STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT BRIDGES 

IN THE UNITED STATES 

(110–67) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT BRIDGES IN THE UNITED STATES 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

37–652 PDF 2007

STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT BRIDGES 

IN THE UNITED STATES 

(110–67) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BOB FILNER, California 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa, Vice Chair 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

VACANCY 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

TESTIMONY 

Cox, William G., President, Corman Construction, Inc. ....................................... 98 

Ellison, Hon. Keith, a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota .................................................................................................................... 76 

Herrmann, Andy, P.E, Hardesty & Hanover, Managing Partner ....................... 98 

Kaniewski, Donald, Legislative and Political Affairs Director, National Construction Alliance ................................................................................................. 98 

Kavinoky, Janet, Executive Director, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans 

for Transportation Mobility ................................................................................. 98 

Kerley, Malcolm, Chief Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation ........ 78 

Lynch, Tim, Senior Vice President, American Trucking Association, Washington, D.C. ........................................................................................................... 98 

McFarlin, Bob, Assistant to the Commissioner for Policy and Public Affairs, 

Minnesota Department of Transportation, accompanied by Dan Dorgan, 

Bridge Office Director, Minnesota Department of Transportation .................. 78 

Miller, Susan, County Engineer, Freeborn County, Minnesota ........................... 78 

Novak, Hon. Kathleen, City of Northglenn, Mayor, Northglenn, Colorado ........ 65 

Peters, Hon. Mary E., Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, accompanied by Hon. J. Richard Capka, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration ................................................................................................................. 11 

Rosenker, Hon. Mark V., Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board .... 46 

Rybak, Hon. R.T., City of Minneapolis, Mayor, Minneapolis, Minnesota ........... 65 

Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 46 

Steudle, Kirk, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation ...................... 78 

Webb, George, County Engineer, Palm Beach County, Florida ........................... 78 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania .................................................................... 116 

Arcuri, Hon. Michael A., of New York ................................................................... 119 

Ellison, Hon. Keith, of Minnesota .......................................................................... 120 

Engel, Hon Eliot L., of New York ........................................................................... 122 

Hall, Hon. John J., of New York ............................................................................ 124 

Lipinski, Hon. Daniel, of Illinois ............................................................................ 125 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 127 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 131 

Walz, Hon. Timothy J., of Minnesota ..................................................................... 134 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Cox, William G. ........................................................................................................ 136 

Kaniewski, Hon. Donald J. ..................................................................................... 144 

Kavinoky, Janet F. .................................................................................................. 149 

Kerley, Malcolm T. .................................................................................................. 162 

Lynch, Tim ............................................................................................................... 179 

McFarlin, Robert J. ................................................................................................. 184 

Miller, Susan G. ....................................................................................................... 197 

Novak, Hon. Kathleen ............................................................................................. 201 

Peters, Hon. Mary E. ............................................................................................... 206 

Rosenker, Hon. Mark V. .......................................................................................... 228 

Rybak, Hon. R.T. ..................................................................................................... 242 

Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L. ...................................................................................... 246 

Steudle, Kirk ............................................................................................................ 267 

Webb, George T. ....................................................................................................... 277 

Page

VI 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

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

responses to questions from Rep. DeFazio ......................................................... 173 

McFarlin, Bob, Assistant to the Commissioner for Policy and Public Affairs, 

Minnesota Department of Transportation, responses to questions from the 

Committee ............................................................................................................. 191 

Peters, Hon. Mary E., Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, responses to questions from the Committee .......................................................... 213 

Rosenker, Hon. Mark V., Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board, 

responses to questions from Rep. DeFazio ......................................................... 239 

Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, responses to questions from Rep. DeFazio ............................................. 264 

Steudle, Kirk, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation, responses 

to questions from the Committee ........................................................................ 271 

Webb, George, County Engineer, Palm Beach County, Florida, responses to 

questions from the Committee ............................................................................ 280 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

American Public Works Association, William A. Verkest, P.E., President, written statement ....................................................................................................... 282 

American Society of Civil Engineers, Andrew Herrmann, Board Member, 

written statement ................................................................................................. 286 

American Traffic Safety Services Association, Roger A. Wentz, Executive Director, written statement ..................................................................................... 294 

Colorado Municipal League, Mike Braaten, Colorado Counties, Inc., Chip 

Taylor, slide presentation on ‘‘Local Government Transportation Needs’’ ...... 295 

State of Connecticut, Hon. M. Jodi Rell, Governor, written statement .............. 314 

Florida Department of Transportation, Stephanie C. Kopelousos, Secretary, 

written statement ................................................................................................. 316 

Rhode Island Department of Transportation, Jerome F. Williams, Director, 

written statement ................................................................................................. 319 

San Juan County Commissioners Bruce Adams, Lynn Stevens and Kenneth 

Maryboy; and Navajo County Supervisors Percy Deal and Jesse Thompson, 

joint written statement ........................................................................................ 322 

vii 


37652.001
viii 


37652.002
ix 


37652.003
x 


37652.004
xi 


37652.005
xii 


37652.006
xiii 


37652.007
xiv 


37652.008
xv 


37652.009
(1) 

STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT BRIDGES IN THE 

UNITED STATES 

Wednesday, September 5, 2007 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Oberstar [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Good morning. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will come to order. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses for making time to be with us today. In the interest of expediting the proceedings, we will 

limit opening statements to four—myself, Mr. Mica, Chairman 

DeFazio, and Ranking Member Duncan—in order to accommodate 

the Secretary’s schedule. Madam Secretary, we greatly appreciate your adjusting your schedule to be here today. We know you have to be out of town, 

I think it is—or you have at least another commitment that requires you to leave here at around noon, and we want to accommodate that to the greatest extent possible. 

The collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis demonstrated 

powerfully once again the need to make a commitment to invest in 

maintenance and in major reconstruction in our Nation’s infrastructure, not just bridges but highways, waterways, airways, railways. This Committee has been at work doing that since the beginning of this session. We have moved $104 billion in investment in 

the Nation’s infrastructure that is under the jurisdiction of this 

Committee in separate items, separate bills that have moved 

through the House—one at least through conference and another 

through Committee—and we will bring that major aviation bill to 

the House floor the week of September 17. 

Many of our facilities are stretched to the limit of their design 

life and even beyond. This is not the first inquiry into this subject 

matter. Twenty years ago, on December 1st and 2nd, 1987, I held 

hearings on bridge safety—not this entire volume but the last third 

of it—on the issue of bridge safety 20 years after the collapse of the 

Silver Bridge between Ohio and West Virginia—46 lives lost—to 

assess the state of bridge safety in this country and what was 

being done at the Federal and State levels. 

A remarkable observation by one of the witnesses was of a structural engineer testifying for the Center for Auto Safety, who said 

in 1987, bridge maintenance and inspection is in the Stone Age. 

There are 594,101 bridges in the national bridge inventory. That 

2 

is a very large number. It is 200,000 more than in 1987 when I 

conducted those hearings; 26 percent of those bridges—one in 

four—is structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The U.S. 

DOT has reported that more than $65 billion could be invested immediately, cost beneficial, to replace or otherwise address bridge 

deficiencies. 

An area where we need strong Federal leadership is for those 

bridges on the National Highway System. That is a 162,000-mile 

network. It includes the interstate highway system of 46,700-plus 

miles. It is our strategic highway network for military mobilization. 

It is 1 percent of the Nation’s mileage, but it carries 26 percent of 

the traffic. The NHS is 4 percent of the Nation’s mileage, but it 

carries 45 percent of vehicle miles traveled and 75 percent of heavy 

truck traffic, 90 percent of tourist traffic on our National Highway 

System. There are 116,172 bridges on the National Highway System; 55,000 of those are on the interstate; 6,175 of those bridges 

have been rated structurally deficient; and half of those are bridges 

on the interstate, over 2,800. The DOT reports that the current National Highway System backlog of investment in bridge structures 

is $32 billion, and that includes $19 billion for the interstate system alone. 

Addressing the needs of bridges is critical to public safety, to regional mobility, to national mobility, to economic competitiveness. 

It demands a national response. For over 20 years I have paid attention to bridge issues, attempted to move here, to move there, to 

increase our funding in bridge structures, to provide increased capacity in investment through our highway trust fund, but we obviously have not done enough. 

In the wake of this tragedy, I said not again, not another set of 

hearings, not another long inquiry, not a commission to study, obfuscate and delay, but an action program. I proposed the National 

Highway System Bridge Reconstruction Initiative as soon as we 

completed action on this Committee, and I thank Mr. Mica for his 

participation in moving that emergency response bill through Committee. Mr. Duncan, Mr. DeFazio, and all of the Committee responded as one to move that legislation. That was an emergency 

response. We need a targeted, high-priority action on the bridge 

issue as a whole. Of course, the NTSB—and we will hear from 

them later—will in due course provide us an analysis of what happened in their usual thorough, meticulous way. We do not have to 

wait for that to take on a challenge that is crying for a response. 

The proposal I have set forth will provide dedicated funding to 

States to repair, to rehabilitate, to replace structurally deficient— 

just structurally deficient—bridges on the National Highway System. We will inject accountability into bridge inspection, repair, replacement. We will have a data-driven, performance-based approach to systematically address structurally deficient bridges on 

the core National Highway System. This proposal is not business 

as usual. As I said a moment ago, that would be to establish a commission, to have a plan, to muddle through, to dangle our feet over 

the edge, and to find ways not to act. We do not need a plan. We 

do not need a commission. We know what the problem is. It has 

been there, and it is hanging over our heads, and we need an acVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:02 May 18, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37652.TXT JASON
3 

tion program to deal with this issue of structurally deficient 

bridges. 

