually targeted to

smaller, nonmetropolitan airports, and most maintain statewide airport development plans. Funds

come from State aviation

appropriations.

Issues

Land-use, financial, and

fuel taxes and general

environmental concerns

frame many governmental decisions about aviation.

System capacity has become a major issue. Because

technological advances allow capacity increases

without a decline in safety, airspace capacity is

limited by Federal investment decisions and technology. l13

Environmental Concerns—Aircraft noise is a

serious problem for airport operators and airlines,

leading to measures that permit Federal funds to be

used to soundproof homes and schools, and in some

cases, purchase real estate in high noise areas.

Community groups fighting to restrict airport operations because of noise concerns have limited airport

development across the country.

While the intensity of sounds can be measured

precisely, determiningg what constitutes objectionable noise is more subjective. Currently, individual

aircraft must meet FAA noise standards, based on a

24-hour average of noise energy,114 commonly

referred to as Stage 1, 2, and 3 rules.ll5 While

differences in local conditions and jurisdictional

factors have made establishing a more definitive

Federal standard for airport noise difficult, Stage 1

aircraft are already banned, and all Stage 2 aircraft

are prohibited after December 31, 2000.116 Newer

aircraft must meet Stage 3 requirements, the strictest

ones.

In each successive jetliner generation, new technology has lowered noise levels, but additional

reduction through technology may be limited, posing contentious issues. For example, 50 percent of

the noise from a Boeing 757 on landing approach is

aerodynamically produced, a type of noise that

experts believe cannot be reduced much more.

Nonetheless, a working group of the International

Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is studying the

feasibility of Stage 4 noise limits.117

The 1990 deficit reduction agreement requires

that the Secretary of Transportation establish, by

July 1, 1991, a national noise policy that considers

the economic impact on air carriers and makes

recommendations related to aircraft noise to Congress for changes in State and local government

authority and other standards, procedures, and programs. No airport will be allowed to restrict Stage 3

aircraft operations without forfeiting all Federal

aviation grants or the right to impose passenger

facility charges, unless the program was in place

before October 1,1990, or the Secretary of Transportation approves the restrictions.

The current level of aviation operations has a

small, but significant effect on air quality. In the Los

Angeles basin, aircraft exhaust and fueling emissions contribute about 1 percent of the total volatile

organic compounds. FAA and EPA are addressing

these air quality issues by requiring that new jet

engines reduce organic compounds emissions by 60

to 90 percent. EPA is considering regulations

llz~~es sometimes le~e ground space and build their own facilities.

llsB=d on ~wat~ ~~c ~~ntrol ~pmation s~~ds, ~~ us~le @~e above tie con~en~ Ufiti Stites could mOmlnO&W, theomticdy,

well over 1 million aircraft at once.

IM14 CFR 150, app. A.

11514 ~36.

~~eCongressiowl Record, Oct. 16, 1990, P. 12535.

llv~chml Zwokarte, project manager, Engineering, Federal Avtition~“ “stratioq personal communicatio~ July 1989.

118Nichol~ p. ~~~lce of Env~~e~t ~d ~ergy, F~m~ Aviation A-s@atioU persolld collllllllllkatioQ Jdy 31, 1990.
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies ● 121

Table 3-9-Congested Airport Rankings and Expansion Plans

Airport rank by total Ranked by Planned

hours of air carrier delay total air carrier construction that will

Airport (1987 rank) in 1987 operations in 1987 increase IFR capacity

Chicago O’Hare . . . . . . . . . . . . l

a

2

Atlanta Hartsfield. . . . . . . . . . . S

b

1 x

Dallas-Fort Worth . . . . . . . . . . 3

b

4 x

Los Angeles International. . . . 4

C

3

Denver Stapleton . . . . . . . . . . 5 x

Newark International. . . . . . . . 19

San Francisco International. . 7

d

6

New York LaGuardia . . . . . . . 8

d

21

New York JFK . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

d

26

Boston Logan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10d

10

St. Louis Lambert . . . . . . . . . . 11d

11

Miami International. . . . . . . . . 12d

22

Phoenix Sky Harbor . . . . . . . . 13d

9

Washington Dunes . . . . . . . . . 14d

28

Detroit Metro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15d

12

Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16d

13

Washington National , . . . . . . 17d

25

Minneapolis-St. Paul . . . . . . . . 18d

18

Honolulu International . . . . . . 19d

16

Pittsburgh International. . . . . . 2od 20

Houston International . . . . . . . 2 l

d

27 x

x

x

KEY: IFR = instrument flight rules.

a Total air carrier delay exeeeda 100,000 hours.

b Total air earrierdeiay is between 75,000 and 100,000 hours.

c Total air earner delay is between 50,000 and 75,000 hours.

d Total air carrier delay is between 20,000 and 50,000 hours.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Cqwufy Enhancement P/an,

DOT/FAA/CP189-4 (Washington, DC: May 1989).

requiring vapor recovery systems for aircraft fueling. 118

Capacity—According to recent estimates, delays

cost scheduled air carriers almost $2 billion in extra

operating expenses and passengers $3 billion in lost

time, excluding commuter and general aviation data,

which are not available.ll9 About two-thirds of all

delays are caused by bad weather-restricted visibility, thunderstorms, or snow or ice on runways—

which affects airports less than 10 percent of the time

on average. Too much traffic for airports and ATC

to handle during normal conditions accounts for

roughly 25 percent of delays, while pavement

construction and ATC equipment problems each

account for less than 5 percent.120

Annual airline travel demand depends on the

strength of the economy and generally follows

trends in the GNP. Current forecasts indicate that

increasing numbers of U.S. and foreign airports will

have traffic demand exceeding their capacity for

longer periods of time each day. Average annual

growth of 4.2 percent in passengers enplaned on

U.S. airlines and 2.1 percent in total aircraft operations is projected.121 The annual delay problems that

plague 25 commercial airports are shown in table

3-9. If no capacity improvements are made, estimates are that by 1997,122 17 airports will be in the

same delay category as Chicago O’Hare, Atlanta

Hartsfield, and Los Angeles International are

today. 123

Ilw.s. Department of Transportatio~ Federal Aviation Adrmms “ “ tratioWAirport Capacity EnhancementPlan, DOT~AA/CP/88-4 (Washingto@DC:

April 1988), p. 1-11.

120u.s. Department of ‘rransportatio~ Federal Aviation Adnws “ “ trstio~Aiqort Capacity EnhancementPlan, DOT/FAA/CP/89-4 (WashingtoUDC:

Mlly 1989), p. 1-10.

IZIU.S. Depanment of Trsnsportatio~ Federal Avi$tion~“ “ trationj FM Aviation Forecasts, Fiscal Years 1990-2001, FM-APO ml

(wao~ DC: March 1990), pp. 5,7.

l-ederal Aviation Administration op. cit., footnote 120, p. 2-1.

l~~id., table 2-2, p. 2A.
122 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Airline hub-and-spoke operations can place as

severe a burden on ground capabilities as on the

airside, and ground access to and from airports

depends entirely on local planning and transportation management. Moreover, no single agency or

organization is responsible for research or planning

for enhancing the capacity of ground facilities;

FAA's authority over landside development and

management is limited.l24

Building more runways and airports, which would

provide the greatest increase in aviation system

capacity, requires high capital investment, and more

important, overcoming community opposition based

on land use and noise and air pollution concerns.

These are such difficult obstacles that just six of the

most congested airports are planning new runways

(see table 3-9 again).

Access and Equity Concerns—When traffic

demand exceeds runway capacity, as happens regularly during peak periods at busy airports, each

single occupant aircraft imposes roughly the same

amount of system delay as an airliner with 300

passengers. However, smaller aircraft almost always

pay much less in landing fees and Federal taxes for

using the system, a policy that embodies difficult

and contentious equity and access issues. Major

airlines have altered schedules and purchased larger

aircraft, so they can carry more passengers and cargo

under these circumstances.in

Underutilized Airports-Modifying lightly used

airports close to busy facilities to make them more

attractive to commercial or GA users is generally

more feasible than new construction. FAA has

sponsored reliever or satellite airport development

for GA traffic by earmarking funds especially for

developing and upgrading these airports,126 to reduce

delays at nearby, busy, commercial airports by

removing the small, slow GA aircraft. However,

reliever and other GA airports face some of the same

noise and competing land-use problems as commercial airports. Furthermore, any policy to divert traffic

also diverts revenue from the major airport.

Restricting Airport Access-Restricting access,

at least to certain runways, for small, lowperformance aircraft is one way to increase runway

availability for large jets. However, unless suitable

alternative facilities, such as reliever airports, are

found for excluded aircraft, such a policy could be

considered discriminatory and a restriction of interstate commerce.l27 Moreover, while quotas and reestrictions may be acceptable temporary measures,

actions to change basic underlying demand will also

be necessary if capacity cannot be increased.

Quota systems for all aircraft are used at several

airports where demand exceeds physical or noiserelated capacity regularly for much of the day. Four

major airports-Chicago O’Hare, La Guardia and

JFK in New York, and Washington National-are

covered by FAA’s high-density rule, established in

1973, which legally caps the number of flights that

can be scheduled for these airports. Landing and

takeoff slot quotas are established for three user

classes: air carriers, commuters, and GA. While GA

slots are distributed by call-in reservations, air

carrier and commuter slots are allocated by airline

scheduling committees, which are granted antitrust

immunity to negotiate the assignments. FAA reserves the right to distribute the slots if negotiators

fail to reach agreement.128 During good weather,

high-density airports can usually handle aircraft

without assigned slots.

Current quota systems favor incumbent airlines,

since slots are granted based on prior use, a

complaint raised frequently by airlines formed after

deregulation and currently by airlines wishing to

establish a market at the four airports. Established

carriers counter that since they invested in the airport

and its market over many years, they should be able

to keep their slots, now worth millions of dollars

apiece to the holders at several airports.

l~Transportation Research Board, MeaWring Airport tind.m”de Capacity, Special Report 215 (WashingtorL DC: NatioM R~~ch COWICfl, 1987),

p. 57.

lzjAftervwy no c-e since 1983, com.merc~ aircraft seating capacity is projected to grow by three seats per ai.rcI@ on average, fiwch of the

next 12 years. From U.S. Department of Tr~or@tioU Federal Aviation A&rums “ “ tratio&Ffi Aviation Forecasts, Fiscal Years 1990-2001, FAA-APO

9G1 (Washin@orL DC: March 1990), p. 53.

lzbu.s.con~ss, OfliceoflkchnologyAs~ssmen~ AirportSy,rtenDeveZop?nent, OTA-STI-231 (WashingtorqDC: U.S. @v ernmentPrinting Office,

August 1984), p. 110.

1zTIbid., p. 114.

1281bid., p. 114.
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies . 123

Market Concerns-Market pricing of positions

at congested airports raises other access and equity

issues. Selling (or leasing) airport landing slots

through the open market is viewed by many economists as the most effective way to determine the

value of airport access and allocate these scarce

resources.

l29 However, competition among airlines

could potentially be limited if slots are hoarded, and

small aircraft could be effectively excluded from the

airport.

The appropriate use of the proceeds from slot

transactions is a contentious issue. Although airlines

have been allowed to treat slots as private goods, the

slots are created and provided by public agencies,

the airport proprietor, and FAA. A strong case can be

made that slot payments belong to the agencies

providing the services and should be used for public

purposes.

Differential/ Pricing-At present, ATC services

and public airspace are available at no charge to all

properly equipped and operated aircraft. Access to

public airports, except where quotas are in effect, is

generally open to anyone willing to pay the landing

fee, usually less than 2 or 3 percent of the aircraft’s

operating costs.130 Landing fees offset the capital,

maintenance, and operating costs for runways and

other airport facilities. Fees do not generally vary by

time of day and are typically based on aircraft

weight, which is roughly related to required size of

facilities and the amount of wear caused by the

aircraft. However, most fees fail to reflect the costs

to other users of delay and congestion, and provide

no incentive to shift demand to nonpeak periods.

A few airport operators have tried to manage

demand by raising landing fees, but small aircraft

operators and airlines alike have successfully challenged landing fees in court as unreasonable and

discriminatory. In 1986, the Port Authority of New

York and New Jersey successfully instituted a

surcharge of $100 for GA aircraft landing at its three

major airports from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., reducing

traffic by 30 percent for those times.131 The Massachusetts Port Authority, reallocated airport costs

among all users, charging higher landing fees for GA

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Taxis and private automobiles carry the vast majority of

passengers to and from airports.

and lower ones for airlines. However, the fee

structure was challenged as discriminatory, and was

overturned by DOT (see box 3-I).

Passenger Surcharges-Direct passenger surcharges for flights during peak periods will probably

not be passed on to the passengers affected unless

fares are regulated in some form, not a likely

prospect. Finally, passenger charges alone do little

to divert small aircraft or encourage large aircraft

use.

Transportation to Airports-Getting to and

from the airport, which can represent a sizable

portion of total trip time, depends on the capabilities

of the regional transportation system surrounding

the airport and on the convenience of road circulation, the availability of parking, and mass transit

access at the busiest airports. Because origins and

destinations are so scattered throughout urban areas,

road vehicles, especially private automobiles and

taxis, carry over 90 percent of the passengers to and

from most airports. Airport employees, who account

for about one-third of all access trips, usually must

also rely on automobiles. Many major airports have

significant air pollution problems stemming primarily from automobiles and surface traffic congestion,

although aircraft contribute as well.132The growth of

12~.s. COw~~, ~lce of ~~OIOm A~w~me~$ S@e skies for To~wowI: Aviation Safq in u co~etitive EnVirO~nt, OIA-SET-381

(Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing Gf13ce, JuIy 1988), p. 38.

l~~ce of mhnolog ASSeSsmen~ op. cit., footnote 126, p. 116.

131JmEo Momm, $$~actic~ Me~~s for Shif@Gme~Av~tion Tfilc Fmm Commerce service~rts to RelieverAirpor@” Transportation

Research Record 1218 (WashingtoxL DC: Transportation Research Boar& 1989), p. 13.

ls2David W. Davis, executive director, Massport, personal Co-UnicatioX4 MY 2, 1~.
124 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Box 3-l—The Massachusetts Port Authority

On July 1, 1988, the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) implemented the first phase of its Program for

Airport Capacity Efficiency (PACE), a plan to reduce delays at Logan International Airport by basing landing fees

more closely on the actual airport costs for accomrnodat.ing each aircraft. Fees rose for small aircraft (the previous

minimum of $25 was increased to $91) and fell for the largest airliners. The fee changes caused general aviation

flights to drop by one-third and improved Logan’s on-time performance ranking, established by the U.S.

Department of Transportation (DOT) for the 30 busiest commercial airports, from roughly 21st to 2nd during the

last month of the PACE program.l However, small “aircraft owners2 filed complaints with the Federal Aviation

Administration soon after the PACE plan was announced and on December 22, 1988, DOT ruled that the new fee

structure was “. . . unreasonable and contrary to Federal statute. Faced with the loss of millions of dollars in

Federal funds for airport improvements, Massport’s Board voted to return temporarily to the previous fee schedule

and to develop another, more acceptable, pricing method. Logan’s on-time performance ranking plummeted to 29th

by April 1990.4

PACE landing fees had two components: a weight-based portion to cover runway construction, maintenance,

and other costs that vary with aircraft size; and a charge to recover costs linked to each flight (such as lighting,

emergency services, and snow plowing), which according to Massport, had been previously subsidized by

commercial airline passengers. A second phase of PACE, never implemented, proposed peak-hour pricing and slot

sales to shift traffic away from high demand periods. DOT accepted the dual-omponent landing fee concept but

disagreed with some of the ways Massport divided the costs between the two components of the fee. For example,

Massport divided the costs for maintaining crash, fire, and rescue (CFR) services among all landings regardless of

aircraft size, since all flights benefit. However, since the requirements for CFR capabilities are based on the size

of the aircraft using an airport, DOT ruled that CFR costs should be assigned on a weight-based scale. Moreover,

DOT endorsed peak-hour surcharges as an acceptable pricing option for landing fees,s Massport remains committed

to winning DOT approval of a landing fee schedule that uses peak-hour pricing to improve airport capacity and is

developing alternatives.6

1David W. Davis, executive director, Massport, personnel communication, May 2, 1990.

2National Business Aircraft Association, Regional Airline Association, and Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.

3U.S. Department of Tranaportation, Office of the Secrctary, “Investigation Into Massport’s Landing Fees,’ ‘ FAA Docket 13-88-2, Dec.

22, 1988.

4Davis, op. cit., footnote 1.

5U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Massachusetts Port Authority v. U.S. Department of Transportation, “Brief of

Petitioner-Appellant, Massachusetts Port Authority,” No. 88-2227, Dec. 22, 1988.

6Tom Champion, special assistant to the administrator, Massport, personal communication, Nov. 8, 1990.

the rental car industry reflects the lack of suitable York and Boston, where surface arteries are very

alternate forms of transportation from many airports.

Procedural and management changes, such as parking restrictions combined with strict enforcement

and segregating private autos, taxis, limousines, and

buses, are inexpensive and effective options.

About 25 percent of airport trips are to or from the

city center,133 so dedicated surface systems such as

rail transit and remote terminals are essential to

ground access in major metropolitan areas. Water

ferries and helicopters, available for a few large,

urban airports, transport relatively few passengers,

but are an important alternative in cities like New

congested.

Funding landside investments involves complex,

multijurisdictiona1 arrangements that vary widely

from airport to airport. The capital improvements

sponsored by FAA are limited to on-airport roadways, guideways, and walkways, including bypass

lanes, multiple termina1 entry and exit points, curb

frontage, remote park and ride facilities, and pedestrian overpasses or underpasses. For projects to

improve ground access off the airport property,

jurisdictions must seek FHWA and Urban Mass

Transportation Administration grants or find State

and local funds.

133Office of TechnologyAssessment, op. cit., footnote 126, p. %.
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies ● 125

Technologies for Enhancing System Capacity

and Performance

Airports can operate close to peak capacity most

of the time. Because airport physical expansion

possibilities are constrained and runways already

operate close to technologically peak efficiency, the

critical long-term limit for air travel is likely to be

runway capacity. Gains in runway performance will

require systemwide air traffic management, such as

more efficient aircraft routing, spacing, and sequencing within queues. Technology can contribute

by reducing distances necessary for safe separation

between aircraft, increasing controller productivity,

and enabling flights to continue at the maximum rate

in all but the most severe weather conditions.

Analytic tools can help air traffic decisionmakers

make rational system choices under such circumstances. FAA already has some computer-based

models for quantifying the effects of changes in

equipment, procedures, airspace configurations, and

user demand on system performance. For example,

using its NASPAC simulation model, FAA found

that the new airport now under construction in

Denver should reduce airline delays nationwide by

4 percent on a moderate winter day and 18 percent

on a more snowy day.

134 Plans are under way for a

dynamic simulation laboratory to further FAA’s

system analysis capability, and modeling and simulation technologies are being incorporated into the

agency’s traffic management facilities.

Some of the options for increasing the capacity of

existing airports and runways, their current limitations, and the role of technology are listed in table

3-10. While capacity gains from any option can be

quantified, they depend on too wide a range of

parameters and conditions l35 to detail in this report. 136 Making runway performance under instrument flight rules (IFR) closer to visual flight rules

(VFR) capabilities will have the greatest effect on

current delays, and requires technology to reduce the

safe spacing between aircraft. Increasing VFR capacity requires reducing the time an aircraft occupies

a runway, overcoming wake vortex hazards, and

managing arriving traffic to eliminate gaps.

Surveillance-One of the most promising nearterm technologies for improving IFR capacity at

airports upgrades the secondary surveillance system

to give faster radar data updates and larger and

clearer controller displays. 137 These radar systems,

not a part of the NAS Plan, will permit increased

operations on parallel and converging runways.

Different systems are currently being tested at

Memphis and Raleigh-Durham airports.

Civilian surveillance radars require clear lines-ofsight to monitor traffic. Over oceans or remote areas,

or at low altitudes where radar coverage is not

practical, satellite technologies are available. The

most promising satellite surveillance application is

dependent surveillance, under which aircraft-based

equipment determines position and relays information via satellite to a ground-based ATC facility.

Automatic dependent surveillance (ADS) relies on

new applications of established communications

and navigation technologies and will likely be used

first on the busiest ocean routes. Currently, controllers track oceanic flights through position reports

from pilots derived from onboard navigation instruments and relayed by high frequency radio. Once

established, ADS will allow closer spacing of

oceanic flights, but no satellites yet operate in the

aeronautical mobile band, which an operational

ADS system must use. ICAO technical standards are

stall in the process of being developed, and FAA has

not yet established an implementation plan or policy

for ADS.138 FAA is investigating advanced satellite

technologies that could have applications for ATC,

but the potential reliability of ADS makes the

cost-effectiveness of the more expensive independent satellite systems questionable.l39

134The Mitre Corp., “Analysis of National Delays and Throughput Impacts of a New Denver Airport,” unpublished documen~ April 1990.

135Airportcapacity depends onhow operations are split betwcxmdepartures andarrivalsandamong the mix of aircxafttypes.Furthermore,lFR capacity

is critically dependent on runway contlg-uration. For example, only one runway can be used during IFR at airports with parallel runways that are less

than 2,500 feet apart.

136A de~i.1~ qwti~tive discussion of ah-field capacity gains resulting from potential operational improvements is presented in John E. tibro~

Estimates of Potential Increases in Airport Capacity Through ATC System Improvements in the Airport and Terminal Areas, FM-DL5-87-1

(Washingto~ DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, October 1987).

lsTKen Byr~ project m~~er, Parallel and Converging Runway Monitoring, Federid Aviation ~

1989.

“ “stratioq personnel communicatio~ Dec. 1,

lsBzWok~e, op. cit., footnote 117.

Isgclyde hliller, Rese~h and Development Servim, Federal Aviation ~“ ‘ tration, personal communication Sept. 11, 1990.
126 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table 3-10-Enhancing the Performance of Existing Airports and Airways

Potential enhancement Goals Current limitations Potential technological options

Increase the maximum takeoff

and landing rate possible for

a runway.

Increase the maximum takeoff

and landing rate possible for

airports with multiple runways.

Increase the average takeoff

and landing rate of a runway

or airport.

Reduce the time an aircraft occupies a runway.

Reduce wake vortex hazards,

allowing closer in-trail aircraft

spacing.

Reduce collision avoidance and

wake vortex hazards, allowing closer aircraft spacing.

Reduce runway downtime.

Reduce enroute airspacerelated delays.

Reduce collision avoidance and

wake vortex hazards, allowing closer aircraft spacing,

dose the IFR/VFR capacity

gap.

Reduce time-wasting gaps in

arrival stream.

Reduce delays due to inaccurate/lmpredse weather information.

No more than one aircraft allowed on a runway at a time.

Fast, moving, heavy aircraft take

more time to slowdown than

smaller planes.

Vortices are intrinsically linked to

aerodynamic lift and cannot

be eliminated.

Vortices are usually invisible.

Aircraft size difference is a large

factor in vortex hazards.

Ground- and airborne-based

surveillance, communication, and human reaction

time are presently insufficient

to safely separate aircraft at

the distances necessary for

some parallel runways.

Necessary periodic maintenance.

Snow and ice removal.

Human capability to process and

transfer information.

Oceanic ATC capability far

below domestic level.

ATC radar and cockpit instruments are not as capable as

human vision.

Difficult for controllers to position

and sequence aircraft at optimal times for runway approaches, especially if traffic

is mixed among aircraft with

differing sizes and speeds.

Safety margins must be kept

large for dangerous thunderstorms and windshear, resulting in delays.

High speed exits from runways.

Improve aircraft deceleration

capabilities.

Make wake vortices visible to

pilots; reduce the strength of

the vortices.

Improve surveillance, guidance,

communication, and automation.

Longer lasting materials; analytical and management tools

(e.g., nondestructive evaluation).

Snow and ice sensors; selected

pavement additives.

Automation, surveillance.

Better surveillance, communications, and navigation.

Surveillance, navigation, guidance.

Improved strategic and tactical

management technologies

for air traffic.

More accurate weather prediction and detection; better

information transfer to controllers and fright crews.

KEY: ATC = air traffic control; IFR = instrument flight rulse; VFR = visual flight rules.

SOURCE: Offioe of T~hnology Asessment, 1991.

Navigation and Guidance-Long-range radio- stations to allow complete coverage across the

navigation systems, LORAN and OMEGA (see continental United States.l40 Combined with an

chapter 5), permit navigation in remote locations. As ADS link, LORAN or OMEGA could permit

part of the NAS Plan, FAA is providing funds to the enhanced low-altitude and remote-site traffic conCoast Guard to install four additional LORAN trol. 141

140u.s. Dep~ent of ‘rranaportatio~ Federal Aviation ~“ “ tratiow National Airspace System Plan: Facilities, Equipment, Associated

Development and Other Capital Needs (Waahingtoq DC: September 1989), p. IV-58.

141u.s. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation ~“ “stratio% “Federal Aviation Administration Plan for Research Engineering, and

Development” vol. n draft manuscript, September 1989, p. 258.
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies ● 127

Satellite-based systems offer the greatest potential for aviation navigation enhancement. INMARSAT, an international consortium that operates a

global satellite system for maritime mobile communications, plans to deploy the first satellite designed

to provide civilian aeronautical service. The Department of Defense (DoD) Global Positioning System,

which will provide civilian aircraft with location

data accurate within 500 feet, is expected to be

available for worldwide navigation in late 1993.

FAA studied the integration of GPS with LORAN in

a single cockpit device and determined that this

combination may be suitable as a sole means of

navigation, and is currently evaluating avionics.142

The NAS Plan includes replacing current instrument landing systems (ILS), which provide course

and glideslope guidance for landing aircraft, with

microwave landing systems (MLS). MLS allow

curved approaches, not possible with ILS, and

potential capacity gains in locations where present

runway approaches and departures conflict. Although the program has been besieged with controversy and is behind schedule, FAA must comply

with ICAO plans to install MLS as the landing aid

at international airports by 1998.

Weather Detection and Prediction-Avoiding

hazardous weather-windshear,143 severe turbulence, lightning, inflight icing, or hail-is especially

important in terminal areas, where aircraft are close

to the ground. Existing radars are able to identify

areas of heavy precipitation, often indicative of

dangerous flying conditions; however, these radars

cannot see clear air turbulence or windshear. Advanced weather radar systems that can measure

winds and other automated weather observing systems are being deployed as part of the NAS Plan.

Next generation weather radars, funded jointly by

DoD, the National Weather Service (NWS), and

FAA, will replace existing NWS radars. Because

there are no meteorologists at some FAA facilities,

the terminal weather radar will employ expert

systems to present weather information (such as

automatically identifying microbursts) in a usable

form directly to controllers.l44

Communication-Federal aviation communications systems transmit ATC and weather information through voice and digital messages over oneway and two-way radio, landline wire, and fiber

optic links. Two communications developments that

could support increased airspace capacity are data

link and satellite relay for aircraft. The NAS Plan

calls for Mode S digital links to transmit many of the

ATC and weather messages sent over voice channels, and to provide new functions such as real-time

graphic display of weather and ATC instruction

relay and conflation. Digital communications will

not replace the current air-ground voice links as the

primary system for real-time ATC and weather

information until at least late in the decade.

Successful tests using existing satellites for communications have prompted at least five airlines to

order airborne systems for their new aircraft.145

ICAO’s Future Air Navigation Systems Committee

has stated that”. . . satellite-based communications,

navigation, and surveillance will be the key to

worldwide improvements. ’ ‘146

Automation and System Management—

Computers are used extensively throughout the ATC

system to process flight plans, correlate and display

radar returns, and alert controllers to hazardous

traffic situations. All traffic control decisions are

now made by controllers. However, systems currently being developed will be capable of computing

optimal flight paths in real time and relaying

instructions directly to cockpits.

ATC Computers-Computers process primary

and secondary radar returns, track targets, and

provide appropriate data for each aircraft. FAA’s

Central Flow Control Facility (CFCF) already manages IFR traffic on a national scale. Flight plan

information and live radar data from 20 en route

centers are relayed to CFCF, where an aircraft

situation display presents national traffic data and

analyses, updated every 3 minutes, for any portion of

14~id., p. 256.

ldsw~dtiis ac~e, u~ysudde~ i.nwindvelocity across anaimraft’spath. The most dangerous form of windsheaxis them.icroburs~ ar@dly

descending column of air that maybe impossible for some aircraft to escape horn when flying close to the ground.

l~~ce & I&hnolo= Assessment op. cit., footnote 129, p. 158.

14s’’Tbsts Demonstrate Potential Benefits of Satellites in Air-Ground Communications,” Aviation Week & Space Technology, vol. 130, No. 2, July

10, 1989, p. 57.

146’’ICAO’S ‘Ibrn-of-Century Plan Complet~” Interavia, August 1988, p. 749.
128 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

the continental United States. The system automatically alerts the traffic manager when capacity is

insufficient. Under the NAS Plan and R&D programs, FAA is working toward using real-time

computer analyses to manage runway and airspace

configurations and to issue traffic clearances for

optimal traffic flows.

The centerpiece of the NAS Plan is the Advanced

Automation System (AAS), a $5 billion project to

replace and consolidate computer hardware, software, and workstations at airport tower, terminal,

and en route ATC facilities. FAA expects better

safety, greater system capacity, and lower operational costs, due in large part to new and expanded

automated functions. Among the most important of

these new capabilities is automated en route air

traffic control (AERA).

AERA, to be implemented in three phases, will

predict and resolve traffic conflicts in four dimensions and permit more fuel-efficient and direct flight

paths. FAA plans to install the first phase in 1997.

The objective for AERA 3, on program completion,

is automatic monitoring and control of traffic, and

removal of the capacity limitations of the current

systems to permit controllers to manage airspace

regions much larger than present ATC sectors.147

Many aviation safety experts view increased use of

automation with ambivalence. While automated

systems increase efficiency and safety in some areas,

they require monitoring and accurate data entry. The

role of the human in this increasingly automated

environment is a critical issue that needs to be

studied extensively to establish bases for setting

standards. 148

Technologies for Enhancing Groundside Capacity—An airport’s groundside 149 components—

aircraft parking aprons and gates, airport terminals,

and surface transportation links-are important

factors in total trip time for passengers and cargo.

Limitations in groundside capabilities can also

restrict air service growth.

The number of passengers and the amount of

cargo that pass through an airport are the most

common economic indicators applied to measuring

airport capacity. However, airport operators also

must include employees, visitors, and service and

ground access vehicles in their calculations, and

analytic techniques and data for measuring groundside capacity are less developed than methods for

assessing airside capacity.150

Gates and Aprons-Airport gates and aprons are

the areas where aircraft receive fuel, maintenance,

and other servicing. Although fewer gates would be

required if airlines shared them, most gates are

controlled by individual airlines. Competition between airlines and widely spread facilities at the

busiest airports limit the feasibility of jointly using

gates. If airport operators had more control over

gates, more efficient use would be possible,151

allowing faster aircraft turnaround and expanding

the parking spaces and terminal access available for

aircraft.152 Apron geometry and level of demand also

affect aircraft access to gates, and for the next

generation B-777, Boeing plans to use folding wings

in the design to avoid gate restrictions.

Security Technology and Procedures—To

deter aircraft hijacking and sabotage, FAA requires

airlines to screen passengers, carry-on articles, and

in some cases, checked baggage, and airport operators to control access to the airfield and aircraft.

Technology permits much faster processing than

manual searches alone would allow, and relatively

few significant delays due to screening occur

currently in the United States.

147Federal Aviation A&rums “ “ tratiom op. cit., footnote 140, p. III-38; and Federal Aviation Admmt “ “stratiom op. cit., footnote 141, pp. 63-64,

ldg~ce of RXhUOIOgy hwmmn~ op. cit., footnote 129, p. 125.

ld9The~~@~~= “bide”~“gro~dside” is somewhat arbitrary. The Federal AviationA&mm“ “strationincludes aircmftgatesandparking

areas in the airside category, as aircmft in these areas are still subject to air traftic control rules and regulations. In this repom however, airside

infrastructumare those components whose performan ceaffects airport and airspace capacity. Each gate andparkingspace is usually controlled by a single

airline, and one airline’s gate performance generally does not affect other users of the airport. Exceptions are when airlines share gates or gate backups

restrict other taxiing aimraft.

An alternate deftition of the groundside is the fmiliti~ and pd~es involved in the p~smger’s or cargo shipment’s journey from the originating

point to the “amraft, aircraft-to-aircraft transfers, and from the aircraft to the final destination. (Note: once on board the aircm the passenger or cargo

is in the airside).

l~atio~ Re-h comc~ Trq~tion ~=ch Bo@ ~eaSw”ng A@orf~~”& cap~c@, s~~ Report 215 (wmhhgto~ D(!: 1987),

p. v.

lslDavid W. Davis, ex~utive director, h4asspoK unpublished remarks, OIX Advisory p~el meeting, Apr. 18, 1~.

lszRefers to passenger or cargo trip-time ludess OthetiSe smtti.
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies . 129

Table 3-1 l—Traffic Congestion Increases in 15 Major Cities

Annual Annual

Congestion Percent total costb

congestion cost

indexachange (in billions per capita

Cities (1987) (1982-87) of dollars) (in dollars)

Los Angeles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.47 20 7.9 730

San Francisco-Oakland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.31 29 2.4 670

Washington, DC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.25 31 2.2 740

Phoenix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.23 6 0.9 510

Houston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.19 1 1.5 550

Atlanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.16 30 1.1 650

Seattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14 20 0.9 580

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11 4 6.8 430

Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11 11 2.5 340

Detroit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10 - 2 1.9 460

San Diego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.08 38 0.6 280

Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.06 17 2.1 520

Dallas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.03 22 1.0 530

Minneapolis-St, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.97 24 0.5 240

Milwaukee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 10 0.2 190

~hecongestionindexisaweighted me~ureofurhnmtitityleveis,anddti~tithvalu~greaterthan l.Ohaveeongestionpmblems.Roadsearrying more

than 13,000 vehicles perfreeway lane perdayor5,000vehicles perarteriailaneperdayareeonsidered congested.

~ngestion cost is the estimated cost of travel delay, excess fuel consumed, and higher insuranm premiums paid by residents of large, congested urban

areas.

SOURCE: Office cf TeehnologyAssessment, based on Texas Transportation Institute, “Roadway Congestion in Major Urban Areas, 1982 to 1987,”’ Researeh

Report 1131-2, 1989.

The equipment used today consists of x-ray

scanners with moving belts and magnetometers, best

suited for detecting metal,153 and their successful use

depends on the skill, alertness, and motivation of the

people operating them. These methods are most

effective at detecting weapons, and are not very

successful at uncovering explosives and volatile

substances. Passenger background checks and interviews, as are done by Israel’s El Al Airlines, are

effective screening methods, but are both laborintensive, time-consuming) and go beyond traditional limits of privacy, limiting their acceptability

in the U.S. system.

New technologies for baggage screening include:

x-ray tomography devices; electromagnetic and

nuclear-based systems that identify atomic elements, such as nitrogen, a key component of most

explosives; and vapor detection techniques that

recognize and evaluate trace quantities of organic

materials often present in explosives. However,

further development to improve speed and reliability

will be necessary before these technologies are

widely deployed. New security systems may require

some redesign of airport interiors to accommodate

large screening devices.

. .

Conclusions and Policy Options

Although the U.S. transportation networks provide enormous benefits to the national economy,

congestion and structural decay are taking their toll

on efficiency and productivity, especially in large

metropolitan regions, today’s centers of economic

activities. The quality of service provided by the

transportation infrastructure is a product of government investment decisions made over the system’s

lifetime, about planning, design, construction, Operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation. In the

United States, shifts in population and transport

patterns and vehicle technology occur much faster

than governments change the ways they design,

manage, and maintain the transportation infrastructure. The result is overburdened infrastructure in the

major urban areas, while many rural States must

struggle to provide adequate basic services from

their shrinkm“ g economic bases. Every year, highway congestion in the Nation’s largest cities is

estimated to cost motorists over $30 billion (see

table 3-1 1), while airport delays take a $5 billion toll

on airlines and passengers. OTA concludes that

these problems are due more to investment,

land-use, and management policies and practices

than to inadequate technologies. While new tech153x-~y &viC~ inMUWCI nxxmtly are able to distinguish among diffem ~~ri~ s-organics, plastics, metal-based on density.
130 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

nologies can help improve infrastructure condition

and smooth traffic flows in congested areas, the

Federal Government must change its infrastructure investment policies and address system

management issues, if the most pressing transportation problems are to be resolved.

Financing and Investment

Federal fiscal policies-General Fund subsidies,

grant matching requirements, trust fund spending

targets, and revenue raising options-vary for each

transportation mode. These policies do not always

lead to economical system investment and management and have created substantially different infrastructure problems for each mode.

Surface Transportation

Aviation and port and waterway infrastructure

(where the Federal Government plays major investment and management roles in operations and

maintenance, and the rights-of-way—air and

water—require structural systems only indirectly) is

in quite good physical condition. Although delays

occur, most are amenable to management and

technical solutions. In contrast, the Federal Government has always been an important, but minority,

investment partner only in surface transportation

infrastructure-roads, bridges, mass transit, and

railroads-leaving management and operations to

the State, local, and private owners. Federal surface

transportation funding policies have favored capital

investments, without a corresponding commitment

to operations and maintenance. The result is that

State and local government owners of the far-flung

road system have cut back and deferred maintenance

and rehabilitation. Most simply have not invested in

basic operational improvements, such as advanced

traffic signal systems. Private owners, primarily

railroads, also neglected maintenance, especially on

lightly used track sections, abandoning or selling

branch lines as soon as they were able.

Changing Federal fiscal policies for surface

transportation to allow Federal trust fund monies

to be used throughout the infrastructure life cycle

and for operations and maintenance is the top

priority. Such spending discretion is of critical

importance for rural or other economically constrained areas facing unaffordable infrastructure

maintenance and rehabilitation needs. In some

regions, local transportation grants may best be used

for noncapital investments, such as maintenance

management systems, employee training, or advanced traffic control equipment.

State matching requirements range from 10 percent for Interstate construction to 25 percent for

primary and secondary programs. However, a primary road in poor condition can create a traffic

bottleneck that has a major impact on a connecting

Interstate, making rehabilitation of the primary

artery crucial to smooth interstate travel. Congress

could consider equalizing State matching requirements for all highway grants so that decisions about spending priorities reflect regional

priorities, rather than projects tailored to fit

grant categories. Expanding State and local options

for raising revenue, such as tolls, on facilities built

with Federal funds is crucial as well, to help leverage

and stretch Federal dollars.

Increased flexibility in the use of Federal

highway and transit grant funds-the ability to

transfer or combine them—would also help

transportation system productivity. Examples include railroad improvements (for Amtrak, too, since

over 40 percent of Amtrak passengers travel on

trains under contract to jurisdictions), park-and-ride

facilities, HOV lanes, and preferential treatment for

transit or other high-occupancy vehicles. A funding

program for surface transportation condition improvement, which would include passenger rail,

mass transit, roads, and bridges, might be such a

mechanism. Similarly, a program for surface transportation capacity expansion should include new

commuter rail and bus systems, new busways, new

lanes, including HOV facilities, and expansion to

existing systems and facilities.

Market Pricing

Traffic congestion creates additional operating

and maintenance expenses for vehicles and infrastructure, and delay costs for users. Since the price

paid for using the transportation system is often

below real costs, the demand for frequent transport

service to many destinations encourages large fleets

of small vehicles to clog the infrastructure. The

average passenger and cargo capacity of vehicles is

a key factor in efficient system flow. Industry uses

large vehicles—widebody jets, long, double trailer

trucks, double stack trains, jumbo barges, and new

containerships-when economics favor them and

regulations allow them. User pricing policies

(peak-hour tolls) that reflect vehicle costs to the

system could favor higher capacity operations,
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies . 131

Table 3-12—Federal Expenditures and User-Fee Revenue for Transportation, 1989

Federal Federal Dedicated revenue

expenditures user-fee revenuesa

as percent of

Transport mode (in millions of dollars) (in millions of dollars) expenditures

Highway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,898b14,270 102

Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,595’ 1 ,357d

37

Rail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594’ — —

Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,748f3,664 63

Ports and waterways . . . . . . . 1,436g 223 h

16

a ~es not include interest received on trust fund balances.

b ln~~es funds outlay~ for the Federal Highway Administration, the National Highway Transportation *fety

Administration, the Forest 8ervice for forest roads and trails, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs for road

construction.

c lnd~es capital and operating grants and limited research and development (R&D) spending.

d Revenue SoUrm is 1 cent per gallon from motor fuel t= (19W).

e Amtrak funding and limited Federal R&D SpSIlding.

f Does n~ indu~ e~penditure~ for National Aemnauti~ and Sp=e Administration, National Transportation

Safety Board, or Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary.

9 Army Corps of Engin~rso@laysforharbors watenvays. Doss not include Maritime Administration, Coast Guard,

or Panama Canal Company outlays.

h lnd~es [nla~ Watemay Tmst Fund, Harbor Maintena~e Tmst Fund, and St. Lawrence 8eaway Tolk.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transmutation, Federa/ Trsmmortation /%anua/ Statistics. f7sca/ Years 1979-1989

(Washirigton, DC: May 1990).

such as car pooling and mass transit, and possibly

lower total energy use and environmental damage. They could also lower life-cycle costs by

matching system characteristics and long-term use

patterns. For example, a highway policy basing user

fees on the pavement wear imposed by commonly

used vehicles (truck axle weights, for example) and

using the increased revenue to pay for thicker, more

durable pavements could lower long-term total

highway costs.

Strict market pricing policies raise issues related

to ability to pay and discrimination against certain

classes of transportation users. OTA concludes that

pricing decisions for demand management may

require Federal oversight to ensure affordable

transportation options to all users. A share of the

revenues generated by those willing and able to pay

for premium service could fund alternative transportation systems for other users.

General Fund Subsidies

Tying user charges to system expenditures, especially for operations and maintenance, can encourage realistic infrastructure decisions and provide a

long-term revenue stream for system management.

While social benefits such as defense, environmental protection, and economic development just@ General Fund support for transportation infrastructure, these tax monies currently subsidize each

mode to different degrees (see table 3-12). On both

the inland waterways and deepwater channels, the

General Fund now pays roughly 50 percent of capital

costs, a reasonable amount given the multiple

purposes these structures serve, and a marked

reduction from historic levels. However, water

shippers and operators still pay only a minor share of

operations and maintenance costs, in sharp contrast

to other transportation modes, where users pay most

of these costs. OTA concludes that this preferential treatment for port and waterway users is

difficult to justify and that it is time for another

look at investment and cost allocation policies for

transportation infrastructure. One option is to

equalize General Fund subsidies among transportation modes over a 5- to 10-year period.

Another is eliminating the subsidies entirely,

using trust fund revenues for Federal programs

and looking to new revenue sources, such as

higher State and local grant matching requirements.

Whatever the choice, if General Fund subsidies

for transportation are reduced, and budget constraints prevent using trust fund balances, user fees

and non-Federal funding must make up the difference, or existing public networks will have to scale

back. With the exception of the inland waterway

operators, most transport sectors would be capable

of generating sufficient revenues to remain at

present capacity. Congress could consider a longterm, gradual disinvestment of commercially

unproductive waterways, unless regional governments and recreational users are willing to meet

substantially more of the costs. For example,

hydroelectric power, drinking water, and recrea-
132 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

tional boating opportunities supplied by these navigation projects, if priced at fair market values, could

fund significant amounts of system operating and

maintenance costs.

Management Framework

Finding ways to increase system capacity and

handle increasing demand without constructing new

rights-of-way poses enormous challenges. New

technologies can marginally increase the capacity of

infrastructure, but they are often expensive and

eventually reach structural limits. A systems management approach that encourages carrying the same

volume of passengers or cargo on fewer vehicles and

makes full use of all modes could address air quality,

energy use, and congestion problems.

Intermodal Transportation

While individual intermodal operators—airports,

marine ports, terminals, and stations-and transportation companies are investing in advanced equipment and electronics to speed cargo and passenger

transfers, problems related to intermodal transport

increasingly hamper regional surface transportation

links. For example, port operations both contribute

to and suffer from surface traffic congestion, air

pollution, and problems caused by overweight

shipments. Many such issues are international and

interstate in scope and beyond the capabilities of

State and local governments to resolve.

A host of governmental agencies have regulatory

and fiscal authority over separate elements of

regional transportation, and no effective mechanism

for multimodal coordination has emerged. Federal

policy has favored capital investment as support for

economic development, a policy that has diminishing application in metropolitan areas, where improved system (regional) management will be the

key to future economic success. OTA concludes

that Federal incentives for addressing regional

transportation issues, intermodal links, surface

congestion solutions, and environmental impacts

are essential.

Institutional Framework

Neither DOT nor Congress has successfully

overcome strong, separate modal interests and

achieved an appropriate systems approach to solving

transportation problems. In Congress, only the

appropriations committees have sufficiently comprehensive jurisdiction, but those committees were

never intended to set transportation policy. DOT’s

recently published National Transportation Policy

recognized this and encouraged a multimodal approach toward transportation problems. However,

this encouragement is not enough; OTA concludes

that unless steps are taken to institutionalize a

multimodal approach within DOT, the traditional modally oriented structure will be perpetuated and the agency will not be able to address

today’s transportation issues effectively.

If the Federal Government is to regain a leadership role in transportation, changes in institutional

management must be made. In the short run,

consolidating several of the water management

functions and urban modes makes a great deal of

sense. Over the longer term, options include restructuring DOT in divisions by broad mode-aviation,

and surface and water transportation-or by function, such as metropolitan passenger and intercity

freight transportation. Reforming congressional

oversight as well, by developing a mechanism to

coordinate or concentrate transportation authorization, will be crucial to the success of a

restructured DOT.

An immediate option for Congress to consider is

to shift civilian water transportation authority from

the Army Corps of Engineers to DOT, as was

originally envisioned when DOT was created. This

would consolidate all transportation policy and trust

funds within a single agency with Cabinet-level

attention and facilitate multimodal decisionmaking.

Because some of the Corps’ traditional missions are

waning, over the longer term consideration could

be given to making the agency into a National

Corps of Engineers with the mission of making its

engineering and water resources expertise available to support a number of executive agencies on

a reimbursable basis. It could remain loosely

associated with DoD and maintain its other current

responsibilities, or these could be assigned to other

departments as appropriate (flood control could be

housed in the Department of the Interior, for

example).

Transportation Technologies

Advanced technologies, innovative and alternative multimodal delivery systems, more efficient

management and methods, and changes to incentives will be necessary to improve the Nation’s

transportation system. Yet with few exceptions, data
Chapter 3—Transportation Management and Technologies ● 133

collection and research have been insufficient to

identify the best choices among the advanced

concepts vying for places in the future transport

system. Moreover, much in the current institutional

and organizational structure acts to prevent adoption

of new technologies and management techniques.

Officials, particularly at the local level, are often

unaware of suitable new technologies, and even

when they do know about new tools, they often

cannot afford to buy them or to train employees to

use them.

Improving Operations

Technological procedures for mitigating congestion and structural limitations are often expensive to implement, but may be cost-effective

when other options are unavailable. New traffic

management and control technologies could potentially improve traffic flows on congested roadways,

airways, and waterways on the order of 10 to 20

percent, although when new capacity is opened in a

congested corridor, it is usually fried quickly by

latent demand. Many of these options require

significant public investments, and in most cases,

users would also need to invest in new equipment,

raising issues related to ability to pay.

Roadway technologies that speed traffic flows,

inform motorists of congested areas, and detect and

respond to traffic incidents promptly are being

developed and tested. The backbone of all of these

systems is an efficient, traffic-responsive signal

control system, a basic technology that can offer

immediate congestion improvements. Advanced

traffic control signal systems are one of the few

highway technologies whose effectiveness depends

Primarily on actions by public agencies, and they

represent a vital first step in the development of

other Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systems. Invehicle guidance and communications systems will

be of limited benefit unless they are linked to the

public infrastructure. Federal assistance to local

jurisdictions for implementing these highway

technologies and ensuring coordination between

adjacent municipalities to provide smooth intercity and interstate traffic flow are top priorities.

Managing Demand—Additional reduction in

congestion can be attained in urban areas if technology is used in conjunction with full-cost pricing.

Longer term Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systems

developments, such as those that control vehicle

speed and direction as well as spacing between

vehicles, offer greater potential for faster travel and

reduced delays, but these technologies are at an early

stage of development, and any possible implementation is at least two to three decades away.

The top investment priorities for air are communications, navigation, and surveillance technologies

that can improve terminal ATC capabilities and

increase effective airport. capacity during inclement

weather, the time when most delays occur. Satellitebased systems will be essential for gains in international traffic. However, future gains in ATC capabilities are likely to outpace the ability of airports to

handle takeoffs and landings, and some form of

demand management is likely to be necessary.

At some congested inland waterway locks, trafffic

management and equipment for pulling unpowered

tows could increase capacity by over 20 percent.

Scheduling access to these facilities would allow

better planning by industry and could reduce operating costs. However, the initiative for such system

traffic management would best come from the

waterway users, since safety issues do not justify

precise Federal traffic control on the waterways.

Alternative Modes

Technologies leading to improvement in one

transportation mode can benefit the entire system by relieving congestion in other modes. For

example, employing high-speed rail in heavily

traveled automobile or air corridors, such as those in

the Northeast corridor and southern California,

could significantly reduce rail travel times and

attract passengers away from highways and airports.

Improving the attractiveness of bus transit by giving

urban buses priority at traffic signals and providing

dedicated lanes would similarly help alleviate road

traffic in crowded areas. Any gain in roadway

performance will likely enhance airport ground

access, since most air passengers and cargo depend

on road vehicles. See table 3-13 for a summary of the

likely effects of various surface transportation measures.

Alternative technologies, such as tiltrotor aircraft

or magnetically levitated trains, could play a role in

bypassing the parallel problems of limited airport

capacity and surface transportation congestion in

metropolitan areas. Developing and implementing

such radically new technologies will require billions

of dollars and is likely to require Federal support.

However, since these technologies would serve
134 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table 3-13-impacts of Surface Transportation Measures

Technology or measure Impact Governmental action required

Highways:

Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systems . . . . . .

Timely pavement and bridge construction,

maintenance, and rehabilitation .....,. .