I have received letters of support for this proposal from a broad 

range of governmental and business industry, highway user organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the Transportation Construction Coalition; the Associated General Contractors; 

the Road and Transportation Builders Association; the National 

Construction Alliance. That is the laborers’, the operating engineers’ and the carpenters’ unions; the American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO; the American Highway Users Alliance; the Bus Association; the Association 

of Equipment Manufacturers; the Associated Equipment Dealers; 

the National Asphalt Pavement Association; the National Ready 

Mix Concrete Association. 

Madam Secretary, in your statement, you say, ′′The I-35 bridge 

collapse was a tragedy and a wake-up call.′′ It is not a wake-up. 

It is a reawakening. You said, ′′There is no transportation infrastructure safety crisis.′′ You also say, ′′It is inaccurate to conclude 

the Nation’s transportation infrastructure is subject to catastrophic 

failure.′′ It was a catastrophic failure for Minneapolis. There are 

740 other bridges like this that were built at the same time 

throughout the country. 

In this hearing of 20 years ago, I said the purpose of our inquiry 

is to find those bridges and to attack problem bridges that do not 

have redundancy, where there has not been sufficient inspection to 

find structural deficiencies. It has not been done sufficiently. We do 

know there are 73,000 bridges that are structurally deficient. We 

do know there are 6,175 bridges on the National Highway System 

that are structurally deficient. We have produced maps that have 

been prepared by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics at DOT 

and have distributed those maps to all of the Members of the 

House. 

The DOT, your Department, Madam Secretary, has identified a 

backlog of $32 billion of bridge investments, cost beneficial, that 

would make improvements in the Nation’s bridge inventory and 

that could be done promptly. The question is how to pay for it. I 

do not think that America wants the Congress to say, well, we will 

have a bake sale for bridges. They want us to take action to fund 

that bridge backlog of strategically deficient bridges. 

Now, I was disappointed in the Secretary’s testimony as I read 

it meticulously last night and again this morning. It never once addresses my proposal. It, rather, goes on in the administration’s repeated song of tolling, congestion pricing and—I read into it—public-private partnerships; never explaining how tolling is going to be 

administered, how it is going to ensure that the worst safety problems are addressed first, how tolling is going to address the needs 

of bridges. The Secretary does call for the data-driven, performance-based approach. Now, if you will take a look carefully at my 

proposal, you will find it does that. 

One, the initiative will significantly improve bridge inspection requirements. That is what we needed 20 years ago, and we need it 

again today. I would be morally deficient if I did not take this opportunity to move ahead and propose something concrete and specific in legislative language, and we do that. We require the FedVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:02 May 18, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37652.TXT JASON
4 

eral Highway Administration and the States to significantly improve and to develop consistent, uniform processes and standards 

for the inspection of structurally deficient bridges, and inspector 

training. We cited that as a need 20 years ago. 

Second, the initiative establishes a National Highway System 

bridge reconstruction trust fund for dedicated funding, separate 

from the highway trust fund, to finance the repair, the rehabilitation and the replacement of structurally deficient bridges on the 

National Highway System. The initiative distributes the funds 

based on public safety and need by requiring the Department of 

Transportation to develop an administrative formula for distributing all funds, for prioritizing bridges by State in order of need 

of replacement, reconstruction and rehabilitation, and it will subject that to review by the National Council of Engineering and the 

National Academy of Sciences. So there is an independent review, 

and there is total transparency. 

I want to know: Do you oppose efforts to have a dedicated funding stream? Do you oppose efforts to distribute funds based on public safety and need? We provide accountability in this measure by 

prohibiting deviation from that list through earmarks by the executive branch or by the legislative branch, by the U.S. Congress, by 

the U.S. Department of Transportation, by State Departments of 

Transportation. I do not think you want to oppose an initiative of 

that kind. 

While the terrible events of August 1 have sounded an alarm 

note around the country, many have questioned the way we operate the system, the way it is financed. But we have to make a decision. We have to decide we are going to attack this problem, and 

it would be irresponsible to say we are going to do it without a 

means of funding it. So I have set forth a proposal in which we can 

fund this separate bridge trust fund in the way we have done our 

Federal aid highway systems since the days of Dwight Eisenhower. 

If it was good enough for Dwight Eisenhower, it ought to be good 

enough for this administration and for this Congress as well. 

I have asked Subcommittee Chairman DeFazio to have a second 

hearing specifically on bridge inspection and technology issues 

within the next 2 weeks. I hope that, following that hearing—I expect that after that we will have what I hope at least will be a bipartisan bill to address the National Highway Bridge Reconstruction Initiative, and we will consider that legislation in markup in 

Committee in October. 

Many years ago, I cited this work of Thornton Wilder, The 

Bridge of San Luis Rey. I cited it in a hearing 20 some years ago: 

′′on Friday, noon, July 20, 1714, the finest bridge in all Peru broke. 

It precipitated five travelers into the gulf below. The bridge was on 

a high road between Lima, Cuzco, and hundreds of people passed 

over it every day. It had been woven by the Incas a century before. 

Visitors to the city were always led out to see it. The bridge seemed 

to be among the things that last forever. It was unthinkable that 

it should break. The moment a Peruvian heard of the incident, he 

sighed to himself and made a mental calculation as how recently 

he had crossed it and how soon he had intended crossing it again. 

People wandered about in a trancelike state, muttering. They had 

the hallucination of seeing themselves falling into the gulf. EveryVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:02 May 18, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37652.TXT JASON
5 

one was deeply impressed, but only one person did anything about 

it, and that was Brother Juniper. By a series of coincidences so extraordinary, one almost suspects the presence of some intention. 

This little, red-haired Franciscan from Northern Italy happened to 

be in Peru, converting the Indians, and happened to witness the accident, and in that instant, Brother Juniper made the resolve to inquire into the lives of those five persons at that moment, falling 

through the air and to surmise the reason of their taking off.′′ 

His was a teleological inquiry about the last things. Ours is a 

pragmatic inquiry about the present things and about what we can 

do about it. And we have an opportunity to do something, and I am 

not going to let this opportunity pass. There was a commentary in 

the International Falls Daily Journal—if our person can call that 

up on the screen—shortly after the collapse of the bridge. Maybe 

not. He cannot find that. 

We will conclude there, and I yield the floor to Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

First of all, I appreciate, Mr. Oberstar, that you have called this 

hearing, because today is important. We are addressing a very important responsibility as part of our Nation’s infrastructure; one 

particular area, bridges. I was pleased to work with you, Mr. Oberstar, and with others on your side of the aisle when we did, unfortunately, experience the national tragedy in your home State and 

locale with the collapse of the St. Paul-Minneapolis bridge, and 

Congress did come together in a bipartisan fashion to address the 

replacement of that bridge; and I said I wish every infrastructure 

project we did in this country could be replaced in the time frame 

that we will be replacing that bridge. That would solve probably 

half of our problems. I understand that bridge will probably be up 

sometime and operating at the end of its replacement, operating at 

the end of next year. If we could do that with all of the projects, 

we would probably have a lot less of a need across the country because we would be replacing those bridges in record time and putting that infrastructure in place in record time. 

Since taking over as the Ranking Member and having—I see a 

large group of suspects in the audience. Most of them have been 

in your office and in my office, Mr. Chairman, talking to us about 

some of their needs; but they represent not just bridges but highways, rail, airport, transit infrastructure. Many of the folks have 

come to the hearing today, and they all have the same thing that 

they tell us, that our infrastructure is aged. Some of it is obsolete, 

and it needs repair. And it is not just bridges. 

That is what led me to the conclusion some months ago to begin 

a national campaign to try to see if we could develop a national 

strategic transportation and infrastructure plan that would address 

the needs of every mode of transportation and incorporate the expertise and the resources of both the private and public sectors in 

that effort. Here, focusing or setting up one more fund to address 

one problem that unfortunately has come to our attention in this 

tragic manner is not the way to go. I will not turn this into a kneejerk reaction. I think it is a responsible action that we will take in 

again addressing the infrastructure needs of our country, but I 

would like to do it on an even broader basis. Picking out just 

bridges is not the way to go. 

6 

The other thing that we need to do is to look, as the Chairman 

has indicated, not only at a plan but at a way to finance that plan. 

I would say that, if we would just take bridges and we would set 

up a separate fund and a mechanism of funding it, it would kind 

of like be taking a 60- or 70-year-old house with a crumbling foundation, a collapsing roof and obsolete plumbing, and repairing just 

the driveway. It would not make much sense. We have got a much 

bigger problem at hand that we need to address. 

So I think we need to reevaluate how we also fund these programs, because not only is the infrastructure broken, but the mechanism for funding these programs is also broken with each passing 

day: the concept of basing a majority of our revenues for financing 

these infrastructure improvements or replacements. 

The revenue stream for highways and transit programs on gas 

tax is becoming more obsolete. Every passing day, it becomes outdated. That is basically for two reasons: because, vehicles, we are 

requiring them to be more efficient with their fuel and we are also 

requiring that they use alternative fuels; and we are also having 

more and more vehicles with alternative fuels on the road. I understand we have about 8 million of those vehicles. Just today, I saw 

one this morning as I was crossing the street—′′hybrid′′ was 

marked on the back of the vehicle—in my own neighborhood. 

A debate on our Nation’s future transportation plan should also 

include a debate on what our Federal role should be in financing, 

building and maintaining our transportation system. We need to leverage the private sector expertise/resources both to maintain, expand and finance our transportation system. While government 

funding will always play a major role in infrastructure financing, 

we need to draw from the experience and also from the efficiencies 

of the private sector. Many people think the Federal highway program has grown too big and too broad. 

The Florida DOT and our Secretary could not make it. She 

asked, Mr. Chairman, if I would submit her testimony—Stephanie 

C. Kopelousos, Secretary of Transportation. I would ask unanimous 

consent—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Without objection, it will be included in the 

record. 

Mr. MICA. She told me that Florida’s DOT has over now 700 

funding program codes to accurately track Federal highway funding in Florida. We have now grown to over 100 Federal programs 

from an original four, and I think you will hear the Secretary also 

say—if she does not say it today, I have heard her say it—about 

how much money of that is diverted. It is a staggering amount of 

Federal funds that does not actually go into bridges and highways 

and infrastructure. 

We also need to narrow the scope of the Federal program to better focus our Federal resources so that our critical transportation 

needs are met first, and we also need to think about a maintenance 

of effort to make certain that if we increase Federal spending that 

States and localities do not decrease their transportation spending. 

Also, as to raising up revenues, why should some Federal taxpayers reward lax taxpayers, so to speak? We have to have a system that is fair to everybody. 

7 

It is important also to mention that there is an existing highway 

bridge program—it is funded at approximately $4.3 billion this 

year—and before we go out and create another new program funded by a gas tax increase, I think we should look pretty carefully 

at what we are doing with the existing program that has failed us 

and try first to correct that. 

So I have some concerns about Mr. Oberstar’s proposed approach 

to our Nation’s bridge problem and, again, just creating another 

fund or source of raising revenues for that single effort. I am committed, however, to looking at repairing and replacing not only our 

bridges but also the system that finances it. My home State of Florida has an exceptional bridge program, and it has only 306 structurally deficient bridges out of approximately 12,000. Under the 

Chairman’s proposal to raise the gas tax 5 cents to create a new 

bridge program, Florida would contribute more than $490 million— 

a half billion dollars a year to this—and receive back $27 million. 

It does not sound fair to me to penalize a State like Florida or 

other States’ Members who are represented here to fund those who 

have not done their due diligence or have stepped up to the plate. 

In fact, some States with the highest number of deficit bridges in 

the country, such as Pennsylvania, have decided not to use all of 

the funding allocated to it under the Federal bridge program. Instead, it transferred bridge funding to other highway programs. 

We had a debate in this Committee about rescissions, and we 

failed to give, in a vote in the House, the States the ability to decide where Federal funds were to go in that rescission, and I know 

in the past that has been granted. 

We have also sent very conflicting signals, even from this Committee, to States seeking public-private solutions. For example, 

Governor Mitch Daniels, who sold some of the State’s infrastructure, used that money. I know, because I went and looked at some 

of the bridge replacements that were being considered with funds 

from his public-private partnership. Instead, the message from this 

Committee was do not do anything, and especially not in public-private partnerships, until we say a blessing on it. 

Finally, when you do not act or when we do not set the policy, 

somebody else sets the policy for us as we found out this last August when Congress did not act. Of the 435 Members and 100 Senators, many of them had earmarked projects that were their priorities. Some did not choose bridges as priorities; some chose other 

infrastructure, but they chose as the elected Federal Representatives. When we passed the continuing resolution, as you may recall, 

all of those earmarks were eliminated, and some of you Members 

may want to listen to this, particularly those who were here last 

year and who participated in this. 

As a result, $835 million was distributed by the administration. 

That was almost all of the discretionary money, all of that earmarked money, to hundreds of projects designated by Members. Instead of distributing it to hundreds of Members, it went to five jurisdictions, basically, and this is the earmarking by bureaucratic 

fiat, but they set the policy because Congress did not set the policy. 

So, while you were on vacation, the administration took that $835 

million. It was fairly evenly divided. About half went to Republicans. New York City got the biggest chunk—about $350 million— 

8 

for Mr. Bloomberg and his proposal, basically to put in tolling. That 

was a congestion mitigation solution that they came up with. So 

that is where your money will go. The priority is set by the administration. 

The second biggest amount—well, it is sort of a tie. Ms. Pelosi 

got some for San Francisco. The Chairman got a nice chunk for 

Minnesota, and Ms. Murray got some for Washington, about $130 

million to $150 million, and the Ranking Member even got some 

$62 million. It is not my district, but it is for the State of Florida. 

Now, that is the way your money was spent. I do not know if you 

know that, but I am pleased to convey that when we do not set the 

policy, somebody else sets it for us, and that is based on the preference of the administration, which is congestion mitigation and 

congestion pricing as their priorities. 

So that is my little part of the information I am providing today, 

and I look forward to hearing from the Secretary. I want to also 

hear more from the NTSB on the cause of the bridge collapse, if 

they know that, and I look forward to the hearing. 

I thank you for calling it, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. We can 

have a very lively debate on each of those issues, and we will in 

due course. 

The provision in my bill, though, requires the maintenance of effort by States to match available Federal funding in the bridge program. Secondly, it prohibits earmarking by the executive branch as 

well as by the legislative branch at the Federal or State level. 

Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling 

this hearing today. 

Just in response to the Ranking Member, we do have and we will 

hear in December from the National Surface Transportation Policy 

and Revenue Study Commission, which was charged with developing a national strategy that both goes to needs, investment and 

means. So, hopefully, we will receive something that can be a starting point as we move toward the 2009 reauthorization that will 

look across transportation more meaningfully and will provide 

more strategic investment. 

Secondly, I actually share the Ranking Member’s concerns about 

the one note we are hearing out of the administration, which is 

congestion pricing will solve everything. We are not investing 

enough. The roads are becoming more congested. Well, let us price 

people off of them. That is their sole solution, and they have taken 

$800 million that could have been spent on bridges or any other 

critical infrastructure to push this ideological agenda written by 

the Heritage admin—no. Well, they are not the administration but 

are the Heritage Foundation, but they act like they are the administration, and they seem to have gotten a playbook from them. That 

is not going to solve America’s problems. 

We have not, you know, increased the amount of Federal investment in 15 years. Yet the price of construction has gone up more 

than 100 percent during that time. So the Federal effort today is 

less than half of what it was 15 years ago in terms of meeting the 

needs of our country. We have extraordinary documentation right 

here that I am certain the Secretary is familiar with and has read 

9 

every word of, the Conditions and Performance Report from the Department of Transportation, issued in 2006, dated 2004, essentially 

in terms of data. The conclusions are extraordinary. 

Just to maintain the cosmetic nature of the system, it is $78.8 

billion a year. We are investing $70.3 billion. All right. If we wanted to maintain the current level of congestion, we would have to 

invest $89.7 billion a year. We are investing $70.3 billion. If we actually wanted to enhance and to improve the system, making it 

safer and less obsolete, it would be $131.7 billion a year. We are 

spending less than 2 percent of our GDP on our surface transportation infrastructure. China is spending 9; India is spending 5, and 

the answer is congestion pricing. 

The answer is not congestion pricing. We are not going to price 

Americans off the road. Workers do not determine when they go to 

work. You say, oh, $22. You can be in that underutilized lane there 

that is taking up a precious right-of-way with the other limousines 

to drive in to D.C. during rush hour. And for workers who have to 

get here or who are, you know, at a little lower level, well, gee, I 

do not know. Sorry. Too bad. Maybe you had better move. Oh, no. 

They cannot afford to live in D.C.—it is too expensive—and that is 

going to be repeated around and around and around the country. 

Congestion pricing is not the answer. Let us get off this one note, 

and let us talk about a solution. God forbid we should talk about 

the need for investment, because—guess what? That is the ′′T′′ 

word. We might have to tax somebody. We might have to have a 

user fee. Well, when bridges fall down and people die in the United 

States of America—the greatest Nation on earth—when the cost of 

congestion is $100 billion a year, when 120 people die a day and 

probably a third of those die because of obsolete or undermaintained infrastructure, according to good statistics. We are not doing 

our job, and the country has to lead at the national level. Then, 

yes, the States need to perform, too. 

Again, back to the Ranking Member, he has fought our proposal 

to make States take the recision proportionately from all accounts, 

and he has fought for State flexibility. Well, that is what Pennsylvania used, State flexibility. Divert the money from bridges, and a 

bunch of other States have done that, too. Not my State. We went 

out and issued $1.3 billion in bonds, and we are not a very rich 

State to deal with our bridge problems. My earmarks are disproportionately bridges. I knew the problem was there. The Chairman knew the problem was there. The Secretary of Transportation 

certainly knew the problem was there. It was an accident waiting 

to happen. And to say there is no critical problem is not right, and 

to say we are going to solve it with congestion pricing is not right. 

Let us come together, as we did way back in the 1950s with the 

great vision of Dwight David Eisenhower, and talk about what is 

the next century going to look like in America for surface transportation. Let us stop quibbling around the edges while people are 

dying. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his statement. 

Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief because 

I know you want to get on to the Secretary and to other witnesses. 

10 

I do want to thank you for calling this hearing, and I commend you 

for your leadership on this. 

In fact, this is my 19th year in the Congress, and very seldom 

have I seen such unity between business, labor, technical experts, 

and Members all saying that a substantial amount of work needs 

to be done. And the I-35W bridge collapse last month in your home 

State of Minnesota made the term ′′structurally deficient bridge′′ 

almost a household phrase. And I think you were right in pointing 

out that this Committee can be justifiably proud in the quick action 

that was taken in regard to the tragedy in Minnesota and the legislation that we passed so quickly. 