Rail:

Timely right-of-way maintenance and

rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Automatic train control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

High-speed passenger rail . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mass transit:

Alternative fuels . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . .

Automatic vehicle location and passenger

information systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

Reduced congestion (10-20%) lnstallation of integrated, traffic-responsive

Improved safety (0-20% fewer accidents) signal control systems by local governLess driver frustration ments ($1 to $20 million/major city)

Federal investment in R&D ($10 to $100

million/year)

Reduced life-cycle cost (50%) Higher annual maintenance expenditures by

Increased life (50%) State and local governments

Reduced Iife-cycle cost (10%) None, private-sector financed

Increased productivity (higher speeds),

fewer accidents (50%)

Improved service and safety None, private-sector financed

Improved service (50-100% quicker travel Federal support for Amtrak capitalexpenses,

times than conventional rail) Federal support of right-of-way acquisition,

Shift some traffic from airports and highways construction, and possibly maglev R&D

Reduced emissions of NOx and particulates Increased fuel and equipment expenditures

(0-20% reduction in ambient air pollution if for municipal transit authorities

these fuels are used only on mass transit

vehicles)

Improved service, increased ridership (10%) Increased equipment expenditures for

leading to congestion relief municipal transit authorities

overlapping needs, choices may have to be made

between them and other technological options, and

total public costs projected for each system, issues

that will need further study. Moreover, Congress

will be involved in determining the appropriate

sources for funding and how the development

program should be managed.

High-speed intercity ground transportation,

urgently needed in congested regions such as the

Northeast corridor, can ill afford to await the

development of maglev or tiltrotor technology.

Proven steel-wheel technologies, such as tilt trains

and high-speed systems, are available now and can

play a key role in speeding passenger travel and

relieving congestion from other modes in crowded

urban corridors. Tiltrotor aircraft and maglev trains

show promise for even faster travel, but require

extensive development and are at least a decade

away from possible implementation.
Environmental

Management and

CHAPTER 4

Public Works

Technologies
Contents

Page . . Drinking Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Water Storage and Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Water Distribution, Consumption, and Pricing

. . . . . . .

● *.. .*, ..*. ,., ,.. ... .,. ... *o,*.*+** 139 . . Drinking Water Standards .., .,. ... .,. ,., .,. ... .,. .., .*. ,+ Q,**, *,m*. **$*, *****co 140

Technologies for Safe Drinking Water ● . ● . . . . , . . . . ● ● ● ● . . ● . . , . . , ● + ● ● ● ● . . ● , . ● . . ● , , , , 141

Technologies for the Distribution Network ... ,.. +,. ... ... ... . .,.+.,+,06,0+.,,.,,+ 145

Technologies for Small Systems .*. .,. ... *.. ... ... ... ,*e. *.. *.*, *+*a o,+**,***,* 147

Management and Operating Tools ... ,*. .*. ... ... ... ... *,*. .**. a,, ,m******o*. .a. 148

Wastewater Treatment ...4 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... *.. ... .*** ... + .** * a ** .. *o..++. * 150

Wastewater Treatment Regulation .., ... *.. ..*. .,, **,   ** ** c**o*** m**+ *o** .*+ 151

Wastewater Treatment Issues .., ..*. *,. .., ... ... ... ,.. *,. ... ... .+

. ..+, **,+,*,4+ 151

Wastewater Treatment Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Municipal Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...+..*..*.*.,.**..,,*..*,*,.* 158

Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

MSW Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Reduction Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Recycling ..*. ... ... *.. ... ... .*. ... .,. .. Q

., ,,. ..** *.. *o**, Q,

+

, ,*, ,*#, ,,. c4 ****e, 165

Hazardous Waste ..*. ... ..*. ... ... ... ... ... ... ..+

. ... ++** *.. .*. ..*+ ..+. .$* @ * *m *r*o 166

Technology Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Issues and Concerns ... ... ... .,. *.. ... .,. ... ... .,. ,,. ,,*+

, ao+**** e,, ,*, * **c,*,..* 168

Coping With an Anxious Public ?,, *.. *.*. ... ... .,, *.*, *c*+ *,, **** **o*, ,* *****o- 168

Small Systems ... .., *.. ... ,., .,. ... ... .,. ,.. ,,*+o, .,**, m*. Q*** *ee$*c*, ***am.+., 168

Financing and Management ... *.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..o

. .*** ... ..** ***. *c.+., 170

Conclusions .,, ... ... ... ,.. .,. ... ... +.. +.. O+,,,.,,.. . . . . . . .,, . . . . ., . . . . ..+,...,+ 175

Changes at EPA *.*. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .+ +

. ... ..** *.*. .*** .+. ... *.@+ + c.....+., 176

Standards and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

Protecting Public Works Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Boxes

Box Page

4-A. State Water Quality Programs and New Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

4-B. Alternative Process for Water Treatment .*** ***. *.. ,**$. .,. .., .*+, ,+, ,o*, ,, o*, 145

4-C. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and Distributed

Control Systems (DCS) o.. ... .*. .*. *,. .,*. ... ... ,., +*, $**. ,**. *.*. ++, *, **4.. 149

4-D. Sludge Handling Techniques ... ..*. *.. ... ... ... ..*. ... ..** .*, ,,*. ,,. ,.*. *. #+* 156

4-E, Circuit Riders: Helping America’s Rural Water Operators ..,..,.. +.., . . . . . . . . . . 169

Tables

Table Page

4-1. Major Federal EnvironmentaI Public Works Legislation ., ....,***.*........*,** 138

4-2. Community Water Systems in the United States . ....,...,.,*..**.*,.*+,*+,,*,** 139

4-3. Size, Number, and Capacity of POTWs in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

4-4. summary of Local Government Environmental Expenditures by Media . . . . . . . . . . 171

4-5. Average Annual Household Payments for Environmental Services for a

Sample of 8,032 Cities, Towns, and Townships ... .., ... ... .., 171

4-6. New Regulations That Will Impose Local Costs ... ... ,.. .., Q, + + * + * . . . +.,*+*.,* 172

4-7. Total National Cost Impact of Compliance With Office of Drinking

Water Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
CHAPTER 4

Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies

In the haste to get new Federal water and related environmental programs in place,

consultations and concurrence to ensure equitable and effective results have been neglected

if not ignored. 1

The Federal Government’s role in environmental

protection includes legislation, policies, and regulations to preserve the quality of the Nation’s air and

water supplies and to control the disposal of wastes.

State and local officials must implement these

Federal policies as they supervise, manage, operate,

and maintain the public works infrastructure that

supplies water, treats wastewater, and collects and

disposes of solid wastes.

Ensuring good water quality requires planning,

managing, and operating a wide range of public

works facilities including reservoirs, locks and

dams, flood control structures, and drinking water

and wastewater treatment plants. Equal care in

managing solid waste and hazardous waste disposal

facilities is also necessary because of the potential

movement of contaminants through groundwater or

overland flow. The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) has the Federal lead for environmental protection, setting standards for drinking

water quality and surface waters, establishing pollutant limits on the discharge of effluents from

municipal wastewater treatment plants and industrial point sources, and addressing issues of disposal

of municipal solid and hazardous waste. The

agency’s responsibilities are established by a set of

major environmental laws (see table 4-l).

Meeting EPA standards is not an easy task and

places substantial technical, management, and financial demands on States and communities often

ill-equipped to meet them. Technologies are essential tools for public works officials in carrying out

risk assessments and implementing environmental

protection measures. Maintenance, construction,

repair, and rehabilitation techniques can improve

performance and extend the service lives of existing

facilities, and innovative systems, demand management, and improved fiscal and operational methods

can reduce inefficiencies and foster more effective

operations. The gulf between the capabilities of

States and localities and their legal responsibilities

poses difficult dilemmas for policymakers.

This chapter provides a snapshot of the three

major environmental public works service areas:

drinking water supply, wastewater treatment, and

solid waste disposal. It examines related management and financing issues and technologies and the

ways Federal standards and programs affect the

State and local governments responsible for carrying

out the requirements and providing services.

Drinking Water

The drinkin g water supply system includes the

sources, facilities, and activities needed to transmit,

store, treat, and distribute water to residential,

commercial, industrial, and agricultural consumers.

Groundwater is the source of about one-half of

drinking water supplies by volume, with surface

water (rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs) providing the remainder. Many groundwater and some

surface water sources need very little treatment,

usually simple disinfection with chlorine. However,

some local water sources have been contaminated

and require filtration, aeration, or chemical treatment. For example, technologies to remove nitrates

contaminating aquifers must now be used in parts of

the Midwest after decades of agricultural fertilization.2 Federal and State Governments regulate and

oversee the local suppliers of drinking water to

ensure that it is free from biological and chemical

contaminants.

Water Storage and Supply

supplying drinking water has historically been a

local government service, provided by municipally

owned systems, investor-owned water utilities,

homeowner’s associations, and water wholesalers.

About 30 percent of all public water systems are

Istephen S. Li@t ~d JOhII R. WO&aSka, “Forging a New State-Federal ~ianCe in Water Management,” Natural Resources Journal, vol. 30,

summer 1990, p. 479.

zJ~es ~w~, Amtican waterwor~ Association Research Foundatio~ personal COmmti~tiO1.L DCZ. 15, 1989.

–137–
138 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table 4-l-Major Federal Environmental Public Works Legislation

1948

1956

1963

1965

1966

1967

1969

1970

1972

1974

1976

1977

1980

1984

1986

1987

1990

Water Pollution Control Act authorized the Federal Government to conduct research and

grant loans to States.

Water Pollution Control Act Amendments gave permanent Federal authority to become

involved in water pollution policy and make construction grants to States.

Clean Air Act asserted Federal interest in controlling air pollution.

Solid Waste Disposal Act established the Federal research and development program.

Water Quality Act authorized Federal water quality standards on interstate waters and

required States to set standards.

Clean Water Restoration Act increased Federal grant share to 50 percent of project costs and

increased grant funding.

Clean Air Act amendments authorized Federal standards and enforcement.

National Environmental Policy Act required impact statements on all major Federal actions.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) formed to administer numerous media

programs.

Clean Air Act Amendments expanded Federal regulatory authority and required States to

adopt implementation plans.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) set minimum wastewater treatment

standards and established construction grants.

Coastal Zone Management Act authorized Federal grants to States to develop coastal zone

management plans under Federal guidelines.

Marine Protection Act regulated the dumping of waste products into coastal waters.

Safe Drinking Water Act set standards for water quality.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) supported recycling and discouraged

landfills.

Toxic Substances Control Act authorized EPA to regulate the manufacture, sale, or use of

any chemical threatening the health of humans or the environment.

Clean Air Act Amendments strengthened EPA enforcement.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act established

Superfund for chemical dump site cleanup.

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (of the RCRA) targeted hazardous waste

management.

Safe Drinking Water Amendments strengthened Federal requirements.

Water Resources Development Act initiated user fees and cost sharing for water projects.

Clean Water Act Amendments required that wastewater construction grants be phased out

by 1991 and replaced until 1994 by capitalization grants to State Revolving Loan Funds.

Clean Air Act reauthorization with additional controls on autos, buses, and trucks.

Superfund extended through 1994.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

community water systems, providing service year

round to about 219 million people, primarily residential users. A few very large community water

systems (0.5 percent of the total) serve more than 43

percent of the population, while at the other end of

the scale are a huge number of small systems (see

table 4-2), which serve less than 2.7 percent. About

40 million people draw drinking water from private

wells, which are not subject to the Federal drinking

water standards and are not regularly tested for

contaminants. Noncommunity water systems provide intermittent service primarily to transient and

nonresidential users.

Siting and constructing new reservoirs is increasingly difficult because the number of available sites

is diminishing, new water supplies must be protected, and resistance for environmental reasons is

high. Furthermore, the costs of developing new

supplies and storage facilities rise as better sites are
Chapter 4-Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies ● 139

Table 4-2-Community Water Systems in the

United States

Number of people served Number of systems

25 to 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,425

501 to 3,300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,995

3,301 to 10,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,029

10,001 to 100,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,802

More than 100,001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency data, 1991.

preempted. 3 Thus, water utilities find it easier and

cheaper to protect raw water supplies than to develop

new supplies or treat water contaminated in storage.

Many have programs to control erosion and protect

reservoirs, watersheds, and well-heads so as to

reduce chemical and equipment requirements, efforts that require extensive monitoring and enforcement of waste discharges and surface runoff.4

Water Distribution, Consumption, and

Pricing

. . Drinking water distribution systems transport

water from the treatment plant to the customer. The

elevated storage tanks, ground storage reservoirs,

pumps and pumping stations, mains from 6 to 54

inches in diameter, pipes, valves, and connections

for distribution can account for up to 80 percent of

. . drinking water costs. Systems in poor repair lose

treated water through leakage, raising costs even

higher. An examination of eight systems ranging in

output capacity from 0.3 MGD (million gallons per

day) to about 75 MGD showed amounts of such

unaccounted-for water ranging from less than 1

percent up to 37 percent.5 Small systems generally

had a higher percentage of unaccounted-for water.

Average water usage is from 80 to 150 gallons per

capita per day in the United States, although actual

human consumption is between 1/2 to 1 gallon per

capita per day. The cost of drinking water is typically

$1.00 to $1.50 per 1,000 gallons; annual cost per

person ranges from about $30 to $80 annually. Wide

regional cost variations exist in the United States,

because water is not evenly distributed geographically. This uneven distribution creates difficulties in

matching supply with demand.6

Managing Supply and Demand

In localities where water shortages have prompted

mandatory reductions, water use is declining; shortterm conservation rules due to drought conditions

have also reduced usage. For example, Massachusetts’ plumbing code now requires new and replacement toilets to use not more than 1.6 gallons per

flush v. 3.5 gallons per standard flush.7 Mandatory

reduction rules have been enacted in some communities on Long Island, New York, and in California.

Greater attention is being paid to reservoir management and operation and optimizing multipurpose

water systems through regional compacts such as the

Washington Sanitary Sewer Commission.

Optimizing site-specific characteristics, such as

storage, flow, and quality, of surface and groundwater supplies, a process known as conjunctive use,8

can increase the amount of good quality water and

improve supply quality. Tacoma, Washington, has a

conjunctive use strategy by which it augments water

from its principal source, the Green River, during

periods when large amounts of suspended clay

materials create high turbidity, with high-quality

groundwater to reduce treatment requirements.9

Water utilities require large investments, partly

because high seasonal demands usually occur during

periods of low stream flows, necessitating large

storage facilities. Thus, water systems generally

operate at levels of output well below capacity,

creating an incentive for utilities to encourage

consumption, often through low prices for highvolume users. Although human consumption is a

small percentage of total water used, almost all water

must be treated to drinking quality standards.

3K~@D. Fr~~~& R~~~m~ for ~fi~, “Wa@rR~o~ce: s-,fi~ds, and policy N~s,” d,is~sion paper EN’R88-02, 1988, p. i.

AWade hfiller Assocktes, IXW., The Nation’s Public Workr: Water Supply (Washington ~: NationaI Council on public works @rOVern~t WY

1987), p. 53.

spa~~k Ce a~d J~~e A. B~~, cost l~act Of &@ D~’n~”ng wut&&t C@@unCe f& Conuna”sm”on4?egulated water UtilitieS, ~

report 89-6 (Columbus, OH: The National Regulatory Research Institute, January 1989), p. 19.

6Fre&ric~ op. cit., fOOtnOte q, P. ‘“

7Avemge household savings is estimated to be from 9,400 to 25,700 guons Wr y-.

Sues. ~y CoWs of _=rs, me Hy~lo@c -Xc~~r, E/e~nts Of Conjumtive Use Water Supply, Research D~

(wmto~ DC: March 1988), p. iv.

ent No. 27

mid.
140 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Drinking Water Standards

Regulating drinking water to protect public health

was historically a State and local responsibility.

During the late 19th century, the threat of cholera

and typhoid epidemics prompted many States and

localities to establish sanitary commissions, which

evolved into departments of public health, to supervise sewage treatment and monitor “ drinking water

purity. During the first half of this century, continued small-scale outbreaks of waterborne infectious

diseases motivated numerous States and local governments to adopt ordinances to control pollution

and protect “ drinking water supply from contamination. l0 However, growing concern in the 1960s and

early 1970s over the purity of the Nation’s drinking

water prompted passage of the Safe Drinking Water

Act (SDWA) of 197411 as an amendment to the

Public Health Service Act. The act and its amendments require EPA to set standards for drinking

water quality and for the protection of underground

sources; the States must enforce the standards. All

public water supply systems—whether publicly or

privately owned-are subject to the mandate.

Dissatisfied with EPA’s implementation of the

1974 act and faced with the threat of suits by

environmental advocates, Congress enacted the

SDWA Amendments of 198612 to simplify the EPA

regulatory process, stiffen the requirements, and

accelerate the schedule for EPA to establish and

implement new National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations. Congress specified 83 contaminants

for which EPA was required to promulgate regulations and identify the best available technology by

June 1989, and required that 25 contaminants be

added to the list every 3 years. To assure compliance,

EPA has imposed various requirements for monitoring water quality, maintainingg records, and issuing

reports. All public water systems are required by the

statute to test on a scheduled basis for all contaminants for which EPA has established standards. The

1986 amendments also authorized continued, but

relatively small, grants to States and localities, as

well as new Federal assistance intended to help

small systems monitor for unregulated contaminants

and install disinfection equipment.

The Water Quality Act Amendments of 1987

addressed such issues as nonpoint source pollution,

storm water discharges, the National Estuaries

Program, toxics control, and sewage sludge management. Other laws with provisions aimed at improving U.S. water quality include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; and the Toxic Substances Control Act.

If a State assumes primacy, or primary enforcement authority, for drinking water, it takes on

responsibility for ensuring that its localities meet the

requirements of the national laws and regulations,

and most States have done so. The 1986 SDWA

Amendments, while providing some flexibility to

the regulations, added to the States’ workload by

requiring additional review and analysis to ensure

compliance. Some States voice concern that they

cannot meet these requirements with their available

resources and personnel (see box 4-A) and must

consider abandoning primacy; they are apprehensive

about the responsibility, liability, and costs associated with failed systems.13

Recent Regulatory Changes

Water systems are currently trying to comply with

recent changes in drinking water regulations such as

testing for the additional contaminants listed in the

SDWA and seeking technology alternatives. Controlling the frost set of contaminants requires systems

to change their processes without knowledge of

future regulations or the identities of additional

contaminants. New regulations call for all surface

water supplies to be filtered, and EPA has combined

this requirement with disinfection regulations into

one set of standards for surface water. Systems that

do not filter must now do so, regardless of existing

water quality.

In addition, legislation also requires that new

disinfection standards be promulgated for water

supplies. One goal of the new standards is reducing

trihalomethanes (THM) and other byproducts of

chlorine disinfection. However, EPA faces a dilemma in setting standards: reducing the level of

loco~cil on Envi.ro~en~Q~i~, The 16th AnnuuZRepoti of the Council on Environmental Quality (Washington ~: U.S. @verWent hths

Office, 1985), p. 7.

Ilfiblic ~w 93-523, 88 s~to 16~.

@ublic Law 99-339, 100 Stat. 642.

lsJok Tr~, Natio~ Rural Water Association, personal co~ticatiou Apr. 17, 1990.
Chapter 4-Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies ● 141

chlorine is likely to increase biofilm growth in water

distribution systems, because less residual disinfectant will remain in treated water. This may well lead

to a new set of operating problems. How best to

regulate lead in drinking water is also problematic,

because lead has been widely used in service lines

and solder for household plumbing.

Coliform monitoring regulations have been

changed to determine simple presence or absence as

opposed to a density (parts per volume) measurement. These changes will increase the number of

samples needed by a utility to show compliance and

are likely to increase substantially the number of

utilities in violation because low levels of coliform,

which do not pose a public health risk,14 are likely

to be present.

Risk and Uncertainty in Standard Setting

Although an appendix to the EPA National

Interim Primary Drinkin g Water Regulations of

1976 mentions that “. . . priority should be given to

the selection of the purest source. . . ,“15 this

approach is not stressed in legislation or in EPA

regulations. EPA’s water quality standards are based

on maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) determined by animal studies. While monitoring equipment can measure some contaminants in parts per

trillion, standards determined by animal modeling

cannot project human toxicity to this accuracy.

Moreover, MCLs “. . . for one contaminant do not

recognize the additive or synergistic behavior of the

many contaminants that are present together in

wastewaters. 16 Scientists’ ability to develop new

chemicals and to measure their presence in the

environment in minute amounts far surpasses the

ability to understand and evaluate long-term human

health risks.

Removing a contaminant from drinkin g water to

meet an MCL standard is more costly than preventing its introduction in the first place. Complex and

specific EPA regulations for drinking water and

sewage treatment may conflict with regulations of

other Federal agencies, creating problems for operators and raising costs. For example, the process of

Photo credit: Dan Broun, OTA Staff

Americans count on being able to draw safe drinking water

from every household tap.

removing radionuclides from drinking water creates

radioactive sludge that is difficult to dispose of

because it is a radioactive waste. If engineers adjust

water disinfectants to reduce corrosion in distribution systems, the changes may reduce chlorine’s

effectiveness, yet adding more chlorine to achieve

the same disinfection level will increase the carcinogenic THMs.

Technologies for Safe Drinking Water

Most newer water treatment methods are specialized, expensive, and not designed for amass market,

making it difficult for localities to introduce new

technologies. 17 SDWA regulations are aimed at

THMs, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and

soluble organic compounds (SOCs), with more

contaminants to be added overtime. As standards for

each new contaminant are promulgated, new methods or new chemicals become important. ‘Although

the SDWA can be expected to stimulate the development of alternative treatment processes, at this time

Wldwmd &l&eick setior res~ch microbiologist DrMcing Water Research Divisioq U.S. ~vti~ntd PmtCCtiOn AgeMy, Pcorrmmnicatioq Sept. 10, 1990.

ISDafielA, ofi ‘Philosophy of the Safe Drinking WaterAct and Potable Reuse, “ EnvironmentalScience & Technology,vol. 14,N0. 1 l, November

1980, p. 1298.

IGDaniel A. oti, “Reuse: p~c~ or Me in the Sky,” Journal of the American Water Works Association, VO1. 77, No. 7, July 1985, p. 26.

ITSee for ex~ple, Wade Miller Associates, Inc., op. cit., fOO~Ote 4.
142 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Box 4-A—State Water Quality Programs and New Technologies

State public works officials and engineers play important and often pivotal roles in the difficult process of

ensuring the quality of a State’s drinking water systems and wastewater treatment plants. For example, in Ohio, the

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) has primacy in the approval process for new construction,

upgrades, improvements, and expansions of drinking water facilities 1 The system’s engineer or a consultant must

prepare project plans and submit them to OEPA’s office of “ Drinking Water for approval. OEPA engineers provide

initial advice and suggestions about project feasibility and acceptance through the State office or one of four regional

offices. Following initial acceptance, project designs can be completed and submitted for a more detailed review

for compliance with State construction and environmental standards.2

Ohio uses the “Ten State Standards,” which are guidelines for conventional treatment equipment and

procedures. Developed before many of today’s environmental regulations or more sophisticated treatment

technologies, these standards are considered veryconservative. Although Ohio is trying to move away from these

standards to encourage innovative technologies, the permit process favors familiar ‘ 4 technologies with a proven track

record. Moreover, public works operators often must back up innovative systems with conventional technology in

case the new process fails, resulting in costly redundant systems.4

The Office of Drinking“ Water is short of experienccd engineers, and current salaries are not sufficient to attract

or retain needed staff.5 Because the State currently has a 6- to 9-month backlog of project design approvals, State

engineers do not have time to examine thoroughly proposals that include new technologies, The State legislature

has considered increasing the staff and raising salaries in response to pressure from contractors and construction

companies that are losing money because of the delays.

Oklahoma has a more decentralized approach for environmental decisionmaking, 6 and five different State

agencies have authority in environmental permitting. Municipal drinking water or wastewater treatment plants

require approval from the State’s Department of Health, while permits affecting water and agriculture involve the

1Robcrt Stevenson, manager of operations, Toledo Water Treatment Plant, personal communication, “ Oct. 18, 1989.

Zkihley Bird, manager, E@nedng Sc!ctiq Di?Asion of Pubuc Drinkhg water, Ohio ~Protection Ag’uJey, parmnld

~CtiO~ &t. 20, 1989.

3WMIC MillurAssocia@, Inca The N&”on’s Public Worb: Report on W- Slqpfy @?d@tO& w:~add~

w-My 1987), p. 75.

onFilbiicwoEk8

‘$Whlt van Co% commissiow!x of WtltlX, ~kdo, ~, pcracd~tit 18, 1989.

5other Statm have the same pmbkml. Virginia and Perm$yivania report that W -**h-tto~--*

e@neer@ firms for young “ enpecn% they a% * the lack of ilwtitntional memory &e to II@ turnovar. Virginia aaempta to give young

w-~e~~a~ofhow aystcms operate inpractiwbymtatin gnewlyhircd agineemin the regkmal of5cc8for2 rnoatlu

before * begin reviewirlg plans, The rationale is that newly hired c@neera will be better able to judgo a new proce.w if they have 8eea some

of titcchnologios in the field.

6Jon Craig, chief for WastcwattzCo-am,~Dqartm@ of Heal@ pusonal~ Oct. 11, 1989.

there is no single technology that will remove all Current Basic Treatment

regulated contaminants. ’ ’18 The complexity of the

water treatment process, coupled with variations in

water supply characteristics, make the search for

major new technologies difficult. Moreover, new

treatment methods will bring new difficulties. For

example, research on treating surface water supplies

with granular activated carbon (GAC) found that

dioxins were formed in the carbon reactivation

process; after evaluation, an afterburner was installed to eliminate dioxin byproducts.l9

Natural waters contain dissolved inorganic and

organic substances, bacteria and plankton, and

suspended inorganic material. Customary treatment

methods to remove these substances include flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and chemical precipitation.20 Raw water is brought to a mixing tank

where chemicals are added; the water is then

transferred to a flocculation tank for additional

mixing. Particulate matter, chemical floe, and pre18Mann and Beecha, op. cit., footnote 5, p. 9.

l9Robert Clark et al., “Removing Organic Contaminants From Groundwater,’ Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 22, October 1988, pp.

1126-1130.

20"Water Treatmen," Standard Handbook of Environmental Engineering (New York ,NY: McGraw-Hill), pp. 5.76~5.123.
Chapter 4--Environmentai Public Works Management and Technologies . 143

State Department of Agriculture. Discharge permits for industry fall under the State Water Resources Board. If an

oil or petroleum facility needs a discharge permit, the State Corporation commission has jurisdiction, and the

Department of Mines has jurisdiction over mining activities. If an environmental issue is not clearly defined, it is

handled by the Pollution Control Coordination Boarb, made up of representatives from all these agencies plus

private citizens.

The State of Oklahoma does not have primacy in wastewater discharge permitting; thus permits are issued by

the U.S. EPA. The State submits National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit applications to the EPA

regional office in Dallas for review. Primacy can have an impact on technology choice, since a State review agency

is more likely than the ERA regional office to recommend technology appropriate to the location. Also, if a small

community system is in violation, or about to be, the State agency can act more quickly to assist or solve the

problem. 7 Although Oklahoma’s various agencies do not conduct evaluations of new or innovative systems, the

Department of Health has indicated interest in the use of more such technologies. The State’s Revolving Fund also

encourages their use, and a municipality will be placed higher on the funding priority list if its plans incorporate

innovative systems. The Water Resources Board sets standards in line with the Clean Water Act, providing some

incentive to develop new technologies.s

Virginia uses a two-part permitting process for drinking water facilities comprised of standard technologies.9

One permit is issued for construction and one for beginning operation of the completed facility. construction plans

for standard technology are submitted to one of the State’s six regional offices for review. Engineers in Virginia’s

regional offices perform the complete engineering review of the plans and then send them to the head office in

Richmond for approval. The two top administrative engineers of the Division of Water Supply and the

Comissioner of the Health Department must approve the plans. Like Ohio, Virginia has a large plan review

backlog, largely due to staffing shortages. Moreover, a more rigorous process is required for innovative

technologies. The manufacturer or supplier of a new technology must bond the product or system, discouraging

promoters of unproven equipment After bonding, the plans follow the same mute.

Pennsylvania has a special “Innovative Technologies” permit for new technologies,10 which requires a

12-month pilot test including source water checks to rneasure their effectiveness. Unlike the standard technology

permitting process, innovative technology permits require oversight approval from the Division of Water Supplies

in Harrisburg. This approval, however, is required only on the new technology portion of the plan. Although special

requirements, such as those in Virginia and Pennsylvania eliminate some risk associated with new technologies,

they tend to inhibit some systems from trying innovative technologies.

7

Ibid.

8James Barnet, director, OkWmM state Watu Ikoufm3 Boar& permnal -unicatkmi Oct. 12, 1989.

9All~ Ha3nln@, director, DivMonof water supply Bl@edng, virginia Departmc@ of Heah&pcmonalCommunicatim w 20,1989.

l~@ A, Marmeco, chief, Division of Watex Supplies, Pennsylvania Dc@rtm@ of ~Resource% pemonal

Communimtiom Oct. 20, 1989.

cipitates from suspension are then removed through

gravity in settlement tanks. Filtration removes

matter held in suspension by passing the water

through a porous medium. Disinfection, using chlorine, chlorine dioxide, ozone, or potassium permanganate, destroys pathogenic bacteria.

Chlorine has been the disinfectant of choice for

more than 70 years and is currently added to about

90 percent of U.S. potable water supplies.21 Chlorine

is readily available and inexpensive and its characteristics are well known; water treatment specialists

depend on it and rely on residual chlorine in the

storage and distribution system. U.S. consumers do

not object strongly to the levels applied; some

suggest the taste of chlorine is proof that the water

is properly treated.

However, the byproducts of chlorination include

potentially carcinogenic halogenated byproducts,

principally THMs.22 Reducing chlorine to achieve

the THM standard can lower the disinfection ability

21National Reswch COunC& “News Repo~” informational document October 1989, p. 14.

~Much is fi~en about tie THM byproducs of chlorinatio~ but they represent only about 10 percent of the chlorine byproducts. Factors ~wm

byproduct components include source water quality, seasonal factors, water treatment process selection and operations, and disinfection processes and

chemicals.
144 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

to the point that pathogenic bacteria are not killed,23

and may require the addition of other treatment steps

(See box 4-B).

Most European systems have well-protected storage facilities and short distribution systems, and rely

on oxidation and disinfection with ozone24 combined with biological treatment and postfiltration

GAC for water treatment. Large amounts of THMs

are not formed in treatment plants, since chlorine is

used sparingly and is carefully monitored, because

consumers do not want a chlorine taste in the

water.25 However, ozonation does have its own set

of byproducts, some of which are also chlorine

byproducts.26

Alternatives to Chlorine

Other processes, such as adsorption, aeration, ion

exchange, oxidation, and distillation, are being used

to remove dissolved substances. For each of these

operations, the quantity and concentration of chemicals added, speed of mixing, technique, and settlement times will have an impact on the final results.

The pH, turbidity, chemical composition of the

water, type of coagulant, and such physical factors

as water temperature and mixing conditions also

affect the results.

EPA has investigated technologies for removing

SOCs and VOCs from groundwater. Each technology must be tested under field conditions before

EPA will advocate its use. GAC adsorption, a

broad-spectrum technology for treatment of organic

contaminants, has been field tested, and tests on

packed tower aeration are still under way. Other

technologies being evaluated are powdered activated carbon, alone or in combination with other

processes such as ozone oxidation, reverse osmosis,

and ultraviolet treatment. Although many of these

processes are effective for removing SOCs, they

have high capital and/or operating costs.

Reverse osmosis (RO) takes advantage of the

phenomenon that solutions passed under pressure

through a semipermeable membrane will result in

solutions with lower concentrations of dissolved

substances.27 Membranes are very thin films capable

of selectively separating suspended or dissolved

solids from water depending on size and molecular

weight. They can be constructed from a number of

synthetic polymers, including cellulose acetate,

cellulose-based polymers, polyamides, and polysulfone. RO and electrodialysis are currently the

membrane processes with the most applicability for

drinking water treatment; in fact, RO has proven

successful in desalination plants. Ultraviolet light is

effective for disinfection when the water supply is

highly clarified and bacterial loads are moderate,

although it does not provide any residual disinfection.28 Ultrafiltration, an emerging technology, nanofiltration, and RO all rely on applied pressure to

drive water through the membrane. In electrodialysis, an electrical current separates the salts.

Membranes limit the amount of chemicals needed

for water purification, reduce the size of treatments,

and can reduce operations and maintenance costs.

New developments in membrane technology may

lower energy requirements (less feed pressure),

improve centaminant removal rates, and resist

permanent organic fouling. However, membrane

processes do require pretreatment, periodic cleaning, and disposal of filtration residue.

Work on innovative technologies must be carefully monitored to see whether performance meets

the design criteria. However, “. . . once treatment

units are installed, . . . there is generally little follow-up to see if designs are proper or are adequate

mechanically to stand up for a reasonable period of

time. ’ ’29 Without the followup evaluations much of

the value of the demonstration projects is lost.

~Studies have showq thou~ that precursor control through physicaI removal mechanisms ~Y be tie ~st waY to mhimize all chlorination

byproducts. See Alan A. Stevens et al., “Formation and Control of Non-Trihalomethane Disinfection By-Products,” Journal of the American Water

Works Association, vol. 81, No. 8, August 1989, pp. 54-60.

~zone is an oxidizing agent that controls bacteria in the water and destroys taste and odor compounds. It oxidizes iron and manganese, leaving

insoluble compounds that can be removed by fdtration. Ozone gas is a hazardous material, requiring special care in handling.

ZS~p Rice, presiden~ Rice ~tmmtio~ COmUI@ EI@tx~, persoti COmmuniMtiOW Dw. 13, 1989.

~$<Repofi on tie Wo&hop on By-Products of @XMMtiOIIt “ Water Research Quarterly, vol. 6, No. 4, July-September 1988, pp. 13-15; and ibid.

Z7~&~ N. Eisen~rg ad E. J~ ~ddlebroo~, R~erse ~msi~ Treat~nt of Dri~ing waler (Stortek, MA: ButW’’WOrth ~blishers, 1986).

mM~ ~d Beecher, op. cit., footnote 5, p. 8.

=J~es A. G@ch ~d S. B~a ~~~‘C-Wati Tr~tment Tec~ology for Gro~dwater Remediatio~” paper presented at the Thhd

National Outdoor Action Conference on Aquifer Restoration Groundwater Monitoring and Geophysical Methods, Orlando, FL, May 22-25, 1989.
Chapter 4-Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies ● 145

steps:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Dual Systems

Dual systems, which supply potable and nonpotable water through separate pipes, although not a new

concept,30 offer an alternative to the high cost of

treating all water to drinkin“ g water quality, particularly for new systems. Dual systems can be used for

systems of any size but are attractive for small

systems where high treatment costs must be met by

relatively few customers. Wastewater treatment

requirements produce a high-quality effluent that

may be too valuable to be discarded; 31 using

reclaimed wastewater for nonpotable purposes in

distribution systems can:

relieve the pressure on high-quality waters so

that these can serve larger populations;

cost less than developing additional highquality freshwater sources for nonpotable uses;

reduce the burden of pollution on the receiving

body of water; and

reduce the risk of utilizing water drawn from

polluted sources.

Although the installation of a dual system requires

additional capital expense for parallel pipe networks

and additional valves and connections, the construction excavation is performed only once, and the

system operating costs are lower. These systems

have proven economical; operating systems include

the Irvine Ranch Water District (California), Colorado Springs (Colorado), and St. Petersburg (Florida). The City of San Diego recently passed an

ordinance establishing a water reclamation master

plan and implementing strategy for the city. These

systems will become more economically attractive

as water source development and wastewater treatment become more costly due both to inflation and

environmental regulations. However, retrofitting

dual systems in mature water utilities may be too

costly an alternative, and some public works officials have voiced concerns about the potential health

risks of an inadvertent connection of potable and

nonpotable supply lines.32

Technologies for the Distribution Network

Although the SDWA requires that regulations be

met at the consumer’s tap, most compliance efforts

focus on water as it leaves the treatment plant.33

However, distribution systems are related to 20

percent of waterborne disease outbreaks.x If the

distribution system loses its integrity, treated water

can change in quality through chemical or biological

%e RomarI aqueduct supplied water that was used for nonpotable purposes. Drink@ water was drawn from other sources.

slDavid A. ()-unive~ity of North Carolinq “Feasibility of Dual or Multiple Water SUpply SyStemS,” unpubli- ~~~pg 1982.

s~c~d H. s~ivaq ex~utive director, American Public Worka ASSOCkttiOllj ptTSCMld C0mmUniWtiOr4 J@ 17, 1990.

Ssfiid.

~Ro~rt Clark et al., “Contamma “ nt Propagation in Distribution Systems,” Journal of Ennronmental Engineering, vol. 114, No. 4, August 1988,

PP. 929-941.
146 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Photo credit: American Consulting Engineers Council

Using sludge from wastewater treatment plants to

fertilize reforestation projects can be a oost-effective

disposal method.

transformations. 35 Untreated water may enter the

system through pipe breaks, and bacteria can be

introduced from a variety of sources, including

enclosed reservoirs to which chlorine is not added

and living organisms in mains that, when disturbed,

may release bacteria into the “drinking water.36

Leak detection and control are essential both for

ensuring against contamination and controlling cost.

Significant savings can be achieved through leak

detection and repair programs, even where water

treatment costs are low. Minor repairs can prevent

more serious problems and avoid the expense of

additional water damage. Metered systems and those

that have full information about their distribution

network are more likely to be able to locate and

repair problem sections. Leak detection surveys

utilize a number of techniques, including visual

observation, sonic technology, miniprobe sensors,

tracer gases, and infrared photography.37

However, many water companies lack even rudimentary data about distribution systems. Useful data

would include pipe information such as manufacturer, location, length, pressure, installation contractor, installation date, diameter, material, and placement method; and maintenance information such as

maintenance crew or contractor, location, problem

type, depth, corrective action, and local surface and

subsurface conditions.

Studies indicate that a few pipes in a network

account for most maintenance problems,38 and that

each repair shortens the time to the next repair. Pipe

breaks are caused by: 1) quality and age of pipe,

connectors, and other equipment; 2) the environment in which the pipe is laid, such as the

corrosiveness of the soil, frost and heaving, and

external loads; 3) quality of the workmanship used

in the laying of the pipe; and 4) service conditions,

such as pressure changes and water hammer. Additional research is needed to increase understanding

of these relationships and to guide future repair and

replacement efforts and design and placement activities.

Corrosive water can cause problems by increasing

the concentrations of the metal compounds from

pipe systems in the water. Lead, cadmium, and other

heavy metals are generally present in various

amounts in pipe solder material, and other contaminants such as copper, iron, and zinc can be leached

from distribution systems. Corrosion is such a costly

problem for pipes, valves, pumps, and reservoirs that

the higher initial expense of more corrosionresistant materials is often a sound investment. (See

chapter 5 for further details.)

Proposed rules for monitoring water quality

within the distribution system prescribe a minimum

number of samples based on the population served

35S&e_Water Co&ttee, Drinking Water and Health, VO1. 4 (WaShingtO~ DC: National Academy ~ss, 1982).

36RO&II M. CM et d., “Distribution System: Cost of Repair and Replacement” paper presented at the Conference on pipeline rnfrash’uc~e,

Pipeline Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Boston, MA, June 6-7, 1988.

37Stephen money et id., Preventing Waterbss in Water Dism-bution Systems: Money Saving Leak Detection Programs, Technicd Report N-86/OS

(Washington, DC: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, March 1986).

3gJ~es Goodrichet al., ‘‘Data Base Development and Analysis for Water Distribution Systems,” Hydraulics and Hy&ology in the Small Computer

Age-’Vol. 1, Proceedings of the Specialty Conference Sponsored by the Hydraulics Division of the hwrican Society of Civil Engineers, Lake Buena

Vis@ FL, Aug. 12-17, 1985.
Chapter 4-Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies . 147

by the system,39 and suggest that the number of sites

sampled be at least three times the number of the

required monthly samples. This represents at least an

order of magnitude increase over the number of sites

currently sampled.40 When the bacteriological samples exceed the standards, resampling at five additional sites within the immediate neighborhood is

required until the problems disappear or the source

of the problems is identified and corrected. The

proposed regulations do not provide procedures for

locating monitoring stations in a water distribution

system and assume that water customers will permit

the utility to take samples at the tap on request.

Technologies for Small Systems

Small systems serve only 8 percent of the

population, but they account for 93 percent of

maximum contaminant level violations and 94

percent of monitoring/reporting violations. Package

plants, self-contained units that are premanufactured

and shipped to a location, are one way to ensure that

a small system has an up-to-date treatment plant.

These plants have lower installation and operating

costs than conventional treatment plants, and offer

highly integrated and compact systems and a high

degree of automation.41 Package plants can be

economical up to 2 million gallons per day (MGD),

a size that accounts for about 90 percent of U.S.

water utilities.42 While package treatment plants can

meet SDWA standards,43 technology change has

been slow. Small systems have not yet been subjected to the same level of enforcement as larger

systems, and localities that are not in compliance

have not had to make changes to meet the regulations. Thus there is little demand for such systems

and little incentive for potential manufacturers.44

Where centralized treatment is not feasible or

cost-effective or where private wells are common,

point of use (POU) equipment can be installed at the

tap and provide whole-house or single-tap treatment.

The equipment is easy to install, treats only the water

used for consumption, simplifies operation and

maintenance, and generally has lower capital costs.

Point of entry (POE) devices include water

treatment equipment installed outside a home or

serving a group of homes or businesses and are

accepted by EPA for complying with drinking water

regulations. Their major use is in sparsely populated

areas.

45 

. POU devices must be used to remove

contaminants that are of concern with ingestion,

whereas POE devices should be used when skin

adsorption or inhalation of a specific contaminant is

of concern.

POU and POE systems are operator-intensive and

require regular maintenance, monitoring for contaminant breakthrough, and collection and disposal of

contaminated media.% They also pose a safety risk;

they provide untreated supplies that can be accidentally ingested. POU and POE treatment does not

alleviate the responsibility of a water utility to

provide safe drinking water to its customers.

Bottled water, while not anew technology, can be

an alternative source for drinkin g water in small

communities, although in most cases piped water is

less expensive47 Since human consumption amounts

to only about 1/2 to 1 gallon per day, treatment of

water to drinkin g quality may not be necessary at

some remote locations. Bottled water is regulated by

the Food and Drug Administration and meets EPA

SDWA regulations.

3952 Federal Regi$ta 42224; and 40~141 ~d 142 (Nov. 3, 1987), c’-w~e~ Natio~ _ Water Regulatio~ Totid Coliforms;

Proposed Rule.”

‘@Rolf A. Deininger and Byung H. Lee, School of Public Heal@ The University of Michig% “Monitoring Strategies for Water Distribution

Systems,” unpublished manuscrip~ n.d.

dlwade Miller Associates, Inc., op. Cit., footnote 4, p. 57.

d~c~d G. St=ie and RoWrt M. C~& ‘tCosts for Sti Sys@ms To M~t the Natio~ titerim Drinking Water Regulations,” Journal of the

American Water Works Association, vol. 74, No. 1, January 1982, pp. 13-17.

43Robert M. Ctik ~d J~m M. Mod, “pa-ep~~: A Cost Eff~tive Solution to Sti Water System ‘heatlnerlt Needs,” JOZU?UZZ Of the

American Water Works Association, vol. 73, No. 1, January 1981, p. 30.

44DOW chk, Culligan Water Systems, personal communicatio~ Feb. 5, ~w.

~Baj~ Ly~ et d., “POU/POE Devices: Availability, Performance, and Cost,” paper presented at the 1989 ASCE National Conference on

Environmental Er@e@ng , Aust@ ~ July 10-12, 1989.

46~R. Fox, C~Field fiPnence With po~t+f.use Tr~~~t Systems for Arsefic Remov@” Jour~l Of theAmen”Cm Water Works Assocz”atz”on,

vol. 81, No. 2, February 1989, pp. 94-101.

dTDa~el A. o-~ ~roceedings: Cooperation in Ur&n wafer~a~ge~nt (wagton,m:Natio@ Academy Press, 1983), p. 49.
148 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Management and Operating Tools

Technologies to improve the performance of

public water systems range from computerized

control systems to improved maintenance information systems. Gradually, operators of larger systems

are replacing much of their electrical and mechanical

control equipment with programmable logic systems that are more reliable and require fewer

operator hours.48

These systems, called supervisory control and

data acquisition systems (see box 4-C), monitor a

wide range of data and information on motors,

valves, meters, feeders, and sensors, for example,

and are oriented to plant operations such as those

seen in water treatment facilities.49 Detroit expects

to save at least 20 percent on energy and chemical

costs and to boost staff productivity with its new

control system.so The city also hopes to have better

control of the combined sewer system and effluent

quality and of supply to its suburban customers.

Maintenance for environmental public works is

often neglected and underfunded, leading to higher

costs when major repairs are necessary. “It can be

five times as expensive to replace sewer pipe after it

breaks than to repair it while it is still in one piece:

as much as $100 per foot compared to $14.”51

Technologies to improve maintenance performance

begin with information systems that tie together

information on the facilities and equipment and

repair and replacement activities so that managers

can have up-to-date information on equipment

inventory, current condition, and maintenance and

repair requirements. Such information systems enable managers to devise optimum maintenance strategies, perform life-cycle cost analyses, and avoid

losses due to maintenance failures.

Condition assessment is becoming a critical

function for operating systems as funds for capital

facilities diminish and the need to get the most from

existing equipment increases. For water supply and

wastewater treatment operations, it is especially

important because the majority of the investment is

underground and out-of-sight. In addition, using

inaccurate condition assessments to prepare bid

documents for repair projects results in change

orders, inefficient contracts, and lost productivity

with the contracting agency. (See chapter 5 for

discussion of nondestructive evaluation technologies).

The provision of drinking water involves heavy

capital expenditures, long lead times in planning and

construction, and high freed costs. Construction is

often undertaken well in advance of established

demand because of the need to take advantage of

economies of scale and the need for coordination of

other public services in an area. Recent experience

coupled with increasing costs for public service

provision underscore the lack of analytical models

available for predicting future demand. Very little

work has been done to develop models that integrate

public works information into demand modeling.52

Accurate consumption data are needed for preparing billing materials, developing cost-based rate

structures, controlling system losses, planning for

future demand, and estimating the need and costs for

future facilities. Portable hand-held data entry devices, borrowed from the inventory industry, provide savings by eliminating the printing of meter

reading cards and reading them into the billing

system. Automatic meter reading equipment based

on integrated circuitry and advanced telecommunications technology can provide additional cost

savings by totally automating this function. The

technology utilizes a device that collects information on utility usage, packages it into a data stream,

and sends it through a telephone, cable, radio, or

power line carrier to a computer for storage and

analysis. 53 Benefits include eliminating the extra

work and costs involved in “lock-outs,” estimates,

call backs, and premature cancellations; improving

customer service with more accurate and up-to-date

~David Mohler, McNamee, !kley, & porter, personal cxnmmmicatiom Mar. 2, 1990.

@Ameri~n Society of Civil EXlg-, Proceedings: Critical Water Zssues and Computer Applications, 15th Annual Water Resources Conference

(Nevv Yorlq NY: June 1988).

%avid Fisher, Detroit Water and Sewerage llepartm~ personal communication Jan. 19,1990.

51 Virginia K@ Do1l’k, “Systerna Link Geography and Da~” Engineering News Record, vol. 222, June 1, 1989, p. 30.

52Ro~~ M. ~~k et ~,, U.S. ~fima~ ~o~tion Ageq,“cost Mode~ for Sti Syst- T~hnologies: U.S. Experience, ” tmpublitid

manuseripg n.d.

ss~~d &.~mg=, CCTel~ete~~~ of ~~“ Procee&”ngs, First Imer~tio& co~erence on lnfias~cture Research, November 1.5-17,

1988 (Washington, DC: URISAj 1988), pp. 117-138.
Chapter 4--Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies . 149

Box 4-C—Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and

Distributed Control Systems (DCS)

SCADA systems were initially used by electric power companies to control remote equipment and facilities

and to diagnose system failure and monitor operating efficiency in large, geographically dispersed sites. A variant,

DCS, is used to control a small number of individual sites close to a central location and is oriented to plant

operations. Advances in computer technology have made these systems more affordable and user friendly enough

to enjoy wide application,l

and as system costs have dropped,many utility companies have begun to use these

systems.

Orlando, Florida’s system is designed to automatically monitor and control removal of effluent from the water

system. This system uses microprocessors, called master terminal units (MTUs) at each remote ‘‘pressure zone.”

At each master terminal is a cable-based local area network, similar to those used in many offices today. The MTU’s

are connected via UHF radio transmission to the central control station. In addition, remote control and data

acquisition devices are located at the individual elements of the SCADA system.2 An operator at a computer

terminal can communicate directly with the remote units to control pumps and valves. The effluent removal system

can be controlled locally, at the area control center, or remotely, at the central control center. For data acquisition

the central computer queries the MTU’s, and each MTU queries each local unit. Since the system is distributed rather

than centralized, it is easy to diagnose problems and expand system coverage.3

These systems make it possible to perform distribution systems analysis in real time and enable the operator

to optimize pumping operations and use of water storage facilities, and avoid process and permit violations. At

Oakland’s East Bay Municipal Utilities District, for example, a DCS monitors sewer system water levels at eight

remote locations, so that remote treatment facilities can be brought on-line before the main treatment plant is

overloaded. 4

1Herb Fiddick, Black & Veatch Engineers, personalcommunication Jan. 12,1990.

2Orelan R. Carden, Jr., 4 ‘Distributed Control Optimizes Wastewater Reuse,” InTech, October, 1988, p. 52.

3

Ibid.

4Michael J, Vandaveer, East Bay Municipal Utilities DiStrict, personal communication, 1990.

billing information; shortening read-to-bill turn- ple, the additional costs incurred for losses in service

around and enhancing cash flow; and reducing bad

debts. These automated systems can be shared by

other utilities, such as gas and electric, as well,

reducing expenses for installation and operation.