I also want to commend Ranking Member Mica, and I agree with 

him in that the problems we face are much bigger than bridges, 

and I agree with his call for a national strategic transportation 

plan. 

I am pleased that my home State of Tennessee has just slightly 

over half of the national average in structurally deficient bridges. 

We have 6.6 percent, with the national average being over 12 percent; but, unfortunately, we had to learn from past problems, because in 1989 we had a bridge collapse in Tennessee that killed 

eight people. The NTSB determined that a shift in river channel 

resulted in the deterioration of the timber piles that were originally 

buried and not really designed to be in water in the first place. The 

NTSB sided with the State of Tennessee in 1979, and a lot of work 

was done, unfortunately because of that tragedy that occurred in 

my State in 1989. 

You know, there has been some talk already here this morning 

about increasing the Federal gas tax. It may be that at some point 

we will be forced to do that. I understand, though, and I have read 

that we are spending $12 billion a month now in Iraq, and over the 

last 10 years or so, we have spent mega-billions doing military construction projects all over the world for a military that is only 

about half the size that it was a few years ago. And my preference 

would be that we take some of the hundreds of billions that we are 

spending in other countries around the world through all of our departments and agencies—and primarily through the Department of 

Defense, but all of the other departments and agencies as well— 

and take a small portion of that money and spend it on our infrastructure in this country. 

It has been pointed out that we are devoting just a little over $4 

billion to our bridge program in this country at this point, and I 

do not think it would be asking too much if we diverted a very 

small percentage of the hundreds of billions that we are spending 

in other countries to take care of our own people here. Our first obligation should be to the American people, and this is a very important way in which we need to do what is right for our own people. 

I thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for a very succinct but 

very hard-hitting statement. I totally agree with the $44.5 billion 

we have committed to infrastructure in Iraq that is blown up or 

otherwise immobilized almost as soon as it is built. If we had that 

money at home, we would not be talking about a gas tax increase. 

We would have that money to invest right here with American 

labor and American jobs. 

11 

While I agree with Mr. Mica on the need for a comprehensive 

plan, in that same set of hearings, our former colleague, Mr. 

Clinger of Pennsylvania, and I developed a capital budgeting approach. We had several days of hearings on capital budgeting. We 

moved legislation through the House. We established a capital 

budget for the Congress to assess the needs of all of the infrastructure investments that we have to make. By the time it got through 

the Senate and the Reagan administration, it was whittled down 

to an annex in the Federal budget. And this is it, number 6, Federal investments at the end of the budget. 

Now, if the gentleman would join with me and elevate this to 

the—— 

Mr. MICA. Ready to go. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. —status that it needs, then that is where we will 

start. 

Mr. MICA. Let’s go. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We will do that. All right. 

Madam Secretary, you have been very patient, and we welcome 

your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. MARY E. PETERS, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ACCOMPANIED BY: HON. 

J. RICHARD CAPKA, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY 

ADMINISTRATION 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. 

Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica and Members of the 

Committee, I am honored to be here with you today. Accompanying 

me is Rick Capka, our Federal Highway Administrator, who has 

spent a good amount of time on the ground in Minnesota following 

the tragic bridge collapse. 

America, all of us, were stunned on the evening of August 1, 

2007 when the I-35W bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis collapsed. Numerous vehicles were on the bridge at the 

time, and at the end of the day, there were 13 fatalities and 123 

persons injured. 

On behalf of the President, I would like to personally extend our 

deepest sympathy to the loved ones of those who died or who were 

injured in this tragedy. 

I also want to note, in the four visits that I have had the opportunity to make to Minneapolis since the collapse, I have been impressed and inspired by the response of the many dedicated public 

servants from all levels of government to this terrible tragedy. We 

do not yet know why the I-35W bridge failed, and our Department 

is working with the National Transportation Safety Board, who you 

will hear from a little later in this hearing, as they continue their 

investigation to determine the cause or causes. 

In the interim, we are taking steps to ensure that America’s infrastructure is safe. I have issued two advisories to States in response to what we have learned so far, asking that States reinspect 

their steel deck truss bridges, and that they be mindful of the 

added weight construction projects may bring to bear on bridges. 

I have also asked the Department’s Inspector General, who you 

will also hear from later in this hearing, to conduct a very rigorous 

12 

assessment of the Federal Aid Bridge Program and the National 

Bridge Inspection Standards. 

In the aftermath of this tragedy, many are calling for a renewed 

focus on our Nation’s highway infrastructure, and I certainly agree 

with the calls that have been made and applaud people, including 

the Chairman and the Ranking Member and others in this Committee, who are truly thinking about the long-term viability of the 

Nation’s transportation system. It is imperative, however, that 

when determining what our future transportation system should 

look like, we actually focus on the right problem. 

Since 1994, a percentage of the Nation’s bridges have been classified as ′′structurally deficient,′′ a phrase that I would agree is not 

correct and does cause people to be more concerned than they 

should be about these bridges; but that percent has improved from 

almost 19 percent to 13 percent, and our latest data indicates that 

that is now 12 percent. 

While we can and should and will do more to improve the quality 

of our infrastructure, it would be irresponsible and inaccurate to 

say that the Nation’s transportation infrastructure is anything but 

safe. More accurately, what we have is a flawed investment model, 

a model that is not allocating resources efficiently, and what we 

have is a system performance crisis. 

Increasing Federal taxes and spending would do little, if anything, to address either the quality or the performance of our 

roads. Instead, we need a more basic change in how we analyze 

competing spending options and manage existing resources more 

efficiently. Because tax revenues are deposited into a centralized 

Federal trust fund and are reallocated on the basis of political compromise, major spending decisions increasingly have little to do 

with underlying economic or safety merits. 

For example, the number of designated projects has grown from 

a handful in the mid-1980s to over 6,000 in 2005, valued at a staggering $24 billion, or nearly 9 percent of the total program. The 

true cost to States, however, is much higher given that, on average, 

earmarks only cover approximately 10 percent of the total cost of 

a project. 

As a former State DOT Director—and you will hear from other 

directors later in this hearing—I have had firsthand experience 

with the difficulties created when Washington mandates override 

States’ priorities. While it is certainly true that not every one of 

these investments could be called ′′wasteful,′′ virtually no comparative economic analysis is conducted to support these spending decisions. In other words, scarce dollars are spent on earmarks, and 

special interest programs are not available to States for important 

expenditures like bridge repair and maintenance. 

It makes no sense, in my mind, to raise the gas tax at a time, 

as the Ranking Member pointed out, when we are rightfully exploring every conceivable mechanism to increase energy independence, 

to clean our air, to promote fuel economy in automobiles, and to 

stimulate the development of alternative fuels and renewable fuels 

as well as reducing emissions. We should be encouraging States to 

explore alternatives to petroleum-based taxes, not expanding a 

company’s reliance on them by increasing the gas tax. 

13 

The I-35W bridge collapse was both a tragedy and, I said, a 

wake-up call, Mr. Chairman—you say a reawakening—to our country. On that fact, we absolutely agree. Our Nation’s economic future is tied in large part to the safety and to the reliability of our 

transportation infrastructure. However, before we reach the conclusion that additional Federal spending and Federal taxes are the 

right path, we should critically examine how we are spending 

money today. What are we doing with the money that is already 

sent to Washington? 

According to the Conditions and Performance Report that was 

cited by the Subcommittee Chairman, FHWA has estimated that it 

would cost $40 billion a year to maintain current conditions across 

all of our transportation system or surface system, and it would 

take $60 billion a year to substantially improve that system. The 

2004 total U.S. capital investment for highways and bridges was 

$70 billion. 

Ladies and gentlemen, Members of this Committee, it is not that 

we do not have the money. It is where we are spending the money 

that is important that we examine in the aftermath of this crisis, 

but I recognize that we may have different opinions. I very much 

look forward to engaging in that discussion with you and throughout the administration but, most importantly, with the American 

people that we all serve. 

I will be pleased to answer any questions that you may have. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

At the outset, I want to express once again, as I have done publicly and personally, my appreciation and that of the people of Minneapolis and the Mayor of Minneapolis for your prompt response. 

You were on the phone, readily available—and Administrator 

Capka as well—and we had a very constructive discussion that led 

to the quick passage of the emergency response legislation. And for 

that, I am very appreciative. You and the President made a visit 

to—you actually made two. The second one was mainly for a fundraiser for a Senator, but he did come twice to the State in the aftermath. 

You said that you raised questions about where we spend that 

money. On page 4 of your testimony, you say failure to prioritize 

spending in the disturbing evolution of the Federal highway program—this program has seen politically designated projects grow 

from a handful to more than 6,000 in SAFETEA-LU. 

But in signing that legislation—and I was there on August 10, 

2005 on the property of the Caterpillar earth moving equipment 

company in Illinois—the President said, ′′This transportation act 

will finance needed road improvements and will ease congestion in 

communities all across the Nation. Here in Illinois, as the Speaker 

mentioned, one of the key projects that he has been talking to me 

about for quite a while is what they call the ‘‘Prairie Parkway.’’ I 

thought that might be in Texas, but no, it is right here in Illinois.′′ 

People applauded and laughed. 