Associated issues involve telecommunications regulations, standardization, cooperation among the

utilities, compatibility, legal, and other institutional

considerations .54

Decision models can help in budgeting future

improvement projects by evaluating resource allocation and maintenance management information

within a capital budgeting framework.55 For examand repairs to aging pipes56 must be considered in

the decision process together with a host of other

more obvious costs. In addition, cost evaluations for

system improvements as well as modifications

needed to ensure compliance require more thorough

consideration in the decision process. Models are

needed to assist decisionmakers with these system

details.57

Since many of the issues and operations with

which local government and local utilities are

concerned relate to land or location, a geographic

information system (GIS) is a useful tool for

54Automatic meter reading configurations include: 1) telephone dial-inbound which uses an electronic meter interface unit (MIU) on the customer’S

premises through the telephone companies test equipment without ringing the customer’s telephone; 2) telephone dial-outbound in which the MIU dials

the utility’s computer and transmits the latest meter reading, usually at a preset time; 3) a cable TV-baaed system in which the utility communicates with

individual MIUs over the cable to obtain the meter reading; and 4) a radio system in which the MIU transmi ta to a utility receiver. About 50 percent

of the existing systems are telephone systems although these are restricted by court rulings related to AT&T; cable systems are a very small part of existing

and potential systems.

SS~~e fiefier, Lonnie Haefner Enterprises, hlC., ‘‘Impacts of Advanced Technology Innovation on Public Worka Mamgement and Decision

Making,” OTA contractor repo~ June 28, 1989, pp. 22-28.

fipadi A. Karaa et al., ‘‘Budgeting of Water Distribution Improvement Projects, “ Journal of Water Resources Planning andiUanagement, vol. 113,

No. 3, my 1987, pp. 378-391.

S’Ro&~M. Clmket ~., ~ ‘A Spaw Cos@ System forDrinking Water,’ ‘JournaZ of fheAmencan Water WorksAssociation, JmuMY 1982, PP. 18-26.
150 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

planning, management, and operations.58 A GIS can

assist utilities in collecting, storing, analyzing, and

disseminating data and information. A GIS also has

the ability to manage and display graphic map

images, to manage large volumes of nongraphic data

that are related to a geographic location, and to

perform various retrieval and analytical functions on

the combination of graphic and nongraphic data.

Public works agencies, departments of transportation, port authorities, and planning organizations

have recognized the value of these systems to store,

manage, and integrate several related databases.59

(See chapter 5 for discussion of geographic information systems.)

Wastewater Treatment

Wastewater is a significant component in the

water cycle because all treated (and some untreated)

wastewater flows into the Nation’s waterways.

Wastewater (sewage) treatment includes the facilities and activities needed to collect, transport, and

treat residential, commercial, and industrial wastewater, and, in the case of combined sewers, surface

runoff and groundwater. The Nation has more than

15,000 publicly owned treatment works (POTWs),

which can treat approximately 37 billion gallons per

day (see table 4-3). Commercial establishments and

about 160,000 industrial facilities also discharge

their wastes into collection systems served by

POTWs. About 39,000 industrial facilities discharge

effluent (most of it treated) directly into waterways.

POTW system components include collector sewers, interceptor sewers, combined sewers for wastewater and storm water, flow equalization facilities,

wastewater treatment plants, on-site systems and

septic tank systems.60 Collection systems range

from low-capacity sanitary sewers that transport

wastes from homes to higher capacity sewers that

transport industrial sewage and storm water to

wastewater treatment plants. Higher capacity sewers

consist of both interceptor sewers (that use gravity

for transport) and force mains (that use pumps to

transport to interceptor sewers at a higher elevation).

Table 4-3-Size, Number, and Capacity of POTWs

in the United States

Capacity

Actual flow range (MGD) Number (MGD)

0.01 -0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,960 251

0.11 - 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,003 2,671

1.01 - 10.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,893 9,372

10.01+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577 24,383

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,433 36,677

POTW Treatment Levels

Capacity

Level of treatment Number (MGD)

Less than secondary . . . . . . . . 2,122 5,529

Secondary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,403 15,714

More than secondary . . . . . . . 3,115 14,373

No discharge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,762 973

Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 88

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.448 36.677

KEY: MGD _ million gallons per day.

POTWs = publicly owned treatment works.

SOURCE: Apogee Research, Inc., from U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 1986Nee& Survey Report to Congress: Assessment

of Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Faclities in the United

States (Washington, DC: February 1987), p. 4.

Combined sewers transport both wastewater and

storm water to wastewater treatment facilities. Flow

equalization facilities are sometimes used to store

wastewater during storm events and discharge to the

wastewater treatment plant during low-flow periods.

At the wastewater treatment plant, pollutants are

removed and/or treated by screening, settling, biological treatment, and disinfection.

Primary treatment removes settleable solids. Prior

to the 1972 Clean Water Act this was the maximum

amount of treatment provided by most treatment

plants. Secondary treatment removes 85 percent of

oxygen-demanding materials and suspended solids

and destroys most bacteria by disinfection. All

municipal plants must now provide at least this level

of treatment. Advanced treatment using chemicals

and filtration can remove over 99 percent of

pollutants from wastewater. All processes except

disinfection produce a sludge that must be disposed

of by incineration, by application on the land, or by

burying it in landfills.

58Rebecca Somers, “GeographicInformation Systems in I-ocal Government: A Commentary,” Photogrammetn”c Engineenng and Remote Sensing,

vol. 53, No. 10, October 1987, pp. 1379-1382.

59’’bcational Referencing and Highway Segmentation in a Geographic Information System,” ZTE Journul, March 1990, pp. 27-31.

~About25 p~centof tie U.S. pop~tion is servtiby septic tank/soil absorption systems. James Kreissl, “Ake~tive SeweXX h the Utited Stites,”

paper presented at the 1985 International Symposium on Urban Hydrology, Hydraulic Infrastructures and Water Quality Control, University of

Kentuc@, hXi.UgtO~ KY, July 23-25, 1985.
Chapter 4-Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies ● 151

Photo credit:American Safety of Civil Engineers

Pretreatment and treatment programs are aimed at

ensuring that industries adequately treat wastewater

before discharging Into rivers, streams, and sewers.

Wastewater Treatment Regulation

Until 1972, responsibility for controlling water

pollution rested primarily with State and local

governments. With the passage of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500,

the Clean Water Act), Congress significantly increased the Federal role in water quality,6l 

and

increased Federal assistance for the construction of

wastewater treatment plants. EPA was made responsible for setting water quality standards, developing

water quality criteria, establishing technology-based

effluent limits, and developing a national system of

discharge permits.

The Clean Water Act replaced in-stream water

quality standards with limits on the pollution levels

of discharge from municipal treatment plants and

industrial point sources. EPA established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit system, which made Federal approval mandatory for every point source of wastewater discharge. To ensure permit approval, localities were required to use technologies for wastewater

treatment approved by EPA, even if a lower degree

of treatment would not reduce water quality.

Pretreatment and treatment programs are aimed at

ensuring that POTWs and industry adequately treat

wastewater before discharging it into rivers, streams,

and sewers. Pretreatment programs are designed to

prevent the passage of toxic substances into waterways. When pretreatment fails, toxic substances can

kill or inhibit the growth of bacteria that remove

pollutants in treatment processes, and interfere with

plant operations, contaminate sewage sludge, and

create safety and health hazards. Nonetheless, many

cities do not bring strong enforcement actions

against industries that violate pretreatment requirements. 62

More flexible regulatory strategies could reduce

treatment costs if they include trading between

point/nonpoint sources. Reducing pollutant loadings

through nonpoint source controls maybe considerably cheaper than increasing treatment standards at

the local sewage treatment plant. Even though $400

million was authorized for a nonpoint source program in the 1987 reauthorization of the Clean Water

Act, no money was appropriated, and EPA has been

slow to implement trading programs.

Wastewater Treatment Issues

Wastewater treatment requirements are being

stiffened, and new standards for toxic chemical

controls dictate that sludge treatment, handling, and

disposal receive more attention. Toxics emitted in

off-gases from treatment facilities have already

become a major air pollution problem in some U.S.

cities. The major issues facing POTWs are discussed

below.

Upgrading Existing Facilities

Many POTWs must upgrade facilities to meet

NPDES permit requirements that increase treatment

requirements, improve plant performance, and meet

increased demand from growing communities. Although routine maintenance becomes very costly as

systems age, the significant investment in existing

facilities and the high cost of replacement may make

Slfior le~s~tion ~cludes tie Rvem ~d wbors Act of 1899, the Water Pollution Control Aet of 1948 and several subsequent ~ws (see tible 4-1).

@U.S. General Accounting Office, Improved Monitoring and Enforcement Nee&d for Toxic Pollutants Entering Sewers, GAO/RCED-89-101

(w@@3@u DC: 1989).
152 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

repair and rehabilitation of the present system a

cost-effective choice.63

Infiltration of groundwater and the flow of rainwater and surface runoff into sanitary sewers increase the demand on treatment facilities and can, on

occasion, overload them. Flow surges caused by

infiltration or inflow can force the bacterial solids

used in the treatment process out of the plant,

reducing treatment efficiency for long periods.

Broken pipes, defective pipe joints, illegal connections of foundation drains, cross connections between storm sewers and sanitary sewers, and illegal

connections with domestic storm drain systems are

common reasons for flow surges.64 Many communities already treat as much as one-third more wastewater than necessary because of cracked or loosely

fitting sewer pipes.65 These problems can be solved

by a combination of sewer line repair/rehabilitation,

adding flow equalization facilities, and increasing

treatment plant capacity. However, plant operators

are often unable or ill-equipped to collect the data

needed to assess and correct these problems.

Combined Sewer Overflows

Combined sewers are conduits that transport

domestic and industrial wastewater during dry

weather conditions and storm water runoff during

wet weather. Combined sewer systems currently

serve 12,000 communities nationwide, but approximately 60 communities account for over 80 percent

of the total area served by combined sewers.66

When storm water runoff exceeds the capacity of

the treatment facility, the combined sewer overflow

(CSO) enters a receiving water without being

treated. Because these discharges are subject to the

Clean Water Act regulations, prohibiting discharges

with less than secondary treatment, storms create

potential for violations and enforcement actions for

many communities.

Managing the storm water flows to bring CSO

discharge points into compliance has evolved from

simple removal of runoff to comprehensive appreaches. b7 Control measures include nonstructural

methods, such as improved urban development and

resource planning, natural drainage, sewer ordinances and discharge permits, chemical use controls,

surface sanitation, and erosion and sedimentation

control. Structural controls, often the most feasible

alternative in heavily developed urban areas, include

onsite storage and infiltration facilities, overland

flow modification, and solids separation. Successful

and cost-effective storm water management strategies integrate several appropriate, feasible, and

economic components for control.68

Sludge Management

The addition of chemicals in coagulation, softening, and settling operations yields an unwanted

byproduct-sludge. The Nation’s POTWs produce

about 7.7 million metric tons of sludge annually and

production will probably double by the end of the

century, since higher level treatment of wastewater

will increase sludge production. Sludge management and disposal can consume from 30 to 6 0

percent of a wastewater treatment operations and

maintenance budget.69 Sludge-related problems include odor objections, incinerator ash disposal,

public acceptance of land disposal, and the potential

for high concentrations of toxics in sludge. Because

of the chemicals used in water treatment and the

solids that precipitate out in the treatment process,

the sludge can be classified as a hazardous waste.

When this occurs, the cost of sludge disposal can

exceed the capital and operating costs of treated

. . drinking water.70

mu.s. ~v~omen~ Prot=tion Agemcy, Center for Environmental Research Information, Handbook: Retrofim”ng POTWS, EpA/625/689/020

(Cincinnati, OH: Jtdy 1989), p. 1.

WU.S. Enviro~en~ protection Agency, (lfflce of Municipal Pollution Contro~ Infiltration and Inflow Analysis and prOJect Cetiificafion

(W-ton, DC: My 1985).

fiDisc~sio~ at the ~vfiomen~ pro~ction Ag~cy “Municipal Wastewater Treatment Technology Fo~”~Arbor, ~.J~e 6-*, 19*9.

66u.s. Env~~~n~ ~ot=tion Agenq, co~ined ~e~er @@o~ TOM”C po//~tant s@, EPA 440/1.84/304” (w&+hhlgtOIl,m: A@ 1984), pp.

5, 10.

GTJ. -~~, “Stonwater _gement Techno@y: Recent Developments and Experience,” NATO Urban WaterResources AdvancedResearch

Workshop, June 22-27,1989, Douglas, Isle of Man, presentation prepMts @russels: North American Treaty Org a.nization, 1989), p. 1%.

‘%bid., p. 209.

@Richard Kuchenrither, Black& Veatch Engineers, personal communication Feb. 13, 1990. As transport costs increase and treatment options

@ninis@ the percentage of total costs is likely to increase.

~$cwatti Tra~en~~$ op. cit., foo~ote 209p. 5-%-
Chapter 4-Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies ● 153

Photo credit:American Consulting Engineers Council

Sludge management, using new equipment (such as that

pictured here), and disposal can consume from 30 to 60

percent of a wastewater treatment operations and

maintenance budget.

Legislation in 1988 prohibited sludge disposal in

the ocean. Although EPA has little information on

sludge types, characteristics, quality, amounts, and

fate, its proposed rulemaking for disposal makes

conventional methods difficult to pursue. The new

rules imply support for beneficial use and land

application, 71 and will increase sludge reporting and

recordkeeping requirements for POTWS.

72 The regulations are risk-based and cover five different types

of sludge disposal: incineration, nonagricultural

land application, agricultural land application, distribution/marketing, and monofills/surface impoundments. A sludge survey of 200 POTWs will be

completed by EPA in mid-1990 and should prove

helpful in determiningg the nature and extent of

sludge management problems.

Air Toxics

Wastewater treatment is fast becoming an issue in

air quality debates. Air quality districts in California

have proposed regulating air contaminants from

POTWs by requiring additional monitoring and

analyses of air toxics, changes in wastewater treatment facilities, and changes in plant operation and

maintenance. The proposed regulations include

"

● * . newly regulated substances, some of which are

not detectable in wastewaters entering POTWS.”73

Control measures will involve pretreatment or

product substitution, air flow management, and the

use of best available technologies. Activated carbon

adsorption is a candidate technology, but little is

known about its use for removal of VOCs in the

wastewater treatment environment. No other methods have been demonstrated in research or commercial facilities for air toxic control.74 Attempts at

remediation of air toxics have brought severe

corrosion problems for POTW facilities.75 Furthermore, little is known about the limitations of existing

technologies for treating toxics in exhaust gases

from treatment facilities.

Nonpoint Sources

Treated wastewater often contaminates drinking

water sources less than nonpoint sources (NPS). The

five major contributors to NPS pollution are farms,

urban areas, construction sites, mines, and forests

where logging is conducted. Contaminants range

from sediments and pesticides to spilled solvents

and asbestos brake linings. Because NPS pollutants,

mostly heavy metals, sediment, and salinity, come

from thousands of diffuse sources, controlling them

will require monitoring and changing the daily

activities of individuals and businesses in every

watershed. Agricultural activities, such as tillage

practices and animal waste management, are the

greatest source of NPS pollution, accounting for

70 percent of the total nitrogen and phosphorus

deposited in surface waters.76 NPS pollutants are the

limiting factors in improving or maintaining water

quality for both surface water and groundwater. “If

Federal and state clean water regulations were

totally successful in eliminating pollution from

71ffS~dads for& Di~~ of Sewage Sludge,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Proposed Rule, Fea%alllegister, PP. 5746@~ @eb. 6

1989). A range of professional groups, including the Cooperative State Research Service Technical Committee W-170 in its Peer Review Report

published July 24, 1989, has raised questions about the scientilc and risk assessment methods and quality of data used by the Environmental protection

Agency to develop tbis proposal.

m~dus~pm~ea~ent pro- Cmfiprove sludgeq~tybtic~y and make sludge qualities for all but afew POTWs tihbleforbaefic~

use. Kuchenrither, op. cit., footnote 69.

73Kris P. Linds@o~ K.P. Lhdstrom, hc., and Farouk T. Isn@ State WaterR60urees Control Board, “The ~pact Of ~xic Air Q@.@ Re@tions

on California Publicly Owned Treatment Works: Fii Report for the State of Califorr@” October 1988, pp. 1, VI-1.

741bid., p. VI-5.

T~B@e Andersom ti=tor of technica services, Orange County Sanitation Districts, personal comunicatio~ J~e 6, 1989.

T6Lyse D. Hels@, “WaterTr~~ent: Solving tie Second Genemtionof Environmental problems,” Ch-”cal Week, vO1. 142, My M 198% P. 32.
154 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

(single sources like wastewater treatment plants that

convey their pollutants to the stream in a pipe) the

Arkansas River would be little changed from the

polluted river it is today.”77 Nationally, EPA reports

that 65 percent of all water pollution comes from

NPS sources. In Western States, with fewer people

and less industry, that figure is often closer to 90

percent, and nearly every river is affected.

Wastewater Treatment Technologies

A few systems rely on advanced instrumentation

(see box 4-C in section on drinking water) and

nondestructive evaluation techniques for locating

leaks and breaks, and assessing the condition of the

system, including plant, the pipes, and connectors.

However, most systems lack accurate information

on facility condition.

Pipe and Collection System Technologies

Underground construction, rehabilitation, and

pipe replacement using trenchless technologies

(equipment that makes it unnecessary to dig trenches

to remove or replace pipes) can be extremely

cost-effective. Direct savings come from reduced

trenching and shoring work and reduced surface

restoration requirements. In urban or developed

areas, delays due to construction and disruption to

buildings and surface plantings are very costly.

Indirect benefits include reduced road closures and

rerouting of traffic, and reduced destruction of

difficult to replace items such as trees, shrubs, and

gardens. A variety of trenchless technologies provide widely different benefits.78 (See chapter 5 for

additional information about trenchless technologies.)

Collection system technologies include sewer

separation, inlet controls, sewer pipe controls, and

severe flow control by overflow regulators. They can

also include real-time control of sewer flow and

pollutant routing by using peripheral monitoring and

telemetry stations and computer-based sewer and

pollutant flow prediction methods. Real-time control systems also permit operating the sewer system

remotely to release overflows of less polluted

batches of combined sewage at points where the

environmental impact is the least.79

Storage tanks or tunnels outside the sewer system,

but connected to it, permit stored combined sewage

to be drained during off-peak periods into the

wastewater treatment plant. Such facilities allow

modifying flow patterns, reducing overflows, and

some treatment of the stored volume by sedimentation. 80 They also serve as flood protection and

hazardous spill containment during dry weather.81

Corrosion can also be a serious problem for

concrete and other materials used in sewers, and

alternative pipe materials are being examined for

their durability and reliability. In sewers the corrosion is generally caused by acids, such as hydrogen

sulfide, or by industrial chemicals and solvents.

Using lined concrete pipes has prevented corrosion

in a number of systems, most notably in southern

California where communities that installed the

lined pipes have had few corrosion problems.

Neighboring systems that chose to use unlined

concrete pipes to save initial costs have suffered

excessive corrosion. (See chapter 5 for more information on materials and corrosion.)

Treatment Plant Technologies

Treatment plant technologies encompass pretreatment, physical processes, advanced treatment (physical, chemical, and biological), natural systems,

disinfection, treatment plant instrumentation, control, and operations. While new technologies can

bring real benefits, systems investing in new equipment or turning to new processes are likely to

encounter new maintenance problems.

Filters and membranes are increasingly important

in advanced wastewater treatment, particularly as

materials and manufacturing techniques bring production improvements and lower costs. An advanced wastewater treatment plant in Orange

County, California, reclaims treated municipal

wastewater for injection into an underground seawater barrier system. The process, which meets

77High Counq NWS, VO1. 21, No. 22, NOV. 20, 1989, p. 11.

7SD.T. Iseley, Departmmt of Civil Engineering, Louisiana Tech University, “Trenchlem Technology-Alternative Solutions to Complicated

Underground Utility Nelwork Problems,” seminar notes, Second Annual Alumni Appreciation Seminar, Rustom LA, NOV. 3, 1989.

7~id., p. 206.

mid., p. 207.

Slllichard Field, “Urban Stormwater Runoff Quality Management: Low Cost Structurally ~tensiveM~ s and Treatment,” Urban Runoff

Pollution, NATO ASI Series G: Ecological Sciences 10, H.C. lbrno et al. (eds.) (Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1990), pp. 677-699.
Chapter&Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies ● 155

current EPA drinking water standards, includes

reverse osmosis for removal of both organic and

inorganic compounds. (See discussion in water

treatment section of this chapter.)

Polymers (long, charged hydrocarbon chains)

mixed with ferric chloride electrochemically precipitate out suspended particles. Polymer technology

has proven successful for advanced primary treatment, because polymers can eliminate up to 85

percent of the suspended solids that remain after

secondary clarification. (A secondary treatment

plant that is operating properly removes about 85 to

93 percent of influent, suspended solids.)

Although EPA has recently emphasized removing

toxics within the plant and using filtration to reduce

toxicity, POTWs do not have the equipment or

monitoring devices to identify and measure toxics at

their facilities. Moreover, information about the

nature and amounts of toxics released into municipal

waste streams from industrial facilities rarely

reaches POTWs.

Sludge Disposal

EPA defines and regulates any residual with a

portion of sludge as sewage sludge.82 Sludge has

beneficial plant nutrients and soil conditioning

properties, and estimates suggest that nearly 40

percent of municipal sewage sludge is applied to

land in the United States. However, sludge contaminants, such as heavy metals, and organic carcinogens

and pathogens, must be reduced so that land

application does not create a potential health or

safety threat.83 A recent study of the technologies

available for sludge disposal listed five primary

options: 1) comporting, 2) heat drying, 3) land

application, 4) landfilling, and 5) incineration.84

(See box 4-D for more information.)

Technologies for Small Rural Systems

Many rural communities rely on individual, onsite

septic systems to treat wastewater. Although such

systems are often inexpensive and cost-effective,

age, lax maintenance, thin or poor soil, and a simple

lack of space have contributed to septic systems

failures or untreated sewage polluting groundwater

and entering ditches and streams. Problems are

widespread; 80 percent of counties surveyed in one

study reported system failure and potential contamination of groundwater and surface water.85 Moreover some States and counties are not enforcing

local sanitation and land-use codes, and in some

cases, the codes themselves have led to failures.86

Lower cost alternatives to conventional gravity

systems include pressure sewer systems, vacuum

sewer systems, and small diameter gravity sewers.

Pressure systems, which depend on pumps to move

wastes from the customer location to the pressure

main, are dependent on pump and grinder technology. Vacuum systems use a vacuum to draw wastes

into a collection main and then into a collection tank

before being pumped to a treatment facility. Small

diameter gravity sewers are connected to septic

tanks that collect dirt, grease, and solids and prevent

them from entering the main collection system. Each

of these systems has been used advantageously in

rural communities and has unique characteristics

that recommend its use under specific circumstances. Thus they demand more of the design

engineer than conventional systems. Moreover, even

with improvements in materials and design, each of

these systems requires regular maintenance and

access to on-lot facilities for maintenance and

emergency repairs.

Natural systems, aquatic plant systems, land

treatment, and wetlands can provide waste treatment

for the substantial range of hydraulic and pollutant

loading and temporal fluctuations that are characteristic of small systems.87 Aquiculture systems have

Sw.s. D~~m~t of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research Service Technical Committee W-170, “Peer Review+hdards for the DiSPO~ of

Sewage Sludge,” unpublished repo~ July 24, 1989.

E3u.s. ~v~omen~ Prot=tion Agmcy, Center for Environmental Research Information Control of Pathogens in MZUU”ci@ Watewater SZUdge,

Ek?4/625/10-89/006 (Cincinna@ OH: September 1989).

~B~ck & Veatc& hc. CChdtRWrt on A8smsmmt of Technologies,” prepared for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Feb. 27.1987.

EsS@dy by the ~~mp-AssWiation for the ~ois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, cited i.u paul ~cone, “Big Trouble

in Little Amencq” Civil Engineen”ng, vol. 59, No. 8, August 1989, pp. 57-59.

~~id., p. 58; ~d James Kreissl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, persomd Commmicatiou Jm 24, 1990.

ETu.s. mvfi~enM protection Agency, office of Research and Developmen~ Cater for Environmental Research wO-tiOU Desz”gn Manul:

Constructed Wetlands and Aquatic Plant Systems for Municipal Wastewater Treatment, EPAf625/1-88/022 (Cincinnati OH: September 1988).
156 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

been studied for several years, but have limitations, surface waters. In some systems treated water is

such as climatic effects, pest control, and anaerobic directed to underdrains or storage basins for future

conditions. 88 Rapid infiltration land treatment uses use in irrigation.89

specially constructed basins for draining partially

treated wastewater that seeps through the earth, joins Wetlands can effectively remove or convert large

the groundwater, and eventually emerges in adjacent quantities of pollutants, including organic matter,

88Kreissl, op. cit., footnote 86.

89U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Research Information, Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal

Wastewater--Supplement on Rapid Infiltration and Overland Flow, EPA 625/1-8 l-013a (Cincinnati OH: October 1984).
Chapter 4-Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies ● 157

Photo credit:American Consulting Engineers Council

Natural systems and wetlands can provide effective waste treatment for small systems or, as pictured here, drainage for stormwater

overflows for larger immunities.

suspended solids, metals, and excess nutrients from for long periods of time as natural wetlands have.

point sources and nonpoint sources. Natural filtra- Other disadvantages include the large land area

tion, sedimentation, and other processes help clear requirements for treatment, the lack of understandthe water of many pollutants. Some are physically or ing of important biological and hydrological process

chemically immobilized and remain still until dis- dynamics, and possible problems with pests.

turbed; decomposition breaks down other com- Operations and Maintenance Technologies pounds into simpler substances. Research into wetlands for treating discharges from mining operations

indicates the potential for successful treatment, with

some limitations, especially during cold weather

periods. 90 However, the mechanisms that modify

and/or immobilize pollutants, especially toxic substances, in wetlands are poorly understood. No

adequate design criteria have been established, and

wetlands systems operate more like experiments.9l

No long-term operating data exist to confirm that

manmade wetlands can continue to function reliably

EPA has developed an evaluation methodology

for determiningg specific causes of inadequate

POTW performance. The first step is a review and

analysis of a POTW’s design capabilities and

administrative, operational, and maintenance practices92 to determine if significant improvements in

treatment can be achieved without major capital

expenditures. Typical performance limiting factors

are inadequacies in staffing, understanding of process adjustments, and maintenance programs.93 The

 R. and Leslie S. “The Use of Wetlands for Treatment of Environmental Problems in Mining: Non-Coal Mining

Operations,” paper presented at the International Conference on Constructed Wetlands for Chattanooga TN, June 1988.

 for addition of an inexpensive 

treatment. Such falters are, however, subject to clogging. Jon Craig, chief for Construction Oklahoma State Department of 

personal June 1990.

 Protection Agency, Handbook: Improving Performance Using the Composite Correction Program Approach

(Cincinnati, OH: October 1984).
158 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

second step consists of implementing corrective

measures to achieve desired effluent quality, and

compliance with permit requirements. Environment

Canada has successfully demonstrated an operational process audit technique that uses a microcomputer-based, real-time monitoring system with extensive instrumentation to analyze operational improvements. 94 This technique could be used as part

of a correction program to obtain additional information.

Computerized control systems can be applied to

wastewater treatment facilities in much the same

manner as for “ drinking water treatment. (See discussion on operations and maintenance in water supply

section.) Such systems can take undercapacity

treatment units off-line and/or use them to equalize

flow; they can also equalize flows to use off-peak

electricity, recover waste heat, and monitor and

optimize chemical dose rates. Expert systems, a

branch of artificial intelligence, can be designed to

provide assistance to POTW personnel charged with

operating and maintaining complicated wastewater

treatment processes. Prototype systems have been

developed to diagnose problems associated with

activated sludge treatment plant operations. Since

studies have shown that treatment plants exhibit

more problems due to faulty operation than any other

cause, expert systems might prove useful in closing

the gap between design capability and operational

performance.

Planning and Management Tools

Reclaiming or reusing treated wastewater, primarily for nonpotable purposes, is not a new concept;

water shortages caused by droughts, the rising costs

of developing reliable water supplies, and modem

wastewater treatment technologies are making reuse

projects more economically attractive than ever.95

California alone had nearly 400 nonpotable reuse

projects by 1985;96 Florida lists 188 recovered water

reuse systems. Nonpotable uses include agricultural

irrigation, industrial processing, and toilet flushing.

To meet water quality requirements, reused water

must be adequately disinfected and a chlorine

residual must be present.97

Florida adopted a rule in 1988 that includes a

mandatory reuse of reclaimed water in critical water

supply problem areas.98 The State’s five water

management districts will designate critical areas

and will implement the program through their

permitting program for recovered water. The State

has developed comprehensive rules on water reuse,

particularly for irrigation in public access areas, of

residential property, and of edible crops. Specific

requirements have been set for preapplication treatment, reliability, operation control, buffer zones,

storage, cross-connection control, and other features. The driving force for water reuse in Florida has

been effluent disposal rather than water shortage due

to low stream flows. Applicants for surface water

discharge permits must demonstrate that reuse of

domestic reclaimed water is not economically or

technologically feasible for them.99

Municipal Solid Waste100

Man has long used open dumps and landfills to

dispose of solid waste, and early landfills were

considered a way to fill in or “reclaim” land areas

that were considered unusable otherwise.l0l By the

1970s, hydrogeological investigations showed that

in many locations, harmful liquids were leaching

through the soil into the groundwater supply, and the

search for alternatives for municipal solid waste

(MSW) disposal was on. Planning and constructing

new landfills began to require extensive subsurface

investigations to determine hydrogeological and

geotechnical conditions that affect contaminant

discharge from waste sites. However, landfill cri-

%ordon Speirs, “WastewaterTreatment Plant Recess AudiL” paper presented at the 1989 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Technology ForunL

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Am Arbor, MI, June 6-8, 1989.

~D@el A. C)- “Watm Reuse in Developing Countries,” paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Watti POUutiOn control FOdedO~

San Francisco, CA, Oct. 17,1989.

~h op. cit., footnote 16, p. 26.

mid.

wRecl_ wat~ is wat~ @t b.SS r~iv~ at least secondary treatment and is reused after flowing out of a wastewater -tient p~t.

~avid W. York and James Crook “Florida’s Reuse Rogram: Paving the Way,” paper presented at the 62d National Conference of the Water

Pollution Control Federation, San Fmncisco, CA, Oct. 17, 1989.

l%s ~tion is Mon U.S. CoWss, Office of Technology Assessmen~ Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Muw”cipal Solid Wrote,

O’IA-O-424 (wasbingtoq DC: Us. Governm d Printing ~lce, October 1989).

101w- L. ~je, “Rubbis&” The Atlantic Monthly, IkcdXr 1989, P. 103.
Chapter 4--Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies ● 159

teria promulgated in 1979 by EPA had little immediate effect on the practices at MSW sites, and almost

80 percent of MSW still ends up in landfills.

Disposal of MSW is primarily a local responsibility. However, new criteria, proposed in 1988 and

now under revision, would extend Federal control

over landfills and include regulations on location,

facility design, operating criteria, groundwater monitoring, financial assurances, and postclosure responsibilities. According to EPA, most MSW

landfills do not have equipment to monitor air,

surface water, or groundwater for pollutants. As of

November 1986, only about 35 percent monitored

groundwater, 15 percent monitored surface water,

7 percent monitored methane gas, and 3 percent

monitored other air emissions.

The majority of MSW landfills, 86 percent, are

publicly owned, and most are small, receiving less

than 30 tons per day. Privately owned landfills tend

to have more capacity; one representative of private

operators estimated that about 50 percent of total

landfill capacity may be privately owned,l02 Perhaps

because their larger size gives them economies of

scale and because of more stringent State regulations

promulgated in recent years, privately owned MSW

landfills are more likely to have leachate collection

systems, groundwater monitoring, and surface water

monitoring.

Issues

EPA predicts that about one-third of all existing

landfills will close by 1994, and that 80 percent of

currently operating landfills will close in the next 25

years.

l03 Many of these are old landfills that cannot

meet the requirements of the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act. Few new, technologically advanced landfills have opened, accelerating the decline in capacity.l04

However, raw data on landfill closings does not

provide a complete picture. While landfill capacity

in many States, such as New Jersey, Florida,

Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, is running low,

some States have expanded their landfill capacity.

Photoo credlt: Office of Technology Assessment 

About 80 percent of municipal solid waste is disposed of in

landfills, most of which do not have equipment to monitor

air, surface water, or groundwater for pollutants.

Pennsylvania, for example, closed 13 MSW landfills

in the last 2 years, but available capacity has actually

grown from 4.2 years to 5.5 years, because the State

permitted one very large, new facility to open and

allowed two others to expand.

Regulatory Concerns

EPA has issued guidance on pollution controls

considered to be “Best Available Control Technology." Although regulations regarding emissions

were issued in late 1989, those regarding ash will not

be issued until Congress clarifies whether or not ash

will be managed as hazardous waste. In the absence

of clear Federal guidance, several States have issued

their own emissions and ash management guidelines

and standards. A meeting of leading experts in

incinerator technology organized by the U.S. Conference of Mayors endorsed recycling and waste

reduction and found that technologies exist today to

control pollutants from incinerators to levels of risk

lo%. ~diville, prso~ communication, November 1988, as reported in Ofik.c of Technology ~Se88men6 Op. cit., footite IW.

losMost env~omm~y sound kn~ are designed with a lifespan of about 10 years. At my givm morneng o~hdfof theSC l~m*~ ~

in 5 years.

l~Howard ~venso~ senior associate, Office of Technology Assessmen4 perso~ co lllmldctltiO~ Dee. 7, 1989. In ll&i.itiO@ fin- new sites for

new landfills is a major problem particularly in Northeastern States.
160 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

below regulatory concern. 105 Mercury and chromium, however, remain vexing problems in emissions and in incinerator ash.

Recognizing the limitations of current knowledge, EPA is coordinating with industry, States, and

universities to develop a research and development

R&D) agenda. Study areas are likely to include

emerging commercial technologies, appropriate

MSW incinerator operating conditions and emissions control technology, ash management, landfill

design and operation, siting and monitoring methods, recycling techniques, and toxic products substitutes. l06

Institutional Concerns

About 10 percent of U.S. solid waste is recycled,

and most observers believe more MSW could be

recycled. The major roadblocks are not technologies, although some technical refinements could

provide measurable increases. EPA is promoting a

national recycling goal of 25 percent by the year

1992, although the goal does not appear to be based

on a quantitative evaluation of the market potential

of individual MSW components. Some components,

such as office paper and aluminum, are “supplylimited,” that is, they are not collected in sufficient

amounts or are too highly contaminated for current

manufacturing processes. Others, such as used oil

and newspapers, are “demand-limited,” because

markets for them are insufficient, even though

supplies may be available. These distinctions are not

constant and may change due to many factors.

Pricing is the other serious market consideration,

one made complex by fluctuations in markets for

recycled products. Increased public sector collection

of recycled materials provides a supply of materials

that is not sensitive to demand. Municipal collectors

can even afford to pay manufacturers to take

materials, if doing so is less expensive than disposal.

This means that private sector suppliers may have

difficulty marketing their recycled goods, which

would drive down profits and reduce the employment and tax revenue they generate. Municipalities

must thus consider their recycling policies and

programs carefully.

Although MSW is primarily a local responsibility, States have begun promoting incentives for

multicommunity facilities or for nonlandfill waste

disposal, and some States are providing financial

assistance to communities. Maryland’s Solid Waste

Facilities Loan Program provides loans to local

governments to improve environmental and human

health aspects of their solid waste programs. Since

1983, over $1.4 million has been obligated for loans

from State general obligation bonds.

Minnesota established the Solid Waste Processing Facilities Capital Assistance Program in 1980 to

assist counties in moving from landfills to recycling

and resource recovery for solid waste. Priority is

given to programs developed under joint powers

agreement between counties. Grants totaling $20.2

million have been awarded from the General Fund

since 1980. Minnesota also established the Waste

Management Board in 1980 as an independent

agency of the State. Its purpose is to provide

technical, financial, and planning assistance for

solid and hazardous waste management to communities and technical assistance to industry in recycling, resource recovery, and hazardous waste management. The Legislative Commission of Waste

Management provides oversight of the board’s

grantmaking and advocacy to facilitate waste management.

MSW Technologies

MSW technologies include landfill liner materials, collection and treatment of leachate, monitoring

and controlling landfill gas and other potential

contaminants, comporting and other processing

equipment, and techniques and equipment for better

subsurface analysis.l07

Landfill Liners

Liners are used at the bottom of a landfill to

prevent or reduce migration of leachate (liquids that

percolate through the landfill carrying contaminants) into groundwater beneath the site or away

loswat~ Scbub, U.S. Conf=nce of myors, personal communicatio~ Oct. 13, 1989. Regulatory concern relates to a one-in-a-tionchfi~ of a

person over a lifetime developing a health problem linked to an incinerator.

l~u.s. EnvhonrnenralProt@ionA gency, office of Solid Waste, The Solid WasteDi/emmu:An AgendaforAction (wmgto~ DC: Fe- 1989),

p. 31.

loTJef&ey Clunie and R.W. Beck& Associates, The Nation’s Public Works: Report on Solid Waste (waShingtOrL ~: National COunCil on ~blic

Works Improvement May 1987), p. 49.
Chapter 4-Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies ● 161

from it laterally. About 66 percent of U.S. landfills

use a soil liner such as clay. Many of these, however,

were not constructed using sound soil engineering

techniques (compacting and remolding). A soil or

clay liner can use compacted and uncompacted soil

to absorb the chemicals leached into them. However,

certain chemicals, xylene or carbon tetrachloride, for

example, dehydrate the soil, causing water to

migrate downward. The dehydrated soil may crack,

forming pathways for liquids to leach into deeper

soil.

Presently, only 1 percent of landfills use synthetic

membrane liners, and only 6 percent of planned

landfills will use them. Other less common liners

include paving asphalt, sprayed liners of liquid

rubber, and soil sealants. Synthetic membrane liners

are typically made of rubber, polyvinyl chloride, or

various polyethylene. Most synthetic liners are

virtually impermeable to water; their permeability to

other chemicals varies.108 Data suggest that the

toughest liner is made of high-density polyethylene,

though some experiments show it was easily permeated by trichloroethylene. The lack of definitive data

indicates that additional research is needed on the

frequency with which synthetic liners are actually

exposed to high concentrations of volatile organic

chemicals and on long-term performance of the

liners under these conditions.

The effectiveness of synthetic liners also depends

on how well the seams of the different liner segments

are joined together. The chemical compatibility of

liner materials is critical in determiningg bond

strength, and liner manufacturers’ recommendations

on compatible materials must be followed to assure

proper bonding. Composite liners, or engineered soil

overlain with a synthetic flexible membrane, combine the best qualities of both types by being nearly

impervious to most leachate while providing an

absorbent layer should the synthetic liner rupture.

Covers

During the useful life of a landfill, some type of

cover, usually about 6 inches of compacted earth, is

applied on a daily basis to control against mosquitoes and vermin, prevent odors and fires, and

discourage scavenging. Proposed EPA regulations

would require this.109 When a landfill is closed, it is

covered to reduce water infiltration. Unlike daily

cover, the final cover needs to be of an easily

compacted soil type and should be sloped to increase

runoff and reduce infiltration. EPA estimated that

almost all active and planned units have or will have

some type of earth cover of soil, sand, or clay, but

only about 2 percent have or will have a synthetic

membrane cover.

Although for the most part, MSW is placed below

ground level, the concept of confining waste above

ground was developed for hazardous waste. If a

sloped, above-ground storage mound is used, complete with liners and requisite drainage and gas

collection equipment, simple gravity will aid in a

more reliable leachate control system, and leaks can

be found more easily before they contaminate

groundwater.

Leachate Collection and Removal Systems

Leachate collection and removal involves placing

a series of perforated collection pipes in drainage

layers filled with sand or gravel, or above the liner,

to collect leachate. If the landfill is designed with a

slope, leachate will drain into a central collection

point. The collected leachate can be recirculated

back into the landfill, but in most cases it is trucked

to a municipal sewage treatment plant or sewer,

discharged to a treatment plant through a sewer, or

treated onsite with biological treatment processes.

However, only 11 percent of existing landfills use

leachate control systems, and available data do not

allow a determination of how much leachate is

collected.

Gas Production, Collection, and Use

Gas produced by decomposition in landfills is

primarily equal parts methane and carbon dioxide,

with a few trace organic chemicals. Landfill gas can

be allowed to escape into the atmosphere through

vents, or it can be “flared” or burned as it leaves

collection pipes. More expensive and complicated

pumping and collection systems are used only when

a landfill has been at least partially closed and a cap

losperm~bfi~ is one performance measure of a liner. One measure of the rate at which leachatepermeates a liner is in centimeters per second. A clay

liner is relatively permeable, allowing water to seep through it at 1 millionth to 10 millionths of a centimeter per second. Synthetic liners resist seepage

and pass water much more slowly—between 100 millionths and 10 trillionths of a centimeter per second. While clay liners are more porous, they do

have the ability to absorb and hold organic chemicals.

l~~ently, 45 Stites r~fie that cover be appli~ daily. The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed landfill regulations ~SO wotid ~h

the application of daily cover. 53 Federal Register 33314 (Aug. 30, 1988).
162 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

installed. Active pumping systems are the most

effective means for collecting landfill gas and can

recover from 60 to 90 percent of methane produced.

While over 1,500 MSW landfills use venting,

flaring, or collection and recovery of methane, only

123 landfills collect methane for energy recovery.

Wells are dug into landfills or adjacent soil, and

pipes are laid to collect the landfill gas. Contaminants, such as carbon dioxide, are removed, and the

methane is injected into natural gas systems pipelines and can fuel an internal-combustion engine or

gas turbine that generates electricity for general

use.

ll0 If all methane emissions were collected and

processed for energy recovery, the energy recovery

potential would amount to 5 percent of all natural

gas consumption or 1 percent of all energy demand

in the United States.

Enhancing Degradation Rates

Landfills for waste disposal are based on the

premise that what is buried will eventually decompose. Core samples taken recently from various

landfills indicate that all kinds of waste can remain

virtually intact even after 50 years; buried newspapers were used to verify the dates. Thus even

biodegradable wastes decompose much differently

and more slowly than expected.111 Appropriate

landfill design requires additional research on subjects such as the conditions under which different

components degrade, how rapidly they degrade,

whether degradable plastics would have much effect

on landfill capacity, and what environmental problems they might create.

The idea of recycling leachate to enhance degradation has been examined in the laboratory, and

several MSW landfills in the United States are using

this technology in some way. The potential benefits

of this system include reducing decomposition time

from 15 to 20 years to only a few years, increased

methane production, and reduced amounts of

leachate to dispose of or treat. However, current

EPA regulatory proposals would ban addition of any

liquid to landfills, and careful controls to prevent

offsite migration would be essential.

Incineration Technologies

Three basic types of incinerators are used today:

mass bum, refuse derived fuel, and modular. Mass

bum facilities are designed to bum unsorted MSW,

and require only a small amount of handling of

MSW. They generally have only one combustion

chamber, and they operate using more air than would

be needed to complete combustion if the fuel could

be uniformly burned. Some incorporate combustion

grates that vibrate, reciprocate, or pulsate to agitate

MSW for better combustion.

Refuse derived fuel (RDF) facilities process or

separate MSW mechanically before burning. The

separation can be done at curbside or at a central

processing center. The remaining waste is shredded

and sometimes mixed with other fuel, such as oil,

and injected into the combustion chamber. Waste

coming into these plants is sometimes compacted

under pressure for easier handling and burning.

Many mass burn and RDF facilities are designed to

recover energy, which can be used or sold; these are

known as waste-to-energy facilities.112

Modular facilities are small and often factory

fabricated for disposing of manufacturing-related

byproducts. A ram is used to advance MSW through

a two-combustion-chamber arrangement. The first

chamber has a ‘‘starved” or oxygen deprived

condition and the second chamber is oxygen rich to

promote burning of uncombusted gases. This type of

facility uses unsorted MSW, and its units are smaller

than those for mass bum facilities and thus better for

small communities. Disadvantages include incomplete burning and generally low efficiency for

energy recovery.

Every incinerator must shut down periodically for

maintenance. Mass bum incinerator manufacturers

claim 85 percent reliability. Early RDF facilities had

mechanical problems that caused frequent shutdowns, but recent changes in design have improved

their reliability considerably. Occasional combustion “upsets,” or temporary changes in combustion

quality caused by changes in MSW composition,

sometimes cause shutdowns. Air supply adjustments controlled by computer monitoring systems

llo~p R. o’kary et ~., “Managing Solid Waste,” Sa”entijic American, vol. 2S9, No. 6, Deeembex 1988, p, 42.

IIIW.L. Rathje et al., “Source Reduction and Landfill Mytbs,’ paper presented at NASSWMO National Solid Waste Forum unintegrated Municipal

Solid Waste Management Lake Buena Vistq PL, July 17-20, 1988.

ll~er~ ~WovcV facliti= ~= @ven a boost by tie ~bfic Utities Re@~ory policies Act of 1978, wti~ IW@XeS pOWCI companies tO buy

electricity generated from an incinerator at a price equal to what it would cost the company to generate the same power.
Chapter 4--Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies ● 163

can help avoid these problems. Although most new

facilities utilize computer monitoring technologies,

mass burn facilities remain

reliable than RDF units.

Several other incineration

current use generally in small

Fluidized bed combustion is

simpler and more

technologies are in

commercial settings.

a process in which

burning waste is entrained with very hot particles of

sand in an upward flow of turbulent air. Both

“bubbling,” where material stays at the bottom of

the furnace, and ‘circulating’ designs, where waste

is allowed to move upward and then returned to the

bed for further combustion, are utilized.

Pyrolysis is heating the MSW in the absence of

oxygen. It produces a solid residue, which must be

managed, and liquid tar and gas, which can be used

as fuels. Although pyrolysis plants are operated in

some European countries and Japan, U.S. experience

is limited.

Controlling Air Emissions

The major types of flue gas pollutants generated

by MSW incinerators are: carbon monoxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides (NOx), chlorinated

hydrocarbons (e.g., dioxins), acid gases (e.g., hydrogen chloride), and metals such as lead and mercury.

Problem emissions result from incomplete combustion and combustion temperatures that are either too

high or too low.

Three basic technologies are commonly used for

controlling incinerator emissions: 1) preseparation

of materials from MSW before combustion, 2)

destruction of harmful elements during combustion,

and 3) removal of pollutants from flue gases by

control equipment after combustion. The effectiveness of each of these approaches varies for each of

the different categories of air emissions. Preseparation effects are hard to measure. Removing a

hazardous material before it gets to the incinerator

will prevent it from creating a harmful emission, but

its ultimate disposal may be equally dangerous.

Limited data show that preseparation has little effect

on the production of dioxins/furans. However, at

some older facilities, presorting for certain materials, such as aluminum, iron, glass/grit, and auto

batteries, has reduced hydrocarbon emissions.

Metals in flue gas and ash can be reduced as much

as 25 percent by sorting out certain items such as car

batteries. Presorting can increase the combustion

temperature (because of a more uniform fuel), lower

ash content by about one-half, and decrease carbon

monoxide emissions by a factor of two to three.

Removing yard wastes from incinerator input can

significantly reduce NOX emissions.

Combustion management using computer controls can yield improvements by regulating heat and

MSW flow. Sensors monitor combustion temperature, output emissions, and adjust MSW flow to

promote complete burning.

Three combustion and postcombustion controls

are used to manage NOX emissions. Combustion

improvements can be achieved through better grate

and furnace design and flue gas recirculation.

Selective catalytic reduction, which involves injecting ammonia into flue gases to preclude formation of

NOX, can reduce emissions. A proprietary noncatalytic process, Thermal DeNOx,113 involves the

injection of ammonia into the upper furnace where

it reacts to produce nitrogen and water. Three U.S.

facilities are currently using this technology, and

reductions in NOX emissions have been as high as 45

percent.

Postcombustion gases are controlled by devices

called scrubbers. These devices fall into two categories and several types. The first category applies to

postboiler scrubbers and includes wet, or “quench,”

scrubbers; dry scrubbers; and spray dry scrubbers.

The second category includes dry injection scrubbers used in a preboiler location. In the mid-1980s,

because of increased concern for the impact of acid

gases on the environment, many new facilities were

constructed with acid gas scrubbers.114

Wet scrubbers add alkaline absorbents in the

boiler, which react with exhaust emissions to form

salts, which are then landfilled. Although capable of

removing most of the pollutants, wet scrubbers use

large amounts of water, which must be treated before

disposal. Dry scrubbers spray a solid alkaline

powder into the flue gas to react with exhaust

emissions. Because dry scrubbers use no water, they

avoid water pollution and some corrosion problems.

However, they do increase both the capital and

l13~s is a trade name.

lld~~e~d Row. Bec& & Associates, op. cit., footnote 107, p. 46.
164 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

operating costs of waste-to-energy facilities by as

much as $5 to $10 per ton.ll5

Other systems inject a solid dry absorbent directly

into the boiler or onto original MSW prior to the

production of flue gases; lower flue gas temperatures

to as low as 40 degrees C to condense acid gases,

organics, and volatile metals; or spray an atomized

slurry into the flue gases and collect the dry

particulates after the water in the slurry evaporates.

The majority of volatilized metals are caught in

scrubbers. Metals are condensed onto fly ash particles, which are then picked up by the scrubbers. Low

flue temperature has been found to be critical in this

process. For example, below 285 degrees F up to 99

percent of cadmium is removed, and a 53 percent

reduction of copper was achieved with flue temperatures of between 230 to 260 degrees F.

Precipitators and fabric containers called

“baghouses” are commonly used to control particulate emissions from incinerators. Electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), located in the exhaust area of the

facility, electronically charge particles and then pass

them between parallel plates of opposite charge,

drawing the particles to the plates. The plates are

unloaded periodically and the residue landfilled.

Multiple “fields” of plates can be used to increase

efficiency, and ESPs work best when plates are large

and gas flow is relatively slow. Efficiency has been

shown to be as high as 99.7 percent.

Fabric/bag filters are installed over incinerator

exhaust outlets to trap particulate matter in the flue

gases. The bags are designed to “cake up” with

particulate, adding to their efficiency. A combination of fabric filters and a scrubber has proven to be

the most effective at controlling emissions. The

scrubber reduces acid gases (which degrade the bag

filters), reduces “blinding” the bag filters by sticky

particles, and cools the exhaust gases.

Cooling flue gases before they reach pollution

controls will condense most dioxin and furans into

fly ash particles, which can then be controlled by

scrubbers. The combination of scrubbers and fabric

filters has been shown to remove 97 to 99 percent of

total dioxins in postcombustion flue gases, and most

new facilities have these controls.

Incinerator Ash

Incinerators produce both bottom ash and fly ash,

the light particles that are carried off the grate by

turbulence or that condense and form in the flue gas

in the boiler section. Each year the United States

generates 2.8 to 5.5 million tons of ash, or 25 to 35

percent by weight and 5 to 15 percent by volume of

the original MSW.

Over 50 percent of fly and bottom ash is estimated

to be disposed together with MSW in landfills,

where rainwater can leach out toxic chemicals from

the ash, including metallic compounds and acids.

The toxicity of incinerator ash can be predicted

through laboratory tests,ll6 and ash residues can be

treated chemically or thermally to decrease the

likelihood of leaching.

Untreated ash can be stabilized or solidified and

then used in road or artificial reef construction,

construction blocks, and landfill cover, for example.

Questions about the long-term effects of reused ash

hinder more extensive use, however.

Reduction Tech Techniques117

Waste reduction techniques focus on reducing the

amount and toxicity of materials before they become

waste, to lower the demand for capacity increases

and requirements for technologies. Fewer toxics in

MSW would reduce the amounts and types of

chemicals in landfills that create toxic air emissions

and toxic leachate. Packaging accounts for 30

percent of the weight of all solid waste, paper

products make up over 40 percent, and yard wastes

comprise another 20 percent, making all of them

candidates for waste reduction.

Toxicity Reduction

Toxics are found in many household products that

end up as MSW. In fact, household maintenance and

cleaning products are estimated to make up almost

one-half of the household hazardous waste discarded

from residences. Lead, cadmium, and mercury are

used as coatings-in light bulbs, in cables and

electrical products, and in batteries. Such items are

major contributors to the residues of these chemicals

in MSW. Identifying substances in MSW that pose

the greatest risks to humans and removing or

1lsIbid., p, 47.

~ls~ce of TCChOIO~ Assessment op. cit., footnote 100, P. 251.

l17~s ~tion is based on ibid,, ch. 4, “MSW Prevention. ”
Chapter 4-Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies ● 165

substantially reducing them from products that enter

the waste stream is an effective way to reduce

toxicity.

Many organic chemicals are used, often intentionally, in common consumer products. Examples

include formaldehyde in particle board, toluene in

inks, chlorobenzene in cleaners, and methylene

chloride in spray propellants. Industry has successfully reformulated a number of products to reduce or

eliminate hazardous components. The substitution

of chloroflourocaxbons (CFCs) with hydrocarbons

as a propellant in aerosol spray cans after a ban on

CFCs by EPA and the Food and Drug Administration in 1978 and the substitution of titanium and zinc

pigments for lead in exterior house paints are

examples. However, reformulating products is timeconsuming and costly; R&D leading to approval of

one new pesticide can take 10 to 15 years and cost

up to $10 million.

Studies have shown that consumers favor buying

products that pose fewer potential risks when

discarded and that providing information on the

toxicity content of a product will affect purchasing

decisions. Making such information available is one

way public officials can affect the amount of toxic

substances in the waste stream and reduce costs of

MSW disposal.

Recycling118

Recycling is another method of reducing waste

management costs, increasing landfill capacity, and

reducing incinerator emissions. MSW recycling is

carried out principally by private entrepreneurs in

the scrap industries, nonprofit groups, and scavengers. Municipalities, however, usually initiate

curbside collection programs, drop-off centers, and

buy-back centers. The preparation of collected

materials involves both manual and automated

methods and takes place at central facilities, commonly referred to as material recovery facilities.

The type of equipment used depends on the type

of MSW that is being handled: mixed waste,

commingled, or separated. Mixed waste facilities

separate recyclable from other waste that is then

landfilled or incinerated. In some areas, several

types of recyclable (e.g., glass, aluminum, and

paper) are collected together and later separated.

This commingled waste is easier to manage than

mixed waste, because items that could pose a hazard,

such as disposable razors or diapers are excluded.

However, a different collection system than for the

rest of MSW is needed, and the program depends on

public participation. Even items separated at

curbside need some preparation to meet the needs of

commercial buyers. Equipment may include scales,

conveyors, and balers, as well as other processes for

separating different types of materials that are

collected together.

Technical Difficu!ties in Recycling

Paper and paperboard waste represent 41 percent

of total MSW discard, and estimates indicate a 22 to

28 percent recovery rate. Some short-term opportunities exist to increase recycling paper and paperboard, but technical and capacity barriers may

preclude dramatic increases. Since most highquality waste paper is already collected, additional

supplies from new sources and de-inking of lesser

quality waste will be more costly. Contaminants in

recycled waste paper limit its use in making

newsprint, and consumer preference limits increased

use of recycled paperboard.

Glass recycling rates are in the neighborhood of

10 percent. Presently, because of chemical differences, certain types of glass, such as flat glass, safety

glass, pressed and blown glass, optical glass, and

industrial glass, cannot be manufactured with recycled waste glass (known as cullet). The largest use

of virgin materials, primarily silica sand, is for

containers, accounting for 68 percent of U.S. silica

sand production in 1986. While cullet is 100 percent

recyclable, color separation processes are not as

efficient and limit its use. Technologies have yet to

be developed to reprocess non-color-sorted glass.

Less than 200 million pounds of postconsumer

plastic discards (less than 1 percent of the amount in

MSW) were recycled in 1986. Plastics are resilient

materials not easily crushed; thus, plastic bottles

take up more space on a collection truck than other

MSW components, making household collection

difficult.

The large variety of plastics in MSW poses other

problems. Presently, only containers made from two

types of plastic (high-density polyethylene and

polyethylene tetraphalate) are being recycled in

substantial amounts, because these containers are

llsThi5 ~tion is based on ibid., ch. 5, “R=ycling.”
166 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

not degraded significantly by processing. The Food

and Drug Administration restricts the use of recycled

plastic in food packaging because of the risk of

contaminants migrating into the food.

Finally, the presence of contaminants and the

effects of natural degradation processes affect plastics recycling. Separating plastics from paper, metals, adhesives, pigments, and dirt is necessary but

difficult. While proven separation technologies are

commercially available, automated separation techniques (primarily based on differences in density) do

not work well for complex mixtures of products

containing many types of plastics. The performance

of recycled resins is not as good as that of virgin

materials, and since reprocessing accelerates the

degradation process, durability and dimensional

stability are reduced.

Hazardous Waste119

Public works officials must comply with EPA’s

hazardous waste regulations. The most effective

way to minimize the risks associated with hazardous

wastes would be to reduce the production of the

materials and the wastes. Once hazardous wastes are

generated, they must be managed by one of two

broad categories of technologies: 1) treatment by

one or more steps to reduce the hazard level of the

waste, or 2) disposal through containment or dispersal on land or in the oceans.120 Treatment technologies reduce the hazard level directly or facilitate

reduction in other steps by changing the physical or

chemical nature of the waste, by separating waste

constituents, or by reducing the concentration of

hazardous substances in the waste. The treatment

technologies include chemical, thermal, and biological treatments.

Containment technologies, such as landfills, surface impoundments, and underground injection

wells, hold waste in a manner that inhibits release of

hazardous components into the environment or

keeps releases to acceptable levels. With most

centainment options, releases are likely to occur at

some time. Some surface impoundments are designed, in fact, to transfer material to the ground.

Dispersal techniques, such as land treatment

(spreading waste on the land) or ocean dumping, rely

on naturally occurring processes to reduce the

hazard level of waste constituents, or to transport

them into and through the environment thereby

diluting concentration to acceptable levels, or both.

Some geographical locations are considered good

sites for land disposal facilities because their hydrogeological characteristics make releases unlikely

and because the probability that people or sensitive

elements of the environment would be exposed to

releases is extremely low.

The feasibility and appropriateness of a management technology for a specific waste depends on

many factors, including the characteristics of the

waste and the environmental features of the facility

site. Regulatory requirements and the goals and

economic calculations of waste generators and

handlers will also influence technology choices.

Waste type is an important determin ant in choosing treatment technology; for example, some wastes

are incompatible with a specific technology because

they would damage the equipment. Well-established

chemical and physical treatments are available for

wastes characterized as hazardous because of their

reactivity, corrosiveness, and ignitability. However,

the choices are not clear for a waste for which

toxicity is the major hazardous characteristic. Toxic

constituents may be organic, inorganic, or metallic,

and many technologies could be used. The major

issue is whether to use a treatment or containment

approach; treatment is preferable in most cases, if it

is technically feasible.

In general, the kinds of waste most suitable for

land-based containment are residuals from treatment

operations, pretreated or stabilized waste, untreatable waste, and relatively low-hazard waste. However, some untreatable wastes, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), are so highly toxic that land

disposal is unacceptable, and waste elimination is

the only feasible alternative.

Technology Alternatives

The goal for a hazardous waste treatment and

disposal technology is to reduce the probability of

release of hazardous constituents, but no technology

can eliminate this probability entirely, because

ll~s-on is based on severaI OTA pUt)li@iO%TeC?lno@ieS and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control, ~,

O’IA-M-197 (Washington DC: March 1983); Superfund Strategy, summary, O’_D4-ITE-253 (Washington DC: March 1985); and Serious Reduction of

Hazardous Waste, summary, OTA-ITE-318 (WsshingtoU DC: September 1986).

lm~ce of Tcc~olo~ As~s~en~ Technologies and Managentent Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control, OP. Cit., fOO~Ote 119, pp. 19-20.
Chapter 4-Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies ● 167

toxics in waste usually affect more than one medium. For example, high-temperature incinerators

destroy most of the toxins in waste, but some air

pollution may occur, and the incinerator ash must be

disposed of. Chemical treatment, such as dechlorination, detoxifies the waste itself, but may produce

some residue requiring additional treatment or

disposal. Treatment efficiencies, such as degree of

destruction, degree of containment, degree of stabilization, and reliability, also differ. Emerging thermal,

physical, and chemical treatment technologies offer

the potential for preventing emissions of hazardous

constituents, providing resource recovery, and reducing toxicity.121

EPA has emphasized cleanup for control of

hazardous substances.122 Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations emphasize

keeping landfill costs low by not requiring comprehensive, stringent monitoring at landfills, or retrofitting of existing, active landfills. The agency has

exempted from some of the new regulations portions

of existing landfills that do not yet contain wastes,

has limited postclosure monitoring requirements to

30 years, and has not required locating waste

management facilities so as to protect drinking water

sources. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund) is aimed at the cleanup of uncontrolled

hazardous waste sites abandoned by industry and

municipalities; in many cases there were no formal

mechanisms or funds to respond to the hazardous

spills and leaks at these sites.

Reducing Hazardous Wastes

Because many hazardous wastes cannot be destroyed by known pollution control methods, reducing the production of hazardous wastes brings higher

benefits to environmental protection and public

health. Source segregation or separation, widely

used in industry, is usually the easiest and cheapest

way to reduce wastes before they require management by communities as hazardous waste. The basic

principle is to keep waste in concentrated, isolated

forms rather than to produce large amounts of

indis criminate mixtures that must be separated later.

End-product substitution may bring long-term

benefits if the substitute product is adopted in many

industrial sectors and markets. Changing only one

product or application is likely to have a relatively

small effect on hazardous waste generation. Moreover, waste reduction is likely to be a secondary

benefit of such changes, since product performance

improvements are the main driving forces. However,

as hazardous waste management becomes more

expensive and costs are passed on to consumers,

public awareness of the amount of hazardous waste

in products may contribute more to end-product

substitutions.

Monitoring Strategies and Technologies

Monitoring is essential to environmental protection and public health to establish baseline data and

data for setting regulatory standards, verifying

compliance with regulations, helping identify R&D

priorities, and assessing contamination. Surveillance monitoring can verify compliance with regulatory requirements and provide limited data about

changes in environmental quality. Assessment monitoring helps determine the extent of deterioration in

environmental quality and provides data that indicate cause-effect relationships for specific hazards.

Sampling procedures, data comparability, and limitations in available analytical methodologies must

be developed for both types of monitoring. Difficult

choices are necessary about the location and number

of sampling sites and the frequency with which the

samples are taken.

Even though monitoring is essential to controlling

risks, RCRA regulations call for only limited

monitoring activities for incinerators and land disposal facilities. Such an approach can lead to delays

in detecting releases of harmful contaminants.

Treatment

Although industry and Federal officials are more

likely to use them than local public works officials,

several innovative technologies to deal with serious

hazardous waste sites are on the horizon. A new

process, known as in-situ radio frequency heating,

has been developed to decontaminate soil tainted

with volatile or semivolatile waste. This process

lzl~~ndispo~ app~ to be technically feasible, but adequate scientific hlfOrXIWI‘on is unavailable for deciding what the appropriate locations are

for specific wastes. Ibid., p. 20.

lzz~eReso~CoMmation~R~v~kt Of 1975 (R_) R@klteS ~management anddisposalof newly created industrial hazardous waate.

The Comprehensive EnvironrnentrdResponse, Compensatio~ and Liability Actof 1980 fmces the cleanup of waste spills andtheunccmtrolled disposal

sites of past industrial practices.
168 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

uses microwave technology to heat contaminated

soil from 200 to 1,000 degrees F, incinerating the

toxins. Up to 5,000 tons can rehandled at a time, and

preliminary tests show costs to be 60 percent less

than for other types of thermal incineration.123

An electrochemical oxidation process is being

developed and tested at the United Kingdom’s

Atomic Energy Authority. The technique converts

PCBs, pesticides, and other hazardous materials to

carbon dioxide and water through feeding a solution

or slurry of the chemical into an electrochemical

cell. The rapid oxidation in the chamber is achieved

at atmospheric pressure and with temperatures at or

below 100 degrees C. It may also be possible to

dispose of CFCs with this process.l24

Issues and Concerns

Public perceptions of environmental risks are

shaped almost entirely by the common understanding of health and environmental effects from past

management practices and failures. Risks and potential damages-the direct harmful effects of pollution

and contamination, as well as indirect effects, such

as losses in property values-are borne largely by

local communities. Although the public calls for

better management, citizens also frequently oppose

the siting of specific environmental public works

facilities, such as waste treatment plants.

Coping With an Anxious Public

Public works officials can build public confidence

and expand understanding of the risks involved by:

1) improving the quality of information dissemination to the public to better describe facility needs,

uses, characteristics, and risks; 2) using decision

processes based on sound technical criteria to ensure

that specific technologies and locations have been

chosen to reduce present and future risks as well as

to satisfy waste generator and management needs;

and 3) increasing efforts to promote demand

management, conservation, and alternatives such as

source reduction and recycling. Although both

technical and institutional approaches can be used to

address public concerns, a combination of nontechnical and institutional approaches, especially at the

State and local level, may be more effective. Siting

concerns can never be completely eliminated,

they may be resolvable through compromise.

Small Systems

but

Small systems are modest undertakings; a system

serving 5,000 persons is likely to have limited

budgets, yet must meet the same regulations as

larger systems with greater economic capability.

Small systems cannot benefit from economies of

scale as do larger systems; certain processes and

functions-for example, maintaining a chlorinator—in water treatment must be provided regardless

of the number of connections.125 Lacking sufficient

technical and financial resources, many small system operators have had to defer capital outlays, and

cannot meet the investment required for growth and

system upgrading. The amount of capital they can

access is limited and their financing costs are

relatively high. Finally, the sheer number of small

water systems, which are the most likely type of

public services to be private sector operations, and

what has been steady growth in that number,

complicate the task of State agencies charged with

regulating this industry. In many States, small

systems find it difficult to retain employees with the

skills necessary to deal effectively with new standards, with operating problems associated with decaying infrastructure, with expansion requirements,

with fair and equitable rate-setting practices, or with

some types of financing problems. (See box 4-E for

information about the circuit rider program to assist

small systems operations.)

State legislatures can adopt clear statutory authority for State regulatory agencies to deny appropriations and operating permits to new systems unless

they comply with minimum design, operating, and

construction standards and undergo financial, operational, and management evaluations.l26 Washington

State initiated the first nationally known program for

controlling potentially nonviable small systems.

Connecticut has authority to require proposed sys1

23’ ’Weston to Microwave ‘Ibxics,” Engineering News Record, vol. 222, No. 25, June 22, 1989, pp. 17-18.

l~Derrnot o’sullh~ “Electrolytic Oxidation Destroys Toxic Wmte.s, ” Chemkal and Engineenng News, vol. 67, No. 24, June 12, 1989, p. 27.

l~Robert M. Chk, “Pac~ge Plmts: A Cost-E.ff~tive Solution to Small Water Systems Treatment Needs,” Journal of theAnzerican Water works

Association, January 1981, pp. 24-30.

lZGJoti J. Botid and Daniel Serrs, The Johns Hopkins university, “Improving the Management of Community Water Systems: Survey and

Recommendations,” prepared for the Maryland Department of State Pkmning, February 1988.
Chapter 4-Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies ● 169

Box 4-E--Circuit Riders: Helping America’s Rural Water Operators

More than 55,000 water treatment systems in the United States serve populations under 10,000 persons. Small

communities often cannot afford an experienced highly trained, full-time public works engineer. To assist such

systems, most of them rural, nearly every State has a visiting engineer who can provide advice, trouble-shoot

problems, and ensure proper operation and compliance with Federal and State regulations. These engineers, or

circuit riders, as they are called traditionally provided technical support in emergencies; however, now they also

provide financial and management guidance, technical training, and technology transfer.

In 1980, the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) began funding a comprehensive national program for

circuit riders,l expanding an existing program of 16 circuit riders in 22 to 24 States. By 1989 there were circuit riders

working in all the contiguous 48 States. Most States have one circuit rider, five States, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma,

Louisiana and Mississippi have two. Some small States, especially in the Northeast, share circuit riders. FmHA

provided $2.8 million in fiscal year 1989 to the National Rural Water Association (NRWA) which, in turn, has

agreements with its State affiliates to provide the State circuit riders. The appropriation for fiscal year 1991 is $3.25

million. A State circuit rider office is not large, usually consisting of the circuit rider, a program manager, and a

secretary. In some cases, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and State environmental agency money helps

supplement State office costs.

FmHA regulations require at least 35 half-day site visits per month, and a typical circuit rider will spend around

20 days per month on the road. Newer circuit riders may make as many as 70 visits a month to meet as many

operators as possible and demonstrate their utility to those unfamiliar with the service. The program is attractive

for young engineers, and experienced circuit riders are actively recruited by larger urban systems that can provide

higher salaries.2

The services provided by circuit riders are free, and any small water system serving under 10,000 persons can

request a visit, although priority is given to water systems with outstanding FmHA loans. Assistance can be

requested by calling the State NRWA office or through the State environmental agency. Circuit riders are on call

24 hours every day, and the hard work and long hours cause high turnover.

South Dakota has an active rural water program that supported a State circuit rider before the NRWA’S

program.

3 The State’s Rural Water Office is staffed by six full-time employees, including a program manager and

a circuit rider, paid by NRWA. The South Dakota Rural Water As

group insurance, and extra training

sociation (SDRWA) supports staff for lobbying,

services for managers, operators, and clerical workers. Technical training

courses in subjects such as electricity and chemistry frequently are contracted to area vocational/technical schools

and paid for through State membership dues, and SDRWA also provides onsite technical training.

In the last several years, South Dakota has constructed many new, technically complex, regional water systems,

which provide piped water to towns, homesteads, and farms in up to seven counties. Because many of the State’s

system operators are still uncertified, SDRWA is working with the State environmental agency to improve the skills

of these rural operators so that they can be certified

lTheFarmers Home Administration is a credit source for eligible rural communitiesfor various kindsof projects, including water supply

and wastewater treatment, which together account for about 50 percent of loans and 55 percent of grants. Congress appropriated $440 million

for water and wastewater projects in fiscal year 1989.

2Larry Bowman, project officer, Farmers Home Administration, personal communication, Sept. 28, 1989.

3Denis Davis, executive director, Rural Water Association, South Dakota, personal communication,Oct. 2, 1989.

terns to interconnect with an existing system, if tion of a small system. However, small systems have

feasible. 127 successfully blocked consolidation efforts,l28 and

States can also support regionalization, consoli- EPA has the legal authority to exempt small systems

dation, and satellite systems, in which a large system from the SDWA provisions, if the exemption does

agrees to assume ownership, management, or opera- not pose an unreasonable health risk. The program

127U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ensuring the Viability of New, Small Drinking Water Systems: A Study of State Systems, EPA Report

570/9-89-004 (Washington, DC: April 1989).

128Suffolk County, Long Island, NY residents believed that improved water service would generate unwanted development and blocked efforts to

consolidate their system with others. Cirola, op. cit., footnote 44.
170 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

has never been an active one and EPA is currently

preparing a new set of procedures for it.129

Small systems also need information about lowcost, simple wastewater treatment technology.

While alternative systems for application in small

communities are available,130 they are not widely

used. Conventional collection systems often represent more than 80 percent of the capital cost for the

wastewater system in small and rural communities131 and are rarely cost-effective.132 Communities

find that available funds are quickly consumed for

operations and maintenance expenses, and some are

considering deliberate noncompliance because they

are unable to meet the requirements of their discharge permits.

.

Financing and Management

Consumer demands and stricter Federal and State

regulations have raised costs of environmental

public works dramatically, and the upward trend is

expected to continue through the 1990s. In addition

to mounting outlays for new construction and major

upgrading, costs for operations and maintenance,

administration, and monitoring are climbing rapidly.

In 1987, EPA and State and local governments spent

$40 billion for environmental protection, and EPA

estimates that just to maintain standards current in

1987 will cost $56 billion per year by 2000. The

amount climbs to $61 billion, if costs for selected

new regulations described later in this chapter are

included.133 However, a high degree of uncertainty

surrounds these cost estimates; if costs were calculated for all prospective regulations, the price would

be significantly higher.

The burden of these rising costs will fall predominantly on local governments, In 2000, local government outlays for sewers, “ drinking water, and waste

management are expected to total almost $54

billion, or 87 percent of all governmental spending

for these services, up from almost $33 billion or 82

percent in 1987 (see table 4-4). The State sharemainly for administrative and technical assistancewill remain steady at 5 percent, while the Federal

portion is anticipated to decrease from 13 to 8

percent, primarily because of the phase-out of EPA’s

wastewater treatment facility grants.

Capital Costs

By 2000, local governments will have to raise an

estimated $19 billion per year in new capital—

mainly through bond issues—for waste and drinking

water and solid waste projects.134 However, costs

can double once projects are designed and the

backlogs of deferred maintenance are taken into

account. The need for expensive capital improvements will put particularly heavy pressure on small,

low-income communities that have limited resources and poor access to capital markets, and on

older cities already burdened with large debt and

where competition for revenues is acute.

Operating and Maintenance Costs

More sophisticated and energy- and chemicalintensive treatment processes required by new governmental regulations will add substantially to local

operating and maintenance costs. Expenses are

expected to climb steadily from $23 billion in 1987

to $35 billion in 2000.135 To cover these increased

operating costs, many utilities will have to raise rates

substantially. Ironically, one result will be that

issuance of new debt for capital outlays will be

somewhat more difficult. In addition, the careful and

frequent system monitoring required by new regulations will add to local costs, especially if the utility

is unequipped to do complex chemical testing

in-house, or if private laboratories are not easily

accessible.

Iz%avid Schuare, U.S. 13twironmtmtal Protection Agency, personal Communication Apr. 27, 1990.

l~or e-les,see the following pamphlets fkom the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Wwging TwMoIof@s: Altive Wastmabr

Collection Systems,” December 1983; “OverlandFlow: An Update,” October 1984; “Less Costly WastewaterTreatment for Your Tbm” September

1983; and “Land Treatment: Rapid rnf’iitratio~” June 1984.

131u.s. 13nvironmmM Protection Agency. “Emerging Technologies: Alternative Wastewater collection Systems,” Op. CiL footnoti 130.

IQ*ss~, op. cit., footnote 60.

13SU.S. ~v~oma~~t=tion A~ncy, Atitrationand Resources Managemen~A PreZiminqAnalysis of the PubZic Costs ofEnw”ronmentaZ

Protection: 1981-2000 (Waabingto~ DC!: 1990), p. ii.

l%bid., p. 15.

ls%id., p. 54
Chapter 4-Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies . 171

Table 4-4-Summary of Local Government Environmental Expenditures by Media

(In billions of 1988 dollars)

Percent

Percent Percent increase

Program 1987 of total 2000a

of total 1987-2000

Water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $11.4 35.O% $21.1 39.3% 85%

Drinking water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.8 45.4 22.2 41.4 50

Solid waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.7 9.7 18.0 59

Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.9 0.7 1.3 133

Total local spending . . . . . . . . . . . 32.6 100.0 53.7 100.0 65

a Gst of rn~rltalnlng 1987 levels of environmental quality plUS costs Of n@V regulation%

b in~~es costs to deiiver Setices.

SOURCE: Apogee Research from U.S. Bureau of the Census and data prepared in 1988 by the Environmental Law

institute from Environmentai Protection Agency Regulatory impact Analyses.

Table 4-5-Average Annual Household Payments for Environmental Services for a Sample of

8,032 Cities, Towns, and Townships (in 1988 dollars)

Additional payments to Additional payments to Total estimated

maintain current Ievels of comply with new environ- household payments

Average payments environmental quality mental and service for environmental

City size ,

.

in 1987 in 2000 standards in 2000 protection in 2000

500 or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $670 $593 $317 $1,580

501 -2,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473 223 67 763

2,501 - 10,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433 143 29 605

10,001 - 50,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444 197 24 665

50,001- 100,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 142 24 539

100,001 - 250,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 111 34 436

250,001 - 500,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 126 68 529

500,001 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 140 93 626

Population weighted average . . . 419 180 48 647

SOURCE: Apogee Research, inc., from data cornpiied by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, and 1986 Survey of Community Water Systems, mnducted by the

Research Triangie institute for the Environmentai Protection Agency, Office of Drinking Water, Oct. 23, 1987.

Impacts on Households

Although some communities will continue to

subsidize environmental public works, the major

financial impact of regulatory compliance will fall

on individual households through higher rates. If

current trends continue through 2000, the average

household will spend about $650 a year on chinking

water, wastewater treatment, and solid waste management, or 54 percent more than in 1987136 (see

table 4-5). However, rates and increases will vary

substantially from community to community. For

example, Boston is anticipating a tripling of sewer

and water rates to finance the mandated cleanup of

Boston Harbor. In Cedar Park, Texas, a recently

developed suburb of Austin, rates are now relatively

high, but are not expected to increase much because

capital requirements are low, and no expenditures

are anticipated for compliance with new regulations.

In recently built communities, rate increases tend to

be lower, because facilities are newer and more

efficient.

Across the board, system size is the major

determinant of rate increases (see table 4-5 again).

Utility charges in very small systems are anticipated

to increase about 135 percent compared to 50

percent in mid-size cities and 60 percent in large

jurisdictions. Small system costs are high because

they lack economies of scale and technical and

management expertise and usually pay more for

credit.

Wastewater Issues

In 1988 EPA estimated that $84 billion in capital

investment would be needed to bring all municipal

wastewater treatment facilities into compliance with

the Clean Water Act standards.137 These estimates

are probably low, because many of the regulations

are not in final form. In addition to construction and

upgrading facilities to comply with secondary treat1361bid., p. 29.

1371bid., p. 3.
172 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table 4-S-New Regulations That Will Impose Local Costs

Regulation Status

A. Drinking water

Inorganic compounds (IOCs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Soluble organic compounds (SOCs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fluorides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lead and copper corrosion control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lead and copper maximum containment Ievel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Coliform monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Surface water treatment rule: filtered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Surface water treatment rule: unfiltered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Radionuclides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Disinfections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B. Wastewater treatment

Secondary treatment of municipal wastewater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pretreatment requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sewage sludge disposal-technical regulations for use and disposal. . . . .

Storm water management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C. Solid waste disposal

Municipal landfill Subtitle D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Municipal waste combusters-air standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Municipal waste combusters-ash disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D. Miscellaneous regulations

Underground storage tanks-technical standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Underground storage tanks-f inancial standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Asbestos in schools rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Title iii requirements . . .

in development

in development

Promulgated

Promulgated

Proposed

Proposed

Proposed

Proposed

Proposed

in development

in development

Promulgated

Promulgated

In development

In development

Proposed

in development

in development

Promulgated

In development

Promulgated

Promulgated

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Administration and Resources Management, A Pre/hnk)ary

Ana/ysk of the Pub//c Cods of Entironmentd Prot~tjon: 1981-2000 (Washington, DC: 1990), p. 44.

ment requirements, communities are mandated to

solve other problems such as combined sewer

overflow (CSO). (See wastewater treatment section

of this chapter for details.) Elimination of CSOs in

large cities like Boston and Chicago will cost

billions of dollars. Costs are likely to be proportionally large for mid-size jurisdictions. Nashville, for

example, anticipates spending $633 million on

construction of deep tunnels and storage tanks in the

city’s downtown to hold CSOs and to expand

treatment capacity.138 Prospective governmental

regulations on sludge disposal, toxics, nonpoint

source pollution, and wetland protection may impose additional costs.

Federal grants have played a key role in financing

wastewater treatment facilities. During the early

1980s, Federal construction grants, averaging $4

billion a year, supplied roughly one-half of all

investment in wastewater facilities;139 municipal

bonds, general fund revenues, and States provided

the rest. Beginning in 1989, construction grants were

replaced by grants capitalizing State Revolving

Loan Funds (SRFs). Authorization for the program,

which was designed as a transitional effort to

establish self-sufficient State loan programs, expires

in 1994. While all 50 States and Puerto Rico have

established SRFs and each has received at least one

capitalization grant, SRFs will fall far short of

meeting local investment needs. Even if capitalization grants are leveraged, at least 20 States face

combined financing needs of nearly $57 billion.l40

Drinking Water Issues

Detailed costs of compliance with the SDWA are

just beginning to be calculated, because final rules

are in place for only a handful of regulations. At a

minimum, local governments will have to absorb an

anticipated 50 percent increase in annual outlays for

water. The majority of costs will be imposed by

efforts to comply with EPA regulations for filtering

surface water, controlling contaminants, providing

lsg’’Nashvfile Plan Hits $633 Milliou” Engineering News, Aug. 9, W90, p. 11.

Is~vimmm~ protection Agency, op. cit., footnote 133, p. 19.

l%id., p. 19.
Chapter 4-Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies . 173

Table 4-7—Total National Cost Impact of Compliance With Office of Drinking Water Regulations

(In millions of 1986 dollars)

Number of Annualized Average annual Total annual

systems Capital Annual capital and monitoring compliance

Rule affected cost O&M cost O&M cost cost cost

Final:

Fluoride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385 $ 32.5 $ 3.0 $ 6.8

Volatile organic compounds . . . . . 1,824 164.4

$ 0.2 $ 7.0

13.4 32.7 23.1 55.8

Surface water treatment . . . . . . . . 10,288 2,938.5 166.4 511.6 17.1 528.6

Total coliforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,183 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.2 75.2

Proposed:

Phase II soluble organic

compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,284 288.4 11.5 45.4 32.2 77.5

Phase II inorganic compounds . . 192 79.6 6.6 15.9 6.0 21.9

Lead and copper:

Maximum contaminant

level rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947 333.7 35.4 74.6 0.9 75.5

Corrosion byproducts . . . . . . . . 42,980 599.0 157.3 227.6 32.0 259.7

Prospective: a

Radionuclides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,867 3,771.1 347.4 790.3 2.6 792.9

Disinfection requirement . . . . . . . 103,354 1,352.0 316.0 474.8 12.8 487.7

Phase V sulfates . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,089 214.0 33.2 77.0 6.2 83.2

Arsenic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 59.0 5.1 23.5 23.5

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,832.2 1,095.3 2,280.2 208.3: 2,488.5

KEY: O&M = operations and maintenance.

%andated by the U.S. Environmental Protective Agency; has not yet developed proposed regulations.

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protective Agency, Office of Drinking Water, Estimates of the Tota/Bemtits and Tota/CostsAssoaated Wth /n@ernentatiofl

ot the 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act(Washington, DC: Nov. 27, 1989), p. 12.

adequate supply and storage capacity, and replacing

corroded and leaking distribution systems (see table

4-6).

The impact of EPA “ drinking water standards will

vary among systems depending on what rules apply

(see table 4-7). Nationally, regulating radionuclides

has the highest price tag-about $793 million

annually-because of high capital costs and the

relatively large number of systems affected. However, the per-system cost of meeting surface water

treatment regulations (SWTR) will be greater, because fewer systems are out of compliance now.

SWTR, controlling total coliforms and meeting

disinfection requirements, comprises 40 percent of

all local compliance costs, because the problems are

pervasive and costly to address. Expected rules for

well-head protection and regulating disinfection

byproducts are likely to add significantly to compliance costs.

System size is also important in determining

compliance costs, since large systems benefit from

economies of scale. Over one-half of total capital

requirements are attributed to small systems serving

less than 10,000 persons, and within that group

one-half of the costs fall on systems serving fewer

than 3,300 persons.141 In Pennsylvania, 90 percent

of drinkin g water violations occur in small systems. 142

Solid Waste Management Issues

The cost of solid waste collection and construction and operation of landfills and incinerators is

expected to rise to about 60 percent from approximately $6 billion per year in 1987 to $10 billion in

2000 and will account for 18 percent of environmental spending (see table 4-4 again). Existing

landfills are rapidly reaching capacity, and bitter

siting disputes are forcing new facilities further out

and increasing per-unit disposal costs. While wasteto-energy plants and incinerators are preferred by

local governments, they are more expensive to build

and operate and also face siting problems. Rules for

controlling gas pollutants and ash from incinerators,

under development by EPA, are likely to increase

costs.

IAIu.s. Envko~ent~ ~otmtion Agency, Mice of Drink@ Water, Estimates of the Total Benefits and Total Costs Associated With Zmplernentation

of the 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (Washington DC: 1989), p. 19.

IAWommOnw~~ of Pennsylvania, Dep~ent of Environmental Resources, Division of Water Supplies, Community Waler Supply: ZSSWS ad

Policy Options (Harrisburg, PA: February 1990), p. 6.
174 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Financing and Management Strategies

The impact of sharply rising operating and capital

costs can be reduced by increasing revenues and

more cost-effective management. Historically, municipal sewer and water services and, to a lesser

extent, waste disposal have been underpriced. The

difference between the rates users pay and full costs,

including maintenance, depreciation, and capital

improvement reserves, has been subsidized by

General Fund revenues and intergovernmental aid,

in the case of wastewater treatment. Loca1 officials

have been reluctant to raise rates, fearing a political

backlash from consumers who think of environmental public works as rights, rather than as capital

intensive services. Through the years, underpricing,

coupled with rising costs, has led utilities to cut

investment in system maintenance and improvement, a major cause of the deteriorated condition of

many municipal systems. A rational methodology

for rate-setting would seek to cover marginal or

incremental costs rather than average costs, which

can lead to excessive demand and inflated estimates

of future needs.

Full-Cost Pricing

In response to tightening local budgets, some

communities are raising sewer, water, and trash

collection charges to cover full costs and adopting

new rate structures. Rate structure options include

raising seasonal or peak rates when demand is high,

and block rates that charge a higher or lower per-unit

rate for each additional block, depending on the local

policy objectives to conserve or use excess capacity.

Encouragement to raise rates is coming from many

sources, from environmentalists to private and

governmental creditors, who insist on full-cost

pricing to ensure debt repayment. Independent

sewer and water authorities, removed from political

pressure and with mandates to be fiscally selfsufficient, are in a better position than local elected

officials to carry out rate reforms.143 The American

Water Works Association is in the process of

developing a new manual on alternative rate structures that will help local systems determine their best

approach. 144

Attracting Private Capital

Where State laws permit, local jurisdictions can

charge developers impact fees to pay for construction of sewer and water improvements required by

their development. In some communities, officials

have raised capital funds by selling developers

access rights to prospective water or wastewater

plants. These strategies and their variations provide

public works departments with upfront capital and

ensure that facilities are built to local standards and

can be easily integrated into the larger community

system. Because the real estate market must be

strong to attract developers willing to pay impact

fees or purchase access rights, these strategies are

used most frequently in high growth areas, such as

California, Florida, and Colorado.

Operating service contracts are another form of

private sector participation. While they do not lower

capital needs for local governments, they can cut

operating costs and allow a buildup of revenues for

capital outlays.

Although enthusiasm for private ownership of

environmental facilities has waned since the passage

of the 1984, 1986, and 1988 Tax Reform Acts, solid

waste management is one of the few areas in which

private ownership is still considered profitable.

However, private investment is more likely to be in

collection, recycling, and resource recovery than in

ownership of landfills.

Demand Reduction

Raising user rates is an effective way to reduce

demand and system expansion costs, but few communities have consistently used rate increases to

manage demand. However, in 1987, officials in

Orange County, Florida, added a 50 percent premium for “drinking water above 15,000 gallons per

month; as a result, demand dropped by amounts

ranging from 11 to 25 percent within the county

service areas. Experience in California indicates that

price changes must be substantial to reduce demand;

moderate increases do not change behavior. Furthermore, over time users adjust to price changes and

return to former use patterns unless rates are

increased steadily.145

M3Apog& Research, ~% “Wastewater lklanagemen~” a report prepared for the National Council on Public Works rmprovemen~ 1987, p. 153.

l~~stopher WoodcocQ Camp, Dresser& McKee, Inc., personal commticatio~ Mar. 5, 1990.

Idsclaudia Copelmd, Water Consemafion: Optionsfor rhe ResidenriazSector (Washington DC: Congressional Reseamh Service, September 1989),

p. 41.
Chapter 4-Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies . 175

Consumer education about costs can reduce

demand. Most consumers are unaware of how much

water they use, but when they are informed, by

advertisements and inserts in utility bills, their usage

can decrease as much as 15 percent. Moreover,

providing consumers with retrofit kits for shower

heads and toilets can result in a 5 to 9 percent water

savings, although over time 15 to 20 percent of those

who install the equipment remove it.l46 In solid

waste management, controlling demand through

public education about source reduction and recycling are promising strategies, although only about

10 percent of U.S. solid waste is recycled. The

unpredictable nature of the market and prices

thwarts development of the industry at present.

Timely maintenance of sewer and water pipes can

reduce demand by minimizing water loss and

preventing the contamination of drinking water

sources. Dual systems offer an alternative to the high

cost of treating all water to drinkin g water quality,

and water reuse can reduce demand.

Regional Planning

European experience shows that regional planning can improve the efficiency of water supply

development and wastewater and solid waste management, l47 but few regions in the United States can

boast of such achievements. Uncoordinated development of land use and public works plans and lack

of integration of drinkin g water, wastewater, and

solid waste plans ignore cross-media impacts and

lead to inefficiency and increasing operating and

capital costs. To be effective regional planning

needs reliable funding and a strong State legislative

mandate coupled with financial leverage to encourage local cooperation.148

Groundwater protection is an important planning

and management issue. Sources of groundwater

contamination include many types of waste disposal

(including septic systems and hazardous waste)

leaking storage tanks, fuel transportation and spills,

well operations, agricultural practices, road salting,

and urban runoff, as well as mine drainage. Groundwater standards “.. . can be used. . . to establish

limits on contaminants in effluents (that is discharges), evaluate ambient groundwater quality,

define the level of protection to be achieved,

establish a goal for remedial clean-up, trigger

enforcement, and help establish preventive programs to protect groundwater.’ ’149 Other measures

to control sources of contamination include reducing

the disposal of wastes on or in the land, enforcing

strict standards for sources of contamination, and

prohibiting the placement of potential contamination sources above aquifers that are particularly

vulnerable to contamination.

Conclusions

Air, earth, and water are parts of the Nation’s

common resources. They are essential to human

health and to community development and deserve

protection by far-sighted and well-integrated policy.

However, governmental policy tools for providing

the protection are the products of numerous, disparate laws, EPA regulations, State actions, and court

rulings. In the aggregate, these address obvious

pollution problems from specific sources, but do not

comprise comprehensive policy guidance for environmental stewardship. For example, relatively little

is known about groundwater movement and the

intrusion of pollutants into drinking water supplies

from landfills, sewer overflows, and other manmade

facilities. Although about two-thirds of stream

pollutants are from nonpoint sources, primarily from

agriculture, data about these pollutants are inadequate and regulatory tools are scarce for controlling

the contamination. It is extremely hard to shape good

policy and legislation and to justify the costs of

meeting standards when problems are so poorly

understood.

EPA has recently released a report from its

Science Advisory Board that urges the agency to

focus on the environment as an integrated whole.l50

Congress could help State and local agencies that

14elbid., p. 42.

ldTApogee Res~ch, Inc., op. cit., footnote 143, pp. 13@145.

ldsFor de~s, S= U.S. CoWess, mce of Technolo~ Assessment, Rebuilding the Foundiztions:A Special Report on State and~calpublic WOrkS

Financing and Management, OTA-SET-447 (Washington DC: U.S. Governrnent Printing ~lce, March 1990).

149us. ~m~ACwm@ OMCO, Groutiater Quality: State Activities To Guard Against Contaminants, Report to the~subcommittee

on Hazardous Wastes and lbxic Substances, Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate (Washington.L DC: U.S. Government

printing ~lce, Febmary 1988), p. 12.

1~.s.fi~ma~ ~t=tion Agency, Reducl.ng Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental protection, Report by ~Science

Advisory Board to the Administrator (Washington, DC: September 1990).
176 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

must comply with EPA standards by articulating the

Nation’s goals for environmental policy in a comprehensive mandate for the agency, and by directing

it to undertake research to improve its data and

analysis of environmental risk so it can set achievable standards. If EPA standards were based on their

overall impact on water quality and on their potential

health effects, local decisionmakers might have

wider choices for treatment technologies. Consulting more frequently with State and local operating

officials during the standard setting process could

help identify alternative approaches and avoid future

problems.

Adequate financial resources must also be provided for the agency. If Congress considers legislation to elevate EPA to Cabinet status, it would be

timely to consider a clearly stated mission to

preserve environmental quality from degradation

across media as part of the legislation.

Changes at EPA

The Nation does not have an estimate of the

overall improvements in water quality since the

1972 amendments to the Clean Water Act. Insufficient data and lack of a methodology to measure

improvements to water quality and health effects

make estimates of the benefits of standards very

difficult. The high costs of regulatory compliance

indicate that EPA should make developing data

to support estimates of benefits and to direct

future regulations a top priority.

Information on local environmental conditions is

also limited. Data are lacking on types and amounts

of sludge produced, about the purity of water at the

tap, about the condition of underground pipe systems in many cities, and the efficiency of specific

treatment plants. Some cities do not even have an

accurate inventory of their systems. Local inventory and condition assessment information is

sparse; many system managers do not have the

resources to initiate a program to accumulate the

information, and cannot correlate the information they do have with a preventive maintenance

program. Federal or State technical assistance

programs and incentives are needed to address

these problems.

Communities adopt new EPA standards slowly,

because their experience has shown that EPA is

likely to change pollutant standards as more data

accumulate. The cost of meeting EPA regulations is

already high, and frequent and inconsistent changes

in standards impose enormous hardships on the

operating agencies that must implement them.

Environmental regulations focus on single-media

effects, and environmental research has followed the

same course, although recognition of cross-media

effects and interest in research in this field are

growing (see chapter 6 for further details). Continued research on a hazard, such as lead in drinking

water or dioxin, usually brings better understanding

of the risks. Once regulations or standards have been

issued and if subsequent research shows that the

risks have been overestimated, it is extremely

difficult to roll back or change the standard. The

costs of reducing many hazards to levels indicated

by early estimates may be excessive. Informed

regulatory and policy decisions can be made only

after extensive research, testing, and evaluation.

Although it can ensure that standards are set,

requiring EPA to develop standards by a specific

date may result in unworkable requirements.

Standards and Regulations

State and local officials responsible for compliance contend that EPA standards afford uneven

protection and can create difficult interjurisdictional

issues, when pollutants from one jurisdiction cause

a neighboring municipality to violate regulatory

standards, for example.

EPA’s wastewater treatment regulations are based

on strict definitions of primary and secondary

treatment and biochemical oxygen demand and

suspended solids in outflow. Despite the fact that the

standards are intended to specify performance, their

effect is often to steer jurisdictions to a specific

facility design that has a proven record of meeting

effluent standards (in the case of wastewater treatment). Absent effective incentives for trying new

technologies, regulations based on best available

technology tend to stifle the search for innovative

alternatives. Many State and local agencies lack the

technical ability to consider and weigh treatment and

disposal alternatives for different circumstances.

Moreover, standards for environmental public works

often limit options for local authorities, since the

burden of proving that an alternate but untried

treatment method or facility falls on the requesting

agency, which lacks data to show its effectiveness.

EPA could seek ways to develop regulations that

are more likely to have the effect of improving and
Chapter 4-Environmental Public Works Management and Technologies ● 177

measuring protection performance, rather than controlling end-of-the pipe pollutants. Such standards

could provide localities and equipment suppliers

with flexibility to meet health and environmental

goals and to reward improved system performance.

In addition, methodologies for setting risk-based

regulations and better methods for assessing the

consequences of regulations are needed.

Protecting Public Works Investments

OTA concludes that the Nation’s enormous

investment in environmental public works can

best be protected by upgrading existing infrastructure to obtain optimal performance and to

meet new standards. Other priorities include

rehabilitating systems to ensure against water

loss or contamination due to leaks, initiating

programs to prevent the intrusion of contaminants into supplies and treatment facilities, preventive maintenance, and education and training

for personnel. With some notable exceptions,

localities can meet many of the costs for these

activities by pricing services at full cost.

Costs of maintaining and upgrading facilities to

ensure compliance fall disproportionately heavily

on small systems because of their small scale and

high unit costs. Many small treatment systems are

not in compliance with current regulations, and

those with limited financial resources will have

difficulty meeting new environmental standards,

even using known technologies. Although EPA and

some States have initiated programs to slow the

formation of new, small systems and to provide

technical assistance to existing systems, these

efforts are not sufficient. Congress could encourage

EPA to develop incentives for States to establish

consolidation programs and for manufacturers to

focus on equipment for small systems. Large, older

jurisdictions with declining populations and shrinking economic bases may also have fiscal difficulty

renewing and upgrading their public works to meet

Federal standards. Congress may wish to address

the issue of environmental enforcement policy,

given the wide discrepancies in financial resources, technical information, and management

capabilities. OTA concludes that such difficulties

are likely to result in noncompliance in large

numbers of jurisdictions, with small systems

having particular problems. Additional Federal

fiscal assistance would help States and jurisdictions with low economic bases to avoid this

alternative.

Federal tools for affecting State and local rehabilitation, conservation, and maintenance policies are

limited, but can be focused through standards and

incentives. Since pollution prevention is far less

costly than cleanup, Congress could stiffen measures that identify and penalize polluters. The

manufacture, sale, and use of consumer products that

pollute through use or disposal could be limited, and

attempts to measure the environmental costs of

products as well as the potential economic loss of

nonproduction could be encouraged. A pollution

remediation fee on items that pollute on use or on

disposal is one possible source of income for

Federal assistance to State and local governments

to support compliance efforts.

Training and Education

Already complex, environmental technologies are

becoming more complicated and more dependent on

highly trained personnel. Environmental infrastructure utilizes a host of highly sophisticated electronic

communications, electrical, and mechanical equipment as well as intricate microbiological and chemical testing apparatus. Yet the Nation’s supply of

well-trained managers, engineers, and technicians to

install, operate, and maintain advanced treatment

facilities is inadequate. Even at the State level,

filling positions with well-trained personnel is a

constant struggle; smaller systems, while required to

meet the same standards as larger systems, do not

have the resources to train their staff or to hire

already-trained personnel. Existing technical assistance, such as the circuit rider programs, have

provided some assistance, but more needs to be

done. Congress could support programs for

training and education of State environmental

agency personnel and provide incentives to operating systems that undertake training. Professional organizations could assist by developing

and carrying out mentor programs for young

and/or inexperienced agency personnel. Any

Federal financial assistance could be tied to

ratemaking that covers the costs of staffing for

operations and maintenance.

Technological Innovation

New and innovative technologies can address

many public works problems and can help agencies

design, construct, operate, and maintain complex
178 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

systems more efficiently and productively. For

example, instrumentation and measurement technologies are available to monitor contaminants entering

or leaving a facility and eliminate the guesswork

now associated with operations and maintenance.

However, public works managers are slow to

introduce new technologies, because they lack

information, funding, training, and incentives to

change. New technologies often address only one

part of a system’s problems; they must also fit into

the existing staffing and infrastructure framework.

Market characteristics do not encourage manufacturers to develop innovative equipment for small

systems, and consequently new technologies are

aimed mainly at large and medium systems. The

demonstration of innovative treatment technologies

is stifled without a Federal program to support

risk-sharing arrangements among public and private

participants; engineering firms and local decisionmakers will continue to choose technology with a

long track record. Federal actions to provide

financial incentives for development of innovative technology, and to stimulate evaluation of

new technologies through applied R&D programs, technical assistance, and information

dissemination, could improve the efficiency and

productivity of environmental public works.

Environmental problems are very complex, and

technology choices are often costly and inflexible.

The speed with which manufacturers create new

products that degrade the environment once in the

waste stream puts great pressure on those responsible for dealing with the results. Because environmental technologies are often developed as solutions

for a specific medium and not to address the root

cause of the problem, they may create new and

unexpected difficulties. The rapid pace of change

means that a technology choice often represents both

a financial and a facility commitment that does not

allow much adjustment once implementation begins. Incentives to discourage waste generation

should encourage manufacturers to avoid products that have adverse effects on the environment.