‘‘Good folks understand what it means to the quality of life 

around here when you have a highway that will connect Interstate 

80 and Interstate 88. The Prairie Parkway is crucial for economic 

progress in Kane and Kendall Counties that happen to be two of 

14 

the fastest growing counties in the United States.′′ That is about 

the speed at which he said it, too. ′′but the United States Congress can be proud of what it has 

achieved in the Transportation Equity Act, and I am proud to be 

right here in Denny Hastert’s district to sign it.′′ 

What has changed since then? 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I was there as well, and I 

think what has changed since then is, while we have seen marginal 

improvements in the condition of our Nation’s transportation infrastructure and marginal improvements in the safety of that infrastructure—and those two are very closely related—what we have 

seen is a significant decline in performance and a misallocation of 

resources not being spent where they could and should be. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It was all in the bill, Madam Secretary. It was 

all right there. If the President did not like it, he could have vetoed 

it. He thought it was a great idea then. It is a great idea now. This 

administration started out with a $247 billion package, and your 

own Department recommended, as directed in TEA-21 to report to 

Congress on the performance—that is, payment conditions, congestion, safety—and recommend a new level of investment, and you 

recommended $375 billion. Mr. Young and I introduced that bill. It 

would have had $5 billion a year for bridge construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, replacement. 

The administration’s package, ultimately, would have been $3 

billion less overall. Now, we negotiated upward from the administration’s $247 billion to $286.3 billion. That gave us, roughly, $4 

billion a year in the bridge program. It should have been $5 billion. 

So, over the past couple of weeks—I am just looking at remarks 

you have made about my proposal and the bridge situation—you 

said only 60 percent of trust fund revenues are used for road and 

bridge purposes. I see no credible data. We have searched high and 

low for a backup for that figure. There is no credible data to back 

it up. Roughly 20 percent—18.5 percent to be precise—goes into 

transit of the total trust fund authorizations. That is as close as 

you can come to something to back that up. I do not know where 

you get that information, but I want you to respond specifically to 

the provisions of my bill. I want you to respond specifically to raising the standards for the determination of what is a structurally 

deficient bridge. 

What is wrong with that? 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with that, 

and in fact, I have asked the Inspector General to do a very rigorous review not only of the bridge program funding, but of the 

bridge inspection program itself. I have asked him to not only examine whether or not that program is sufficient and rigorous 

enough, but how decisions are made as a result of bridge inspections and ratings and whether or not that information is, indeed, 

used to prioritize the expenditure of funding. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Okay. That is 25 percent. 

We establish a bridge reconstruction trust fund dedicated to 

funding just those structurally deficient bridges and a 3-year sunset. 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, where we disagree there, sir, 

is along the lines of what the Ranking Member said as well and 

15 

the figures that I gave you a few moments ago. We do not disagree 

that we need to ensure that we are prioritizing bridges that need 

to be repaired or replaced. Where we do not agree is that we need 

to raise the gas tax to do so. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. A separate trust fund to do it, do you disagree 

with having that? 

Secretary PETERS. Sir, we have dedicated funding for bridges 

today. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. But it is not enough. 

Secretary PETERS. Well, it is also not being used in all cases for 

those—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, we gave the States the authority to flex 50 

percent of that bridge fund, and they have done that. In my home 

State of Minnesota, they have taken 42 percent of their rescission 

out of the bridge fund. 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, our data indicates—and I can 

ask Administrator Capka to expand on this if you would like—that 

approximately $600 million from other funds, primarily STP funds, 

are flexed in to the repair and to the replacement of bridges. And 

I am a big fan of the flexibility that States are allowed in order to 

meet their divergent needs by having the flexibility to flex those 

funds as long as we maintain standards to which the bridges and 

the highways need to be kept. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. All right. The standard issued is that the initiative would distribute funds based on public safety, need, requiring 

Department of Transportation to develop an administrative formula for the distribution of those funds—— 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I think—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. One that will be independently reviewed and 

have all of these structurally deficient bridges evaluated by a new 

standard, a new higher standard, and then rated by States for distribution. 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I think that those, again, are 

viable terms and certainly could be used within the existing programs or to modify the existing program. 

For example, right now there is a perverse incentive to not keep 

your bridges in good condition because you get more money based 

on the percent of your bridges that are not sufficiently rated today. 

And so I think that there are certainly improvements that we can 

make, and I, certainly, anxiously await the results of the Inspector 

General’s investigation into that program. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Would you agree with the idea of prioritizing—— 

Secretary PETERS. Oh, absolutely; data-driven, performancebased. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. —of setting higher standards where we are at 50 

percent? 

Accountability, prohibiting earmarks by Congress, the administration or the States and requiring the National Academy of 

Sciences independently to review that prioritization, do you think 

that is a good idea? 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I think those are very good 

ideas, and again, they could be used to improve existing programs 

and the existing funding. 

16 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We are not far apart. That is 75 percent. You disagree on a mechanism for funding it. 

Secretary PETERS. That is correct. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, you cannot have a bake sale to fix bridges. 

If we take our troops out of Iraq, maybe we have got $50-some billion we can deal with at home, as Mr. Duncan suggested; but, absent that, which is not going to happen in the foreseeable future, 

President Eisenhower saw the need to have a dedicated revenue 

stream, creating the highway trust fund. 

In that first year in 1956, Congress passed legislation to establish a 3-cent user fee—a gas tax. It passed overwhelmingly. A year 

later, after the States had been underway and the Bureau of Public 

Roads—as it was called then—evaluated it, it said we need more 

money. Another cent increase in the user fee was recommended. Do 

you know it passed the House on a voice vote? 

I do not think we can pass a prayer anymore on a voice vote in 

this Congress. But it passed then because people had vision, they 

had determination. They had a sense of destiny, of what was needed in this country; and that if we did not invest in this interstate 

highway program, we would be killing 100,000 people on the Nation’s highways. We had to do this. Congress understood it. 

Well, there is the same urgent need today to target the bridges, 

to do this in a 3-year period, to sunset it in 3 years, to establish 

a prioritization system that will be independently evaluated, and to 

make it earmark-proof. Public trust and accountability. 

Secretary PETERS. I like the earmark, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. All right. 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, let me, if I may, respond very 

briefly. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. 

Secretary PETERS. When President Eisenhower and the Clay 

Commission recommended the program that they did to build the 

Nation’s interstate highway system, it certainly was visionary and 

certainly was important and certainly did lead to the establishment 

of the premier transportation system in the world. But I think, as 

was said earlier, we need to examine the Federal role today and 

determine what the Federal role should be. And as the Subcommittee Chairman indicated, there is a commission working on 

that that will report to Congress by the end of this year. 

But again, to continue our dependence on a gas tax when we 

have said we want more fuel-efficient vehicles, when we have said 

we want cleaner burning fuels and when we have said that we 

want to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and when the technology is there today to do those things, I think it is contrary to 

those very important public policy decisions that many in Congress 

and in the administration agree with to continue dependence and 

to therefore increase the use of fuel taxes when we have other alternatives to bring funding to the table. 

Many think that I say that simply public-private partnerships or 

private investment is everything we need. I have never said that. 

I have always said that there will be portions of our road system 

that have to be funded by public-sector revenues, but I do believe 

that we should take every opportunity to bring other available revenues to the table, such as Florida has done, such as California has 

17 

done, such as Indiana and Chicago have done, to help supplement 

public-sector revenues. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Madam Secretary. We will continue 

that dialogue—— 

Secretary PETERS. Indeed. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. —as we go through this year into next year in 

preparation for reauthorization. 

Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

We have a current Federal bridge program, and I just want to 

spend a minute and take that apart and see if it is something we 

can fix. It is based on, as I said and you have said, a flawed system 

or a system with every passing day that becomes more obsolete in 

raising the revenues that we need. So we have got to fix the way 

we fund all of our infrastructure, highways and bridges. We agree 

on that. 

Let us look at the fund that we have now. $4.3 billion, is that 

enough or not? It appears we have made some progress in bringing 

down the number of bridges that are structurally deficient. Is the 

overall number enough or does that need to be increased? 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Ranking Member, I do believe that we 

probably have to look at what the criterion are that we are using 

to allocate that money today. 

For example, since 1970, Congress has provided $77 billion to 

help reconstruct or rehabilitate over 85,000 deficient bridges. And 

of course these bridges, particularly in States that have older portions of the system, continue to age or continue to wear during that 

period of time. 

I think what we need to do is very carefully examine the criterion that we are using to determine which bridges need to be repaired or replaced and then determine whether or not we have sufficient funding but to do that very rigorous analysis. 

Mr. MICA. So funding—is the dollars available is the first question. 

Now I heard Mr. Oberstar and Mr. DeFazio talk about diversion 

of funds. Usually when I find the problem, the problem is us. Either we haven’t funded it—for example, I love to get the list of request of earmarks, of how many were for deficient bridges. You 

have to have money or we request that money as representatives. 

But both Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Oberstar have talked about diversion of the money, and one of the examples used is Pennsylvania, 

50 percent. We said that, by our policy, that that amount can be 

diverted. What would be the appropriate amount? 

Now, you spoke also to having standards that had to be met for 

that diversion, so how would you either reconstruct or better construct that policy so that the money goes where it is supposed to? 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Mica, what I would do is establish standards to which the bridges had to be maintained. If a State did not 

demonstrate they were meeting those standards, they could not divert money out of that dedicated program. That is what I would establish. 

The situation in Pennsylvania is more complex, and at your 

pleasure I could ask the Federal Highway Administrator to talk 

more about what has happened in Pennsylvania per se. 

18 

Mr. MICA. We have not gotten into other ways of financing, for 

example, public-private partnerships, which I have advocated and 

I think the administration has and others have advocated as a possible solution. We have not really defined that policy. 

For example, I use Mitch Daniels in Indiana where he sold some 

of the infrastructure; and specifically it was for bridge either construction or replacement, the bulk of that money. Do you think we 

need a definition of that policy? What is your opinion? How should 

we define that? What do you recommend? 

Secretary PETERS. What I would recommend is having standards 

to which the National Highway System, interstate highway system, 

those things that are truly in the Federal interest need to be maintained. And if a State such as Indiana or cities such as Chicago 

chooses to accept private sector investment that they would have 

to insure that they are maintaining that infrastructure to those 

standards so that there could not be any demission of the standards as they were operating through a public-private partnership 

or some concession wherein a public asset would be leased out. I 

believe that we need to have a rather light touch in terms of the 

Federal Government so we can allow this money to be made available in a broad manner. 

As you mentioned, Governor Daniels in Indiana had fully funded 

a 10-year transportation program as a result of a long-term lease 

of the Indiana toll road. So one could argue that the citizens of Indiana are appreciably better off today than many other States that 

do not have that funding. 

Mr. MICA. Finally, the question is States’ contribution, State or 

locality. For example, in Minnesota, I believe the Governor had vetoed a couple of measures for increasing revenues. I was surprised. 

I visited Texas to find out that Texas has a $0.20 gas tax. That 

is, $0.05 goes for education and $0.03 goes towards law enforcement. Now law enforcement I could see as part of the highway. 

But, again, people can say they have a gas tax, but it does not fund 

infrastructure, it funds other things. And the Chairman has said 

his proposal tried to take into consideration some of that. 

Isn’t that important that we see what an actual contribution is 

from the State or the locality in this process? Otherwise, like I 

said, you have taxpayers paying for lax payers or those who are not 

willing to pay their share. 

Secretary PETERS. Yes, sir. Both you and the Chairman have indicated that this maintenance of effort on the State level I think 

is very important as we go forward in determining the Federal role 

and what the contribution should be. GAO has completed a report 

that did indicate there was a substitution effect. When Federal revenues increased in a period of time, State revenues went down during that same period of time. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank the gentleman. 

Before you break your arm patting yourself on the back for Governor Daniels, he has a 75-year lease and 10-year program for 

highway investment. 

Mr. Rahall. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

19 

Madam Secretary, I appreciate very much your time being with 

us today and want to commend you as well, especially our Chairman of our Full Committee, Mr. Oberstar, for the manner in which 

he responded to the tragedy in Minnesota, the depth and breadth 

of your knowledge and the manner in which you tackled the tragedy. If we learn nothing from the events of the Minnesota tragedy, 

that, too, would be a tragedy in itself. 

While I commend you for your depth and breadth of your knowledge—certainly we would agree on the problems that exist and the 

statistics are all there—we may not agree on the manner in which 

we address it. My biggest frustration is to hear this administration 

and previous administrations—and it is not something with which 

I disagree—but to hear them say all options are on the table when 

it comes to rebuilding and defending allies abroad and/or companies that produce so much oil vital for our interest and yet not 

making the same statement, especially this administration, when 

it comes to addressing the same problems that exist domestically 

here in this country. I would like this administration to say all options are on the table for defending us internally and rebuilding 

America as well, but I have not heard this administration say that, 

and that is perhaps my biggest frustration. 

Secretary PETERS. Well, you certainly make valid points. The incident that occurred in West Virginia in 1967 in which numerous 

people lost their lives was the tragedy that gave birth to the bridge 

inspection program, so I think certainly you speak from an experience base in West Virginia about how important it is to maintain 

our bridges. 

Mr. RAHALL. Well, I appreciate you bringing up that tragedy. I 

was going to bring it up as well. 

Let me turn to a question specifically in regard to your testimony. You state that there are 40 special interest programs that 

had been created to provide funding for projects that may or may 

not be a State or local priority, end quote. What are these 40 special interest programs? 

For example, is the Appalachian Development Highway a special 

interest program because it primarily serves Appalachia? Is the 

New Freedom Transit Program a special interest because it serves 

the disabled and elderly—as recommended by the administration 

and the Chairman informs me? Is a Safe Routes to School Program 

a special interest program because it promotes a healthier lifestyle 

for school children? What are these 40 special interest programs? 

Secretary PETERS. Let me give you an example of one of those 

programs, the Historic Covered Bridge Program. Historic covered 

bridges are important, but when compared with improving infrastructure and what Americans believe they are paying for when 

they pay those fuel taxes, I believe that is an example of a diversion of funding programs—— 

Mr. RAHALL. Do you know what percent that is? 

Secretary PETERS. I do not right offhand. 

Mr. RAHALL. Okay. Again, I say I think from the way I interpret 

the 40 special interest programs—obviously, you can tell from the 

thrust of my question it is not something I consider special interest 

when it comes to spending monies on behalf of these particular programs that help particular segments of our population. I do not 

20 

think the groups that are served by these programs would call 

them special interest provisions that need to be cut or diverted as 

well. 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, I think what is important and 

what I have said in my testimony and repeatedly is we need to use 

economics and safety in determining where and how we spend 

money first and make sure that we are doing everything we can 

based on economic analysis, data-driven asset management approaches to take care of our infrastructure. 

Certainly there are many, many worthy purposes included in 

those 40 additional programs, but the question that I would ask 

and that I think we owe the American people to ask is, are we 

spending money first on the highest priorities? And only after we 

have satisfied those priorities are we taking care of other—how 

laudable those purposes may be, first is to take care of our Nation’s 

infrastructure. 

Mr. RAHALL. Well, I would not agree with that last statement, 

that the first priority is to take care of our Nation’s infrastructure. 

Where I would disagree is in looking at taking care of our Nation’s 

infrastructure there are areas in which perhaps Members of Congress, both bodies, have a more acute knowledge and are able to 

discern where meeting those needs can be accounted on a local 

basis and addressed on a local basis; and it is a very small percentage of the overall picture, I might add. I would say we need to look 

at both priorities—all priorities, I should add. 

Secretary PETERS. Understood. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman. 

The matter of historic covered bridges is one of the long history 

of transportation in New England and was an issue championed by 

Senator Jeffords in ISTEA. 

Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This past May I was asked to chair a conference on growth because we are almost being overwhelmed with our growth in east 

Tennessee, and Secretary Peters was kind enough to come and 

headline that because transportation is such an important part of 

that. And then we toured and she visited with State highway officials concerning the most expensive highway project in the history 

of our State that we are doing in Knoxville at this time. And Secretary Peters just wowed and impressed everybody and that conference of 750 people there and all the highway officials; and, 

Madam Secretary, I want to say again how much I appreciate your 

coming. 

In your testimony today you say the percentage of the Nation’s 

bridges that are classified as structurally deficient has gone from 

19 percent in the mid ’90s to 12 percent now. What do you think 

has been the main thrust or has done the most to lead to that improvement and can we keep on decreasing of these numbers of 

these bridges with some of the lessons we have learned since that 

time? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, thank you first for your comments. 

21 

I do believe we can. What we need to have is a continued emphasis on how the bridge inspection program and the bridge funding, 

dedicated funding made available, are connected and used properly. 

That is precisely why I have asked our Inspector General to look 

at how we might make improvements both in the inspection standards but also in how the inspection data is used to prioritize the 

repair or replacement of bridges. 

Certainly the highest classification of bridges, those that carry 

the most traffic such as the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, should 

come to the top of the list. We do not know yet what caused that 

bridge to collapse. I think it would be presumptive to say it was 

a lack of ongoing maintenance, because that does not appear to be 

the case at all. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, you have very accurately pointed out that the 

term ′′structurally deficient′′ is not synonymous with unsafe; and I 

am a little curious as to why are there categories such as satisfactory, good, even very good and excellent ratings included in structurally deficient bridges? Why would we say that a bridge is excellent and yet still call it structurally deficient? 

Secretary PETERS. We generally should not and would not make 

that comparison. I would ask the Administrator to address that 

more fairly. 

I think you make a very important point. When we say to the 

American people a bridge is structurally deficient or functionally 

obsolete, it causes concern. I think the use of those statements and 

perhaps the connotation of those statements inaccurately has 

caused concern certainly in this case. That is something I am asking the Inspector General to give me benefit of his knowledge in 

that. 

Generally speaking, a bridge that is rated excellent should not be 

considered structurally deficient. What structurally deficient means 

in a more of a working definition is it showing signs of wear, that 

the bridge needs to be inspected or repaired more frequently, 

watched more closely. But not in any way does this connotation 

mean that bridge is unsafe. 

Rick does a good example of using a pair of shoes that I will ask 

him to explain in a moment, but functionally obsolete means basically that it no longer meets today’s minimum design standards. It 

met design standards when it was built but may or may not today. 

The congressman from Arizona may remember the Gila River 

bridge in Arizona on I-10 that is functionally obsolete but still indeed functions and carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles every 

day. 

If I may ask the Administrator—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. Before you go to the Administrator and before my 

time runs out, I just ask the Administrator not only to respond as 

you have requested, but I do have one question I wanted to ask the 

Administrator. 

The Federal Highway Administration estimates it will cost approximately $40 billion a year to maintain the highways, maintain 

our Nation’s bridges and approximately $60 billion a year to improve those bridges, but the March—the 2006 DOT conditions and 

performance report cited costs of really about twice that high. 

22 

Would you explain what the discrepancies are there? Because you 

are talking about a mega-billion-dollar difference there. 

Mr. CAPKA. Thank you, Mr. Duncan, for the question. 

There is some pretty good information that C&P report focused 

on the cost to maintain and also the maximum economic investment. 