If properly designed, such incentives would affect

the raw materials, the manufacturing process,

manufacturing byproducts, and/or the ultimate

disposal of the product.
CHAPTER 5

Cross-Cutting Technologies

for Infrastructure

Photo credit American Consulting Engineers Council
Contents

Page

Measurement, Instrumentation, and Nondestructive Evaluation Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

Sensors and Measuring Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

Public Works Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Information and Decision Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Maintenance Management Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Geographic Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Artificial Intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Simulation Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

Communications and Positioning Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

Signal Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Field Construction Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

Trenchless Construction Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Soil Improvements and Stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Dredging Technology and Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Rail Track Construction and Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Materials and Corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Asphalt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

Geotextiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Advanced Composites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Maintenance: Protecting Against Corrosion . . . . . * . . ., . . . + . . * . . . . ., . . . . .,, , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Technology Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

Designing the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

Procurement Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

Standards and Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Risk and Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

Repair and Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

Proprietary Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Personnel Training, Education, and Recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

promising Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

Technology Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

Personnel Training, Education, and Recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

Boxes

Box Page

5-A, Geographic Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

543. Automatic Meter Reading Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

5-C. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Alternative and Innovative

Technology Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Tables

Table Page

5-1. Measurement Technologies for Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

5-2. Nondestructive Evaluation Techniques for Public Works . . . ., . .,, . . * . . .,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

5-3. Types of Trenchless Construction and Rehabilitation Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

5-4. Concrete Types Used in Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

5-5. Corrosion Reduction Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

5-6. Rehabilitation Techniques for Corroded Bridge Decks and Substructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

5-7. Alternatives for Technology Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
CHAPTER 5

Cross-Cutting Technologies for Infrastructure

. . . infrastructure choices [including technologies] are choices of resource allocation [and]

must be dealt with in the political arena.l

Technologies for public works have come a long

way since the days of open sewers and roads made

of stones embedded in the soil; and the technologies

and materials available to designers, construction

engineers, and managers continue to evolve. As the

need to maintain and repair the Nation’s infrastructure becomes more acute and the value of greater

efficiency and higher operating standards grows,

advances in technology and materials can provide

many opportunities to save time and money for

public works. Most technologies are applicable to

more than one type of infrastructure, and the most

useful of these cross-cutting technologies for public

works may be clustered into the following general

categories:

● measurement and nondestructive evaluation

tools,

. information and decision systems,

● communications and positioning systems,

. field construction technologies, and

● materials and corrosion.

These categories are not new, but a number of

technological advances have led to devices and

Photo credt: Library of Congress

Today’s technologies make this nonmechanized highway

construction project of the 1940s look outdated.

systems of remarkable versatility, precision, and

power that can decrease costs and increase reliability. This chapter describes some of the most useful

technologies for infrastructure and discusses the

reasons that many of them are used today in private

industry, but have not yet found wide application in

public works.

Measurement, Instrumentation, and

Nondestructive Evaluation Tools

High-speed, noncontact, sensing technologies—

radar, infrared thermography, laser optics, ultrasound, and others-make it possible to survey

hundreds of miles of pavement, piping, or a number

of bridge decks with great accuracy in a single day.

The applications already commercially available or

under development include radar to detect pavement

voids, infrared thermography to identify delamination in concrete bridge decks, automated imaging

and image processing for high-speed surveys of

pavement surface distress, and lasers for evaluation

of pavement profiles and continuous measurement

of pavement deflection.2

Sensors and Measuring Instruments

Today’s advanced sensors, made smaller and

more accurate by silicon microchips, include ultrasound, fiber optics, and infrared optics. Radiation,

sound, temperature, moisture, pressure, and other

phenomena can be measured with a high degree of

precision using appropriate sensors.

However, the major areas stimulating new sensor

development include advanced manufacturing,

power generation, security, waste technology, and

environmental protection, rather than public works.3

Sensitive electronic devices do not function well

under the adverse operating conditions-including

dirt, humidity, temperature and pressure extremes,

Iscott ]o~Sow ~omentS, ~Royce won (~,), Perspectives in ur~nl~as~uc~re ~M~o~ ~: Natio~ tidemy Press, 1984), p. 171.

%ermeth R. Maser, “From Guesswork to Guamn tee?” Civil Engineering, vol. 59, No. 9, September 1989, p. 78.

sK~e~ B. Steinbruegge, “New Sensors for ‘I&lay’s Industry,” Design News, vol. 42, July 7, 1986, p. 109.

-181–
182 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

and the presence of harsh chemicals-that characterize much of public works. Nonetheless, a number of

sensors have been developed that can monitor under

such conditions. For example, detecting leakage or

the chemical composition of fluids in large public

works systems, such as drinking water and wastewater treatment plants, has been made easier by

advances in sensor technology for detecting fluid

content and flow rates.

Remote sensing, automated control, and measurement instrumentation can enhance marine dredging

operations. A position indicator coupled with an

automatic control system to orient and position

equipment precisely can increase dredging efficiency and reduce the amount of material dredged

unnecessarily. Modern instruments used to measure

material flows and partial automation of maintenance dredging can reduce annual costs by

40 percent.4

Automated railroad track measurement, using

equipment mounted on railcars, can give dynamic

measurements of track geometry under loaded

conditions. Using electro-optical or electromagnetic

sensors coupled with inertial sensors, the equipment

measures and records such parameters as track

location, gage, profile, alignment, and crosslevel.

Such systems provide repeatable track geometry

measurements at close intervals in a fraction of the

time required by track walking crews measuring at

longer intervals.5 These data can be fed into computerized maintenance planning tools, which can

identify and set priorities for needed track maintenance. “Smart sensors,” which indicate their own

breakdown, will enter the market soon, Table 5-1

provides information on other major types of sensing technologies for public works.

Japanese manufacturers have made wide use of

pressure sensors on computer-controlled machine

tools, hydraulic robot limbs, and vacuum-assisted

picking tools.6 Sensitive pressure sensors, implanted

in robot “hands,’ can make machines more tactile,

while optical sensors enable robots to discriminate

among the patterns that are being examined. Research and development (R&D) is under way to

develop micromachined sensors that would measure

acceleration and vibration of machinery. Although

these sensors can be very useful in especially

hazardous construction or maintenance activities,

much of the public works environment is too harsh

to make use of such sensitive equipment reliable and

cost-effective.

Nondestructive Evaluation (N DE)

NDE describes any method of examining the

physical or mechanical properties of a structure or

component (pavement or a machine part) without

affecting it permanently or significantly. Human

inspection is the most common NDE method. More

automated inspection tools include visual, optical,

liquid penetrant, magnetic particle, eddy current,

ultrasonic, radiography, and leak detection techniques. Widely used in industry, nondestructive

testing instruments have become very powerful,

especially when coupled with microprocessors.

Because they can improve productivity, NDE instruments are becoming indispensable for automated

inspection in computerized manufacturing plants.

Computers are now being interfaced with NDE

instruments from every category, including those

used for public works.7

No single NDE method is appropriate for all types

of materials, structures, and types of damage. Some

methods are suitable for detecting surface cracks,

others for examining deep within structures, although resolution deteriorates the deeper one looks

inside a structure. To minimize error, many methods

may be used in combination to determine a structure’s condition. Field conditions such as changing

weather, moisture content, and shock waves from

moving vehicles also make nondestructive testing of

public works extremely difficult. Moreover, heterogeneous materials, such as the asphalt and concrete

widely used in infrastructure are relatively difficult

subjects for NDE. The judgments of trained experts

are still needed to determine infrastructure condition, because NDE, particularly for public works, is

not yet a purely scientific process.8

4Natiod Remhcomcfl, CO remission onhgineering and lkchnicrd Systems, Marine Board, Dredging Coastal Ports (Washingto~ DC: National

Academy Press, 1985), p. 112.

s~blic lkchnoIogy, ~c., “Track Geometry Measurement System” Transit Technology Briefs, vol. 2, No. 3, fall 1982.

Ssteinbme=e, op. cit., footnote 3, P. 30.

7John E, ~gh~ “NDT Is ~—Slowly But Surely,” Quulity, vol. 27, No. 1, January 1988, pp. 2022.

sJo~ Broo~lel~ Stitegic Highway R~~h ho- perSO~ ~mm~Mtiou Aug. 9* 1989”
Chapter 5—Cross-Cutting Technologies for Infrastructure . 183

Table 5-l—Measurement Technologies for Public Works

Physical property Technology uses Comments

Surface pressure . . . . . . Silicon crystal-based sensors

Temperature . . . . . . . . . Fiber optics; infrared detectors

Fluid properties . . . . . . . Moisture sensors: electrolytic cell,

aluminum oxide, and chilled

mirror; pressure wave viscosity

sensor

Infrared optical sensors

Chromatography

Truck weighing systems for highways; robotic handling devices

Process control if temperature is a

factor; pavement inspection

equipment; overheating

Treatment plants and pipe networks; treatment plants for chemical composition

Detect presence and amount of

organic materials in treatment

plants

Chemical composition of liquids

and gases

Applications limited because sensitive equipment cannot tolerate

harsh public works environment.

Limitations in harsh and rapidly

changing environments.

Expense limits use in public works.

Used in various environmental

public works testing activities.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

Sound waves are frequently used NDE methods.

A simple procedure to determine flaws in relatively

thin pavement areas, such as bridge decks, is to drag

a set of chains across suspect areas. A loud,

drum-like sound results if delamination, or separation of the pavement into layers, has Occurred.9 More

advanced techniques involve transmitting ultrasonic

waves through target materials or test structures and

measuring the echo response as the waves bounce

back. l0 Ultrasonic devices have benefited from

advances in circuit design on silicon chips, and

portable devices that produce high-frequency sound

waves and accurately record the signals from the

tested object have become common. A commercially available, ultrasonic instrument tied to a

microprocessor is being used for testing corrosion

cracking in pipes.11

Tagged materials are a promising method for

NDE in the future. If detectable particles are

embedded in concrete and other materials, inspectors can quickly trace structural changes over time.

Magnetic detection devices can be used to examine

the density distribution of embedded particles;

damaged areas show changes in the average distribution of the particles.12 Sonic devices emit a sound

wave into the structure and measure the vibrations of

the embedded particles. The particles in damaged

material vibrate more than those in solid concrete,

Photo credit:American Consulting Engineers Council

Nondestructive evaluation methods, such as ultrasonics,

help inspectors determine the physical condition of bridges

or other structures without affecting them permanently.

and a different echo is produced. 13 Table 5-2

summarizes a spectrum of current NDE methods

suitable for public works.

Public Works Experience

Measurement and nondestructive evaluation tools

are most useful for relatively homogeneous materials and in controlled operating environments. Under

other circumstances, including many typical infrastructure environments, the most sensitive NDE

%on Frascok Materials and Research Divisiom Vermont Agency of Transportation personal communication, Aug. 10, 1989.

IOJfi M~hy, ~te~ Divkio~ New York Department of Transportation personal communicatio~ Aug. 9, 1989.

llRo~fi H. mls and M&e C. Tsao, Nondestructive Inspection With Portable Ultrasonz”c Zmaging SySte?W Special wti~ Nbfication No. ~

(Washington DC: American Society for ‘Ihsting and Materials, 1987).

l~van Amatci, ‘(M&@ Conmete Smarter Than It bolts,” Science News, vol. 135, May 6, 1989, p. 284.

ls’’Vibrating Iron Particles to Sound Out Problems,” Engineering News Report, vol. 223, No. 2, July 13, 1989, p. 15.
184 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table 5-2-Nondestructive Evaluation Techniques for Public Works

Technique Use Comments

Ultrasonic waves Detect flaws in pavement, voids in materials. Used for lockand dam inspections, up to 30 foot within

a structure.

Impact echo Detects flaws by measuring structural strength of Requires access to only one side of structure.

materials.

Radiographic (x-ray Detects flaws on materials and machinery. Requires access to both sides of subject material;

radiation) involves high-energy radiation, well-trained

technicians, and safeguards.

Eddy-current method Detects flaws at or near surface of electrically

conducting materials.

Magnetic particle Detects surface cracks of ferrous materials. Very reliable.

Liquid penetration Detects small discontinuities on a solid surface. Useful for nonmagnetic materials.

Infrared thermography Detects surface flaws in almost all materials. Can detect voids and cavities around sewer pipes as

well as delamination and cracks in bridge decks.

Ground probing radar Detects subsurface voids. Requires trained specialist to interpret recorded data.

X-ray fluorescence Analyzes chemicals in solids and liquids. Commercially available equipment is highly specialized and expensive; not widely used in public

works.

Electronic acoustic Detects leaks in underground pipes or tanks. Used in New York City, which has an old water

sensor system.

Fiber optic probes Detect leaks, surface flaws, and other conditions. Monitors provide visual information; machine (or

robotic) vision can be used to detect surface flaws.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

techniques are much less precise.14 Moreover, many

newer technologies, such as infrared thermography

and laser impulse interferometry, are still too expensive to be used routinely in the field. Furthermore,

the expertise required to operate the sophisticated

equipment and analyze the test results is beyond the

capabilities of most State departments of transportation (DOTS) and municipal water and sewage

agencies.

Nevertheless the technologies hold great promise

for many public works applications. Highway researchers envision an NDE system combined with

information technology to record dynamic changes

in structures and predict reliably when bridges and

roads need repair or rehabilitation. Cost-effective,

nondestructive life prediction systems may be available within the next 5 years to help less experienced

inspectors predict structural life and plan for operations and maintenance costs. However, the initial

costs of these new technologies will be relatively

high.

State Programs

New York State has one of the most advanced

nondestructive testing programs in the United

States, 15 but it is not linked to an advanced

information system. To detect flaws in metal structures, the New York DOT has used. eddy current,

magnetic particle, and x-ray radiography techniques

and is experimenting with thermography, radar, and

ultrasound for checking pavements. Bridge decks

are subjected to electrochemical analysis to detect

corrosion, and the agency uses the chain drag

method to determine delamination. However, the

State DOT cannot afford to purchase and maintain

the necessary NDE equipment, so it contracts with

private firms to perform the tests, and it does not

have total cost estimates for its NDE activities.l6

The Vermont agency for transportation does its

own inspection of transportation infrastructure, and

contracts out as well. The agency estimates that its

direct cost for conducting an in-house, predominantly manual, bridge deck evaluation is 5 cents per

square foot, compared with 15 to 20 cents per square

foot for infrared evaluation done by a private firm.

However, bridge traffic is not interrupted during the

infrared evaluation, justifying its higher costs.

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s (PENNDOT) NDE program includes visual

inspection, friction and skid testing, electrochemical

corrosion detection, thermographic and radar testing, and underwater sonar testing. PENNDOT also

14&oo~eld, op. cit., footnote 8.

lsfiid.

16Mqhy, op. Cit., foo~ote 100
Chapter 5—Cross-cutting Technologies for Infrastructure . 185

utilizes information technology, maintaining computer databases of over 100,000 road segments and

54,000 bridges, and creating models to evaluate

different management plans. Their software is available to other DOTS. The cartographic division at

PENNDOT is developing techniques to use the

TIGER geographical information system (GIS) for

sustaining and expanding the infrastructure. Finally,

PENNDOT is researching machine vision techniques and expert systems for pavement inspection

and management.17

Information and Decision Systems

Management information and decisionmaking

systems are already proving valuable tools for public

works agencies where they have been implemented.

The categories of these tools range widely and

include artificial intelligence systems and decision

models. Public works managers have found maintenance management systems and GIS particularly

useful in their activities.

Maintenance Management Information

Systems

Maintenance Management Information Systems

are essentially database management systems that

allow managers to set priorities and schedule preventive maintenance. The systems can track all

maintenance activities (both scheduled and unscheduled) and work crews, materials, and time to

repair data, permitting planning for future activities.

Such systems are not new, but their application to

public works infrastructure was slow until microcomputers became commonplace, and appropriate,

user-friendly, and cost-effective software was developed.

Geographic Information Systems

GIS are computer systems designed to manage

information related to geographic locations. They

can also store, analyze, and retrieve large volumes of

nongraphic data from other systems and display

graphic map images and tie them to descriptive

(nonnumerical) data from a specific location. The

systems allow the user to enter, store, retrieve,

manipulate, and display geographic information

quickly and accurately; these decisionmaking aids

are particularly valuable. See box 5-A for more

details on these powerful and versatile tools.

Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence uses computers configured

to provide automated reasoning. Examples of technologies that use artificial intelligence are expert

systems, computer vision, and robotics.

Expert Systems

Expert systems are computer programs that attempt to duplicate an expert’s reasoning process to

solve problems in a given field. Unlike conventional

computer programs that process algorithms, expert

systems use heuristics (“if-then” rules) to advise

and guide users. Since they can be programmed to

explain their reasoning, expert systems can be used

as training tools to expand the expertise of a few

specialists to a larger group of individuals.

Systems that could be useful to a public works

manager include a computer model used in Canada

to determine whether a contaminated industrial site

can be cleaned up or whether the contamination

poses enough of a health hazard to require permanent abandonment.l8 The expert system asks prospective users of the site a series of questions, such

as what type of construction is planned for the site.

The database includes information on the land users,

possible land uses, more than 30 organic compounds, physical characteristics of soil types, and

the underlying geological formation.19 Prototype

systems have been developed to assist in such areas

as highway and bridge design, traffic operations and

control, tra.file incident detection, urban sewer

system design, and highway noise barrier design.20

Although organizations see expert systems as a

substitute for trained or experienced specialists, very

few sophisticated systems are routinely used today.

The systems that are in use are devoted to training

people about complicated procedures and to diagnosing complex equipment and system problems.

Moreover, current systems address clearly structured conditions, and experts recognize that human

ITGwy Ho- Pennsylv@a Department of Transportation, personal communication Aug. 9, 1989.

lgDi~e Daniel, “AI Decides Safety of Contamma “ ted Sites,” Computing Canaalz, vol. 15, No. 15, July 20, 1989, pp. 1-4.

l%id.

~.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Survey of the State-of-theArt Expert/Knowledge Based Systems in Civil Engineering,” USA-CERL Special

Report P-87/01, October 1986.
186 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Box S-A-Geographic Information Systems

A geographic information system (GIS) is a computer-based system designed to manage information

with a spatial or geographic element. With geographic

location as a basis, information (spatial and nonspatial,

or attribute) pertaining to a particular location can be

stored, analyzed, and retrieved A multipurpose GIS

can meet many different local government needs and

provides automated tools to enter, store, retrieve,

manipulate, and display geographic information

quickly and accurately. Scanning technology allows

rapid capture of everything from old engineering

drawings to recent aerial photos. Once entered into a

GIS, information can easily be updated and redrafted

by the computer in different scales and in different

combinations as needed for day-to-day decisionmaking.

Related systems, computer-aided design and drafting (CADD) programs, also produce graphical displays, but are primarily used to create dimensional

drawings, such as street plans and profiles, and

nondimensional drawings, such as architectural renderings. CADD systems have links for database

attributes, such as those of a GIS.

Automated mapping/facilities mapping (AM/

Photo credit : American Consulting Engineers Council

Computer-aided design and drafting (CADD) program

speed the work of infrastructure planners designers, and

structural planners. CADD programs can be used to create

dimensional drawings, such as street plans, and nondimensional drawings, such as architectural renderings.

FM) systems, also related to GIS systems, evolved from the need for numerous mapping products within local

agencies. The needs include parcel maps at different scales, park and planning maps, tax assessment maps, real estate

maps, water and sewer department maps, and street and bridge department maps. These systems have proven useful

for operational decisions, inquiry response, land development planning decisions, resource planning decisions,

management decisions, and policy decisionmaking. “ GIS , AM/FM, and CADD differ in user interface,

discipline-specific procedures and terminology, data models, and applications; however, they share the same

fundamental technology and the same enabling technologies, computer graphics, and database management

Computer graphics systems linked to AM/FM systems enable survey data to be processed at a speed comparable

to electronic data collection. State-of-the-art computer mapping systems offer great flexibility in the

expertise cannot be replaced in every complex Research is currently being conducted to look at

decisionmaking context.21

Computer Vision

Machine or computer vision refers to the automated analysis of visual images and can provide a

reliable method for analyzing images in real time.

For example, in a current highway application, video

cameras are linked to computers that analyze the

images to generate traffic flow and congestion

information, which then serves as input for signal

timing algorithms.

the applications of machine vision to analyzing

facility condition. Highway cracking, patching, and

potholes are distress types best captured by visual

devices, but developing an automated system to

identify pavement problems presents significant

challenges. A complete inventory of distresses for

asphalt or concrete pavements may exceed 20 types;

current automated systems rarely cover more than 5

or 6 types and must perform their tasks quickly and

reliably. Once perfected, however, such systems will

provide highway authorities with cost-effective,
Chapter 5—Cross-Cutting Technologies for Infrastructure . 187

way information is presented; a library of symbols can be developed. If survey crews assign the symbol name in

the field relevant map symbols can be automatically placed as the graphics software processes the data.

GIS information that is common to most uses of a map can be located in layers within the same file; information

used less frequently can be placed in separate files. For example, all information required for project site selection,

such as existing facilities, property boundaries, services, elevation contours, and buildings, can be stored in separate

layers and manipulated independently, yet viewed and analyzed as a single, comprehensive map.

GIS information includes spatial, or location, data and attribute data. Spatial data is based on a geographic

coordinate system; items can include land parcel, area and district, facility, and natural features. Attribute data is

traditional database information that can be referenced geographically, such as by addresses, and can include

location by events, conditions, demographics, construction permits, or police reports. (For examples of data see

table 5-A-l.) Table 5-A-1-Selected Geographic Information

Geographic information serves a broad constitu- System Data Capabilities

ency, because information about land parcels and

Area/district features: geographically related data are needed regularly by ~h~~’~~cat!mm~. Current land use many different agencies for a variety of purposes. Property parcel features city boundaries

Moreover, the ability to combine land-related attri- Zoning boundaries Neighborhoods

butes from many different sources is a vital support for Stormwater drainage facilities Planned land-use areas

Water facilities zoning many government and nongovernment activities. Sanitary sewer facilities Planning/policy areas

However, while raw data are usually available, they Traffic control facilities Tax rate areas

often cannot be used effectively in making complex Geodetic control School service areas

decisions because of variations among agencies in data Reference grid Traffic analysis zones

Soils Fire/rescue areas format, quality, and org anization. For multipurpose Flood p!ains sheriff ballwick areas

systems, information stored in property record books, All area/district map layers Lgislatlve districts

paper files, microfiche, maps, charts, or computer ~~~ufeg~raphy Councilman districts

databases must be input into a GIS in a consistent form School board districts

Road, water, and sewer Zip code areas

and updated regularly. These can be time-consuming master plans sanitary inspection districts

and costly tasks. Nonetheless, GIS, linked to the Depth to groundwater Solidwaste collection dlstrlcts

Sewer service areas appropriate computer tools for specific purposes, will Facility features: Stormwater become a valued aid in many public works offices. Parks service areas

Solid and hazardous waste Natural features: With the installation of a computerized data system, disposal sites Noise contours

the database can be shared and duplication of effort can Sludge disposal sites Environmentally critical areas

be minimized, if organizational issues, such as system Public transit routes

Snow emergency routes access authorization, data use, quality control, and Historical sites

validation of the automated record are addressed. SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991,

objective, repeatable assessments of pavement con- vehicles. For example, a multipurpose vehicle for a

dition. 22 See chapter 3, box 3-B and chapter 4, box variety of road maintenance tasks is under develop4-C for other examples of public works uses of this

technique.

Robotics and Automation

While the use of mechanized equipment to apply

large forces or lift heavy loads in public works

construction and maintenance is widespread, more

advanced forms of automation are still largely in the

R&D stage. The sophisticated sensing and electronics needed for autonomous operation in the public

works environment have been installed in some test

. .

ment in France. Its intended uses include mowing

grass around curbs, sowing, ditch excavation, road

marking and cleaning, surface cutting, brushwood

cleaning, and salt dispensing. Other machines are

being developed for such tasks as curb and gutter

construction, road surface patching, bridge cable/

beam inspection, and paint removal/surface preparation. A system to help repair runways by removing

rubble, filling cracks, and performing nondestructive

testing is under development at the University of

Florida and the Tyndale Air Force Base.23

22Haris KOUtSOpOuloS, “Automated Interpretation of Pavement Distress Da@’ Construction, newsletter of the Center for Construction Research and

Educatiom Massachusetts Institute of Technology, winter 1989, p, 10.

23Miroslaw Skibniewski and Chris Hendrickson, Carnegie-MelonUniversity, ‘‘Automation and Robotics for Road Construction and Maintenance,”

unpublished paper, n.d., pp. 3-5.
188 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Simulation Models

Simulation models have been developed over the

years by public works officials to examine various

aspects of flow and movement patterns.

as that in Denver, Colorado, now under construction,

or identify which elements of the air traffic system

are limiting factors. However, since the model uses

average traffic demand data, based on published

airline schedules, it cannot analyze the transient

behavior that characterizes daily operations.

Transportation

Environmental Models

Planning models attempt to model consumer

route and mode choice to assist planners in road and

transit development plans. Road traffic models

examine traffic patterns at intersections, traffic

flows in networks, and aggregate system performance to provide information about traffic delays,

bottlenecks, and aggregate vehicle performance.

Researchers from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), State DOTS, and universities have

developed numerous models; current efforts focus

on models that process real-time information about

traffic demand and use it to determine signal timing

plans. The Automated Traffic Surveillance and

Control System (ATSAC) in Los Angeles is based on

the Urban Traffic Control System developed by

FHWA. (For additional information, see chapter 3.)

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

makes use of a number of models to provide analytic

and management information. SIMMOD is a detailed model that tracks individual travel times,

delays, and fuel burn for a given airport, as well as

airspace and traffic configuration. It is useful for

measuring the delays at a specific location caused by

airspace or procedural changes, but is difficult to use

for systemwide analyses, as capacity must be

estimated by trial-and-error.24

NASPAC provides delay and utilization statistics

for entire networks based on simulation and queuing

models, incorporating the national airspace and

airways structure, and selected airports, arrival and

departure fixes, and weather conditions.25 Best

suited for strategic analyses, NASPAC can estimate

the benefits across the system of a new airport, such

Simulation models are important to environmental studies for examining the way contaminants

are dispersed in the various media and determining

the impact of contaminants on groundwater, for

example. Numerous models have been developed by

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

and other agencies to assist in regulatory and

decisionmaking activities.26 The Bureau of Reclamation is developing a model that combines artificial intelligence, policy analysis, systems analysis,

and risk analysis to yield a tool for river basin

planning, operations, and management.27 River

basin planning in the Western States involves

environmental concerns as well as irrigation, hydropower, and water rights considerations, and such a

model can be of considerable help to decisionmakers

at all levels of government.

Communications and

Positioning Systems

Communications and positioning technologies

are essential elements of traffic management and

control and remote infrastructure monitoring. Public

works managers and transportation users rely on

communications, navigation, and surveillance systems, some developed and supplied by the Federal

Government and others by private providers. Comparable technologies to locate and identify vehicles

and craft, and to relay traffic instructions and other

information, are now practical for each transport

mode. See chapter 4, box 4-C for a related use in

environmental public works.

mTJ.S. Cowess, ~lce of T&koloB Assessmen6 Safe Ska”es for Tomorrow: Aviation Safety in a Competitive Enw”ronrnent, 0~-SET-381

(Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Oftlce, July 1988), p. 136.

‘iFederal Aviation Administrat.ioq “PlanforResearc~ Engineering, and Development-Volume II: Project Descriptions,” Conference Review Draft

#4, Sept. 21, 1989, p. 49.

Msee, for e=ple, tie follo~ OTA rew~: ~rotec~ng the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination, VOL L pB 8$154 WAS @P@ield*

VA: National lkchnical Information Service, 1985); Use Of J40&4S for Water Resources Management, Planning, and Policy, PB 83-103655

(Springileld, VA: National lkchni~ Information Service, 1983); and Catching Our Breath: Next Steps for Reducing Ur6an Ozone, OTA-O-412

(Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Wlce, July 1989).

ZWJ.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, “Advanced Decision Support Systems,” Progress Report, June 30, 1989.
Chapter 5—Cross-Cutting Technologies for Infrastructure . 189

Signal Systems

Signals transmitted over various portions of the

electromagnetic spectrum form the basis of the many

types of navigation and surveillance systems, which

generally depend on one- or two-way communications. The increasing power, reliability, and costeffectiveness of microprocessing technology have

made advanced communications and positioning

functions available to a wide range of users.

Systems that support information transfer are

considered to be communications technologies.

High-frequency radio and visual signals are commonly used in line-of-sight communications for

transportation vehicles, while waveguides, such as

cables and fiber optics, are used to link ground

facilities. The low-frequency radio spectrum permits

over-the-horizon communications; however, interference and low data transfer rates pose problems.

Navigation technologies include radio signal

systems that provide bearing, distance, or other

reference to fixed transmitters. Widely used in

aviation and maritime navigation, these are now

finding increased application in surface transportation. Inertial navigation and dead reckoning systems

compute vehicle position relative to an initial fixed

location based on vehicle heading, speed, and time

en route, also without communication links. However, small measurement errors can accumulate,

causing problems over long distances.

Surveillance includes determining the position

and other characteristics of a remote vehicle, usually

through communications technologies, and in civilian transportation, cooperative vehicle-based systems and procedures are often used. For example, air

traffic control radar information is augmented by

automatic transponder replies from aircraft, which

strengthen the signal returning to the radar, identify

the aircraft, and provide other data. Position reports

from vehicles transmitted to a monitoring facility is

another type of cooperative surveillance, and is

commonly used by commercial operators in all

transport modes.

Satellites

Satellite-based systems offer the greatest potential for enhancing worldwide communications, navigation, and surveillance, because they have the key

advantage of altitude. Operating thousands of miles

above the Earth, satellites have direct line-of-sight

over entire continents, permitting the higher frequencies of the radio spectrum to be used for

communications and positioning. Satellites can

support and augment existing communications and

positioning systems, and serve as passive communications relays, as reference positions for navigation,

or as interrogation and monitoring devices for

surveillance. Although satellites are expensive to

install and operate, a few satellites can replace an

extensive ground-based infrastructure. However,

potential users must consider ways to ensure that

satellite systems can be reliably maintained and

replaced.

Three decades of telecommunications industry

experience and increasingly affordable mobile receivers and transmitters have enabled industry and

public traffic managers to use communications

satellites as linchpins in traffic surveillance and

control. For example, truck companies have found

satellite-based services to be cost-effective, because

drivers on long haul routes do not have to stop en

route to telephone their locations to dispatchers.

FAA is considering using automatic dependent

surveillance (ADS) for air traffic control over remote

areas without radar coverage. Under ADS, onboard

navigation systems would relay the aircraft’s

identification and position via satellite to a central

monitoring facility to display screens similar to

current radar-based ones.

The United States and the Soviet Union are each

deploying constellations of satellites, which, although funded for military purposes, will allow

civilian receivers to determine their positions to

accuracies of around 100 meters.28 The U.S. Global

Positioning System (GPS) is expected to be available for worldwide navigation in late 1993. Each

satellite serves as position reference by broadcasting

its location and a precise time signal, and a receiver

calculates its position by measuring the time delay

of signals sent from three or more satellites. FAA is

investigating whether a single navigation device

using both GPS and Soviet satellite signals could

provide greater redundancy and precision.

A different approach for obtaining position information is by radio-determination satellite systems,
190 . Delivering the Goods: public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

which unlike GPS requires that each participating

vehicle transmit as well as receive. Signals sent from

the vehicle must be relayed by at least two satellites

to a central location, where the vehicle’s location is

computed by noting the time difference in the

signals.

Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI)

AVI systems commonly use vehicle radio- or

microwave-based transponders, which can be

“read” by fixed or mobile equipment. The readers

can be placed along a route or at a facility where

information needs to be exchanged or billing needs

to take place, such as bridge or toll road entrances

and exits (see chapter 3, box 3-E for further

information), weigh stations, and ports of entry.

FAA regulations require commercial carriers and all

aircraft flying near the busiest airports to be

equipped with radar transponders, which can transmit aircraft identification and altitude to ground

controllers. Additional AVI technologies include

optical and infrared systems, inductive loop systems, and surface acoustic wave systems.

Long-Range Radionavigation

Long-range radionavigation systems, LORAN

and OMEGA, provided by the Federal Government

and originally designed for marine operations,

permit navigation in remote locations. OMEGA’s

coverage is worldwide; LORAN’s is up to 1,000

miles. Positions are determined by measuring the

difference in signals from precisely synchronized

transmitters, using time difference for LORAN and

phase difference for OMEGA. Low-cost/low-weight

microprocessors can automatically perform these

measurements, making widespread use possible.

LORAN reception is presently concentrated in

coastal areas, but FAA is providing funds to the

Coast Guard to install four additional LORAN

stations for complete coverage across the continental United States.29 Combined with an automatic

dependent surveillance link, LORAN and OMEGA

allow enhanced low-altitude and remote-site traffic

monitoring.30

Photo credit: PortAuthority of New York and New Jersey

Automatic vehicle identification and billing systems could

significantly lessen traffic delays at toll faclities.

Automatic Meter Reading

Various communications technologies are being

used to develop automatic meter reading systems

(see box 5-B) for utilities that set rates on the basis

of usage. System customers are provided with a

meter and a device that collects information from the

meter, packages it into a data stream, and sends it to

a central location, where the data are received and

stored in a computer. Systems can be developed for

water, sewage, and other utilities, and the opportunity for computerized operational management may

be the biggest advantage of such systems.31

Field Construction Technologies

The tasks necessary to complete a capital facility

after a final design has been chosen comprise the

field construction process. Although construction

usually refers to building anew project, methods and

techniques for rehabilitating existing infrastructure

are equally, or perhaps more, important to today’s

public works officials. Nonetheless, engineering

education and most related R&D emphasize con-

%J.S. Department of ‘lkansportatiom Federal Aviation Administratio& Natio,val Airspace System Plan: Facilities, Equipment, Associated

Development and Other Capital Needs (WaahingtoQ DC: September 1989), p. IV-58.

~.S. Department of Tranaportatiou Federal Aviation Admirdstratio~ “Federal Aviation Administration Plan for Researcb Engineering, and

Development” vol. IL draft manuaeript, September 1989, p. 258.

Slwnald sctie~er, United Water Resources, personal coInInuIliCatiOU lm.
Chapter 5—Cross-Cutting Technologies for Infrastructure . 191

Box 5-B—Automatic Meter Reading Systems

Meters are used by utilities to measure consumption of their product water, gas, or electricity. A utility

metering system usually consists of meters and local devices to collect information from the meter, package it into

a data stream, and send it to a central computer. In contrast, traditional metering systems use collection personnel

to read meters individually at the point of service. Automatic meter reading (AMR) systems can eliminate the extra

work and costs involved in ‘‘lock-outs,’ estimates, call backs, and premature cancellations and can shorten

read-to-bill turnaround,

The development of integrated circuitry and the restructuring“ of the Nation’s telephone system now enable

AMR systems to use telephone lines or a radio transmitter to send consumption data to the utility’s computer system.

An AMR system can be configured in one of several ways, including: 1) telephone dial-inbound which uses an

electronic meter interface unit (MIU) on the customer’s premises through the telephone company’s test equipment

without ringing the customer’s telephone; 2) telephone dial-outboundin which the MIU dials the utility’s computer

and transmits the latest meter reading, usually at a preset time; 3) a cable TV-based system in which the utility

communicates with individual MIUs over the cable to obtain the meter reading; and 4) a radio system in which the

MIU transmits to a utility receiver. In a variation of the radio system, the utility queries the MIU for information.

About 50 percent of the existing systems are telephone systems although these are restricted by court rulings relating

to AT&T; cable systems area very small part of existing and potential systems.

AMR systems are part of a larger field, termed “computerized operations management.” In addition, since

most customers are served by more than a single utility, the information collection and transmission components

needed by each utility could be integrated in a single metering system. Major issues must be resolved, however,

including:

. who installs and maintains the equipment;

. telephone line use limitations and radio frequency use limitations;

. the way regulations affect or restrict utility activities; and

● standardization of the electronic equipment for compatibility of communications signals and data

interchange and transmission issues. 1

1Typical of the standards is the High Level Data Link Control model of the International Standards Organization that is designcd to

facilitate synchronous code transparent transfer of user data. Japan has adopted its standarddata exchange format for automatic“ meter reading.

struction of new facilities rather than the special — Trench less Construction Technologies

problems involved in rehabilitation.32

Construction activities require considerable planning and organization, as well as management of

materials, personnel, and time. Many of these early

processes are crucial to design and management, and

take place primarily in an office. These and other

phases of construction projects have been greatly

aided by advances in computer hardware and software, new materials, and technologies related to

structural design, corrosion protection, and robotics.

Virtually all the construction technologies discussed

here have already found some applications in public

works.

Trenchless excavation construction (TEC) refers

to installing of water supply, sewer pipes, or any

other structural components, below grade without

digging an open trench. Trenchless construction

avoids much of the disruption and traffic delay

associated with digging up streets, sidewalks, and

yards and eliminates the need to excavate around

other utility equipment and tunnels, particularly in

dense urban areas.33 It differs from construction of

large diameter tunnels primarily in size--TEC

openings range from 2 inches to 12 feet and permit

the installation of pipes to transport fluids, while

tunnels are much larger and transport vehicles. Table

32American Society of Civil Engineers, Task Committee on Water Supply Rehabilitation Systems, Water Supply System Rehabilitation, Thomas M.

Walski (ed.) (New York, NY: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1987), p. 1.

33Natioal ResearchCouncil, U.S. National Committee on Tunneling Technology, Micro- andSmall-Diameter Tunneling (Washington,DC: National

Academy Press, 1989).
192 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table 5-3—Types of Trenchless Construction and Rehabilitation Technologies

Type

—

Variations Comments

Trenchless construction technologies:

Horizontal earth boring . . . . . . Boreholes can be produced by augering, drilling,

ramming, and water jets.

Pipe jacking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Excavation processes vary from manual to

highly sophisticated tunnel boring machines;

pipe can be prefabricated concrete, steel, or

fiberglass.

Utility tunneling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Excavation methods may be identical to pipe

jacking methods; most widely used lining

systems are tunnel liner plates, steel ribs with

wood lagging, and wood box tunneling.

Rehabilitation technologies:

Cured in place lining . . . . . . . . . Curing process includes inserting a resin

impregnated hose into an existing pipe; liner

materials include polyester felt, woven glass/

felt, and woven polyester; liner is cured by

heat or ultraviolet light.

Sliplining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Existing pipe is lined with a new pipe, possibly

polyolefin, with spirally wound profiled pipe, or

with pipe that reaches its final shape and size

after insertion into the original pipe and an

expansion process.

Spraying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cementitious or polymeric coating reinforced

with steel is sprayed onto the interior walls of

pipe; cementitious coatings are limited to

man-entry sewers.

Does not require workers in the borehole; some

equipment is laser-guided and remote-controlled.

Requires workers inside the pipe during the excavation and/or spoil removal process.

Smaller than transportation tunnels.

Requires that cuts be made in the liner for lateral

connections.

Joining pipe sections is critical; grouting between

liners and original pipe maybe needed.

Sources of water infiltration must be removed before

lining is applied; can utilize manual spray equipment or remote-controlled spray equipment.

SOURCES: For construction technologies-D,T. Isley, Department of Civil Engineering, Louisiana Teeh University, “Trenehless Excavation Technologies

(TEC) Methods: A Classification System and an Evaluation,” unpublished paper, Second Annual Alumni Appreciation Seminar, Ruston, LA, Nov.

3, 1989. For rehabilitation technologies-K. Reed, The Deve/oprnent ofa Frarneworkfor the Evacuation otsewer Renovation Systems, Report

No. 539 (Huntingdon Valley, PA: Water and Wastewater Technologies, October 1989).

5-3 summarizes the primary trenchless construction

and renovation technologies.

Trenchless construction R&D has focused on

smaller structures-generally less than 42 inches in

diameter-because this size range includes the

majority of piping networks used for water supply,

petroleum product, and sanitary and storm sewer

systems. Rapid development of new techniques and

innovations in traditional methods underscore the

importance of having installers, designers, and

regulatory agencies be familiar with TEC capabilities. Installation of TEC systems requires a high

degree of accuracy and increases the need for

monitoring and control systems, because if trenchless construction is done incorrectly, it can be more

destructive than trenching work.34 Contractors have

been slow to adopt these techniques because of the

complexity of installation and because they prefer

simple methods that provide fewer chances for

technical problems.35 Supporting technologies that

can speed the application of TEC methods include

active guidance systems, improved cutting equipment to handle large cobbles and boulders, and

obstruction sensing equipment.36

Tunneling

ground and

advances, if

Tunnels

consists of excavating a hole in the

supporting the hole as the tunnel

necessary. Conventional tunneling includes a systematized drill and blast cycle for

excavating and tunnel support by timbering, masonry arches, or steel ribs. Tunnel boring machines

(TBMs), introduced in the United States in 1954,

provide a continuous excavation process that is fast

and relatively inexpensive, although use of TBMs is

largely restricted to ground with predictable, constant geology.

The New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM),

one of the most recent innovations, was developed

~D.T. Ise]ey, Dep~ent of Civil Engineaing, Louisiana ‘Ibch Utiver$ity, “Trenchless ‘Ikdnology: Alternative Solutions to Complicated

Underground Utility Network Problems,” seminar notes, Second Annual Alumni Appreciation Seminar, Rustoq LA, NOV. 3, 1989.

35Jsmes B. Gardner, “Trenchless Technology: A Quiet Revolution, ” The National Utility Contractor, vol. 12, No. 12 (ArlingtorL VA: National

Utilities Contractors Association, December 1988), p. 18.

~Natio~ Rme~ch Council, op. cit., footnote 33, pp. 20-21.
Chapter 5—Cross-Cutting Technologies for Infrastructure . 193

in the 1950s for construction of road and water

tunnels in the Alps. The technique met the demands

of extremely variable geology and the need for

flexible construction methods to meet changing

ground conditions. NATM includes drill-and-blast

excavation; extensive use of shotcrete, a light coat of

concrete sprayed on the tunnel walls to seal the

newly exposed rock from the atmosphere and to

support unstable rock; extensive instrumentation to

measure ground deformation; and frequent use of

waterproofing membranes. NATM also requires

contracting arrangements that permit decisions on

construction methods and the extent and timing of

structural support systems to be made jointly by the

engineering and contracting staff as excavation

progresses. While NATM saves money on materials

because it uses no shield and less lining, the savings

realized by the sheer speed of TBM excavation may

offset the extra material costs of conventional tunnel

linings.

A flexible, waterproof, asphalt-based material

recently developed in Japan offers potential as a

backfill material for tunnels, particularly in earthquake-prone areas. Consisting of an asphalt emulsion, cement, and a water-absorbing polymer, the

components are liquid at ambient temperature and

can be pumped, but form a waterproof gel when

mixed. This material has lower strength but higher

ductility than other materials used as tunnel backfill.

The ductility is important because it allows the

material to cushion the shock from earthquakes.

Because the material is more viscous than standard

backfill material, it can fill the space between tunnel

segments and the surrounding rock more completely

and make the tunnel more waterproof.37

Soil Improvements and stabilization

Earth can be strengthened and stabilized by steel

reinforcing bands that are used to form a cohesive

wall or embankment from sand, gravel, and other fill

material. Other reinforcement techniques include

fibro-compaction, compaction grouting, dynamic

compaction, and wick drains.

Soil nailing, or drilling a hole into a slope and

filling it with a steel rod and grout, usually concrete,38 is an alternative method for constructing

retaining walls for construction projects. Although

the technique has been used in other countries for

nearly 20 years, U.S. experience has been limited. A

design manual under preparation for FHWA will

provide specific design information and allow more

widespread use of soil nailing for highway projects.

Jet grouting is a versatile technique for underpinning existing foundations, but other applications are

evolving as the technique becomes better known.

Grout slurry is pumped under high pressure down a

drill pipe 2 to 3 inches in diameter and forced out of

lateral jets at high velocity. The grout shatters the

surrounding earth, mixes with it, and dries, after the

removal of the drill pipe, to form a column up to 48

inches in diameter of grouted soil. The soil and

jetting conditions determine the physical properties

of the column.39 Jet grouting has also been used as

temporary shoring for open cut and shaft excavation,

to construct tie-backs for anchoring reinforced

concrete retaining walls, and to construct nails for

soil nailing.

Dredging Technology and Capabilities

There are two basic methods of dredging—

mechanical and hydraulic-and the particular application depends on sediment type, water depth, sea

conditions, and the location and proximity of the

disposal area. Mechanical dredges employ buckets,

grapples, or other containers to cut and scoop

material and transport it to the surface; they are

generally less efficient for U.S. waterway conditions

than hydraulic dredges, which work like vacuum

cleaners. The pump/suction elements of hydraulic

dredges are often coupled with mechanical devices

to loosen material from the bottom.

Improvements in automation and instrumentation, rather than changes in fundamental dredging

equipment and techniques, offer the best potential

for reducing excavation costs for channel maintenance and construction in the near term. Short-term

dredging contracts, the vast majority of U.S. work,

favor use of older, less-sophisticated equipment and

discourage new investment and R&D.40 The last

wholesale introduction of new private dredge equip37H0Moriyoshi et rd., ‘‘A Composite Construction Material That Solidi.ties in Water, ” Nature, vol. 344, Mar. 15, 1990, pp. 230-232.

3sRe~d Gn.ilsc~ “soil Nailing Debate,” Civil Engineering, vol. 58, No. 8, August 1988, P. 61.

sgpa~ petit and Clayton WoodeQ, ‘‘Jet Grouting: The Pace Qtickms,” Civil Engineering, vol. 58, No. 8, August 1988, p. 65.

~ational Rewareh Council, op. cit., footnote 33, p. 113.
194 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

ment followed the retirement of the Corps’ hopper

dredges in the late 1970s.

Rail Track Construction and Rehabilitation

Track maintenance has been highly mechanized

with complete rail-mounted machines capable of

total track rehabilitation in one operation. These

sophisticated technologies are, in general, used by

the more affluent railroads; smaller railroads tend to

use more traditional manual maintenance methods.41 For example, one class I railroad is testing a

mechanized tie renewal system designed to replace

400 ties per hour. The system carries its own ties,

spikes, anchors, and plates, and consists of several

units, each responsible for a different part of the tie

renewal process (rail anchor removal, spike pulling,

tie removal, tie insertion, and tamping). It travels

along the track at roughly 0.5 mile per hour as it

renews the ties, reducing the labor and track

occupancy time normally needed for tie renewal.42

New equipment designs have also been introduced

for automated ballast tamping operations, ballast

cleaning, rail laying, and aligning and gaging.43

Materials and Corrosion

Concrete and steel will continue to be primary

construction materials for infrastructure for quite

some time. Recent research has identified new

additives, coatings, and uses for these materials to

improve their durability and resistance to operating

stress. Corrosion has plagued all elements of infrastructure for decades, and many technologies exist to

combat this problem at both the design and maintenance levels. However, convincing State and local

officials to invest limited funds in preventive

methods is difficult.

Concrete

Concrete is one of the most widely used construction materials in the United States; it is found in

public works structures ranging from bridge decks to

railroad ties, highways to runways, and structural

supports to water pipes and storm drains. The

principal advantages of concrete include the availability of component materials throughout the country, its low cost, workability at time of installation,

and durability. Concrete is a strong, workable

material, made up of aggregate, cement, water, and

controlled amounts of entrained air. Sand, gravel,

and crushed stone are the most commonly used

aggregates; clay, shale, slate, and slag are more

lightweight, but less frequently used. The lightweight aggregates can reduce initial costs and

produce better acoustic and thermal insulation than

stone aggregate. The trade-off is some loss in

structural strength. Concrete can be recycled, but the

process is difficult, because the old pavement must

be crushed to retrieve the aggregate.44

Cement is the “glue” that binds the aggregate

together. The one most commonly used in construction is Portland cement, a dry powder, consisting of

silica, alumina, lime, and iron oxide, which react

chemically when water is added to form a glue-like

binder. Any excess water not used by the chemical

reaction improves the workability of the cement and

aggregate mixture. However, excess water increases

the porosity of the concrete, which in turn reduces its

strength, and engineers and construction workers

must choose between strength and workability .45

In addition to the basic ingredients, various

additives to concrete mixtures can achieve certain

properties. Air entraining admixtures increase the

amount of air in the concrete material, increasing the

concrete’s resistance to the cracking associated with

freezing and thawing. Accelerators, such as calcium

chloride,46 sodium chloride, sodium sulfate, sodium

hydroxide, sodium sulfite, potassium sulfate, and

potassium hydroxide can speed up the hydration

process to make the concrete set faster, but this may

reduce the materials’ effective lifetime. Organic

materials, such as sugar and lignosulfonates, act as

retarders to slow the hydration process. Under

certain conditions, increasing the time required for

4

1 Federal Railroad AdministratioxL informational documen~ n.d.

dz~~con~uous ~tion Tie Remov*~oW” progressive Railroading, November 1989, PP. 43-44.

4sFederal Railroad Administration op. cit., footnote 41.

44w Ffiedl~d, Avktion Consultants, personal comnumicationj NOV. 8, 1989.

45u.s. co~ss, Offiw of ~~olo~ Assessment ~anCed~ateria/~ ~y~e$ign, 0~-&35 1 (wuhingtoq ~:U.S. Government Phlthlg OfflCe,

June 1988), pp. 48-49.

46~le ~.cim chloride is the most ~mon ~celemtor employed by the com~ction indus~, excessive use ~ cause .StTklUs COITOSiOn Of

steel-reinforced rods. See corrosion section in this chapter.
Chapter 5—Cross-Cutting Technologies for Infrastructure . 195

Photo credit:American Public Works Association

Concrete’s low cost, durability, and workability

at the time of installation make it one of the most widely

used construction materials.

the concrete to set can produce concrete that can

maintain its strength for longer periods of time.

Concrete is considerably stronger under compression than under tension and works well for structures

such as gravity dams, footings, and heavy foundations. To compensate for its low tensile strength,

concrete is generally reinforced with steel. Because

it changes volume at different temperatures and

moisture levels, concrete is subject to cracking.

Joints between slabs of concrete can accommodate

volume changes, but often allow moisture to seep in,

which eventually causes further damage. Proper

design and maintenance can minimize these problems.

Brittleness is another disadvantage of concrete,

which is able to bend only slightly to absorb stress

and may crack as a result. Researchers are studying

the chemical reactions of cements in order to

improve the strength and durability of concrete.

Some aggregates contain silica in a form that reacts

with sodium or potassium in cement, absorbing

moisture and expanding to crack the concrete.

Because of the many advantages of concrete, the

construction industry continues to use it regularly.

Government and university researchers are working

to overcome its limitations. (See table 5-4 for further

information.)