With respect for bridges, the latest C&P report identified $8.75 

billion a year as the cost to maintain. That would be invested over 

a 20-year period. The total amount that would need to be invested 

right now in 2004 dollars—the backlog, if you will—is about 65— 

a little over $65 billion. We are investing today—I mentioned that 

$8.7 billion annual investment over 20 years. We are investing 

today about $10.5 billion. That might go a little bit to explaining 

why the improvements that we have been seeing in the condition 

of the bridges has been moving in a positive direction. 

I would also point out that the maximum economic investment 

that the C&P report turns out is about $12.4 billion. So that 10 

and a half is nestled in between and I think goes a long way to 

analyzing why we have been seeing improvements. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank the gentleman for his comments and his 

questions. 

Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I point out to Mr. Capka—and I may not want to 

say this—the administration did not support those higher levels of 

spending, objected to them, would have cut the program. 

Madam Secretary, I hope we can find something to agree on 

here. We are reexamining the Federal role. We have what we call 

the National Highway System. It is 162,000 miles. 46,000 interstate, strategic highway network, military mobilization and other 

major highways. That is only 4.1 percent of the mileage in the 

country, but it is 45 percent of the vehicle miles, 75 percent of the 

truck traffic, 90 percent of the tourist traffic. I mean, is this what 

we are talking about? We are talking Federal interest. Do you believe we should maintain or enhance the 162,000 mile National 

Highway System, including the bridges? Simple answer, yes or no? 

Secretary PETERS. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So, now, look at the map up there. See all the little 

dots? I know it’s a little hard to see. These are the 6,175 National 

Highway System bridges that are structurally deficient. About half 

of them are on the interstate and the rest are on the rest of the 

system. 

So you say there is something we can do other than gas tax or 

Federal funding to take care of this pretty widely disbursed, very 

major problem. What is that alternative? Are you going to put tolls 

on all those 6,172 Federal bridges? Is that the idea? Or we can ask 

the private sector to rebuild them and let them toll them and lease 

them? I mean, what is your solution here? 

You are saying, can’t have any more Federal investment. We are 

not going to have more Federal investment. You have drawn the 

line. You are not going to raise user fees. So what is it? 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. DeFazio, I believe the solution is examining where we are spending money today, using economic analVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:02 May 18, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37652.TXT JASON
23 

ysis; and the numbers that I indicated earlier are that there is 

enough money today if—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Let me ask you another question. As far as we can 

tell the source for the 40 percent number, there is nothing credible 

out there except someone named—and he is not credible—Ronald 

Utt at Heritage. He came up with the 40 percent, Mr. Utt, which 

I think is 1/1000 of 1 percent. You are talking about concerns about 

congestion and concerns about the system and these are diversions. 

Twenty percent, half of his number, is transit. So should we do 

away with transit? Would that not make congestion worse? Do we 

believe by putting people in transit we are avoiding congestion? 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. DeFazio, I do not think we should do 

away with transit. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, then you should not talk about this 40 percent diversion like there is money out there to be grabbed back. Because half of it, according to this expert, Mr. Utt, is transit. And 

you can go down through other programs—— 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. DeFazio, one of the things I have said 

about that 40 percent is that I think Americans who pay fuel taxes 

when they pump fuel into their vehicles, most of them are not 

aware that only 60 percent of the taxes that they pay go directly— 

and I emphasize directly—to highways and bridges. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I think, Madam Secretary, what many Americans 

are concerned about is safety. They do not want to die on a bridge 

collapse on the way home from work. 

The daily beef is congestion. Let’s get down to congestion and the 

levels of investment we are talking about here. 

Now I am very puzzled, and perhaps Mr. Capka can help us out 

here. You talk about this 40 billion, 60 billion, but when I read the 

conditions and performance report they have three levels. One is 

the current level that we are putting in, which is $70.3 billion total 

investment, which means we are not even keeping up with the 

physical condition and we are not dealing with congestion. If we go 

to—according to your own conditions and performance report, if we 

go to $78.8 billion, we will keep up with the current levels of congestion and good conditions. If we want to begin to deal with congestion, you have to move the number up to at least $89.7 billion 

in the future to improve congestion; and you could, according to the 

cost benefit analysis, invest up to $131 billion. There you have the 

cost benefit analysis. 

I do not know what the 40 to 60 is, but by all accounts we are 

not even keeping up with the current congestion levels in the system and we are not keeping up with the physical maintenance. But 

you are very sanguine about it and say private sector will take care 

of it, and then we will have congestion pricing. 

Is the idea of congestion pricing somehow congestion goes away? 

Where do those people go when we squeeze them out of the system? Do you do think these are all people just out there driving 

around for fun? They are not on their way to work and they can 

just stay home and the roads would not be congested? How does 

congestion management solve this problem if the Federal government does not invest in the States or the localities don’t invest? 

Mr. Capka? 

24 

Secretary PETERS. You probably should talk about all the conditions and performance and all the rest of the issues. 

Mr. CAPKA. All right. 

As far as the C&P report is concerned, you are correct. The cost 

to maintain is $78.8 billion. The investment is $70.3, with the maximum—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And it’s good to explain that to the humans out 

there. That means—cost to maintain would mean today’s levels of 

congestion on good road surfaces and safe bridges. 

Mr. CAPKA. That is correct, Mr. DeFazio. 

The other thing the C&P report pointed out this year is that 

there are other investment mechanisms that are available that 

should be considered, mechanisms that will help better operate the 

system that we have, more efficiently operate the system that we 

do have and perhaps take the peaks off the demand times during 

the course of the day, which would then lessen the demand for the 

new investment that would be made. So there are some other 

things pointed out. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But if you take a peak off, it is either discretionary 

travel or you have to provide an alternative, is that correct? 

Mr. CAPKA. And I think the data shows there is a considerable 

amount of discretionary travel made during those peak times. So 

I think there is room to improve the operations of the system which 

would have an overall beneficial impact on the resource demands 

on the system. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. You are saying we have to squeeze it. We do not 

need to invest in more capacity. We have to get people off the road. 

We have to tell them get off the road. Just let a Lexus go by paying 

a buck a mile. 

Secretary PETERS. If I may, in terms of a very recently completed 

household travel survey, it does indicate that more than half—in 

many instances, more than half of the people who are on a road 

during commute times, during peak periods of time, are not commuting. They are doing other things. My sister is picking up her 

dry cleaning. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Taking their kids to school? 

Secretary PETERS. It could be. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, that is not discretionary for most people who 

work for a living. 

Secretary PETERS. Since 1991, transportation spending has more 

than doubled. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. In real dollars? 

Secretary PETERS. In real dollars. If I am mistaken, I will come 

back and correct that. 

But during that same period of time congestion has gotten substantially worse. Condition of roadways has marginally improved 

as has safety marginally improved. Where we are seeing a big degradation in the system is in performance. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. The bottom line is you think we do not need more 

Federal investment. We need congestion pricing, force people off 

the road, and we need more private-public partnerships. That is 

your alternate financing that you are talking about? 

25 

Secretary PETERS. I wouldn’t say it exactly like you did. What I 

would say is we need to make a better, more efficient use of 

the—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Would you agree that there is any need for more 

Federal investment, just a smidgen? 

Secretary PETERS. Sir, there may well be. Our first obligation to 

the taxpayer is to spend the dollars we have at the highest priority 

level. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. My proposal will do that. We have agreed on 75 

percent. 

Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and, Madam Secretary, thank you for being here and thank you for the administration’s response to what happened in Minnesota and thank you for 

your service. 

I also want to thank the Chairman of the Full Committee. After 

the events that occurred in Minnesota on August 2nd, the Chairman was kind enough to send around a list, map of the bridges in 

our districts that were labeled as structurally deficient. 

And it gets me into the point that Mr. Rahall made. I had two 

in my district, and I am happy to report that one has been repaired 

pursuant to an earmark in TEA-21. When I was home, I drove 

under the second one that is being repaired thanks to an earmark 

in SAFETEA-LU. So I do subscribe to the theory that there are 

good diversions and bad diversions. It really depends on whose ox 

is being gored when you determine what an appropriate diversion 

is. 

And then the covered bridge issue. Ashtabula County in the 

northeastern corner of Ohio is the home of probably more covered 

bridges than anywhere outside of New England. 

I always viewed the highway bill and the highway program as 

something that not only takes care of our infrastructure, roads and 

bridges but also enhances the quality of life in areas that we live. 

I know that some people chafe about the fact that there are diversions for scenic highways and covered bridges and diversions for 

the transit program, but I would suggest that what we have is a 

1956 model wherein we funded our Nation’s infrastructure, at least 

at the Federal level, through the Federal excise tax on gasoline 

when most people probably had one car, most people did not have 

cars that were getting 30 miles per gallon, and now on the drawing 

board we have cars getting 60 miles per gallon. If we bring turbo 

diesel into this country, we are going to have 85 miles to the gallon. 

So the model, that we’re going to say that that 18.4 cents is sufficient and that is going to be the Federal investment—quite frankly, 

as a long-time Member of the Committee who has a great deal of 

respect for you and the administration, my greatest disappointment 

in the 13 years I have been on this Committee was the fight we 

had with the administration over the highway bill. 

When the Department of Transportation said that the cost 

should be $375 billion over the 6-year period of the bill and we had 

to fight for 2 years, the bill was delayed for 2 years, getting between 256—can it be 289? Can it be 301? And all the while our infrastructure was lacking. 

26 

I would just hope—and I know you do not get to make all of the 

calls. There is a reason the administration’s approval rating is 

down in the polls. There is a reason that the U.S. Congress’ approval rating is down in the polls. One of my favorite lines in this 

Congress was Senator Trent Lott said this Congress cannot pass 

gas. And the reason for that is people expect us to do better. 