Asphalt

Asphalt is an inexpensive material, processed

from petroleum byproducts, and used primarily as a

cementing and waterproofing agent. Although asphalt’s public works applications include lining

cards and reservoirs, waterproofing and facing

dams and dikes, and coating pipes, more than 70

percent of asphalt produced in the United States is

used as a cementing material for asphaltic concrete

(AC), for paving roads and highways. Hot asphalt is

mixed with hot graded stone aggregate. The mixture

is spread over a gravel base and subbase and rolled,

while still hot, to produce the desired density and

smoothness. 47

The problems associated with AC pavements

include rutting, stripping, fatigue cracking, thermal

cracking, and aging, and may result from improper

installation and maintenance and unexpected traffic

wear. AC pavement’s ability to withstand heavy

loads is a function of both its design and the strength

of the subbase. It can be designed to support the

same loads as concrete pavement, but care must be

taken when it is laid. The Strategic Highway

Research Program (SHRP) (see chapter 6 for details)

will monitor over 800 sections of pavement over the

next 15 years to compare performance with design

in order to improve the design method. These

evaluations of design methods are important because engineers rely heavily on the performance

histories of concrete composed of specific aggregates under certain environmental conditions.48

Resurfacing an AC pavement is relatively simple;

the top inch of the pavement is scraped off and

remixed; then anew layer is added on top of the old.

The remix method gives an excellent seal between

the old surface and new layers and serves as a form

of instant recycling. If surface cracking is too severe,

a fiber mat impregnated with asphalt material can be

laid over the old surface; when the new layer is

placed on top, the mat distributes stress around the

cracks of the old pavement, preventing them from

affecting the new layer.

Current research is focusing on ways to improve

performance of AC pavement. SHRP is studying the

chemistry of the asphalt binder so as to develop

guidelines for State and local engineers to follow

aTMcGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology (New Yorkj NY: McGraw Hill I%blish.bg, 1987), vol. 2, @I ~., PP. 111-112.

4sJohn J3rwmfield, Strategic Highway Reseamh ProgranL personal co-ticatio~ J~e 21, 1~.
196 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table 5-4--Concrete Types Used in Infrastructure

Type Characteristics Uses/comments

Steel reinforced concrete

Prestressed concrete

Post tensioned concrete

Blended cements; cement

substitutes

Blended cements; fast

setting or high early

strength

Fiber reinforced concrete

Roller compacted

concrete

Polymer concrete

Steel reinforcing bars are implanted into concrete

for increased tensile strength.

High-strength steel wire is stretched inside a

concrete member prior to hardening process;

increases tensile strength.

High-strength wires are stretched after the concrete has hardened to increase tensile strength.

Current substitutes are used to reduce overall cost

while increasing strength and reducing permeability of concrete; depends on local availability of

substitutes.

Additives are used to achieve faster curing times

or yield higher early strength.

Small, discontinuous fibers are added (steel,

glass, carbon, nylon, polyethylene, and polypropylene) to concrete mixture.

Concrete using less cement and lower quality

aggregate is rolled after put in place.

Pavement, buildings, dams, parking decks.

Bridges and buildings where heavy weights must be

supported.

Bridges and buildings where weight must be supported.

Reduces costs.

Permits quicker use of finished product; more costly.

Long-term performance of some mixtures needs to

be evaluated.

Adds impact resistance and ductility to the concrete.

Dam construction and Iow-speed heavy-weight vehicle pavements; problems can occur due to poor

binding between layers and random uncontrolled

cracking.

Polymers are added to aggregates. Sets quickly and has low permeability; costs are high.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

Photo credit: American Society of Civil Engineers

Resurfacing an asphaltic concrete pavement is a relatively

simple procedure. The top inch of the pavement is scraped

off and remixed; then anew layer is added on top of the old.

when building a road, runway, or parking lot. These

specifications will describe performance results for

both the asphalt binder and the aggregate selected

and will take into account variations in weather and

temperature. 49 Private sector research to develop

more durable, and more crack-resistant AC products

includes experimentation with a sulfur modifier,

which lowers cost, reduces the amount of petroleum

needed to produce asphalt, and makes the pavement

less susceptible to temperature variations.50

Steel

Steel’s great strength, elasticity, durability, and

ductility make it a valuable material for public

works, where it is used in bridges, building structures, storage tanks, and pipelines. However, steel’s

vulnerability to corrosion requires that coatings or

other protective techniques be used. Galvanized and

polymeric-coated steel, which represent two types of

corrosion protection, are widely used for culverts,

bridge spans, retaining walls, revetments, and underground piping.

Any exposed steel surface will develop a protective oxide layer in the presence of moisture and

oxygen, which isolates it from the environment and

retards corrosion.51 However, if conditions are

hostile enough, this protective layer is not sufficient,

f$~ I-Iamig~ asphalt program manager, Strategic Highway Research ProgranL personal communication Dec. 7, 1989.

=id.

SIN, De@ B~e and J~es Bushman, Corrosion and Cathodic Protection of Steel Reinjlorced Concrete Bridge Decks, WA-P-88-W

(Washiogtoq DC: Federal Highway Admuu“ “stration, 1988).
Chapter I

5—Cross-Cutting Technologies for Infrastructure . 197

and once the steel structure is corroded, the alternatives are costly—shoring up the structure or replacing the affected members. Currently, the best way to

protect a new steel structure in a highly corrosive

environment is to coat it with some type of material,

usually paint. A cathodic protection system can be

used if the steel is in an electrolyte such as soil or

water.

Weathering steel forms a hard, protective, oxide

coating that prevents additional rust. Under the right

combination of moisture, sunlight, and fresh air, it

stands up to corrosive environments better than

conventional steel.52 However, if weathering steel is

not used properly, the formation of the protective

rust film stops, and normal corrosion proceeds

instead of slowing to a negligible rate once the oxide

layer is formed.53 Prolonged exposure to deicing salt

and water, such as might occur in bridges in cold

climates or marine environments, is very harmful to

weathering steel. FHWA has developed guidelines

to aid local officials in designing structures using

weathering steel.54

Geotextiles

Geotextiles, woven or nonwoven fabrics, are

made of long chains of polymeric filaments or yams

formed into a stable network. Geotextiles became

widely available in 1975, when 3 million square

yards were sold. Because the fabrics are inert to

commonly encountered chemicals, sales of 400

million square yards were expected in 1990, driven

by demand for geotextiles for industrial hazardous

waste landfills. Infrastructure needs have also

spurred the geotextile industry, and forecasters see

an annual growth rate for infrastructure applications

of 5 to 10 percent in the near future.55 Geotextiles

have a wide variety of uses in infrastructure maintenance, rehabilitation, and new construction for

drainage; erosion control; materials separation; soil

reinforcement; and blocking moisture seepage. For

example, when used on a road running through a

swampy area, geotextiles can help reinforce the

surrounding banks and prevent soil erosion.

Despite their utility, these relatively new products

have problems that need to be resolved before this

technology gains full acceptance. Uniform quality

standards are lacking, and geotextile manufactures

currently set their own strength and durability

standards. Techniques for working with geotextiles

are not commonly taught in engineering schools, and

the engineering community is consequently reluctant to use geotextiles, because trial-and-error methods have often failed. FHWA, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,

the Associated General Contractors, and manufacturing industry representatives plan to form a task

force to establish performance standards for silt

fences, drainage, erosion, separation, and paving

fabric. Other groups working on standards include

the California DOT, the Army

and the U.S. Forest Service.56

Plastics

Recent advances in plastics,

of polyvinyl chloride (PVC)

have benefited public works

Corps of Engineers,

primarily in the area

pipe manufacturing

infrastructure. PVC

pipes had long been banned from most wastewater

projects, because the pipes did not conform to

standards set by the American Society for Testing

and Materials for compression resistance, tensile

strength, and other loading factors. Manufacturers of

PVC piping assert the pipes can now meet the

standards for pipes up to 60 inches in diameter, large

enough for most water and wastewater applications o

57 PVC piping can attain the same strength as

standard metal or masonry piping, but is more

resistant to corrosion in hostile environments such as

acidic soils or exposure to stray currents

generally lighter, making it easier to handle

Advanced Composites

Advanced composites have been used

and is

in the

aerospace industry for years with great success, but

little advanced composite technology has been

transferred to infrastructure needs. The main hurdle

is a fragmented construction industry, with few

szRiti Robiso~ “weathering StWl: Inclustry>s Stepchild,” Civil Engineering, vol. 58, No. 10, October 1988, p. 42.

5sBroomfield, op. cit., footnote 48.

~Ibid.

55jew D~@o, ~nior geotecticd engineer, Feder~ fi@waY ~

“ “stratiow personal communication Nov. 9, 1989.

‘Michael Lawson, ‘‘Geosynthetics Winning New Respect,” Engineering News Record, vol. 223, No. 17, Oct. 26, 1989, pp. 36-38,

57u.s. congress, office of ~hnology~sesmen~ “Construction and Materials Research and Development for the Nation’s fiblic WOrkS,” sti

paper, June 1987, sec. 7, pp. 4-5.
198 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

incentives to innovate or move away from traditional materials, such as concrete and steel. Other

obstacles include high initial costs and lack of

manufacturing equipment, uniform design codes,

data on long-term performance, and understanding

of advanced composites by public works designers

and engineers and construction and maintenance

officials. Moreover, composites often degrade on

exposure to water, oxygen, and light, leading to

changes in color, size, mechanical properties, and

occasionally to crazing or propagation. The rates of

degradation can be significantly reduced by using

expensive additives that are justifiable for highperformance aircraft, but much less so for public

construction projects.

Advanced composites have many advantages

over traditional building materials. Most are more

durable, lighter, and less costly to maintain, and can

form strong interlocking bonds without rivets or

welds. Composites are not affected by corrosion and

do not require much inspection during the design

life. Many deliver the same strength as traditional

materials, but at much lower weight, a potentially

large advantage for the design of heavy structures,

such as bridges. The largest load that must be

supported by a long span bridge is the dead weight

of the bridge itself, rather than the traffic on the

bridge deck. Therefore, lightweight advanced composites can save money by reducing the amount of

material required to support both the dead weight

and a given traffic density, or the same amount of

material can support much heavier traffic.58

In England, a 7-year advanced bridge project led

to the construction of a 250-ton, corrosion-resistant,

glass fiber bridge, with decks that latch together.

Japan is also researching infrastructure applications

for advanced composites; a 4{ story office building

in downtown Tokyo contains ,0,000 wall segments

made of pitch fibers. 59 ‘

Maintenance: Protecting Against Corrosion

Corrosion of infrastructure components costs

billions of dollars (one major study estimated that

costs total about 4 percent of the Nation’s GNP

annually) in repair, replacement, and lost productivity; approximately 15 percent of these costs are

avoidable with current technology.60 Corrosion most

often affects metal structures, such as bridges,

concrete reinforcing bars, and pipelines, and even

problems invisible to the casual observer can lead to

structural failure, lost lives, the loss of investment,

and damage to the environment. As the average age

of facilities and structures continues to rise, corrosion problems will inevitably worsen, although

expenses can be minimized if proven technologies

and techniques that account for corrosion in all

phases of construction (design, installation or fabrication, maintenance, and repair) are utilized.

A natural phenomenon, corrosion is an electrochemical process through which metals are oxidized

in aggressive environments, such as moist salt air in

a marine environment,6l wastewater in pipelines or

wastewater treatment plants,62 soils in contact with

buried structures or pipelines,63 or where a structure

is subjected to pickup and discharge of stray currents

from such sources as direct current rail systems.64

Material selection, use of coating systems, consideration for corrosion in the design of a facility, and

cathodic protection are options for controlling corrosion. It is important that engineers and other design

professionals be aware of the many available corrosion control techniques and of the benefits of

incorporating them into initial designs to extend the

service life of structures.

Corrosion of reinforcing steel in buried, submerged, and atmospherically exposed concrete

structures including bridge decks and substructures,

piping for water and wastewater, water treatment

5au.s. COW55, Offiw of khnolog Assessment, AdvancedA4atenah by Design: New Structural Materials Technology, OTA-E-351 (_W_OQ

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1988), pp. 87-88.

YW’Cm New ~hnolo~es Save Our mblic Works?” Civd Engineering, vol. 59, No. 12, December 1989, pp. 26-28.

-ational Bureau of Standards, Econonu”c Effects of Metallic Corrosion in the United States: A Report to Congress by the National Bureau of

Standards, NBS Special Publication 511-1 (Washington DC: 1985). Costs are extrapolated from a 1975 study by the National Bureau of Standards.

GIR.J. Kessler and R.G. Powers, “Conductive Rubber as an Impressed Current Anode for Cathodic Protection of Steel Reinforced Concrete,”

Corrosion/89 (Houstoq TX: National Association of Corrosion Engineers, April 1989).

GZJ.L. Vitiobos, + ‘Corrosion of Reinforcing Steel by Hydrogen Sulfide Induced Corrosion in Wastewater Facilities,” Corrosiod90 (HOUStOIL TX:

National Association of Corrosion Engineers, April 1990).

63K.C. Garrity et al., “corrosion Control Design Considerations for a New Well Water Line,” Materials Perforwnce, Au-t 1989.

~’A.w. Peabody, Control Of pipeline Corrosion (HoustoU TX: National Association of Corrosion -WXS, 1%7).
Chapter 5-Cress-Cutting Technologies for Infrastructure . 199

Photo credit:American Society of Civil Engineers

Corrosion of public works infrastructure costs several

billions of dollars annually for repair, replacement, and

lost productivity.

facilities, and parking garages has become a significant problem in the United States for many types of

public works facilities.65 Concrete is porous, and acts

like a sponge in the presence of water or other

liquids. It normally provides a protective environment for reinforcing steel, because its chemical

constituents and highly alkaline nature help create a

protective film on the surface of the steel. However,

if the water contains chloride ions and these

penetrate to the surface of the reinforcing steel, the

protective film will be disrupted and corrosion of the

reinforcing steel will begin.66 As corrosion of the

reinforcing steel progresses, rust products which

have a larger volume than that of the original steel

will accumulate around the corroding area. This

eventually causes cracking and spalling of the

concrete due to forces that can exceed 5,000 pounds

per square inch. Corrosion may also occur when the

protective film does not develop uniformly, as may

happen when calcium chloride is added to concrete

during mixing to accelerate the set of the concrete.

Photo credit: Marsha Fenn, OTA Sfaff

Using properly protected steel bars for concrete

provides defense against corrosion.

Protection

Techniques to protect concrete structures against

chloride contamination include high-quality, dense

concrete, epoxy-coated reinforcing bars, liners, and

corrosion inhibitors added to concrete mixtures (see

table 5-5 for details). Regardless of the choice of

protective method, ongoing maintenance is essential

and replacement may eventually be necessary .67

Maintenance and Rehabilitation

The principal technologies now available for

corrosion prevention during rehabilitation are

cathodic protection, waterproof overlays, epoxy

sealers, and local patching. Once concrete has been

contaminated with chloride ions, engineers have

several options depending on how long the repairs

must last and how much money can be spent (see

table 5-6).68 For example, if a bridge has a functional

life of only 3 to 5 more years before replacement, a

quick fix method is most cost-effective.

Cathodic protection, used by the Navy for more

than 50 years to protect the integrity of ship

components, provides longer term safety. Cathodic

protection is not now widely used on bridge decks,

because placing a new layer of concrete can also be

W3fiice of lkehnoIogy Assessment and National Association of Corrosion Engineers, Materials l’kdmology and -~c~eD=isio_

Workshop, unpublished remarks, Oct. 14, 1989,

66M.L. ~~ ~d B-w. ~~, ~~M=Wc~ s~~tion of Cmosion ~uced Cmcmg in Re~o~~ Concrete,’ COWOMOW8!J (Houston, ~:

National Association of Corrosion Bngineers, April 1989).

S7JoIm Broo~eld, Strategic Highway Research Ro~ personal communication NOV. 30, 1989.

@Natio~ Association of Corrosion Engineers, “Steel Reinforced Concrete Structures Corrosion Control Considerations,” unpublished report,

November 1989.
200 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table 5-5-Corrosion Reduction Techniques

Metho d Characteristics Comment s

High-quality dense Less permeable than ordinary concrete; reduces increases weight and production costs; traditional

concrete the likelihood of chloride ions contaminating steel protection method in high-risk environments.

reinforcement.

Epoxy-coated reinforcing Protective sleeve prevents corrosion even inNow widely used for bridges in United States and

bars (rebars) presence of chloride ions. Canada; requires careful handling during

construction.

Penetrating sealers Thin layer of sealer is applied to surface to reduce Frequently used on roads and highways.

ion penetration.

Waterproof overlays Layer is bituminous, covered with layer of asphalt. Used successfully in European countries.

Corrosion inhibitors Admixtures to concrete mixture. New technology; test results are inconclusive.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on Federal Highway Administration, “Time-to-Corrosion of Reinforcing Steel in Concrete Slabs,”

FHWA-RD-88-165, unpublished report, September 1988.

Table 5-6-Rehabilitation Techniques for Corroded Bridge Decks and Substructures

Metho d Characteristics Comment s

Cathodic protection Current passed through the steel reinforcing bar Current must continue or corrosion can begin again.

stops the electrochemical corrosion activity.

Waterproofing Pavements and bridge decks resurfaced with Membrane can crack soon after installation.

membrane s asphaltic-type concrete.

Epoxy sealers Surface sealed with epoxy or other polymer prod- Effective in short term; sealer often needs to be

ucts to prevent more chlorides from enteringreplaced.

or to change internal moisture content.

Patching Deteriorated concrete replaced. Not effective in the long term unless all the chloridecontaminated concrete is removed.

Conductive polymer Bridge decks and structural supports overlayed with Still under development; experimental testing shows

concrete sprayable conductive concrete to prevent electro- promise.

chemical corrosion.

SOURCE: Office of Technologv Assessment. based on Federal Highwav Administration. “Spravable Electrically Conductive Polvmer Concrete Coatings,”

FHWA-RD-85-102~ unpublished report, July 1987. - -

successful in preventing corrosion. However,

cathodic protection is a preferable method of protecting contaminated concrete substructures, because the removal of a significant layer of contaminated concrete in preparation for an overlay could

result in structural collapse. Missouri, one of the few

States to turn to extensive cathodic protection for

bridges, did so because its bridges had relatively thin

layers of support, and the degree of corrosion made

State DOT officials concerned about their structural

integrity.

Coatings

Because it is simple and cost-effective, paint is the

most common coating for preventing corrosion.

However, environmental concerns have created new

complications for public works officials and for the

paint industry. Regulations governing lead contamination require measures to ensure that lead does not

escape into the atmosphere during paint removal and

. , . . .

that paint debris is disposed of safely. In North

Carolina, DOT officials have turned to sandblasting

off old paint and then using the sand-lead mixture in

asphalt pavement.69 States that do not find such

alternatives face hazardous waste disposal problems.

The air pollution caused by volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) in paints also poses an environmental dilemma. VOCs are hydrocarbon-based solvents that evaporate during application, drying, and

curing and create lower atmospheric ozone in the

presence of nitrogen when catalyzed by sunlight.

While paints without VOCs have been developed,

they do not yet adhere as well or last as long.

Some 224,000 steel bridges in the national

inventory need protection from corrosion. Officials

responsible for their maintenance must find ways to

protect them with coatings that conform to new

environmental regulations.70 In some cases, local

@William G. K.&q “Regulators Putting the Lid on Pain~” Engineering News Record, vol. 223, No. 14, Oct. 5,1989, pp. 3033.

-id.
Chapter 5—Cross-Cutting Technologies for Infrastructure . 201

officials have found it cheaper to replace a bridge

than to strip the paint for coating replacement.71

Since costs for R&D to develop new materials are

prohibitively high for State and local agencies,

FHWA is doing research on protective coatings for

steel as well as how to dispose of contaminated,

removed paint.72

Water and Wastewater Facilities

The pipe systems for water and wastewater

facilities are particularly subject to corrosion. Acidic

and moist soil attacks the outside of the pipe, while

materials in the water or the wastewater corrode

from the inside. Stray currents from such sources as

nearby high-voltage mass transit power supplies, or

grounding systems from electrical distribution systems, and oil and gas pipelines, also cause corrosion.

Three available methods protect pipes from the

effects of corrosion: material selection, coating

selection, and cathodic protection. Advances in

materials and coatings have done much to mitigate

against corrosion and prolong the useful lives of

pipes, making the additional initial investment well

worthwhile. However, the most effective method to

protect a water/wastewater distribution system is

cathodic protection. Gas and oil pipelines are

required by law to have cathodic protection, because

leaks caused by corrosion can lead to explosions. In

contrast, penalties are rarely assessed for a water or

wastewater leak, giving local agencies little incentive for protecting their piping systems. Yet a simple

protection system can extend the life of a piping

network indefinitely, and since corrosive materials

in effluent from wastewater facilities are common,

corrosion protection considerations should be a

routine part of planning a pipe network.73

Technology Management

The complex and fragmented process for Federal,

State, and local public works decisionmaking, the

requirements for community participation in large

projects, environmental impact statements, and

complicated permit processes make public works

project timetables extraordinarily lengthy. Numerous organizations and interest groups committed to

preserving the status quo affect technology choice,

and legal, social, economic, and political considerations usually outweigh technology-related factors. It

is hard to imagine a decisionmaking framework less

adaptable to change and to innovation. Politics often

determine what gets built, by whom, and how, and

somehow elected and appointed decisionmakers

must find an appropriate balance among competing

needs and technology alternatives.

Designing the Project

Every large construction project goes through

similar stages before completion, with preliminary

design activity beginning even before a decision is

taken to start construction. Project design, which has

a major impact on the final outcome, can be carried

out by agency staff or by a design consultant. In

either case, designers pay close attention to existing

design standards and previous projects to ensure the

success of the project and to reduce the financial,

political, and professional risks involved with the

project. Neither agency engineers nor design firms

have an incentive to introduce new technologies

unless directed to do so by the owner, and many

public officials are not interested in being the first

owner of a new technology .74 Thus, technologies

developed offshore are not easily introduced into the

United States because designers are not familiar

with them, operating experience is often under

different conditions, and handbooks and manuals

describing their implementation and use are not

readily available.75

After a design is completed and accepted, bid

documents are prepared, which include the project

design, specifications for materials, parts, and equipment, and contract provisions. Designers rely on

engineering standards and specifications to prevent

unexpected failures, and since the design determines

what the contractor will construct, opportunities for

introducing promising new methods or technologies

are limited. Flexibility in certifying what is acceptable to meet specifications, such as allowing proprietary and sole source technologies, might spur the

71 Don Fohs, chief of materials, Federal Highway ~“ “stratioq personal communication Nov. 28, 1989.

721bid.

TsNational Association of Corrosion Engineers, “Water and Wastewater Corrosion Considerations Offered by the National Association of Corrosion

Engineers,” unpublished paper, November 1989.

TdRudo~ Nothenbmg, chief aws~ative Offlwr, City and County of San Francisco, personal ~mm~catioq Feb. 10S 1989.

Vsvictor Elias, private consultant personal COmmUnimtiOm my 2, 1~.
202 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

use of innovative technology.76 Legal restrictions

often prevent a designer and contractor from working together to develop a better or less costly project.

Long-term maintenance requirements of new

designs must be considered, since an improved

design may reduce capital costs but require additional inspection and maintenance efforts. Because

responsibility for design, construction, operations,

and maintenance is divided in most organizations,

opportunities during design for improving operations are often unknown to, or overlooked by,

designers. Maintenance managers are not always

consulted in the development of specifications for a

facility or equipment for which they will be responsible, even though their suggestions can result in

cost savings.77

One possible improvement to the process is

holding a competition for preliminary designs; this

would allow evaluation before detailed development

of the preferred design and weighing of alternatives

on a basis of more than low cost.78 Although

examining alternative designs can bring long-term

savings, the costs of funding more than one design

may be hard for public officials to justify. Costs are

incurred early in the process, benefits are accrued

only in the future, and there is no guarantee that the

benefits will be as estimated. Projects can be

procured through a design-build contract (see

below), but in some States this approach is not

considered protective of the public interest, and legal

restrictions prohibit it for public projects.79

Design on the basis of system performance is

another way to develop less costly designs. Good

performance specifications require a thorough understanding of the problem and the technological

ways to solve that problem.80 Even when officials

have such understanding, evaluating alternative

designs to meet performance objectives is difficult,

because comparisons are based on a range of criteria

that have different definitions and measures. Evaluating designs that include new or innovative technologies is also difficult, particularly if operating

experience is lacking. Despite these complications,

performance-based design competitions can open

the path for innovative problem solving.

Value engineering (VE) is a very specific cost

control methodology for examinin g a design on the

basis of its functional purpose and capital, operating,

and maintenance costs, so as to identify cost items

unnecessary for the proposed function of the facility.

EPA mandates VE for projects greater than $10

million and currently reports an $18 return per dollar

spent on VE.81 Some design firms perform an

independent in-house VE of all their design projects.82 Some DOT programs, especially in the Urban

Mass Transportation Administration, also require

VE for capital grant-funded facilities.

Procurement Options

Most public works projects are purchased under a

system of competitive bidding that offers those who

are qualified an opportunity to prepare a bid or

proposal. Procurement procedures and regulations

have been developed over time to ensure fairness

and accountability and to protect the large sums of

public money involved. Some procurement regulations, such as Buy America and minority set-asides,

have been established to achieve specific economic

and social goals, but they also can affect technology

choice.

Selection on the basis of lowest cost or ‘low-bid’

is most common for public works projects, even

though the lowest bid price rarely accounts for

quality, performance over time, and maintenance.

Contractors compete against one another in the

bidding process, and often the winner subsequently

competes with the locality to further minimize costs

and maximize profit. However, choices on the basis

of lowest initial cost ignore options that could have

higher quality and long-term economy. Since operating and maintenance costs are not the same for

different designs, a purchase decision that ignores

TcRussell W&aria, Congressional Research Service, ‘‘Productivity in Public Works Construction: Options for Improvement” report 88-97, Jan. 29,

1988. 1

~Robrt Confio, “EWloyee pticipation: The Blue Collar Edge,” Public Works, June 198’7, Pp. 81-82.

78W&aria, op. cit., footnote 76.

%. Gerald Schwar@ vice pnxiden~ Sverdrup Corp., personal communication, May 4, 1990.

~omas Richardson chief, Engineering Development Divisio~ U.S. Army Engineering Waterways Experiment StatioU remarks at the OTA

Workshop on Transportation Infrastructure l’kchnologies, July 25, 1989.

slwiItiJ~bic, private consultaq personal comrnun.imtiom Apr. 30, lm.

szTho~ Morq U.S. Environmen~ Protection Agency, personal COInmUn.iCatiOIl MY 4, lm.
Chapter 5—Cross-Cutting Technologies for Infrastructure . 203

them can result in high expenses in the future. Some

public officials, while recognizing the difficulties of

administering alternative procurement approaches,

characterize low-bid procurement as “penny wise

and pound foolish.”83

One alternative to low-bid procurement is based

on life-cycle cost, which takes into account capital,

operations, and maintenance costs of equipment or

facilities over their expected life. Bidders must work

closely with the purchasing agency to fully understand the performance needs of the owner. A

disadvantage of life-cycle cost procurement is that

promising technologies seldom have life-cycle cost

data to support the analysis, and uncertainty over

future cost prevents wider use.

Federal agencies have successfully used alternative methods of procurement for construction, particularly when time was limited or the project was

complex, unusual, and initially difficult to define.84

These nontraditional methods include:

cost-reimbursable contracts that permit payment of allowable costs plus a fee or profit that

is fixed or variable based on performance;

competitive negotiations that involve face-toface negotiations with a number of potential

contractors;

a two-step bid process, with evaluation of

technical proposals followed by submission

and evaluation of cost proposals;

concurrent design-build, which allows the start

of the construction phase before the design is

completed; and

turnkey construction, in which a firm assumes

the responsibility for design and construction

and hands the keys over to the owner upon

completion. In a variation of the turnkey

approach, the contractor would also have responsibility for operations and maintenance.

Each of these approaches involves additional contract administration effort; and legal, administrative,

or political considerations can make them difficult to

implement. 85

The design-build approach in which a single firm

is awarded the contract to design and build a facility

has been used successfully for private construction

projects. Combining the design and construction

steps with a contract to operate and maintain is

another possibility, one that is currently being used

for the Channel Tunnel project linking England and

France. The contractor won the right to develop the

tunnel at its own expense and the concession to

operate the tunnel until 2042 with freedom to set

tolls. 86 Variations of this approach are possible for

other revenue generating projects where private

financing is available, although approval by a

legislative body is often required.

Standards and Specifications

Design standards help the designer achieve a safe

and reliable design and serve to protect the owner’s 87The process for investment from inferior products.

establishing standards and specifications is lengthy,

and once developed, standards are difficult to

change. Thus while providing substantial protection

to the owner, they limit the opportunity for introducing product improvements. Standards can range

from theory-based, structural design standards to

mandated water quality standards for treating municipal wastewater. They are usually conservative in

nature and include a safety factor that is a reminder

that our understanding of risks, materials, and

designs is not always complete; 88 as just one

example, EPA regulations have been described as

requiring wastewater to be treated so that it is cleaner

than the receiving stream without addressing the

need to protect the stream from other pollution

sources .89

83HCW w. We&q vice c~ South Coast Air Quality Management District, remarks at the OTA Workshop on Transportation Infrastructure

lkchnologies, July 25, 1989.

~Fede~ com~ction Comcil Comul@ committ~ on fiocmaent policy, Experiences Of Fe&Tu/ Agencies wi~~ Nontraditional Methods of

Acquiring Real Properly, ~hnical Report No. 83 ~ashingtoq DC: National Academy Press, 1986).

85WI&aria, op. cit., footnote 76.

86’’ Managing a Megaprojec4° Civil Engineering, vol. 59, No. 6, June 1989, p. 45.

sTMic~el ~use, ‘‘Workshop Report-Engineering Standards Versus Risk ~ysi$’ Risk-Based Decision Making in Water Resources, Yacov Y.

Haines and Eugene Z. Stakhiv (eds.) (New Yorlq NY: American Society of Civil Engineers, November 1985).

sgFomest WilSO~ “Doctors for Building,” Technology Review, vol. 89, No. 4, May/June 1986, p. 49.

89whit ~Cott, ~o~ssioner of Watm, Tol~o, Ohio, remks at the Om workshop on Envim~en~ ‘Ikchnologies, Sept. 14, 1989, p. 64.
204 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Construction contracts include many specifications and provisions that go beyond the actual

project design. They include general provisions

regarding legal issues such as liquidated damages,

project change orders, terms of performance, and

methods and schedule of payment; special provisions dealing with system or equipment verification,

quality assurance, and contractor deliverables; and

technical provisions that describe all the specifications that must be met.

Risk and Liability

Each new technology is surrounded by risk due to

uncertainty. The risk is multifaceted and includes:

●

●

●

●

●

●

technical risk (will the system do what it is

designed to do?);

health risk (will it control disease as effectively

as other technologies?);

safety risk (will it reduce injury and death?);

financial risk (will the investment be justified?);

political risk (will the technology provide

desirable results?); and

liability risk (will the potential for failure be

financially bearable?). -

Public decisionmakers are reluctant to purchase

new technology; their basic decision guideline is

that technology should be proven in the field or in

revenue service before being considered for their

jurisdiction. While it maybe an exaggeration to say

that administrative agencies “. . . anguish over new

technology and the possible effects on society . . .“90 it is true that public works are not "

. . . well-suited for trial-and-error management; the

cumulative operating experience is not long enough

to provide a good database on what the risks are.’ ’91

However, if opportunities for introducing new

technologies are limited by various risks, the value

of seeking better methods for testing and evaluating

new technologies is great.

Risk-sharing arrangements, which recognize that

no one party can afford to accept all the risk,

represent one way to overcome bias against new

technology. Risk sharers can include all levels of

government that would benefit from successful

application, local investors and developers who

could gain financially, and manufacturers and contractors who anticipate future sales contracts. The

need to spread the risk in the United States results

from governmental unwillingness to establish a

recognized authority to test and approve new technologies. 92 Efforts such as EPA’s Innovative and

Alternative Technology Program (see box 5-C) were

designed to provide an increased Federal match to

localities for construction grants.93 Demonstration

projects that help bridge the gap between a developed technology and Ml-scale implementation in an

operating environment are an effective way to

encourage the use of advanced technologies.

Repair and Rehabilitation

Although numerous studies have documented the

value of good maintenance practices, maintenance

funds are highly vulnerable to budget cuts.94 Easy to

overlook and defer and with little or no political

constituency, maintenance has been compared to

visiting the dentist because, ‘‘. . . it’s painful and

costly . . . and it doesn’t get done unless it is

absolutely necessary or catastrophic. ”95 Because

maintenance budgets are limited, small repairs are

often made with low-grade materials to eliminate an

immediate problem and to delay a more costly,

longer lasting repair.

Inventories, inspections, and evaluation are all

needed to avoid costly repairs and rehabilitation. A

recent study of New York’s bridges stressed the

importance of preventive maintenance, recognizing

that if maintenance is stopped, even for short

periods, deterioration accelerates.96 The study also

concluded that although modem methods are helpful, some of the best steps are the simplest. Cleaning,

~peter M&jr, “Don’t Innovate: It’s Dtlu&Tous,” Civi/Engineenng, vol. 58, No. 4, April 1988, p. 6.

glW~~rDi~~d, ‘tRisk ~ysis ~d public work ~ision.q,” Engineering AppliCutiO~ Of RiskAnaly~s, F.A. E@ Jr., ~d A. Moghhsi

(eds.) (New York NY: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1988), pp. 39=43.

%Iational Council on public Works hnprovemen~ Fragile Foundations: A Report on the Nation’s Public Works, Final Report to the President and

the Congress (Washingto~ DC: February 1988), p. 128.

gs~e~m public Works ASSOCiariOU “structuring Demonstration Projects of New lkchnologiea,” Proceedings, Aug. 3, 1987, p. T.

XApogee Research ~c., ‘‘Maintaining Good Maintenance,” technical memorandum prepared for the National Council on Public Works

Improvement Sept. 30, 1987.

9s~ Co~ Op. cit., footnote 89.

%, ~Ffig -tAin’t Broke, “ Civil Engineering, vol. 59, No. 9, September 1989, p. 69.
Chapter 5—Cross-Cutting Technologies for Infrastructure ● 205

Box 5-C—The Environmental Protection Agency’s Alternative and

Innovative Technology Program

Americans’ zest for innovation and the drive to build a better mousetrap fades rapidly when it comes to public

works. The history of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) efforts to promote nontraditional technologies

for wastewater treatment highlights the conservatism of State and local officials’ attitudes toward public works

innovation.

Disturbed that the construction grant program established by the Clean Water Act of 1972 was funding

predominantly large regional facilities using conventional technologies, Congress authorized the Innovative and

Alternative Technology (1/A) Program in 1977 to absorb the financial risks of local experiments with nontraditional

system design and construction. If a community used an EPA-approved alternative treatment or innovative

technology, EPA covered an extra 20 percent (or 75 percent) of project costs, even if they were as much as 15 percent

higher than conventional methods. Communities that chose new technologies were eligible for 100 percent grants

to corrector replace systems that failed. States were required to set aside 4 percent of their total Federal construction

grant allocations to fund the required bonuses for new technologies.

While providing a proving ground for experimental technology was a prime program goal, only 600 out of the

2,700 I/A-funded projects meet EPA’s definition of innovative--using developed, but not fully proven

technologies. l This category includes, for example, new aeration and mixing processes and innovative

kinds of clarifiers and disinfection for wastewater treatment, and aerobic and/or anaerobic digestion of sludge. The

vast majority of I/A projects use more orthodox methods EPA classifies as alternative; these include land treatment

of wastewater and sludge, aquifer recharge, and methane recovery—well known, if not widely used, techniques that

are low cost and emphasize environmental preservation and energy conservation. Despite the relatively low

participation in innovative projects, EPA reports that the acceptance of ultraviolet disinfection as an alternative to

chlorination and technical improvements in sequencing batch reactors for small communities are direct results of

I/A-funded projects.2

Most I/A grants have gone for alternative projects in capital-short, small communities more interested in

money and low-cost operations than cutting-edge technology. Over two-thirds of I/A projects serve communities

with populations under 10,000, many of which would have had low priority for Federal or State funding outside

the I/A program.3 Between 1979 and 1985, over one-half of the States failed to appropriate all their State I/A

set-aside, foregoing millions in Federal funds.4

Funding for I/A projects ended in 1990 when the Construction Grant Program expired. Innovative wastewater

treatment projects are eligible for State Revolving Fund loans, but for most communities, loan repayment is likely

to be a further disincentive to innovation and risk-taking.

1

u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Effectiveness of the Innovative and Alternative Wastewater Treatment

Technology Program (Washington DC: September 1989), p. 66.

2

Ibid., p. 67.

3

Ibid., p. 64.

4

Ibid., p. 45,

painting, patching, and sealing need to be performed

regularly.

Proprietary Technologies

When the private sector develops a better mousetrap, the rights to it are important because of the

competitive advantage they bring. Selling the improved mousetrap to the public sector may be

difficult, because public authorities want to protect

themselves against price changes or supply problems associated with proprietary technologies.97

Furthermore, the private sector may have to forego

some proprietary rights on a product purchased by

the public sector, thereby sacrificing its competitive

position. Sole source procurement is possible where

a one-of-a-kind product is available, but procedures

built into the procurement system to protect against

favoritism make sole sourcing difficult.

97Vakharia, op. cit., footnote 76, p. 21.
206 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Personnel Training, Education, and

Recruitment

As promising as many new technologies appear,

they cannot be used properly without trained managers and technicians, and there is much evidence that

the public works field is losing its well-trained

people to the private sector and to retirement much

faster than they are being replaced. Many new

technologies require new skills; in some cases jobs

must be redefined or job assignments combined, so

that qualified people can be hired at a competitive

salary .98 Some public works departments are providing special training for entry-level employees to help

them qualify for jobs and for additional technical

training.99 The current need for repair and rehabilitation in public works increases the severity of these

problems, because very little engineering training

and education focuses on emerging methods or

technologies.

Small systems have particular difficulty in finding

trained personnel to operate and maintain the

complex treatment systems necessary to meet current EPA standards. The National Rural Water

Association with funding from EPA has developed

a circuit rider program (see chapter 4, box 4-E) to

alleviate some of the problems created by the lack of

trained personnel, but more help is needed. Qualified

circuit riders soon leave the program for more

money and greater opportunity in larger systems.

Thus while it is important to develop special

technologies for small systems, helping find the

people to staff them is even more crucial.

Improved training and education are necessary for

many reasons. If procurement procedures are

changed to allow promising technologies to be

introduced more quickly, public works staffs must

be capable of adjusting to the improvements. Procurement decisions based on performance standards,

for example, will require abilities that are not now

generally available. As one expert puts it, “We

cannot have performance specifications if all we

have are a bunch of contract monitors. ‘‘lWNontraditional procurement procedures will also require

more contract administration and greater coordination between the technical and administrative staffs

of public agencies.l0l

The construction industry and its labor unions

have recognized the need for additional well-trained

personnel and have initiated a national training

program, spending about $400 million last year

alone.l02 DOT’s university centers, too, are focusing

on attracting students to stay in the civil engineering

field in public works. (See chapter 6 for further

details.)

Conclusions

Although many innovative technologies are available to help infrastructure managers use staff more

productively and improve system operation and

maintenance, institutional, management, and financial constraints prevent their adoption by most

public works organizations. Moreover, since many

of these originated in fields other than infrastructure,

successfully applying them to public works requires

additional analysis, development, and field testing

and evaluation. Yet, despite a multitude of Federal

technology transfer programs, efforts to implement

cross-cutting technologies with application across a

range of public works have no institutional home.

Acceptance and use of new technologies is

closely tied to legal requirements and management and procurement policies that inhibit consideration of alternatives without an extensive

record of operational experience. Although caution is necessary when public funds are used,

Federal leadership would be invaluable in developing appropriate safeguards and evaluation

procedures that allow a broader set of technology

alternatives to be considered.

9SU.S. Covess, ~lce of ‘rkchnoIogy Assessmen~ A4&”ng Things Better: CoWeting in Man@a~”ng, s~(waahingtq DC: Us.

Government Printing Office, February 1990), p. 22.

~C~o@ H. OlseU comissioner, Atlanta Department of Water and Pollution Contro~ personal communicatio~ Feb. 7, 1990.

l~om ~~hadsom c~~, fi@e@ ~velwent Divisio~ u-s. Army -eering wat~ays fiperiment StitiO& remdts d the OT A

Workshop on Transportation Infrastructure ‘Ikchnologies, July 25, 1989.

IOIF~e~ Comtiction Coucfi co~~co~tt= on fimment poficy, Experiences Of Fe&ru/AgenCieS with Nontraditional Methods of

Acquiring Rea/Prope~, ‘IHmical Report No. 83 (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1986).

low. Jwes spel~e, me ~ber Group, persorud communications, my 101990.
Chapter 5—Cross-Cutting Technologies for Infrastructure . 207

Promising Technologies

Computers for scheduling work tasks, monitoring

equipment use, ordering and tracking supplies,

tracking staff requirements, organizing and tracking

documents, and performing many other routine

functions in public works projects have brought

enormous benefits. Public works organizations are

most likely to be using computers; the degree to

which other electronic or advanced decisionmaking

tools are used depends on the skill levels of

personnel and the agency’s financial resources.

Communications and Decision Tools

Advances in solid-state electronic technology

have fueled the development of low-cost reliable

tools to assist public works managers in assessing

their systems. These sensing and measuring devices,

especially when coupled with information management systems, can provide extensive infrastructure

condition and performance data for many decisionmaking and management tasks. They can also

reduce long-term maintenance costs by helping

managers to identify problems when they are less

costly to correct and to set maintenance priorities

when funding is tight. However, budget processes

make it difficult for public works officials to

purchase items designed to reduce future expenditures or those not directly related to current needs,

and most current Federal grant categories preclude

use for this sort of equipment.

Computer-based inventory and decision support

systems provide efficient means of storing and

accessing infrastructure condition and performance

data. Expert systems and artificia1 intelligence

programs show promise as training and engineering

tools. Computer systems coupled with appropriate

technical skills and decisionmaking tools can help

public works authorities faced with expanding

inventories of facilities and limited operating budgets operate more productively and efficiently.

Advances in communications and positioning

technologies may make large-scale traffic management and control, common today in aviation, practical for other modes of transportation. Surface traffic

flow gains on the order of 10 percent are possible,

and in congested areas this might result in large

reductions in delay. Off-the-shelf urban traffic signal

control systems can reduce delay by up to 10 to 20

percent.

Construction and Materials

Considerable research is under way on materials

for highway construction to yield longer life and

lower maintenance costs. Improved methods and

techniques for construction and preventive maintenance are as important as materials to prevent

premature failure. Construction methods that do not

physically disrupt normal operations and minimize

the tra.file delays of traditional methods of construction are available for wider use in public works. Such

methods are particularly cost-effective in congested

areas and for heavily used facilities, and are also

important for repair and rehabilitation projects.

Advanced tunneling technologies provide opportunities for lower cost construction for transportation and water projects. Combined with electronic

guidance and monitoring equipment these technologies can make completing such projects easier and

less costly.

Techniques such as soil nailing and jet grouting

and using geotextiles make it easier to utilize

existing soils and terrain conditions, lowering construction costs. Such techniques also can be used for

cost-effective repairs and rehabilitation and deserve

further exploration and development.

Although their initial cost is higher, advanced

materials, such as polymers and composites, can

yield higher strength, longer life, and improved

durability to public works, making them good

long-term investments. In addition, regular, preventive maintenance and using known techniques can

save the costs and prevent many of the losses due to

corrosion of infrastructure facilities and equipment.

Technology Management

Probably the greatest gains in public works

productivity and efficiency will be made by focusing

on changing management practices. Table 5-7 provides a summary of issues and alternatives.

Changes in the Federal Role

Federal policies could be shaped to encourage

public officials to make greater use of procurement approaches that have proven successful for

public projects. Using life-cycle costs and value

engineering in making procurement decisions can

help lower long-term costs without affecting project

performance.
208 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table %7—Alternatives for Technology Management

Subiect Issues Alternative

Project design

Procurement

Standards and

specifications

Risk and liability

Repair and

rehabilitation

Personnel training,

education, and

recruitment

Engineers and designers have few incentives to introduce innovative technologies; designers and contractors are often legally prohibited from working

together on public projects. Project designs direct

contractors as to what to construct so they have no

incentive to innovate except in construction techniques.

Low-bid procurement does not account for quality,

performance over time, and future maintenance requirements. it encourages adherence to the status

quo and stifles the opportunity for innovation.

Design standards are vaiuabie but they are difficuit to

change and hinder innovation. The scope of project

specifications has expanded to include many provisions that address legal and administrative areas.

Public decisionmakers have little or no incentive to

introduce a new technology; risk aversion is widespread in the public sector. industry is highly

protective of proprietary technology.

Poor and deferred maintenance are known to lead to

premature failures and deterioration of capital facilities,

and yet decisionmakers often discount the long-term

value of good maintenance,

New technologies require new technical skills and too

few engineers are entering the field to meet the need.

improved training and education is needed so that

innovative technologies can be put into use quickly

and effectively.

Design competitions, performance specifications,

and value engineering furnish opportunities for

innovative approaches.

Alternative procurement methods have proven successful in delivering higher quality products, often

at a lower cost. Design-build procurement has been

used to advantage in the private sector for many

years.

Streamlining design standards and contract specifications would be helpful. A materials testing laboratory could hasten new technology introduction.

Risk-sharing arrangements are necessary for the

public sector to embrace new technology. Demonstration projects can encourage innovative technologies. Funding tied to performance may provide an

additional incentive.

inventories, condition assessment data, and preventive maintenance programs together with capital

funding that is tied to these can force appropriate

actions.

Efforts to educate and train engineers and technicians that include the engineering profession,

universities, consultants, and unions need private

and public support to address the severe staff

shortages.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

Acceptance of new technologies requires a sharing of the financial and technical risks among

designers, manufacturers or builders, and government agencies that finance and operate these technologies. Projects designed to evaluate, refine, and

demonstrate innovative technologies in an operating

environment would help promote new technology

and provide a basis for determining their value. Such

demonstration projects will require considerable

public-private cooperation, and Congress could

consider focusing a few R&D programs on

promising technology areas and encouraging

public-private arrangements.

The establishment of an authoritative institution

for testing and approving new technologies would

help avoid some of the current problems associated

with risk and liability. Such an institution will

require considerable support from the Federal Government (see chapter 6 for a discussion of the

National Institute of Standards and Technology). An

independent, national testing laboratory and

national technology demonstration program

sponsored by the Federal Government could

encourage researchers and facilitate the introduction of new products and technology.

Even though preventive maintenance is an important component in protecting the investment in

capital facilities, the value of maintenance is often

discounted when the competition for limited budgets

increases. Congress could consider ways to recognize deferred maintenance as a cost item and to

hold the capital grant recipients accountable for

premature deterioration of facilities and equipment due to improper and deferred maintenance.

Personnel Training, Education, and

Recruitment

The complexity of much new technology places

high demands on the technicians, operators, and

maintenance personnel involved. The need for

additional training of such personnel and their

managers is very great if new technology is to be

used effectively. Consultants, manufacturers, professional organizations, unions, and universities all
Chapter 5—Cross-Cutting Technologies for Infrastructure . 209

can help provide training. Mentor programs that

provide help to small systems would be particularly

helpful.

The average age of infrastructure managers increases, and the numbers of young graduates in

relevant fields to take the place of the retiring

infrastructure work force are insufficient. The

United States faces a serious shortage of qualified

personnel to operate public works. Directing additional funds to programs that support university

research in transportation and environmental

infrastructure could attract students back to

transportation and civil engineering and alleviate

the worsening shortage of qualified engineers to

design, build, operate, manage, and maintain

infrastructure systems. Congress could address

the need for more engineers and for engineering

curricula that includes attention to maintenance

and rehabilitation.
Research and

for

Development

Public Works
Contents

Page

Executive Agency R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215

Department of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

National Institute Of Standards and Technology ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

National Science Foundation ** ..+***.....+.....*......*.***.*.*.....*.**...++.. 227

Department of the Interior **. ,*, . * . * . *, * ., . . *,, * * * . . . . * . * * * . . . *, . . . . + * . . . . . . . . . . 229

DoD and DOE Laboratories ..+. * . . . . . . . . * * * * . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

Technology Transfer ,*. .*** ..*. ***. .?. .+** @*. $*. .*** *.*. .+. .*. *.. *. * . . . 4.*+..... 232

Non-Federal R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

State Research Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233

State Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

Industry and Association R&D ,, ..****......*.*,**,*.+*.*..,,.*..+..........***. 234

Conclusions and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .235

Federal Agency Public Works R&D .,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

Technology Transfer .*. .**. *.. ... ... o.*. .*. *.. .*** ..** ..*. .*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

Technical Training and Expertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .239

Boxes

Box Page

6-A. Tunneling: A Buried Research Priority . .,...,.,....,..,.’.....,...,........,, . 214

6-B. University Infrastructure Research *.** 4*** .*0. * * @ * o * * . * ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

6-C. Ben Franklin Partnerships .* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

Figures

Figure Page

6-1. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development

Organization Chart o.. *.. .** ..*..*.**..*...*...*..*.+*..*...*....**....*..*.. 217

6-2. Annual Department of Transportation R&D Obligations, 1978 and 1988.........221

6-3. Federal R&D Funding for Highways . . . . . . . * . . * . . . * *, . *, . . ., . . . * . . * * * .,.*,.... 223

6-4. National Institute of Standards and Technology Total Federal Appropriations,

1980-90 *,. .*. ..**, *.#. ,.** ., . ., . . . ., . . * . . .,, , . . . * * * * . ., ., * ., * .,, , * *,+.,.... 227

6-5. Federal Federal for Public Works R&D, 1980-90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

Tables

Page

6-L Environmental Protection Agency Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

6-2, Department of Transportation Public Works Research and Development . . . . . . . . . 220
CHAPTER 6

Research and Development for Public Works

Most Federal agencies with major roles in public

works provide important management and financial

support for research and development (R&D) in

their areas of interest. They are the primary bodies

(and in some cases the only ones) with enough

resources to do this, although, like their State and

local counterparts, they must allocate resources

carefully. Furthermore, Federal R&D support often

ranks behind agency responsibilities for funding

construction, operations, or grant programs. The

absence of any comprehensive Federal attention to

infrastructure, the gaps and overlaps in R&D programs, and the competition for scarce funds for

Federal R&D mean that attention to future infrastructure needs is inadequate. Only a few nonFederal researchers in State, university, and industry

programs are addressing the resulting voids in

infrastructure R&D.

Among the many infrastructure R&D efforts

supported by executive branch agencies are a

number of in-house programs in direct support of

each agency’s mission and programs to fund university research and other, more specialized agendas.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and each

modal administration in the U.S. Department of

Transportation (DOT) all sponsor mission-related

R&D programs dedicated to infrastructure. Other

executive agencies, including the U.S. Department

of the Interior, the U.S. Department of Commerce,

and the National Science Foundation (NSF), conduct a smaller amount of public works R&D.

In addition to the primary executive agency

sponsors of mission-related R&D, several other

executive agencies have programs tangential to

public works, such as the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration marine R&D and the U.S. Department of

Agriculture’s Soil Conservation Service agricultural

R&D. However, the level of effort related to

infrastructure is small compared with the programs

discussed in this chapter. Though the relevant

programs of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)

and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) are also

limited, these agencies are discussed because some

of their R&D could be applied to infrastructure.

Focusing first on the Federal agencies devoted to

public works, then on those with related programs,

and then on DoD and DOE, this chapter will outline

the patchwork of public works R&D programs,

paying special attention to in-house and federally

funded university research. State efforts and several

relevant programs, including technology transfer

efforts, will be discussed, and conclusions reached

about options for redirecting Federal R&D.

Executive Agency R&D

Infrastructure-related R&D under the direction of

executive branch agencies is directly tied to, and

limited by, each agency’s agenda and responsibilities. Even though many of the technologies and

infrastructure needs are cross-cutting (see chapter 5),

cooperative R&D and coordination between agencies-even within a single agency—is relatively

rare. When a specific R&D need is common to

several agencies, the efforts to cooperate are so

narrow and uncoordinated that the research results

often do not reach the public works organizations

that could benefit. (See box 6-A for an example.)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has both civil

works and military missions focused largely on

infrastructure, for which yearly R&D expenditures

total about $350 million. In civil works, the research

emphasis is on water resources structures and

functions primarily related to navigation, flood

control, and environmental quality. Corps military

R&D focuses on design, construction, operation,

and maintenance of military facilities; some of this

is also applicable to public works infrastructure.

Although it is within DoD, the Corps has more

extensive contact with State and local governments,

the private sector, and other Federal agencies than do

other military R&D operations. The Corps’ Construction Productivity Advancement Research Program (CPAR) is aimed at stimulating collaboration

on technology issues between Corps laboratories

and private enterprise, particularly the construction

industry. CPAR attracted an investment of $7

million from the private sector in 1989.

–213-
214 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Box 6-A—Tunneling: A Buried Research Priority

Tunnel research and development (R&D) in the United States has never been a top priority or even a focused

activity for Federal Government agencies, despite its broad applications for public works. Government agencies that

fund tunnel and underground construction projects include the Federal Highway Admin“ “stration, the Urban Mass

Transportation Administration, the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Transportation (DOT), the

Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Energy, the Bureau of Mines, and the Bureau of Reclamation.

These agencies generally fund specific construction projects, with occasional attention to subtasks, such as

tunneling. Most university research is funded by DoD and, to a lesser extent, the National Science Foundation.

In contrast, tunnel research abroad tends to be long term and not tied to a specific project. U.S. projects related

to underground structure currently underway include the Superconducting Super Collider in Texas and a feasibility

study for a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada These efforts could further understanding of

waterproofing techniques and tunneling through unstable rock. Gummily, however, non-DOT projects have little

applicability to public works tunnels, even though the technologies developed could, with appropriate development,

benefit public infrastructure.

Machine manufacturers contin“ ually conduct research to improve cutting and excavation methods, and

contractors occasionally focus on ways to improve

field instrumentation and monitoring methods. See

chapter 5 for a discussion of the difficulties of using

proprietary equipment and procedures for public

works projects. The National Academy of Science’s

National Cmmittee on Tunneling Technology acts as

a technology clearinghouse, provides guidelines on

needed research, and represents the United States in the

International Tunneling Association.

Most important for tunneling is research to find

ways of integrating tunnel boring and excavation with

adequate tunnel support. Having the initial support

become the permanent lining is desirable, but difficult.

In excavating, the next big R&D breakthrough will be Although tunnels such as this are crucial to surface machines that can cut through ground with variable transportation , technologies to construct

geology; water jets and heat are among the technolo- have not been a research and development priority in

gies for cutting and excavation now under study. the United States.

Until the early 1980s, Corps civil works R&D was activities and concerns. (For more on the Corps’

concentrated on technologies and techniques in administrative structure, see chapter 2.) The combisupport of new construction to develop water

resources. Since 1983, however, the Corps’ appropriations related to operations and maintenance have

outpaced those for new construction. While

"

. . . technology development has lagged in the area

of operations and maintenance . . .’ the Corps has

taken steps to enhance such R&D as the 6-year,

$35-miIlion civil works Repair, Evaluation, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation Research program.

The Corps supports 16 laboratories; 6 of these

have active research programs, while the others

conduct tests related to Corps district construction

nation of experimental facilities, computer modeling, simulation expertise, and experience in the field

working with user communities makes the Corps’

large laboratories a unique resource. Because Corps

laboratories do not receive a direct congressional

appropriation, the laboratories work on a reimbursable basis, with sponsors, most frequently other

Corps’ offices, paying all costs of the work involved.

Three of the Corps’ six main laboratories, the

Waterways Experiment Station (WES), the Cold

Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory

(CRREL), and the Construction Engineering Re1

U.S. Army corps of Engineers, “Advanced Technologies for Infrastructure,” unpublished manuscript prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, n.d., p. 20.
Chapter 6-Research and Development for Public Works . 215

search Laboratory (CERL), are involved primarily in

infrastructure technology R&D. Each has substantial research and testing facilities and in-house

technical staff.

The WES laboratory complex in Vicksburg,

Mississippi, is the Corps’ principal research, testing,

and development facility. WES has six subdivisions,

which collectively execute engineering investigations and R&D in areas such as hydraulics, soil and

rock mechanics, earthquake engineering, coastal

effects, concrete, pavements, water quality, and

dredged material. Although Corps’ offices are the

source of the majority of WES’ work, WES also

undertakes studies for other Federal agencies, State

and local governments, private industry, and foreign

governments.

CRREL, located in Hanover, New Hampshire,

concentrates on the science and engineering problems of cold regions, such as river ice management

for winter navigation, ice jam flooding, and other

ice-related, hydrological problems. CRREL also

conducts R&D on reducing life-cycle costs of

pavements, buildings, and environmental engineering facilities. CRREL has ongoing cooperative

programs with the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA), the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA), the Strategic Highway Research Program,

EPA, DOE, other DoD organizations, and a number

of State DOTS.

CERL, located in Urbana, Illinois, emphasizes

improving construction quality and energy efficiency while still safeguarding the environment.

CERL works with nondestructive testing technologies, corrosion prevention, materials, and information systems, in support of Army programs in

military construction, operations and maintenance,

and engineering, with some attention to civil works.

Technologies developed by CERL applicable to

public works include PAVER, a pavement maintenance and management information system. CERL

cooperates with DOT’s FHWA and FAA, and with

municipalities through the American Public Works

Association.

The Corps works hard on technology transfer

through seminars, conferences, the publication of

technical papers—WES alone issues over 225,000

publications annually-demonstration and transfer

programs, input to national standards development,

cooperative agreements with universities and the

private sector, participation in professional societies, and formal training courses. However, the

agency acknowledges difficulties in keeping even its

own personnel up-to-date on all the latest technology?

The Corps probably has the most extensive

in-house civilian public works R&D capacity in the

country, though it is now heavily committed to water

resources development. The Corps is trying to

diversify its role, targeting environmental engineering and hazardous waste cleanup as potential new

areas of expertise. The Corps could be a more widely

shared resource for other agencies and the private

sector, if prospective client agencies are willing to

develop appropriate R&D programs and able to

make firm financial commitments.

Environmental Protection Agency

EPA conducts much of the Federal environmental

infrastructure R&D, with most of the agency’s R&D

resources focused on its in-house program in support

of its regulatory activities. Some R&D is written into

legislation, such as the 1990 requirement for continuing acid rain assessment and research. Some of the

R&D, such as toxics research, is mandated in EPA’s

founding statutes.3

EPA spreads its R&D budget across a number of

media-specific programs, as well as in a newly

structured interdisciplinary program. Air-related

problems, such as ozone, global warming, and acid

rain, have consumed 23 percent of EPA’s R&D

budget, with 24 percent going to hazardous materials, 24 percent to interdisciplinary research, 11

percent to water-related issues, and 9 percent to

toxics (especially pesticides). Air-related research is

largely concerned with health issues, though work

includes research on State controls for ozone and

other airborne pollutants.4 Research on hazardous

materials is concentrated on engineering issues

mid., p. 20.

qhericm Assoctition for tie Advmmment of Science, I.ntersociety Working Group, AAAS Report XIV: Research and Development, FY 1990

(wmo~ ~: 1989), p. 100.

4AmtXiCtUI Assochtion for the Advancement of Science, I.ntersociety Working Group, AAAS Report XV: Research and Development, ~1991

(washi.ngtom DC: 1990), p. 131.
216 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

related to disposal and cleanup of hazardous wastes

and on interdisciplinary work at EPA’s university

centers. EPA has recently consolidated some diverse

R&D and added new programs emphasizin g

“interdisciplinary research. ” These now comprise

the single largest program type focused on basic

research-especially in the areas of ecologica l

studies and human exposure assessments. 5

R&D Resource Allocation

In late 1990 EPA had nine assistant administrators, each overseeing several offices that do research, and each separate from, but cooperating

with, the regional administrative offices. EPA’s

assistant administrator for research and development

alone oversees five offices (see figure 6-1) that

administer R&D laboratories that support EPA’s

regulatory activities and responses to legislative and

executive directives. A sixth office, the Office of

Technology Transfer and Regulatory Support,

serves as the connection between EPA laboratories

and “clients’ needing direct contact with EPA, and

serves as manager for an information clearinghouse

in Cincinnati. The Office of Research Program

Management is a policymaking office, and does not

conduct research. In 1979, Congress established the

Office of Exploratory Research to support basic

environmental research, mainly through research

grant programs and university-based research centers.

Of the offices that administer laboratories, the

Office of Modelling, Monitoring Systems, and

Quality Assurance has the largest combined budget

and staff (see table 6-l). The largest of the office’s

three laboratories, the Atmospheric Research and

Exposure Assessment Laboratory in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, conducts research focusing on quantifying, measuring, and modeling airborne pollutants and potential controls. The Las

Vegas Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, the next largest, does applications-oriented

research on systems and strategies for monitoring

environmental and human exposure to pollutants

and conducts field tests and demonstrations of

monitoring systems. The Cincinnati Environmental

Monitoring Systems Laboratory has a similar

charge, but focuses on biological and chemical

assessment methods and operates EPA’s Quality

Table 6-l—Environmental Protection Agency

Laboratories

1989 budget

Number of Number of (in millions

Office laboratories staff of dollars)

Office of Modelling,

Monitoring Systems, and

Quality Assurance . . . . . . 3 441 $84.0

Office of Environmental

Engineering and

Technology

Demonstration . . . . . . . . . 2 282 78.5

Office of Environmental

Processes and Effects

Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 407 59.3

Office of Health Research . . 1 286 46.2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1,416 $268.0

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

Assurance Program, which is charged with maintaining the credibility of many of EPA’s databases.6

The laboratories all have some technical assistance

and technology transfer programs for EPA clients,

including public works agencies.

The Office of Environmental Engineering and

Technology Demonstration manages EPA’s most

amply funded laboratory, the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, which performs engineering

research and provides technical assistance to the

agency for drinking water, hazardous wastes, underground storage tanks, pesticides, Superfund, toxics,

and wastewater. The Air and Energy Engineering

Research Laboratory in Research Triangle Park,

North Carolina, is staffed primarily by engineers

who conduct research on air pollution from stationary sources, focusing on the industrial sources of air

pollution, mitigation and prevention of pollution,

and developing equipment for all of these.

The Office of Environmental Processes and Effects Research administers six Environmental Research Laboratories that focus on marine and inland

aquatic ecosystems. The laboratories are located in

Oregon, Minnesota, Florida, Oklahoma, Georgia,

and Rhode Island.

Both the Office of Health Research and the Office

of Health and Environmental Assessment support

EPA’s regulatory activities through preparing criteria and risk assessment methodology and guidelines. The Office of Health Research administers the

Health Effects Research Laboratory in Research

51bid., p. 93.

CU.S. Envim~en@ protection Agency, TechnicaZAssistance Directory (Washington DC: Mmch 1989).
Figure 6-1 —Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development Organization Chart

Assistant Administrator for

f Research and Development I 1 t

Office of Research Office of Exploratory Office of

Program Deputy Assistant Technology Transfer

Management Administrator Research & Regulatory

h L

I Support

T

Office of

Wadeling, Monitoring

Systems &

Quality Assurance

Atmospheric

Research &

Exposure

Assessment

Lab., Research

Triangle

Park, NC

E

Environmental

Monltorfng

Systems Lab.,

Las Vegas, NV

Office of Environmental Engineering

& Technology

Demonstration

w

m

1 Office of

Environmental

Processes & Effects

Research

m

i

Environmental

Research

Lab., Athens, GA

4

Environmental

Research Lab.,

Narragansett, RI

i

Environmental

Research Lab.,

Gulf Breeze, FL

Office of Health

Research

SOURCE: Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Assesstance Directory(Washington, DC: March 1989).

K

Health Effects

Research Lab.,

Research

Triangle

Park, NC

Research 1-

3

I

Office of Health &

Environmental

Assessment

Human Health

Assessment

Group

Exposure

Assessment

Group

Environmental

Criteria &

Assessment Office

Research Triangle

Park, NC

Environmental

Criteria &
218 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Triangle Park, North Carolina, which provides a

basis for EPA’s health-related regulations, focusing

on a broad range of pollutants and media. The Office

of Health and Environmental Assessment administers two Environmental Criteria and Assessment

Offices, one in Cincinnati and one in Research

Triangle Park, which focus on data collection in

support of EPA regulations.

The research agendas for all of EPA’s laboratories

are set by steering committees composed of staff

from the Office of Research and Development and

the Agency programs. The committees designate

and coordinate research for the laboratories, giving

the laboratories little reason for direct communication with each other. In some cases, a program office

needing R&D will contact a laboratory directly,7 and

the Office of Technology Transfer and Regulatory

Support provides some coordination among the

offices. However, the laboratories maintain a good

deal of independence, each producing its own

publications and making its own cooperative agreements for extramural research with universities,

other Federal agencies, and the private sector.

Although the steering committees are more heavily

emphasized than in the past, media-specific programs still dominate discussions about what research will be done at which laboratory.

While the laboratories are allowed flexibility in

their research approaches, R&D is not truly interdisciplinary, since the Agency remains dominated by

programs and directives aimed at individual

environmental media. In addition, EPA research

must provide a scientific basis for the Agency’s

regulations. Outside pressures, such as congressional action and lawsuits (see chapter 2), and

limited Agency resources ensure a continued focus

on regulations-related research. As a result, EPA

conducts little R&D on condition assessment and

repair and rehabilitation technologies, despite the

acute interest of infrastructure managers in these

areas (see chapter 4).

University Agreements

EPA funds universities through solicitations and

through cooperative agreements made between program offices, laboratories, and universities. Total

annual university awards have been in the $50- to

$60-million range over the last 5 years.

The bulk of EPA’s university funding flows

through “cooperative agreements” with EPA laboratories. A key difference between these flexible

arrangements and other grants is that the cooperative

agreements include substantial involvement of an

EPA staff liaison, who chooses to work with

university staff because the university is well

equipped in the field or is doing work pertinent to

ongoing EPA research. More money reaches universities through this direct EPA-laboratory collaboration than through EPA centers and competitive

solicitations combined.8 Although EPA seems to be

unique in its systematic use of cooperative agreements, Executive Order 12591 (April 1987) and

Public Law 96-480 called for this type of collaboration at all Federal laboratories. Such collaboration

can bean effective and flexible means of contracting

and transferring information between sectors and

laboratories. However, EPA’s agreements tend to be

limited in both scope and the potential for innovation, because the research is targeted at supporting

regulations.

interdisciplinary Research Centers—The Office for Exploratory Research (OER) at EPA supports a competitive grants program and is also

responsible for two programs supporting universitybased research centers. Based on an NSF model, the

centers in these two programs carry out interdisciplinary and collaborative research on diverse environmental themes.

The first of these programs, the Exploratory

Research Center Program, is based on competitively

awarded cooperative agreements. The eight current

centers each receive approximately $540,000 from

OER each year, and may receive additional support

from EPA laboratories. According to Federal requirements, a minimum of 5 percent matching

funding must come from the university, the private

sector, or other non-Federal sources.9 Centers are

encouraged to use EPA funds to leverage additional

support for their programs, and efforts to attract aid

have ranged from completely unsuccessful to hugely

successful. The director of each center works in

7Jerry GarmarL Gffice of ‘Ikchnology Transfer and Regulatory Suppo~ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication Apr. 10,

1990.

%aren Morehouse, Office of Exploratory Research U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication Mar. 5, 1990.

%equired in part by the Stevenson-Wydler Act.
Chapter 6-Research and Development for Public Works ● 219

tandem with an EPA project officer and receives

technical guidance from an independent Science

Advisory Committee. The original eight centers

currently are being phased out, and a new competition is under way to select four new centers, each to

be funded at approximately $1 million annually over

9 years. Each Exploratory Research Center is

responsible for distributing its findings, and most do

so through technical project reports, books, articles,

and participation in seminars or technical conferences.

The projects at the Exploratory Research Centers

tend to be problem-specific, pollutant research.

Though none of the centers focuses on infrastructure, the research has potential, through new or

changed regulations, to affect methods of and

systems for waste and “drinking water treatment and

waste disposal and facility siting. An example is the

Ecosystems Center’s work on establishing a methodology for ecological risk assessment, which all

developers using Federal funds could use in performing the required environmental impact assessments.

The “Superfund” legislation directed EPA to

establish centers of excellence programs to study all

aspects of the manufacture, use, transportation,

disposal, and management of hazardous substances,

and publish and disseminate the results of such

research. The resulting five Hazardous Substances

Research Centers, also under the direction of OER,

were established in 1989 after a competition. EPA

provides each center with $1 million annually, to

which the centers must add a 20-percent match.

Using EPA funds as leverage, the centers have been

successful in obtaining additional support from such

sources as DOE, DoD, State appropriations, industrial affiliates and organizations, and others.

In addition to the legislated requirements, EPA

developed a special structure for the Hazardous

Substances Research Centers. The research is problem-oriented, and the centers are supported and

advised twice yearly by a Science Advisory Committee, consisting of scientists and engineers from

academia, government, and industry. EPA established a Training and Technology Transfer Advisory

Committee and required the centers to direct between 10 and 20 percent of their budgets to training

and technology transfer. The centers have satisfied

these requirements mostly through short courses,

publications, demonstration projects, conferences,

and consultation and cooperation with industry and

regional and State governments to determine needs.

All of the programs take a multidisciplinary approach and share advisory panel members and

directors.

EPA encourages innovative basic research at both

the Superfund Centers and the Exploratory Research

Centers, although the Superfund Centers also perform applied research. Many of the projects target

remediation and other applicable R&D that can

readily benefit the region, but since the centers focus

on basic research, technology application and development remain the business of EPA laboratories.

EPA also now operates three “line item” centers

that are similar to and cooperate with the Hazardous

Substances and Exploratory Research Centers.

However, funding for each of these centers was

earmarked in legislation and did not include a

competition; furthermore, none of the centers is

managed through OER.

Department of Transportation

DOT supports applied R&D of transportation

technologies (see table 6-2). Most current research is

conducted or supported separately by each modal

administration, although in the late 1960s and early

1970s, the agency had centralized R&D coordination in the Office of the Secretary. The Department

began to cut back its research agenda in the 1970s,

targeting funds at R&D to support technology

development for the National Airspace System

(NAS) Plan (see figure 6-2). Basic and broad-based

research declined two-thirds from 1975 to 1985,

although at the same time, applied research funding

doubled, with much of the increase going to FAA.10

Though some limited coordination of R&D continues through the DOT R&D Coordinating Council,

DOT no longer has a departmentwide R&D coordinator within the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. Such a position was briefly re-created in

1985, but dropped again after proving ineffective.11

As a result of budget cutbacks and the lack of

coordination for R&D over the past decade, each

lw.s. Genm~ ACCOWN@ office, Department of Transportation: Enhancing Policy and Program E~ectiveness Through Improved Ma~getnent

(Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1987), p. 212.

ll~id.
220 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Table 6-2—Department of Transportation Public Works Research and Development

FY 1991 funding

Agency (millions of dollars) Funding source Comments

Federal Highway Admlnlstration

Highway Planning and

Research Program

National Cooperative Highway

Research Program

Staff research

Strategic Highway Research

Program

Federal Railroad Administratlon

Urban Mass Transportation

Administration

Research and Special Programs

Administration

Volpe National Transportation

Systems Center

Federal Aviation Administration

Total

$51’

8

18

30

15

2

115b

205

$44&

A portion of 1.5 percent set-aside of

Federal-aid construction funds

from the Highway Trust Fund

5.5 percent set-aside of HP&R funds

Highway Trust Fund

0.25 percent set-aside from Highway Trust Fund

From appropriated budget

From appropriated budget

Fee-for-service reimbursements

From appropriated budget

Supports State and local planning,

traffic measurement, and other research

Contract research managed by

Transportation Research Board

(National Research Council)

30 percent in-house research;

balance in contracts

Contract R&D focused on highway

construction; 5-year program

In-house and contract R&D (does not

include $6.15 million for magnetic

levitation rail initiative)

Development projects

Two-thirds of research is for DOT

coming out of other administrations’

budgets; one-third is for extramural

clients

63 percent of budget for in-house

R&D

a Total funds for the Highway planning and Research (HP&R) Program are about $153 million, meet of which is used for planning. The portion used forresearh

is $53 million.

b Estimate for Department of Transportation (DOT) research.

c Total does not include the one-third of Volpe National Transportation System Center’s total budget that comes from other sources.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on information from the Federal Highway Administration, Volpe National Transportation Systems

Center, and the U.S. Department of Transportation.

administration’s R&D has become increasingly

modally oriented and focused on supporting shortterm program objectives. The lack of long-range

and systems-oriented R&D has left DOT unprepared to address current national needs, such as

transportation-related air quality issues and intermodal and urban capacity problems. While the

agency is attempting to makeup for these shortcomings now, developing and implementing appropriate

new programs and ensuring adequate funding are

major challenges.

With the exception of FAA, DOT agencies are

increasingly turning to universities and outside

contractors to execute R&D. The recent National

Transportation Policy stressed the need to seek out

additional alternative R&D funding and performance sources, directing that programs “. . . foster

increased public-private partnerships and strengthen

the tools and incentives for innovative research

funding by the private sector, state and local

governments, and non-profit organizations.’ ’12

For a number of years DOT has used universities

as outside R&D resources. About 71 percent of all

Federal research funds for universities take the form

of grants to individuals for specific research projects.13 DOT invested $31.3 million in such contracts

in fiscal year 1988,14 with FAA allocating over

one-half of the total.

W.S. Department of Tr~po~tio~ Moving America: New Directions, New Opportunities ~SSh@tOXL DC: Fe- 1990, P. 104.

13U.S. General Accounting Office, “University Funding: Assessing Federal Funding Mechanisms for Uh.iversity Research” unpublished reporg

1986, p. 2.

IANatio~ SCienCeFO~datiO~ FederalFu&Sfor&eSearch andDevelopment: Fiscal Years 1987,1988, and1989, VO1. 37, NSF 89-304 ~~hingto%

DC: 1989), p. 28.
Chapter 6-Research and Development for Public Works . 221

Figure 6-2—Annual Department of Transportation

R&D Obligations, 1978 and 1988

Millions of 1982 dollars

160 t 1

w

FAA FHWA FRA UMTA

= 1978 ~ 198 8

KEY: FAA-Federal Aviation Administration; FHWA—Federal Highway

Administration; FRA-Federal Railroad Administration; UMTAUrban Mass Transportation Administration.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on data

supplied by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA)

Most RSPA research is carried out at the Volpe

National Transportation Systems Center (TSC) in

Cambridge, Massachusetts. TSC conducts and manages some R&D for most DOT agencies as well as

for outside agencies, and has recently tried to focus

on a systems approach to cross-cutting and intermodal issues.

The center does research on a reimbursable basis

for RSPA, FAA, FHWA, the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), the Coast Guard, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the

Office of the Secretary, and the Urban Mass

Transportation Administration (UMTA), and is also

responsible for administering DOT’s Small Business Innovation Research Program. Over the last few

years, FAA has consistently been TSC’s largest

single source of funds. One-third of TSC’s current

work is done for other executive agencies needing

transportation-related R&D, including DOE, DoD,

and EPA. Although the Corps of Engineers and TSC

conduct overlapping research, the agencies have just

begun collaborative work on magnetic levitation

rail, under an agreement with FRA. TSC’s total

current budget is about $147 million.15

TSC seeks to integrate public and private resources in projects such as the Track Safety Research Program, sponsored by FRA. In this effort,

TSC researchers coordinate and promote track

safety practices with individual railroads, the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the American

Railway Engineering Association, track producers,

universities, consultants, DoD rail-related programs,

and a few foreign researchers.

The center is remunerated on a project-by-project

basis by its client agencies and departments, and

research is conducted and managed in partnership

with the sponsoring agency. About two-thirds of the

R&D is conducted onsite by teams formed from

government, industry, and university personnel.

TSC has substantial contact with both industry and

university researchers and currently has over 300

different sources for technical support, with approximately 75 percent of the center’s budget going to

such outside entities. By drawing from its database

of contractors, the center can award competitive

contracts for technical support within 10 weeks of

making an interagency agreement. TSC’s ability to

bring multidisciplinary teams of sophisticated industry and university resources together quickly

makes it an attractive R&D broker for DOT and

other Federal agencies with transportation research

needs. operating as an enterprise on a cost reimbursable basis has helped TSC become more dynamic,

cost-effective, and accountable.l6

Federal Aviation Administration

Accounting for over one-half of DOT’s R&D

budget, FAA is the only modal agency that has

consistently invested in applied R&D over the past

decade. The majority of this R&D is conducted

in-house, 17 primarily at FAA’S Technica1 Center in

New Jersey and the Civil Aeromedical Institute in

Oklahoma. FAA’S R&D program also conducts

some cooperative research with DoD and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA). Over two-thirds of FAA’s R&D budget

supports its mission to operate and manage the

Nation’s airways through the NAS Plan and other

~SGWy Wttti, VOlpe National Transportation Systems Center, Research and special fiograms~“ “stxation, U.S. Department of Tmnsportatiom

unpublished memorandum, May 10, 1990.

16~id.

ITNatio~ Science Foundatiorq op. cit., footnote 14, p. 28.
222 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Photo credit: Federal Aviation Administration

The Federal Aviation Administration’s research and

development budget accounts for over one-half of the

Department of Transportation’s total spending on R&D.

surveillance, communications, navigation, and system management technology development programs. Aircraft safety programs-crash worthiness,

fire protection, aging aircraft issues, and explosives

detection—represent about 15 percent of FAA’s

R&D effort. Weather, medical, and effects of

aviation on the environment comprise the remaining

areas of research.

While human behavior, capabilities, and interaction with technologies underpin the safety and

efficiency of transportation systems, until recently,

FAA (and other agencies within DOT) paid scant

attention to human performance research. As required by the Aviation Safety Research Act of 1988,

FAA has begun to focus more on ‘‘human factors”

areas. To ensure continued and effective R&D,

however, consistent long-term support will be

needed, and human factors research must be fully

integrated into technology development projects.

Much of FAA’s R&D plan for air traffic control

and management directly or indirectly aims to improve the air transportation system’s capacity. However, FAA’s R&D plan does not address critical

groundside access issues. Without dramatic improvements in surface links to airports, including

serious attention to mass transportation alternatives,

the growing numbers of passengers will, at best

hinder system efficiency and, at worst, will constrain

capacity. More research within FAA, and across

DOT, on intermodal operations is essential.

Federal Highway Research

Most highway research (more than 80 percent)18

is directly supported by the Federal Highway Trust

Fund monies that flow through FHWA. The major

research efforts include the Highway Planning and

Research Program (HP&R), the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), the

FHWA Administrative Contract and Staff Research

Program, and the Strategic Highway Research

Program (SHRP) (see figure 6-3).

States are required to set aside 1.5 percent of their

Federal-aid construction funds for highway research

and planning through the HP&R Program and to

provide up to a 40-percent match to the Federal-aid

monies. HP&R funds typically total $150 million to

$200 million annually, with two-thirds of the total

going to planning and the remaining one-third

(about $53 million in FY 1990) going to research.

Although States have identified HP&R as a highpriority program, funds have declined 45 percent

over the last 20 years.19

NCHRP is a contract, applied research program

focused on national-level, operational problems and

funded by the States through the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

(AASHTO), from a 5.5 percent set-aside of HP&R

monies. NCHRP is managed by the Transportation

Research Board (TRB) of the National Research

Council with FHWA support. Total NCHRP spending is around $8 million per year, and the States must

approve funding annually.20

SHRP was established to examine gaps in current

knowledge and the lack of coordinated R&D, and to

target short-term, high-payoff technologies and issues. Congress included in Public Law 100-17 the

release of $150 million from the Highway Trust

lgAmeri~Ass~iation of Smte Highway and Transportation Officials, Innovation:A Strategyfor Research, Development, and Technology Tran@~

(Washington DC: October 1989), p. ES-11.

l~id., p. 1-8.

=id., p. 3-3.
Chapter 6—Research and Development for Public Works ● 223

Figure 6-3-Federal R&D Funding for Highways

I

I

I

Highway

Trust Fund

b

I From national

gasoline tax

‘-+ Highway Planning and Federal Highway Aid to Research Program

Administration States (1.5% set-aside)

(includes contract KZ2~

I and staff g I

research program) ?

$~

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

Photo credit: American Consulting Engineers Council

The Federal Highway Administration’s research

emphasizes projects aimed at immediate highway needs,

such as this pile tester being used at a highway

interchange construction site.

Fund, as a 0.25 percent set-aside from Federal-aid to

States, for a 5-year program. SHRP was intended to

supplement existing highway research and compensate for the lack of funding of untried technologies.

National Cooperative

Highway Research

Program

(5.5% set-aside)

Limiting its efforts to highways and bridges,

SHRP manages research with applications in six

neglected areas-asphalt, long-term pavement performance, maintenance cost-effectiveness, protection of concrete bridge components, cement and

concrete, and chemical control of snow and ice on

highways. Research is contracted to various laboratories—mostly university and private laboratories—

and subcontracted to the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Corps of

Engineers’ Construction Engineering Research Laboratory. Representatives of FHWA, DoD, FAA, and

TRB participate on SHRP’s advisory committee.

Because little alternative funding is available for

risky R&D, many technologies not receiving SHRP

contracts or falling outside of SHRP’s narrow areas

of research remain untried.

The Contract and Staff Research Program is

primarily conducted at FHWA’s Turner-Fairbank

Highway Research Center. The FHWA budget for

R&D in fiscal year 1990 is approximately $21

million ($20 million for contracts, $1.5 million for

staff research). FHWA manages contract research
224 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

with the private sector, universities, and other

agencies. 21 The one-tenth of FHWA’s research

funding going to in-housework accounts for approximately 30 percent of FHWA staff time.

FHWA’s research has generally favored shortterm R&D aimed at immediate needs in highway

safety, traffic operations, structures, pavements, and

motor carrier safety. The agency plans a greatly

expanded research focus on intelligent vehicle/

highway systems in 1991, giving overdue attention

to R&D aimed at a specific, long-term problem area.

FHWA disseminates information and results of its

investigations to the highway user communities

through technical reports, conferences, seminars,

and other typical technology transfer paths.

FHWA’s National Highway Institute also offers

in-the-field technical training and education for

Federal, State, and local highway employees. The

Rural Technical Assistance Program, administered

by the National Highway Institute, conducts training

workshops, onsite demonstrations, and other transfer activities, mostly through rural Technology

Transfer Centers.

To further stimulate communication, FHWA developed the Nationally Coordinated Program

(NCP), a management link between HP&R,

NCHRP, and FHWA staff research programs to

track research activities in the Federal-aid programs

and prevent gaps or overlap. If used effectively, NCP

could help FHWA transfer technology, set priorities

for future Federal research, and allocate R&D

resources accordingly. These issues currently are not

adequately addressed in FHWA’s R&D framework.

NCHRP and SHRP are good examples of successful cooperation in both applied R&D and technology

transfer among Federal, State, and local highway

authorities. Although additional technology transfer

programs are badly needed, the most significant

limitation for highway R&D is insufficient funding.

According to a recent AASHTO report, “. . . funding for research has not kept pace with the growing

needs and opportunities for technological innovation in the transportation industry. Highway research

spending as a share of total highway program

expenditures is currently about 0.2 percent. . . .’ ’22

Issues detailed in chapter 3 highlight the inadequacy

of presently used technologies; the current underinvestment in highway R&D could lead to wider

gaps between problems and solutions in the future.

Federal Railroad Administration

Most of FRA’s modest research efforts are

conducted with cooperation and cost-sharing from

other research organizations, government agencies,

and private organizations, including AAR, TSC,

DOE, and individual railroads and universities. In

1985, FRA’s 14-member Office of Research and

Development was placed under the direction of the

associate administrator for safety, giving priority to

safety R&D. Most testing and simulations of track

structures and rail vehicles are carried out at the

Transportation Test Center in Pueblo, Colorado, a

federally constructed facility, leased to and operated

by the Research and Test Department of AAR, under

a contract with FRA. Train handling experiments,

locomotive environmental assessments, and engineer training experiments are performed at FRA’s

Research and Locomotive Evaluator/Simulator in

Chicago, Illinois, which is operated by the Illinois

Institute of Technology Research.

In-house research at the Office of Research and

Development is divided into a number of programs.

The Equipment, Operations, and Hazardous Materials Program focuses on rail vehicle design and

operations and those aspects of hazardous materials

transportation peculiar to rail. The Track Safety

Program focuses on all aspects of track structure,

railroad bridges, signal and train control systems,

and interaction between the track and vehicle.23 In

addition, FRA has recently contracted with TSC to

conduct major R&D work on magnetic levitation

technology (see chapter 3), marking anew foray into

high-risk, high-technology R&D.

Urban Mass Transportation Administration

Transit operations are not profitmaking, and in

any case mass transit represents such a small market

that manufacturers have no incentive to undertake

related R&D. This makes the Federal Government

the only entity with any ability to fund mass transit

R&D and take the risks associated with bringing

new products into use. However, UMTA’s R&D

budget has declined dramatically over the last 15

21ROIXII Kreklau, Federal H@hWay~‘ “slratio% U.S. Department of Transportatio~ unpublished memorandum, June 11, 1990.

~~erim Association of Shte Highway aud ‘llansportation Officials, op. cit., footnote 18, p. ES-11.

‘Federal Raihoad AdministratiorL Office of Research and Development 1988 Research andDevelopmentProgram (Washington DC: August 1988).
Chapter 6-Research and Development for Public Works . 225

years. Estimated R&D outlays for fiscal year 1990

were $2 million, down from $52.1 million in 1980.X

The entire 1990 budget expenditures were earmarked for development of existing mass transit

technologies, including projects on alternative fuels.

Most of UMTA’s budget goes to capital and

operating assistance for State and locally run systems;25 of the $3.5 billion in assistance awarded in

fiscal year 1989, just under $6 million went to 40

projects under the authority of section 6 for Research, Development, and Demonstration Projects.26

The average grant was for about $150,000, and most

of the grants supported some type of systems

planning or management study. Additionally, almost one-third of the money allocated went to two

congressionally mandated studies. Because UMTA

supports very little technical R&D, either in-house

or in the form of grants to States, very little R&D is

done in this country on mass transit.

University Centers

DOT has a cross-cutting Transportation Research

Centers Program under the authority of the Office of

the Secretary of Transportation. The program supports 10 university-based centers, 1 in each of the 10

standard Federal regions, and each center has a

consortium-with a total of 68 universities involved. In addition to providing applied R&D for

transportation, the centers aim to build an ‘esprit de

corps’ among the center students and encourage a

commitment to careers in transportation.

The centers were authorized by the Surface

Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance

Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-17) for “. . . multimodal research and training concerning the transportation of people and goods. ” The authorizing

legislation provides Federal funds from the Highway and Mass Transit Trust Funds and requires

centers to provide dollar-for-dollar matching from

non-Federal sources. Ultimately, these centers are

intended to become self-sustaining through regional

government and industry support. Although $10

million was authorized for each of the fiscal years

1988 through 1991, authority to obligate $5 million

from the Highway Trust Fund was not provided until

1990. As a result, the program received only

one-half of the authorized funds during its first 2

years.

The majority of the projects approved in fiscal

years 1988 and 1989 were systems and policy

analysis; a few had specific products, such as

training manuals and development of existing materials and construction technologies, and a few were

demonstration projects. Projects may reflect regional priorities (for example, the University of

Alaska consistently conducts projects on the effects

of extreme cold on structures and materials), but the

program is as concerned with involving talented

students and teachers in transportation research as it

is with getting applicable results. In fact, the

third-year projects will explicitly focus on education

over research. At least two regional centers have

formed an advanced institute to serve as the focus for

the educational projects, and many will focus on "

. . . a melding of expertise in traffic operations,

demand management, trip generation estimation,

and public-private negotiations . . . .’ ’27

Federal funding for these centers is limited, and

the hope is that regional and local governments and

industries will provide and even increase funding as

they find the centers valuable. It is not yet clear

whether non-Federal monies will continue to be

forthcoming, though DOT may be able to assist with

some funding beyond the original 1991 deadline.28

Another type of center, FHWA’s Technology Transfer Centers, is managed under the Rural Technical

Assistance Program. These centers, mostly run by

universities, focus on transferring technology developed at the Federal and State levels to county and

local managers.

~U,S. Dep~ent of Trupo~tio~ Oifice of the Budge4 unpublished documents, February 1990. Fi~s are not ad~sted for ~ation.

fiU.S. Department of Transportatio~ Urban Mass Transportation ~“ “stratiow 1989 Statistical Summaries: Grants Assistance Programs

(W-O% DC: Apr. 15, 1990), p. 4.

~U.S. Department of Transportatio~ Urban Mass Transpomtion~“ “ tratioq Technical Assistance and Safety Programs: Fiscal Year 1989

Project Directory (Washington DC: January 1990).

27~oms ~soq CcMe@oPli~ Co%estion: ~w~s a ~lemble ~ommo~tioq” Transportation Qua~er/y, october 1988. The ~p~d of

‘lhnsportation oftlcials involved in the center’s program cited this article as the quintessence of their program.

~~cie Carter, ~lce of tie Secrem, U.S. Department of Transportatio~ personal wmmticatio~ w. 2. IW.
226 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

National Institute of Standards

and Technology

From its inception in 1901, NIST, housed in the

Department of Commerce and formerly known as

the National Bureau of Standards, has been a

national laboratory cooperating extensively with

other Federal agencies, universities, and the private

sector. The Institute’s primary mission has been to

conduct research leading to setting uniform standards for American industries; the standards are

typically adopted voluntarily by industry.

Over the years, NIST’s work on measurement and

measurement methods has served a wide variety of

clients; for example, the agency is currently working

to develop international standards for the Open

Systems Interconnection Network to overcome

computer interface inconsistencies. Its standards for

construction and materials have had an appreciable

effect on infrastructure technologies, though NIST

tends to be oriented toward manufacturing and

computer networks. The Institute’s spending on

infrastructure research accounts for only 1.6 percent

of NIST’s total budget.29

In the process of setting standards, NIST has

developed impressive in-house research capabilities-the Center for the Utilization of Federal

technology lists 57 laboratories within NIST. One

of the three main NIST laboratories, the National

Engineering Laboratory, includes the Center for

Building Technology (CBT), which develops technologies for predicting, testing, and measuring the

performance of building materials, components,

systems, and practices, many of which are applicable

to infrastructure. The center has a congressionally

mandated Earthquake Hazard Reduction program,

and performs key research on materials and corrosion-protective coatings for steel. CBT has taken a

leadership role in R&D for high-performance concrete for both public and private sector components

of the concrete industry, including SHRP, the Corps

of Engineers, and the American Concrete Institute.

In fact, the chief of the Building Material Division

of CBT is on the SHRP Concrete and Structures

Advisory Committee, and the center has developed

the impact-echo method for flaw detection in

reinforced concrete and techniques for increasing

concrete strength and durability.

Photo credit: Massport

The Center for Building Technology of the National Institute

of Standards and Technology has developed advanced

methods for detecting flaws in concrete structures such as

those in this runway.

Despite CBT’s contributions to public works, the

Administration proposed budgets for fiscal years

1984 to 1987 that eliminated CBT, and substantially

cutback funding in fiscal years 1988 to 1990.

Although Congress has restored most of the funding

each year, the center’s uncertain existence has

tippled its ability to attract qualified staff to execute

the basic research for which it has been an important

source. CBT has supported itself by doing contract

research, usually applied, for Federal agencies.

Currently, about 60 percent of CBT’s $10-million

annual budget comes from these agencies on a

project-by-project basis, with a small amount from

the private sector.

Other NIST research transferable to public works

is conducted in its Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory, which focuses on nondestructive

evaluation, corrosion, and plastics. The agency also

awards some R&D contracts to individuals at

universities.

29U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment "Construction and Materials Research and Development for the Nation’s Public Works,” staff

paper of the Science, Education, and Transportation and Energy and Materials Programs, June 1987, pp. 2-15.
Chapter 6—Research and Development for Public Works ● 227

2 5 0

200

150

100

50

0

Figure 6-4-National Institute of Standards and Technology Total

Federal Appropriations, 1980-90

Millions

19801981198219831984 19851986198719881989 19901991

m 1982 dollars + Current dollars

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on Office of Management and Budget data.

Cooperation With Industry

The 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness

Act directed NIST to develop “. . . fundamental

scientific and engineering research. . . to improve

manufacturing and to assist industry to transfer

important laboratory discoveries into commercial

products.’ ’30 The act called for increased direct

collaboration with industry, through cooperative

research and sharing of NIST’s specialized facilities,

and provided authority for Institute laboratories to

enter into contracts and cooperative research at their

discretion. The legislation also established NIST as

a touchstone for other Federal agencies and the

industry and State representatives with whom the

Institute interacts. However, because NIST did not

receive funding at the outset to carry out these

responsibilities, the promise of a new role in Federal

technology management has been largely unfilled.31

The fiscal year 1991 budget brought a 33-percent

increase for NIST (see figure 6-4), more than the

agency requested, which should permit it to move

toward filling its new role. If NIST’s new technology transfer and Federal touchstone functions were

broadened to include public works explicitly, State

and local public works officials would benefit.

National Science Foundation

NSF provides substantial funding for R&D in a

number of engineering and science fields, though the

agency itself has no research functions. NSF estimates that it will provide $1.7 billion to support

proposals, awards, and individuals in universities

and colleges to stimulate academic research in 1991.

Its commitment to industry research will be much

smaller-$1 17 million.32 In contrast to the general

decline in Federal R&D budgets, NSF’s R&D

expenditures increased steadily throughout the

1980s. 33

Although none of NSF’s programs is specifically

devoted to infrastructure research, support work

sponsored by the Directorate for Engineering, which

has fared well in recent years, is relevant. The

~fiblic ~w 10(3-418.

qlJeffrey Mervis, ‘‘Science Hopes Bush’s Proposals Survive Upcoming Budget Battle,” The Scientist, vol. 4, No. 5, Mar. 5, 1990, p. 12.

sz~efi~ Association for the Advancement of Science, Op. Cit., fOOttlOte 4, p. 79.

331bid., p. 47.
228 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Mechanical and Structural Systems Division of the

Directorate seeks to improve and expand basic

engineering knowledge in structures and materials

engineering. Research is directed toward creating

new technologies in areas that have possible infrastructure uses, such as the processing of new

engineering materials and the more efficient construction of large-scale structures. Special care is

being focused on examining and understanding the

science and technology of the deterioration of

constructed facilities and actions that can be taken to

diagnose, repair, retrofit, and enhance the performance of existing structures. These efforts can be

directly beneficial for public works infrastructure.

In addition to grants to universities, NSF has

several programs aimed at education, including the

Science and Engineering Education program, and

supports individual fellowships, such as the Presidential Young Investigator awards. The award

serves to help universities and colleges attract young

engineering faculty to academic careers where they

can do research on subjects of importance to the

Nation.

NSF Centers Programs

In addition to granting fellowships and awarding

individual research contracts, NSF has pioneered

research ‘‘centers of excellence,” which do not

necessarily target advanced, complex technologies.

Instead the centers tend to encourage innovative and

interdisciplinary research on developing and adapting existing technologies, and public works may be

best served by this emphasis. They have the additional charge to educate a new generation of

scientists and engineers. Center grants may be used

to acquire equipment and reference materials, both

of which have become extremely costly for universities.

The 1980 Stevenson-Wydler Act authorized NSF

to form cooperative research centers based on an

earlier experimental program, with the aim of

promoting innovative and interdisciplinary research.

The Industry/University Cooperative Research

(I/UCR) Centers Program, begun in 1981, is the

prototype centers of excellence program for Federal

agencies. At the end of fiscal year 1988, there were

40 centers, of which 10 were self-supporting. NSF

hopes that all the centers will become selfsupporting after 5 years of operation. Although the

40 centers all do research that can have infrastructure

applications, none is specifically or solely geared

toward infrastructure.

Earlier collaborative experiments taught NSF that

multidisciplinary, university-based research done in

tandem with an R&D-based industry was a successful coupling for innovative applied research. The

industry and university efforts can temper each

other; the industry ensures that projects do not get

too esoteric and can provide funding, especially for

the important developmental phases. The academic

framework ensures an array of multidisciplinary

approaches and skilled personnel, some of whom

industry may recruit, and each can offer the other

specialized equipment.

In fiscal year 1988, NSF support for I/UCR

centers leveled at $3 million, while industry and

State support totaled approximately $40 million.

The substantial industry support gives these centers

a regional focus.34 NSF cites the industry commitment as evidence of the success of the program,

contending that the private sector would not consistently commit substantial resources without demonstrable benefits.

The Engineering Research Centers Program is

specifically aimed at education and training rather

than at regional industry-university cooperation.

However, the centers will emphasize applied systems research and are expected to make their

research available and attractive to industry, as a

substantial portion of their operating budget (from 9

to 61 percent)35 must be supplied by the private

sector. Although each of the 19 centers is scheduled

to receive $2 million annually from NSF, they are

actually receiving from $300,000 to $1 million less

than expected, limiting the stability and scope of the

projects.36

Established in fiscal year 1989, the Science and

Technology Centers (STC) program has 11 centers,

with total funding of $47.5 million in fiscal year

1990, and plans for as many as 14 new centers. Made

up of consortia that usually include a Federal

~Ameri~ Association for the Advancement of Science, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 52.

3%J.s. COngreSS, OffIce of Technology Assessment Making Things Berrer: Competing in iUan@acrzuing, OTA-ITE-443 (W@.@90W ~: U.S.

Government Printing Office, February 1990), p. 195.

%id., p. 197.
Chapter 6-Research and Development for Public Works . 229

laboratory, the STCs are expected to undertake

significant basic research on particular topics more

effectively and efficiently than the participants

could achieve as individual investigators. For example, the Center for Advanced Cement-Based Materials at Northwestern University, the STC most

relevant to infrastructure technologies, includes

NIST’s Center for Building Technology as a member of its consortium. Like the Engineering Research

Centers, STCs are expected to focus on technology

transfer between universities and industries and the

multidisciplinary education of engineering students.

Department of the Interior

Each bureau of the Department of the Interior

funds and manages its own R&D in support of its

objectives; several bureaus contribute research relevant to infrastructure technologies. The Bureau of

Mines, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S.

Geological Survey each conduct infrastructure research and award single-investigator contracts to

universities. The bureaus meet (usually in pairs), as

frequently as bimonthly, to coordinate among themselves and sometimes with related agencies on

research of mutual interest.37

The Bureau of Reclamation has historically

funded research related to water supply, treatment,

conservation, and affilliated materials and sensors.

Projects cover water quality, dam safety and maintenance, and all aspects of water supply systems; and

much of the research, especially that in materials, is

relevant to other sectors of infrastructure. The

Bureau’s R&D budget, $6.3 million in 1986, declined to $3.4 million by 1989,38 partly due to the

agency’s shift away from new construction (see

chapter 2). The R&D budget is expected to grow

again as the agency changes emphasis to water

conservation and management. Research directly

related to infrastructure is currently funded at $2

million.39

Since 1910, the Bureau of Mines has been

researching materials, work which now includes

plastics for piping. Much of the Bureau’s materials

research is relevant to public works and is done in

cooperation with other Federal agencies; joint tests

with FHWA of polymerized, sulfur concrete roads

are one example. In addition, the Bureau conducts

some research for EPA regulations related to mining, and works with universities and private industries. The agency’s overaIl R&D budget in 1987 was

about $88 million.40

The U.S. Geological Survey has three R&D

divisions, the Geologic Division, the Mapping

Division, and the Water Resources Division, all

data-collecting offices for evaluating national natural resources. Research in minerals, energy and

marine uses, geological mapping, climate, and

hazards such as earthquakes and volcanoes is

undertaken by the Geologic Division. Geological

mapping research leads to maps of subsurface areas,

which are useful in siting landfills, toxic waste

dumps, and other underground infrastructure. The

Mapping Division concentrates on topographic

maps and researches aspects of the Global Positioning System and the Geographic Information System,

which have wide applications for public works (see

chapter 5). A lead Federal water resources research

agency, the Water Resources Division, collaborates

extensively with EPA, the Corps of Engineers, DOT,

the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of

Reclamation. The central division laboratories focus

on basic research and data collection, and district

offices conduct applied research in collaboration

with States and local governments on a cost-shared

basis. The Water Resources Division also manages

a congressionally mandated program supporting a

water resources research institute located at universities in each State.

DoD and DOE Laboratories

R&D that is potentially applicable to public works

is conducted at a number of national-level Federal

laboratories that have no infrastructure-related mission. The Department of Commerce’s Center for the

Utilization of Federal Technology lists over 900

laboratories fitting the general description of a

Federal laboratory.4l Within this category, 36 laboratories are “national laboratories,” or government

37Roger WOlff, wat~ Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, personal Commdcat.ion, my 18, 19W.

MD. ~g, Bwwu of Recl~tio~ U.S. Dep~~t of the Interior, unpublished memorandum, MY 21* 19~.

j%id.

~ational Science Foundation, op. cit., footnote 14.

dlc~ter for Utitition of Federal lkchnoIogy, Federal Laboratory and Technology Resources (Washington W: U.S. mp-~t of co~~e,

1986).
230 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

owned contractor operated (GOC0s) laboratories.42

Of the $60 billion that the Federal Government

contributes annually to R&D, $20 billion goes to

these facilities.43 Although most of the national

laboratories are sponsored by DOE, which supports

20 laboratories, and DoD, which funds 10, 5 other

government agencies sponsor GOCOs, including the

Department of Agriculture and NASA.

The predominant missions of DOE and DoD

national laboratories are defense, energy, and related

environmental research. Basic research at DOE and

DoD has been concentrated in the national weaponsproducing laboratories, which have traditionally

received the majority of Federal research dollars.

Although much of the weapons research at these

laboratories is not relevant to or is too sophisticated

for public works, some work can be transferred to

infrastructure. However, DOE and DoD are newcomers to formal technology transfer, since commercialization is not vital to and may compromise

their primary missions. 44 The transfer that does

occur is usually tailored to fit commercial, for-profit

development and is managed by an Office of

Research and Technology Assessment located at

each laboratory and by DoD’s Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency.

Formal Technology Transfer

Of the 20 DOE national laboratories, 11 historically have been defined as specialized, “single

program” facilities, such as the Fermi laboratory

accelerator; these are unlikely to explore public

works applications.45 However, five of DOE’s

multiple agenda or multiprogram laboratories—

Argonne, Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley, Oak

Ridge, and Pacific Northwest-focus on energy

research. Each has produced technologies that can

be applied to infrastructure, and in some cases, have

helped technology make the leap to civilian use. The

Pacific Northwest Laboratory has identified 14

technologies developed at these laboratories that are

currently ready for commercial public works application. Argonne National Laboratory has developed

an acoustic leak sensor that could be commercially

available to water utilities sometime this year.46

The development of the acoustic leak detector’

typifies the potential for technology transfer from a

national laboratory to public works. The researcher

working on the acoustic sensor at Argonne was told

of a utility company interested in developing the

technology and contacted the utility to discuss the

technical aspects of the project. After Argonne

submitted a formal technical proposal to which the

utility agreed, lawyers for both parties began to

debate the terms. After the lawyers developed a

contract, the utility sent Argonne a check. Now that

the technology is ready, implementing the sensor

and contracting with a manufacturing firm to produce it are entirely up to the utility, because of the

proprietary rights guaranteed it as the sponsor.

Despite some success stories, the process of

negotiating an agreement to develop a technology

takes 1 to 2 years, mostly because of legal complexities, 47 and a 2-year delay in technological innovation can be significant. National laboratories working to transfer technology must resolve difficult

problems, such as who owns the technology. Questions about proprietary rights, patents, and copyrights have the potential to block successful transfer

to the civilian sector; at a minimum these are

significant disincentives for public-private cooperation.

University Collaboration

DOE and DoD collaborate

university researchers, mostly

extensively with

through missionspecific contracts, but also through centers of

excellence and sharing of facilities. In addition to

individual contracts, DOE supports the Oak Ridge

Associated Universities, a consortium of 49 academic institutions, which serves as a link between

the agency and U.S. universities. The Ames laboratory for physical, materials, and chemical science

has a cooperative program with Iowa State Univer4W.S. General ACCOUn@ Office, Competition: Information on Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (wm~to~ DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, May 1988), p, 1.

43Rolxxt we~sler, stior andys~ Mice of lkchnology Assessment, ffom an unpublished docum~4 Mm. 21, 1990.

~otilce of ~hnolo= Assessmen~ op. cit., footnote 35, P. 185.

~Rick Chesto% U.S. General Accounting Office, personal communication Mar. 21.1990.

~J.W. Currie et al., Battelle Paciilc Northwest ~bOratOw, “A Prototype Catalogue: DOE National Laboratory lkchnologies for Infrastructure

Moderniza tioq” OTA contractor report, January 1990, record 27.01.

d7David Kuppermaq Argonne National Laboratory, persoti comticatiou k. 23, 1990.
sity, which includes sharing of facilities and personnel.

DoD funds about $500 million in basic research

and $250 million in applied research for single

investigators at universities and colleges. The investigator awards are proposed in response to general

solicitations, and the agency currently maintains

between 7,000 and 8,000 of these contracts. Although many of the projects could be relevant to

infrastructure, 48 dissemination of R&D is the university’s responsibility, and sharing information is

likely to be difficult because of the institutional

barriers between the military and civilian sectors.49

DoD’s University Research Initiatives Program

(URI) has provided approximately $100 million to

date for grants to ‘‘block research’ teams. These are

not considered ‘‘research centers, ’ primarily because the term implies continuous support over a

period of time, which DoD is unable to guarantee.

Block grants are intended to encourage an interdisciplinary approach and may be used for acquisition of

large and expensive instrumentation-too expensive for a single investigator-and to support several

hundred graduate fellowships every year.

There are between 80 and 100 block research

grants under the URI program. These awards are

modeled after a discontinued “Army Centers of

Excellence” program. The Massachusetts Institute

of Technology (MIT) and the University of Illinois,

Urbana, have been able to use their URI grants,

awarded and administered by the Army Research

Office, as hubs for centers of construction technology, and both centers have strong infrastructurerelated programs. The University of Illinois also

cooperates with the Army Corps of Engineers

Construction Engineering Research Laboratory,

which is located nearby. Over the 5 years of its URI

grant, MIT has allotted $2 million to research, and

the remaining $13 million to equipment and fellowships for graduate students.50 Because the construction industry is fragmented and has few resources for

 of Defense, 1990.

 Base, 

U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1989), 9.

 professor of civil engineering, Massachusetts Institute of unpublished Mar. 2, 1990.
232 ● Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

R&D, 51 the Army Construction Centers are potentially an important resource for technology development.

Technology Transfer

Though most Federal agencies have regular channels of communication with researchers in other

fields and other laboratories, technology transfer

between Federal agencies and from Federal agencies

to industry and public sector entities has generally

been slow and halting. Over the last 10 years,

Congress has attempted to maximize the Federal

R&D investment by centralizing planning and by

giving research at Federal laboratories a cohesive

focus and a relationship to the market. Key legislation includes the 1980 Stevenson-Wydler Act, the

1986 Federal Technology Transfer Act, the 1988

Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act, and the

National Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act

of 1989. Although previous acts in 1970 and 1976

included technology transfer provisions, the Stevenson-Wydler Act was the first to focus on stimulating

technology transfer and to require collaboration

between Federal laboratories and non-Federal contacts.

The Stevenson-Wydler Act also recognized the

need for a body to coordinate Federal technology

transfer, empowering the Center for Utilization of

Federal Technology (CUFT), in the Department of

Commerce’s National Technical Information Service, to fulfill this role as technology broker. Although CUFT retains some of its functions as a

technology information clearinghouse, the Federal

Technology Transfer Act (Public Law 99-502)

moved many of CUFT’s functions to the Federal

Laboratory Consortium (FLC) in the late 1980s.

Patterned on an earlier DoD Technology Transfer

Laboratory Consortium, FLC has maintained a

database of Federal technologies since 1974.52 A

researcher can contact FLC with a need or an

interest, and a database search will identify the

appropriate Federal laboratory contact. At present,

with an annual budget of about $1 million, the

consortium is operated by a small permanent staff

and consists of volunteers from over 300 Federal

laboratories. Though FLC processes a number of

public works inquiries from industries and the public

sector, additional resources would allow it to enlarge

its permanent staff, its database, and its customer

bank, and shorten the response time for an inquiry .53

Most importantly, FLC could actively seek contacts;

one reason the database is underutilized for infrastructure is that many potential public works customers are simply unaware of its existence and its

inexpensive resources.

The Technology Transfer Act amended several

other provisions of the Stevenson-Wydler Act. One

of the new provisions granted permission for GOCO

facilities to enter into cooperative agreements,

giving the non-Federal partner title to a patent.

Furthermore, the act permits some agencies to offer

royalties or other cash awards as incentives for

Federal researchers or laboratories participating in

collaboration. The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act was intended to build institutional

coordination for technology transfer by increasing

each Federal laboratory’s contribution to FLC’s

budget and adding programs at NIST. The 1988 act

also established a Clearinghouse for State and I.meal

Initiatives on Productivity, Technology, and Innovation, which will be similar to FLC with a focus on

technology and economic development at the State

and local levels. The Clearinghouse currently has an

annual budget of $250,000; the agency’s effectiveness is likely to be impaired if this support is not

expanded.

The National Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-189) addressed

three fundamental problems in federally funded

research; bureaucratic rigidity, lack of cooperation

among institutions, and ambiguous missions and

roles of Federal R&D laboratories. One provision

allows GOCOs to make cooperative agreements

with a waiver of the Freedom of Information Act for

a 5-year period, allowing non-Federal sponsors

certain proprietary rights. Other R&D legislation

during the 1980s concerned tax credits for private

sector firms that increase their R&D funding. While

the effectiveness of the tax credit has been subject to

much debate since its creation in the 1981 Economic

Recovery Tax Act (Public Law 97-34), the credit has

been extended three times beyond its original

lifetime. The most recent extension under the 1989

sl~lce of Whnolow Assessrnen~ op. cit., footnote 29, p. 3-1.

5~rge F, LfidStead~ “~t~g Fede~ Research to the Grass Roots,” Dimellsion$, vO1. 63, J~um~e- 1979”

ss~lce of TechnoIow Assessmen~ op. cit., footnote 35, p. 63.
Chapter 6—Research and Development for Public Works . 233

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation (Public Law 101-

239) provided several key changes in eligibility that

should enhance the incentive effect of the credit.

Whether or not the credit is effective and should be

permanent is not yet clear.54

R&D legislation over the last decade was aimed

especially at pushing the national laboratories toward market-driven agendas and technology transfer.55 However, most of the language directs the

national laboratories toward joint research only;

little mention is made of development.56 The Federal

Government has concluded that development is

more appropriately accomplished by the private

sector, but has devised few mechanisms to ensure

that development actually occurs. Development for

technologies with public works applications is

crucial and is especially vulnerable as public projects often do not promise enough profit to make

large investments attractive to the private sector.57 In

addition, legislation has not effectively counteracted

the fragmentation that characterizes activities in

Federal public works agencies and the similar

disaggregation in the related industries.58

While several laws address the need to stimulate

inter-sector collaboration, the combined effects of

the legislation need examination, especially for their

potential impact on public works R&D. Significant

uncertainty persists over patents, proprietary rights,

copyrights, the threat of antitrust prosecution, and

the effectiveness of the R&D tax credit. Legal

change does not appear to have significantly altered

behavior patterns for either the Federal laboratories

or the private sector. In part, this is a result of

targeting the researchers themselves as agents of

change, while still holding them responsible for

producing mission-related research. To effect major

change, technology transfer policies “. . . should be

aimed at the Federal laboratory management level in

order to have a defined level-of-effort set aside for

this purpose.”59

Successful models of transfer include the programmatic mechanisms in EPA’s Hazardous Substances Centers, water supply circuit riders (see box

4-E in chapter 4), information clearinghouses and

brokers, and in-kind informal collaboration. DOE’s

relationship with Iowa State University is based on

such widely used in-kind exchange; in 1987, about

185 scientific facilities in the national laboratories

were used by 1,623 industry and university participants. 60

Extra funding for the Federal laboratories’ reorientation toward commercial industry and public

services has not been forthcoming. In addition,

throughout the 1980s, the tension between Congress

and the President and their differing concepts of the

role of federally supported R&D has retarded change

in the Federal laboratories and slowed or eliminated

research not directly related to economic development, space, or weapons development. Over the

course of the decade, funding for military R&D

increased 131 percent; civilian funding only 39

percent.

Non-Federal R&D

State Research Programs

Despite many efforts, the current technology

management structure is not very successful in

disseminating the benefits of Federal research to

university, industry, and State interests. Some of

these are instituting programs and policies of their

own to stimulate technological innovation, particularly for public works. NIST has identified 41

State-supported organizations, sustaining 137 tech-

~David L. BI-wIIbu~ Economics Division, Congressional Research Service, “The Research and Experimentation ‘I% Credit,” issue brief, Feb.

7, 1990.

55BW Bo~m and h4ichael Crow, “The Environments of U.S. R&D Laboratories: Political and Market Influences,” Policy Sciences, 1990, p.

29.

~W~dyH. sc~h~ scie~ Policy Research Divisio~ Congressional Research Service, “Cooperative R&D: Federal Efforts lb Promote Industrial

Competitivealess, “ issue brief IB89056, Jan. 22, 1990, p. 7.

57sW conclusions to ch. 5.

~~lce of TIXhnolo= Assessment op. cit., footnote 29.

%_ouis Mosgavero et al., “Federal ‘Ibchnology Transfer: Critical Perspectives,” State and Local Initiatives on Productivity, Technology, and

Innovation: Enhancing a National Resource for international Competitiveness (WashingtO~ DC: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental

Relations, May 1990).

~.S. Congress, Oftice of ‘Ikdmology Assessment Industry, ‘Ikdmology, and Employment Program, “Federal Labs,” unpublished paper,

November 1989, p. 7-37.
234 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

nology research centers of excellence with 2,000

private sector firms participating.6l

State Programs

Some State universities with engineering schools

have developed multidisciplinary R&D programs,

and several have focused on public works. The

Universities of Cincinnati, Virginia, New Mexico,

Nebraska, and Oklahoma all have infrastructure

research programs within their engineering schools.

Like the NSF centers, these infrastructure centers try

to capture a broad funding base and emphasize

university-industry collaboration and cooperation.

The University of Nebraska Infrastructure Center

has, for example, a 5 to 1 ratio of external to center

funding. Several universities have developed innovative internal structures to maximize the opportunities for Federal and industry support (see box 6-B).

Although State support for R&D has grown over

63 percent in the last decade, State dollars still

represent less than 1 percent of the total spent on

R&D in the United States.62 Instead of heavy direct

funding, States have established networks of support

for regional R&D, often comprised of a cross section

of efforts, involving Federal, State, local, industry,

and university resources. The Ben Franklin Partnership Fund (see box 6-C) in Pennsylvania is a

successful State university-industry R&D program,

which has been described as:

. . . comprehensive. . . decentralized; it catalyzes

significant private investment . . . the commercialization of research, the transfer of technology

from academia to industry, the generation of risk

capital, the birth of new firms, and the integration of

advanced technologies into mature industries.63

The Ben Franklin program probably helped to

attract NSF Engineering Centers to Lehigh and

Carnegie-Mellon Universities (Pennsylvania is the

only State with three NSF engineering centers), as

well as other individual Federal grants and projects

at all of the centers. While the Ben Franklin

Partnership is a successful model for collaborative

R&D, it does not focus at all on public works. Three

State goals the program meets, however, are encouraging the private sector to use available academic

resources, altering the university approach to R&D,

and activating cooperation among local businesses,

academia, and the government. All of these needs

have potential to pay off for public works, and the

model could be used for a similar program with an

explicit charge to consider public needs.

Industry and Association R&D

A variety of industry and professional associations have research programs for their areas of

special interest or for market development. The

American Trucking Association sponsors the Trucking Research Institute, and other modal associations,

such as the Air Transport Association and the

Association of American Railroads (AAR), sponsor

similar R&D closely related to member interests.

These associations, especially AAR (see chapter 3),

work with the modal administrations at DOT. Most

of the association-sponsored transportation research

studies are related to policy and safety development,

and are only tangentially connected to infrastructure

or public services.

A few associations are initiating R&D programs

to address areas of research that they consider to be

complementary to or inadequately covered by Federal programs. Among the new efforts is that of the

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE),

which has recently formed a Civil Engineering

Research Foundation focusing on R&D relating to

repair, rehabilitation, and maintenance of public

works. Initially funded by the Foundation at

$500,000, ASCE plans to expand the scope of the

program. The American Water Works Association

also has a small, new research foundation with a

limited budget and plans for future growth.

The Water Pollution Control Federation Research

Foundation, another recently formed organization,

expected a $4 million budget in its second year. The

Foundation is a consortium of 37 subscribing

municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities, with 50 municipalities planning to join. Member facilities range in size from plants processing

only 9 million gallons daily to those responsible for

more than 1 billion gallons per day. Though the

Foundation works closely with EPA’s Office of

61u.S. Dep~entof Comer&, Natio~~ti~te of s~~ds ad ~~ology, promoting TechnologiCalEXCel[ence: TheRole ofStateandFederal

Activities (Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing Offlce, 1989), p. 21.

62Natio~ Science Fo~~tioq Research undDev~10p~ntEqendi~re5 Of stare &VernmenrAgen&?S: Fiscal years 19&’ and 1988 (wdlk@OQ

DC: January 1990), p. 3. Numbers are from 1988 and are adjusted for inflation.

@David os~me, Laboratories of Democracy (Bostou MA: Harvard University Press, 1988), P. a.
Chapter 6—Research and Development for Public Works ● 235

Box 6-B—University infrastructure Research

Established and successful university centers of excellence programs attract substantial Federal, State, and

private sector support enabling them to build strong, coordinated well-funded R&D programs. With an overall

research budget of $700 million,l the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has Environmental Protection

Agency, National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Transportation (DOT), and Department of Defense

(DoD) centers of excellence contracts. MIT’s Department of Civil Engineering houses several federally funded

programs related to infrastructure, including the DOT University Transportation Center, the NSF Industry/

University Cooperative Research Centers Program for Composites and Polymer Recessing, and the DoD

University Research Initiatives Center for Construction Research and Education. Other major programs, including

a New England Regional State Center, a Center for Transportation Studies, an industrial liaison program, and an

academic program, also share faculty and students and sometimes announce solicitations throughout the

department. The Center for Transportation Studies alone had 126 ongoing projects in 1989. The programs cooperate

with one another and with other regional schools, and interdisciplinary research is pursued as a departmental rule.

Another type of university center, at the University of Cincinnati, is planned to provide leadership in

determinin g cost-effective and reliable solutions to public works maintenance and rehabilitation problems. The

Ohio Infrastructure Institute was established to foster the development of new technology and lead the way in

technology transfer to ensure that innovations are put into practice to maximize the impact of tax dollars spent on

the repair and maintenance of”infrastructure. The Institute hopes to formulate and develop new technologies that

can extend the useful life of public works.

As a third example, the New Mexico Engineering Research Institute, part of the University of New Mexico,

operates the Infrastructure Development Assistance Program (IDAP) for the State of New Mexico. IDAP serves to

strengthen local infrastructure management capabilities through a statewide program of technical assistance,

training, and technology development. Similarly, the Virginia University Transportation Center, a coordinated

research and training program associated with the Virginia Department of Transportation, focuses on intermediate

to long-range transportation problems and issues. Areas of concentration are new technique and technologies for

transportation service, planning and management, and research in new structures and materials. The University of

Nebraska-Lincoln has established a Center for Infrastructure Research with the goal of using research to improve

the economic potential and quality of life for the people of Nebraska, the Nation, and the global community. The

center’s research agenda is ‘‘market driven,’ which means that the priorities and scope of the projects flow from

users-those who design, build, operate, maintain, and regulate infrastructure--to researchers. This results in the

development of technologies and systems that can be transferred rapidly into use.

1Robert Weissler, senior analyst Industry, TechnoIogy, and Employment Program, Office of Technology Assessment, personal

communication May 21, 1990.

Municipal Pollution Control, it is addressing R&D Conclusions and Options

issues that EPA often does not address, such as

municipal and wastewater treatment, residuals management, and water quality effects. Through workshops and forums, the subscribers themselves set the

research agenda, and the Foundation’s level of

support indicates the high level of interest, especially in municipalities, for such operations-oriented

R&D.

The American Public Works Association has a

small, longstanding research foundation that executes a variety of studies in cooperation with local

governments, and sometimes with States or Federal

agencies. These studies are generally intended to

transfer technology and information to local governmental clients.

Public works providers need ongoing R&D programs to identify new technologies that can help

meet changing public service needs. Despite this,

relevant R&D programs are generally underfunded,

scattered, and directed at diverse, specific program

objectives. Thus Federal and other public works

agencies are ill prepared to address future needs and

systems problems, such as those that cross transportation modes or environmental media categories.

Given the likelihood of continued governmental

budget austerity, the outlook for public worksrelated R&D is bleak, unless a way can be found to

capitalize on the extensive individual efforts to

benefit public infrastructure.
236 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Box 6-C--Ben Franklin Partnerships

In the early 1980s, as the steel and coal industries ‘ dwindled and the economy became increasely depressed,

Pennsylvania was searching for industrial “ revival. The Pennsylvania General Assembly created the Ben Franklin

Partnership Fund in 1982 and continues to support the effort, appropriating $28 million for fiscal year 1990-91.1

The State’s aim is to promote innovative development, application “ ,and marketingg of techndogies, a comprehensive

cradle-to-maturity strategy not found at the Federal level.

The Ben Franklin Partnership operates out of regional centers where university laboratories and private

sector sponsors collaborate in censor@tia, with general management provided by the State. To date, the State has

contributed $110 minim; non-State support has reached $400 million. From 1983 to 1988, Ben Franklin funds were

matched by a total of $39 million m Federal funds. Though the program is well coordinated and the State ultimately

has control over funds, administration is decentralized, allowing for close ties to local needs and available resources.

The links between universities and businesses ensure that R&D is focused on issues critical to the private sector

sponsors, which the participants generally see as a positive union. However,responding to industry criticism, State

managers removed the locus of control from the universities and incorporated each of the centers. Now each center

is governed by a board consisting of representative of the private sector, the schools, and the regional or local 

government.2 The program emphasize quantitative results, because the General Assembly must be convinced of

the wisdom in providing about $30 million annually. The biggest selling points have been job creation--although 

this is not inherent in technology development--and profitability of new products.

Although most of the projects focus on commercial technologies, some deal with construction, materials,

robotics, and sensor technologies relevant to public works. The Penn State Technology Center is, for example,

currently conducting a demonstration project on roller-compacted concrete in cooperation with the Pennsylvania

Department of Transportation. A market demand for such technologies must exist for the Ben Franklin Partnership

to pursue a project,3so there is no guarantee that the Partnership, which is designed to encourage economic

development will benefit public services.

Federal Agency Public Works R&D

Federal public works R&D efforts tend to be low

profile and are often overshadowed by the obvious

problems of infrastructure upkeep and construction;

R&D programs often fail to weather the first and

deepest cuts when departmentwide budgets shrink

(see figure 6-5). In the short term, Congress could

consider authorizing and appropriating agency

R&D budgets on a separate line-item basis to

guarantee executive agency commitment and

greater financial stability for R&D programs.

more effective or efficient alternatives for treating

environmental pollutants. Federal R&D and technology sharing programs for environmental public works are inadequate. Increased R&D directed at alternative, lower cost technologies for

meeting standards and at improving operations,

especially for small systems, is a top priority.

Congress could require EPA to develop a comprehensive program of research, development,

and demonstrations to meet these needs. If this

occurs, adequate funding should be ensured.

EPA DOT

EPA’s R&D is task-oriented due to the Agency’s While DOT provides direct support for regional

congressional mandate, its administrative structure, transportation, it commits its resources on a modal

the immediate need for support of regulations, and basis, with R&D support heavily skewed toward

limited funds.64 The research now under way on FAA and FHWA. Data collection on travel and

broad environmental issues is focused on how to shipping patterns has been neglected. As a result,

meet regulations, with little attention to identifying alternatives to current and future transportation

64National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Detailed Historical Tables

for Fiscal Years 1955-1990 (Washington, DC: 1990). .
Chapter 6-Research and Development for Public Works . 237

Figure 6-5—Federal Outlaysa for Public Works R&D, 1980-90

Millions of 1982 dollars

600

[

5od

400 -

+ Interio r

300 - + DOT

— E P A

200

I

+ Corps

o

I 1 I I 4 I I

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 (est)

KEY: DOT Department of Transportation; EPA_ Environmental Protection Agency; NIST National Institute of

Standards and Technology

aD~~ not in~~e reimbursements.

SOURCE: National Science Foundation, Division of Soience Reeources Studies, Fe&a/ Funds for Research and

Development: Detailed Historical T&/es for Fkoa/Y- 19S5-1990 (Washington, DC: 1990).

patterns are not pursued, and one outgrowth is the

dearth of R&D on intermodal connections. Both

public and private transportation officials have

identified the lack of information about intermodal

linkages, such as airport-ground and port-to-railhead

access, as a stumbling block to developing policies

that support growth and increased capacity. Revision of current modally defined R&D is long

overdue, and DOT needs to develop R&D programs to address intermodal needs and capacity

enhancing transportation alternatives. Congress

could require DOT to collect and analyze freight

commodity and passenger flow data and to constitute and institutionalize a mechanism to ensure that

all its R&D takes into account interdisciplinary and

intermodal issues. Options include establishing a

transportation data office or center, strengthening the R&D Coordinating Council, and creating

an effective Secretary-level R&D coordinator.

The Corps of Engineers

The Corps has considerable public works research

capacity, and has been successful at networking with

its clients, especially the administrative Corps personnel. But the Corps’ traditional specialty, water

resources development, is declining as a national

priority. Federal agencies have been unwilling (or

financially unable) to make firm commitments to

contracts with the Corps of Engineers, and in

response, the Corps has remained committed to its

own missions, limiting its value as a resource for

other Federal agencies, which could benefit from its

expertise and facilities. Restructuring the Corps and

moving parts of it to other agencies is an option

discussed in chapter 2. A less drastic option for

Congress to consider is directing the Corps to

reorient some of its R&D toward basic environmental missions, such as water treatment and

supply systems, to make the agency a more

valuable shared resource. For example, the Corps

could help EPA fill the research gap for environmental public works operations and small systems.

Coordinating Existing Research

If substantially greater funding is not available,

the three main public works agencies, the Corps of

Engineers, EPA, and DOT, must renew efforts to

ensure that a substantial portion of their R&D

resources address end-users’ needs and to maximize

the use of existing resources. These resources

include TSC, NIST, the interdisciplinary university

centers, and existing Federal technology transfer
238 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

programs. Special programs, such as SHRP, which

target neglected areas of R&D, should be integrated

into more comprehensive programs and receive

adequate support. Many of these existing programs

are underfunded, underutilized, or otherwise lack

agency commitment. However, with adept intraagency resource allocation, they could be strengthened and used to leverage the return on public works

R&D investment.

Agencies that perform public works R&D are

generally underfunded, while DOE and DoD receive

substantial Federal R&D commitments. Regardless

of funding level, a reallocation of dollars is needed.

If Congress does not increase R&D spending, it

may want to consider reallocating some R&D

dollars from laboratories doing advanced research to EPA and DOT, where R&D for public

works is significantly underfunded. A systemsoriented management structure for public works

R&D could be developed, aiming for comprehensive financial leveraging, management, and review.

Past executive-level public works R&D coordination efforts, such as the now defunct Water Resources Council, have not been successful, because

such entities require joint congressional and administration commitment to function effectively. Given

such a commitment at their highest levels, the

executive agencies alone could coordinate research

without compromising their mandated missions.

Establishing a framework for coordinating Federal

R&D could be a long-term goal, for both the

Administration and Congress. Existing institutions,

NIST or the Federal Laboratory Consortium, for

example, could act as Federal R&D coordinators.

Another option is to establish anew agency, such as

the proposed Advanced Civilian Technology

Agency, and include public works R&D in its scope.

Technology Transfer

Throughout the 1980s, Federal research policy

articulated in legislation has been aimed at the

“national’ Federal laboratories, with the goal of

stimulating economic growth and technology transfer to the private sector. Using technology as a tool,

Federal and State Governments have encouraged

transfer of laboratory research to industry development through law, incentives, and centrally planned

programs.

The Federal Government has already provided an

important mechanism for technology transfer to the

commercial sector by centralizing technology management in NIST, the Federal Laboratory Consortium, and other Federal technology clearinghouses.

Most Federal laboratories have been required to

consider technology transfer to the commercial

sector, and allowances for Federal researchers to

share in profits and royalties are provided as

incentives. For the most part, however, collaboration

is slow in coming due to complex legal problems

with patents and proprietary rights and some uncertainty among Federal laboratory personnel about

how to go about making deals with the private

sector. Moreover, although many technologies have

tremendous commercial appeal, those developed for

application to public works often do not have an

obvious market because of the propensity for public

officials to stipulate familiar equipment (see chapter

5).

The Federal Government has sought to bolster

public works R&D by stimulating cooperation

among academic institutions, Federal laboratories,

and industries. The mix of academic, public, and

private sectors in technology transfer efforts tends to

target technologies according to their potential

profitability. However, these groups do not have a

long history of cooperation, and overly missionspecific grants and disagreements over intellectual

property rights and administrative control inhibit

effective collaboration.65 Transfer of public works

technologies from Federal and academic laboratories to private sector production and public

sector use is unlikely to occur without specific

mechanisms-such as the Technology Transfer

Advisory Committees and technology transfer requirements for the EPA Hazardous Substances

Research Centers. This limitation must be kept in

mind as Federal support for the centers is evaluated.

Technology transfer is crucial to infrastructure

technologies, but there is no guarantee that the

Federal transfer process as it is now most firmly

institutionalized will include the needs of public

works. Should Congress consider new legislation,

an emphasis on technology transfer to public works

could provide a much needed stream of innovative

R&D and a connection to industries that can adapt

advanced technologies for public sector uses. In any

case, a periodic review of technology transfer

~o~bme, Op. cit., footnote 63, P. 58”
Chapter 6—Research and Development for Public Works . 239

laws-how and by whom they are implemented

and their effect on the ownership and development of technologies-could provide Congress

with information on how well the goals of the laws

are being met.

Multidisciplinary programs using academic, private, and public resources can be useful sources of

information, expertise, and facilities. Coordinating

programs, such as the university centers of excellence and NIST, can be an effective way to allocate

scarce R&D dollars. In addition, other Federal

public works-related research could be coordinated,

and cooperative agreements such as those managed

by EPA and authorized by the Federal Technology

Transfer Act (Public Law 99-502) could ensure good

use of existing resources. NIST, TSC, and the Corps

represent valuable resources, which can provide

analytical and applied research support to DOT and

EPA. Nonetheless, with few exceptions, these resources are not being fully utilized for shared

Federal research.

Technical Training and Expertise

Time and again during OTA’s research, the need

for more well-trained personnel for public works

was emphasized. Although the efficacy of Federal

university center programs in improving the pool of

engineering talent is difficult to evaluate in the short

term, it is clear that the center programs do not yet

have a large, stable financial backing or substantial

student involvement. Only a small percentage of the

students attending the 280 universities in the United

States that offer engineering education will be

involved in the multidisciplinary programs sponsored by Federal agencies. For example, OTA

estimates that only 1 percent of engineering undergraduates and 4 to 11 percent of graduate students

participate in the NSF engineering centers.66 OTA

concludes that the focus on education and training is as important as research to improving

public works. A generous Federal funding commitment for engineers, scientists, and other university centers is needed to meet the extraordinary need for well-trained public works officials.

Federal support is especially crucial if the universities are to cooperate with the private sector

without becoming so oriented to private sector

goals that they risk their mission to educate.

%ffice of ‘Ikchnology Assessmen~ op. cit., footnote 36, p. 65.
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX A

Fiscal Capacity and Effort Measures

Fiscal capacity is a concept developed by the U.S.

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

(ACIR) to measure the relative revenue-raising abilities of

States and their local governments, including taxes and

nontax revenues, such as user charges. ACIR defines

fiscal capacity as the relative amount of revenue States

would raise if they used a “representative” tax and

revenue system, consisting of national average tax rates

and charges applied to 26 commonly used tax and revenue

bases. Therefore, State capacities vary because of differ

ing tax base characteristics, such as property values, sales

tax receipts, and mineral production. For example, the

effect of lower energy prices would adversely affect the

fiscal capacity of those States that rely on energy-related

Table A-l-State Fiscal

taxes and user charges to raise a significant share of State

revenue. The method developed by ACIR is only one of

several methods to measure fiscal capacity, and some

believe an analysis based on per-capita income, though

much simpler, is equally useful.

ACIR also measures fiscal effort, or relative tax

burdens, across States. (See table A-1 for State capacity

and effort indexes and rankings.) Revenue effort is

defined by ACIR as the burden that each State places on

each revenue base relative to the national average.

Because the ACIR analysis is based on 1988 data

changes have undoubtedly occurred in the index, but the

general trends and relationships remain valid.

Capacity and Effort, 1988

Fiscal Capacitya Fiscal efforta Fiscal Capacitya Fiscal efforta

Index Index Index Index

(Ioo=U.S. (Ioo=U.S. (100=U.S. (1 OO=U.S.

average) Rank average) Rank average) Rank average) Rank

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

California . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut. . . . . . . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . .

District of Columbia . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minnesota. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77

255

97

74

115

106

142

120

126

103

93

111

76

100

88

84

91

80

84

97

111

131

96

103

65

89

46

1

22

50

10

14

2

8

5

17

27

11

49

19

36

41

30

43

39

23

12

3

24

16

51

32

95

122

97

86

98

94

83

94

137

87

98

111

98

95

96

118

104

89

97

99

102

89

112

117

108

86

31

3

29

48

27

36

49

37

2

46

26

8

24

35

30

4

15

43

28

22

19

44

7

5

10

47

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . . . . . . .

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina . . . . . . . . .

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . .

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . .

South Carolina . . . . . . . . .

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . .

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

84

89

129

123

126

88

110

89

85

92

87

91

95

100

78

78

84

95

76

102

104

98

76

90

118

40

34

4

7

6

35

13

33

38

28

37

29

25

20

44

45

42

26

47

18

15

21

48

31

9

102

106

75

66

95

103

141

91

107

98

95

104

93

99

102

95

89

89

109

100

90

105

90

117

105

18

12

50

51

34

17

1

39

11

25

33

16

38

23

20

32

42

45

9

21

40

13

41

6

14

%ased on State and local tax bases and other revenue sources, such as user charges, relative to the national average.

SOURCE: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1988 State Fkwa/Capac/tyand HYort(Washington, DC: 1990), p. 33.

–243–
APPENDIX B

List of Acronyms

—Association of American Railroads

AASHTO —American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials

AC —asphaltic concrete

ACIR —Advisory Commission on

Intergovernmental Relations

ACTA —Alameda CorridorTransportation Authority

(California)

ADS —automatic dependent surveillance

—automated en route air traffic control

AGT —Automated Guideway Transit

AM/FM —automated mapping/facilities mapping

—automatic meter reading

ASCE —American Society of Civil Engineers

ATC —air traffic control

—Advanced Traffic Management

ATSAC —AutomatedTraffic Surveillance and Control

AVI —automatic vehicle identification

AVL —advanced vehicle location

AVM —advanced vehicle monitoring

BuRec —Bureau of Reclamation

CADD —computer-aided design and drafting

CBT —Center for Building Technology

CERL —Construction Engineering Research

Laboratory

CFCS —chlorofluorocarbons

CFCF —Central Flow Control Facility

—crash, fire, and rescue (services)

CIP —capital improvement plan

CNG —compressed natural gas

corps —U.S. Army corps of Engineers

CPAR —Construction Productivity Advancement

Research program

CRREL —Cold Regions Research and Engineering

Laboratory

CSO —combined sewer overflow

—Center for Utilization of Federal

Technology

DCA —Department of Community Affairs

(-Florida)

DCD —Department of Community Development

(Washington State)

DCS —Distributed Control System

DOT —Department of Transportation

DoD —Department of Defense

EPA —U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESPs —electrostatic precipitators

FAA —Federal Aviation Administration

FHWA —Federal Highway Administration

FLC —Federal Laboratory Consortium

FmHA —Farmers Home Administration

—Federal Railroad Administration

GA —general aviation

GIS —Geographic Information System

GOCO

GPS

HEW

HF

HOV

HP&R

HSGT

I/A

ICAO

ICC

ICTF

IDAP

ILS

IVHS

JAL

LLWAS

LRFD

—Government Owned Contractor Operated

—Global Positioning System

—Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare

—high frequency

—high-occupancy vehicle

—Highway Planning and Research

—High Speed Ground Transportation (Act)

—Innovative and Alternative Technology

—International Civil Aviation Organization

—Interstate Commerce Commission

—Intermodal Container Transfer Facility

(California)

—Infrastructure Development Assistance

Program

—instrument flight rules

—instrument landing system

—Intelligent Vehicle/Highway System

—Inland Waterways Trust Fund ‘

—Japanese National Airlines

—Japanese National Railway

—load factor design

—low-level windshear alert system

—load and resistance factor desire

MARAD —Maritime Administration

MCL —maximum contaminant level

MGD —million gallons per day

—meter interface unit

—Massachusetts Institute of Technology

—microwave landing system

MSW —municipal solid waste

—master terminal unit

NAS —National Airspace System

NATM —New Austrian Tunneling Method

NCHRP —National Cooperative Highway Research

Program

NCP —Nationally Coordinated Program

NDE —nondestructive evaluation

NEPA —National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA —National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

NPDES —National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System

NPS —nonpoint source

NRWA —National Rural Water Association

NTSB —National Transportation Safety Board

NWS —National Weather Service

OER —Office of Exploratory Research

OMB —Office of Management and Budget

PACE —Program for Airport Capacity Efficiency

(Massachusetts)

PCBs —polychlorinated biphenyls

PCI —Pavement Condition Index

POE —point of entry

-244-
Appendix B—List of Acronyms . 245

POTW

POU

PRT

PVC

PWTF

R&D

RCRA

RDF

RO

RSPA

RTRI

SCADA

SDWA

SHRP

—publicly owned treatment works

—point of use

—Personal Rapid Transit

—polyvinyl chloride

—Public Works Trust Fund (Washington

State)

—research and development

—Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

—refuse derived fuel

—reverse osmosis

—Research and Special Programs

Administration

—Railway Technical Research Institute

(Japan)

—Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

—Safe Drinkin g Water Act

—Strategic Highway Research program

SOCs

SRF

STAA

STCs

SWTR

TBM

TEC

THMs

TSC

UMTA

VE

VOCs

—soluble organic compounds

—State Revolving Loan Fund

—Surface Transportation Assistance Act

—Science and Technology Centers

—surface water treatment regulations

—tunnel boring machine

—trenchless excavation construction

—trihalomethanes

—Transportation Research Board

—Transportation Systems Center

—Urban Mass Transit Authority

—University Research Initiatives

—value engineering

—visual flight rules

—volatile organic compounds

—Waterways Experiment Station

—weigh-in-motion
APPENDIX C

Workshop Participants and Other

Reviewers and Contributors

State and Local Infrastructure Management

and Financing Workshop, July 7, 7989

Burton Stallwood, Workshop Chair

Town Administrator

Lincoln, RI

John Amberger

Executive Director

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments

Mary Boergers

Delegate

Maryland House of Delegates

Wayne Collins

County Engineer

Maricopa County Highway Department

Phoenix, AZ

Settle Dockery

Development Director

York Properties

John Gunyou

Finance Officer

City of Minneapolis, MN

John Horsley

Commissioner

Kitsap County, WA

Anthony Kane

Associate Administrator

Federal Highway Administration

Byron Koste

President

Westinghouse Communities

Ian MacGillivray

Director, Planning Research

Iowa Department of Transportation

Donald Morse

Secretary/Treasurer

Kentucky Infrastructure Authority

Heywood T. Sanders

Associate Professor

Trinity University

H. Gerard Schwartz

Vice President

Sverdrup Corp.

Mary Simone

Mayor

RockSprings, Tx

Ron Wagenmann

Town Manager

Upper Merion Township, PA

Morgan Kinghorn

Deputy Assistant Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

–246-
Appendix C—Workshop Participants and Other Reviewers and Contributors ● 247

Workshop on Transportation and Infrastructure Technologies:

Slow Motion Progress in a Fast Forward World, Ju/y 25, 1989

John J. Fearnsides, Workshop Chair

Vice President

The Mitre Corp.

William H. Allen

Vice President

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.

Carol Bellamy

Principal

Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.

Harry Cooke

President

National Waterways Conference, Inc.

Chris Hendrickson

Professor

Carnegie-Mellon University

Gill Hicks

Manager of Transportation Planning

Port of Long Beach

Richard R. John

Deputy Director

Transportation Systems Center

Damian J. Kulash

Executive Director

Strategic Highway Research program

Richard Marchi

Director of Aviation, Planning and Development

Massport

Mel Olsen

Vice President for Capacity Planning

American Airlines

Robert E. Parsons

Director, Program on Advanced Technology

for the Highway

University of California-Richmond

Craig Philip

Vice President, Intermodal Division

Southern Pacific Railroad

Thomas Richardson

Chief, Engineering Development Division

Coastal Engineering Research Center

U.S. Army Engineering Waterways Experiment Station

Albert J. Sobey

Consultant

Vern Wagar

President

National Association of County Engineers

Henry W. Wedaa

Vice Chairman

South Coast Air Quality Management District
248 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Workshop on Environmental /infrastructure Technologies:

Finding the Balance Between Performance and Regulation, September 14, 1989

Al Aim, Workshop Chair

Senior Vice President and Director

Science Application International Corp.

John Convery

Deputy Director

Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Patrick Gilligan

Manager

Brookings-Deuel Water System

Neil Grigg

Director

Water Resources Research Institute

Joseph Kavanaugh

Senior Process Engineer

CH2M Hill

Trudie Lay

Small Systems Program Manager

American Water Works Association

G. Wade Miller

President

Wade Miller Associates, Inc.

William Ross

Vice President

Roy F. Weston Co.

H. Gerard Schwartz

Vice President

Sverdrup Corp.

Edgar Smith

Civil Engineering Research Laboratory

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Whit Van Cott

Commissioner of Water

Toledo, OH

Hendrik Willems

Director, Washington Liaison Office for Engineering

and Research

U.S. Department of the Interior

Charles Larry Wilson

Deputy Director

Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology

Henry M. Peskin

President

Edgevale Associates, Inc.
Appendix C—Workshop Participants and Other Reviewers and Contributors . 249

Materials Technology and lnfrastructure Decisionmaking Workshop,

October 5, 1989

Robert Baboian

Principal Fellow

Texas Instruments, Inc.

Stanley Barkin

Associate Director

National Materials Advisory Board

George F. Braun

Director, Engineering and Housing Support Center

The Society of American Military Engineers

John P. Broomfield

Technical Contract Manager for Concrete and Structures

Strategic Highway Research program

Victor Chaker

Corrosion Research and Materials Engineer

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Edward Escalante

Metallurgist

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Milon Essoglioli

Director, Research and Development

Naval Facility Engineering Command

John J. Gaudette

Assistant Executive Director

Program and Capital Development

Chicago Regional Transportation Authority

Hazel Gluck

President

Public Policy Advisors, Inc.

Robert E. Green

Director, Center for Nondestructive Evaluation

The Johns Hopkins University

Betsy Houston

Executive Director

Federation of Materials Societies

Jerome Kruger

Professor

Materials Science and Engineering

The Johns Hopkins University

Carl E. Locke, Jr.

Dean, School of Engineering

University of Kansas

Stanley V. Margolin

President

Network Consulting, Inc.

Eugene DeMichele

Director, Technical Services

Water Pollution Control Federation

Dale Miller

Director, Membership and Public Affairs

National Association of Corrosion Engineers

Tomoki Oka

Manager, Research Engineer

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Luis Ortega

Chief Architect

Civil Engineering Division

U.S. Coast Guard

Thomas J. Pasko, Jr.

Director, Office of Engineering and Highway Operations

Research and Development

Federal Highway Administration

Rayne G. Poussard

Manager, Public Affairs

United Parcel Service

Rick Ricker

Group Leader, Corrosion Group

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Murray A. Schwartz

Program Manager for Materials

U.S. Bureau of Mines

Carl Sciple

Assistant Director of Engineering for Construction

Massachusetts Port Authority

Richard H. Sullivan

Associate Executive Director

American Public Works Association

Gilbert M. Ugiansky

President

Cortest Engineering Services, Inc.

Y. Paul Virmani

Research Chemist

Federal Highway Administration

Donald M. Waters

Vice President

PSG Corrosion Engineering, Inc.

Harold H. Weber

Director of Industrial Programs

The Sulphur Institute

John D. Wood

Professor

Lehigh University
250 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Other Reviewers and contributors

Blake Anderson

Orange County Sanitation Districts

Eugene DeMichele

Water Pollution Control Federation

Neil N. Diehl

Ingram Barge Co.

L. George Antle

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Arlene L. Dietz

Us. Army corps of Engineers

Amy Baker

Florida Department of Community Affairs

Gordon English

Queens University, Canada

R. Darryl Banks

Department of Environmental Conservation

Norman D. Falk

University of New Mexico

Robert Bastian

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Malachy Fallon

Standard & Poor Corp.

David Berg

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

John Fischer

Congressional Research Service

Robert K. Best

California Department of Transportation

Brian Frennea

Inland Rivers, Ports and Terminals, Inc.

Ray Beurket

American Public Works Association

Robert Friedman

Office of Technology Assessment

Rosina Bierbaum

Office of Technology Assessment

Geoffrey Frohnsdorff

U.S. Department of Commerce

Peter Blair

Office of Technology Assessment

Jerry Garman

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Rebecca Brady

National Conference of State Legislatures

Rich Grady

Intergraph Corp.

John P. Broomfield

Strategic Highway Research Program

Joseph F. Canny

U.S. Department of Transportation

Campbell Graeub

Transportation Research Board

James B. Groff

National Association of Water Companies

William Carpenter

Martin Marietta Energy Applications, Inc.

Elliott chamberlain

Sverdrup Corp.

Ruth Hewitt

Ionia, Michigan Chamber of Commerce

Robert M. Hill

SRI International

Frank Cihak

American Public Transit Association

Robert Clark

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

John Hornbeck

Congressional Research Service

Claudia Copeland

Congressional Research Service

M. Leon Hyatt

Bureau of Reclamation

Charilyn Cowan

National Governors’ Association

Thomas Iseley

Louisiana Tech University

Rich Davis

Southern California Rapid Transit District

Larry Jenney

Transportation Research Board

Michael Deich

Congressional Budget Office

Peter Johnson

Office of Technology Assessment
Appendix C—Workshop Participants and Other Reviewers and Contributors ● 251

Dan Jones

Office of the Mayor

Houston, TX

Joseph Kavanaugh

CH2M Hill

John Kelly

Oregon Department of Land Conservation

and Development

Elaine King

Transportation Research Board

Ken Kirke

Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies

James Kreissl

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Richard Kuchenreither

Black & Veatch Engineers

Lester P. Lamm

Highway Users Federation

Thomas D. Larson

U.S. Department of Transportation

Jerry F. Lavelle

Tri-City Regional Port District

Howard Levenson

Office of Technology Assessment

Sue Lior

Roy F. Weston, Inc.

Steven Lockwood

Federal Highway Administration

James Manwaring

American Water Works Association

Wayne Marchant

U.S. Department of the Interior

Kathleen Marcucci

Lehigh University

Francis Mayo

Florence, Kentucky

Kenneth Mead

U.S. General Accounting Office

Dale Miller

National Association of Corrosion Engineers

Elizabeth Miner

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Arrigo Mongini

U.S. Department of Transportation

Jeffrey Mom

Urban Mass Transportation Administration

Karen Morehouse

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mike Mulbarger

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Robert Niblock

Office of Technology Assessment

Don Niehus

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Reed Nielsen

Bechtel National, Inc.

Kent A. Olsen

Fluor Daniel, Inc.

Robert B. Oswald, Jr.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Constantine N. Papadakis

University of Cincinnati

Lee Pasarew

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Thomas J. Pasko, Jr.

Federal Highway Administration

Michael Phillips

Office of Technology Assessment

Beth Pinkston

Congressional Budget Office

Richard Powell

American President Lines

Yvonne Pufahl

U.S. General Accounting Office

Karen Rasmussen

California Trucking Association

William Reilly

Transportation Research Board

John Reith

American Trucking Associations

Victor Rezendes

U.S. General Accounting Office

Rip Rice

Rice International Consulting Enterprises

Gary T. Ritter

Transportation Systems Center

Judith Rohrer

U.S. Environmental protection Agency
252 . Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance

Donald Rote Thomas Wehri

Argonne National Laboratory U.S. Department of Agriculture

David Sanford, Jr. Jacqueline Williams-Bridger

U.S. Army corps of Engineers U.S. General Accounting Office

David Schnare Carl Williams

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency California Department of Transportation

Neil D. Schuster Roger Wolff

International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association U.S. Department of the Interior

Sarah J. Siwek

Southcoast Air Quality Management District

Dennis R. Smith

Us. Army corps of Engineers

Ken Strom

Dames & Moore

Stephen J. Thompson

Congressional Research Service

John Trax

National Rural Water Association

Leslie Wollack

National League of Cities

Richard N. Wright

U.S. Department of Commerce

Darwin Wright

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

David York

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

Michael Zywokarte

Federal Aviation Administration
APPENDIX D

Contractor Reports

Copies of contractor reports done for this project are available through the U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 4874650.

1. Analytical Services, “State Finance for Local Public Works: Four Case Studies,” PB 91-119529.

2. Analytical Services, “State Finance for Local Public Works: Implications for Federal Policy,” PB 91-119537.

3. Apogee Research, Inc., “Impact of Federal Funding Changes on State/Local Infrastructure Financing

Resources,” PB 90-171703.

4. Campbell Associates, “Regional Planning: Opportunities for Infrastructure Development,” PB 91-119503.

5. Government Finance Research Center, “Federal Tax Policy and Infrastructure Financing,” PB 90-171729.

6. Thomas D. Hopkins, “Benefit Changes for Financing Infrastructure,” PB 90-171711.

–253– U. S, GOVERNMENTPRINTING OFFICE;IWl_CW-~