I think Mr. Rahall’s point is right on the money. To say that all 

things are not on the table, whether it is increased gasoline taxes, 

users’ fees, public-private partnership, whether it is a re-examination of our bridge program and privatization, I think cheats the 

American motoring public; and I would hope that the administration would rethink its position and work in a way to finally get a 

bipartisan success. 

Mr. Oberstar could write a bill that would never get the administration’s support, wouldn’t get a lot of Republican support. The administration could do vice-versa. But that is not why we are here. 

I think we are here—my constituents when I am home saying 

mixed views on what is going on in Iraq, but they do say, how come 

their roads are in better shape than our roads? I think that is not 

an appropriate place for us to be in in this country. 

I am happy to say I think you are doing a good job, but I would 

hope at least part of the administration’s message on this bridge 

crisis that we have in this country would be that we will consider 

all options. You do not have to promise to accept any option but 

that you would consider all options as we move forward. 

Because, quite frankly, I saw when Tom Petri was the Chairman 

of the Highway Subcommittee as the SAFETEA-LU bill was being 

drafted, I saw the projections of what $0.05 a gallon would get. It 

really doesn’t fix the problem. So you cannot get there from here 

just by looking at the gasoline tax. It will take a blend of things. 

And I hope that the administration will work with the Chairman 

and those on our side of the aisle and come up with something that 

fixes the problem, rather than figuring out we cannot fix the problem. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for enunciating the formula by which we will proceed in the future. Thank you. 

Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, you said you think you have enough money to 

fix all these 6,000 structurally deficient bridges. 

Secretary PETERS. Sir, what I said is if we were spending money 

appropriately there is enough money in the total amount that we 

are collecting today, yes. 

Mr. CAPUANO. And do you have enough money to fix the other 

66,000 structurally deficient bridges that are not part of the National Highway System? 

Secretary PETERS. Sir, I do not know that. That is something I 

would have to analyze. 

Mr. CAPUANO. If you fixed all the structurally deficient bridges, 

would you have enough money after that to then deal with the 

structurally deficient bridges that deal with mass transit or rail? 

27 

Secretary PETERS. That, sir, is covered, I believe, in the conditions and performance report for transit that I do not have with 

me. 

Mr. CAPUANO. If we just do structurally deficient bridges, is 

there enough money left over to deal with anything else? I am trying to prioritize in my own mind structurally deficient bridges for 

mass transit, structurally deficient bridges for rail. 

Secretary PETERS. For rail and for mass transit, I will differentiate the numbers that I will give you, but the numbers that we 

have used is, according to FHWA estimates, it would cost $40 billion a year. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I know the numbers. 

Secretary PETERS. This is all infrastructure. This is all highway 

and bridge infrastructure. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Well, I am trying to prioritize. There are highway 

bridges, there are mass transit bridges, rail bridges. We have not 

talked about tunnels. Do we have any money to even inspect tunnels? Since we do not inspect any tunnels in America right now 

that we are required—do we have money to do that? 

Secretary PETERS. We need to look at what was left of the 

money. You are correct. The Federal government does not inspect 

tunnels. The State governments do. 

Mr. CAPUANO. If we inspect those tunnels, would we have any 

money left to fix anything we found that was wrong in any of the 

tunnels across America? 

Secretary PETERS. I would prefer not to speculate. 

Mr. CAPUANO. If we did all the bridges and all the tunnels, would 

we then have any money left to deal with the dangerous intersections? According to the NTSB, it has 19,000 accidents per day, killing 43,000 people per year. Do we have enough to deal with those 

intersections. 

Secretary PETERS. Sir, the data I have in front of me today is for 

highways and bridges; and we could maintain it to current conditions for $40 billion, improve it for $60 billion. There is a total—— 

Mr. CAPUANO. And we have enough money to do that. 

Once we are finished with the bridges, the tunnels—just the 

structurally deficient ones, we are not talking about the 80,000 obsolete ones. We are just talking about the structurally deficient 

ones. Do we have enough money to deal with the typical highway 

maintenance problems that we have across this country? 

Secretary PETERS. Yes, sir, I believe we would. 

Mr. CAPUANO. We would have money to then deal with the mass 

transit and rail maintenance issues? 

Secretary PETERS. Those are separate funds. I will give you 

those. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Do we have any money left to do any of the expansion that some of us want to do with mass transit or rail anyplace 

in this country? 

Secretary PETERS. Sir, the figures that I have for highway indicate that we could substantially improve for $60 billion. We are collecting greater than 70 today. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I look forward to getting the numbers, because I 

am not sure—I look forward to getting them, but it strikes me as 

28 

almost unbelievable that you think we can deal with all these 

issues with the current funds that we have. 

I understand fully well that you may not want to add additional 

funds. I respect that. That is a fair philosophical commentary. But 

I think it is also fair to tell the American public the truth. I am 

not suggesting that you are fudging at the moment. We will wait 

to see the numbers. But it will be amazing to me if we can deal 

with those priorities. We’re not even talking about the obsolete 

bridges, and we can even leave out any expansions of mass transit 

or any of the other things we want to do. Just the 72,000 structurally deficient bridges across this country. If we can get enough 

money to do that, I would love to see it; and then I would like to 

see what we have left over. 

Because I have a particular interest in tunnels, as Mr. Capka 

knows. That has been completely overlooked by this country, and 

it is a disaster waiting to happen somewhere in this country. When 

it does, you will be back; and we will talk about it all over again. 

That does not talk about all the other things we need to do. That 

is why I believe we need to add more money to this system. I do 

not believe you can make these numbers work. I hope you can. I 

hope it is not done with any interesting accounting. Money is not 

that fungible. States, cities and towns do not have the money. 

I have 21 structurally deficient bridges in my district, just national highways. I will tell you I have asked for earmarks for several of them, and it kind of bothers me that we do not have a 

prioritization on those things. 

I totally agree, we should prioritize. We shouldn’t be spending 

Federal taxpayer money without setting those priorities, and I look 

forward to doing it, but I also believe it is not the only thing we 

should be doing. 

I honestly believe when everything is said and done, that is all 

the money you will have, you will not be able to fix 72,000 bridges 

when the DOT IG said it will be $65 billion just to fix the 6,000 

NHS bridges. We will see, and I look forward to those numbers. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Will the gentleman yield? 

We really need a point of clarification here. You keep throwing 

out 40 and 60. When I was questioning, Mr. Capka agreed that just 

to keep the current levels of congestion on well-maintained roads 

would be $78.8 billion a year. What is the 40 and 60 and how does 

that relate? You are saying for 60 we can improve everything. He 

is saying 78.8 just to maintain the current levels of congestion. 

How do those numbers—— 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. DeFazio, the 40 and 60 refer to the condition. They do not refer to the performance. We have in the most 

current version of the C&P report begun to address performance. 

But what we are talking about of the numbers that I am citing—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. What is 78.8? I thought that was current performance, i.e., congestion and meeting the maintenance needs; and she 

is saying there is something else. She is saying, for 60 we can fix 

everything. You say, for 78.8, we can just keep up with what we 

have got. 

Mr. CAPKA. Mr. DeFazio, the C&P report conditions and performance includes investment in both, and what the Secretary is referring to is the investment in the conditions. 

29 

Secretary PETERS. Conditions only. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. It is a little narrow, so we are not dealing with 

performance. 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. DeFazio, this is precisely why we choose 

to use the discretionary money that was made available to us this 

year to address congestion, because we do see we need to improve 

performance. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. LoBiondo. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. No. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Not right now. 

Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. No. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Brown? 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and 

thank you for holding this hearing today. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary, for coming to be a part of this discussion. 

I applaud the Chairman for bringing this meeting, because of the 

tragedy we had in Minnesota. But, Madam Secretary, you know 

that as we look at the overall performance of our highways we are 

losing some 40,000 of our citizens every year to tragedy on the 

highway. I would hope that we would not look at this in the narrow 

view, but the broad view to come up with some kind of overall policy that will address the total safety of our highways. I know we 

have got a lot of congestion, and that we are losing a lot of dollars 

on the road, but public safety is certainly a major concern of mine. 

I was just wondering how we are proceeding with the SAFETEALU commission. How is that coming along and when do see that 

we might get some response from that? Not only a response over 

the overall view of the highway system but maybe some alternative 

funding. 

We might want to look at a different way of funding our bridges 

and our highways other than a gas tax. Maybe there should be 

some other designated funding sources that we could use that 

would be more consistent with the continuing needs in the transportation system. 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman Brown, thank you for the comment. 

The 1901 commission which was created by SAFETEA-LU has 

been actively working for a little over a year right now. Secretary 

Mineta was the original chair of that commission. I now chair that 

commission, and we do intend to have to Congress reports by the 

end of this year. 

Safety is one of our primary concerns. It is a critically important 

issue, and we need to address and certainly are addressing that, 

as well as condition, as well as performance and as well as looking 

at what the Federal role should be and the Federal contribution 

should be. 

We are looking at a number of alternative revenue sources, including gas taxes how to meet those needs. It would be premature 

for me to give you any idea of where we are going to come down 

on that, since there are 12 independent commissioners, all of whom 

are contributing significantly to that report. 

30 

The second commission, the commission that we call the 11142 

commission, I met with the chairman, Mr. Rob Atkinson, yesterday. They also are progressing on a more narrowly tailored focus, 

that of financing mechanisms; and they also are making good 

progress. I hope to have a report out in early ’08. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Thank you very much. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Brown. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for hosting this meeting; and welcome, Madam Secretary. 

I just returned from a trip, from Spain, London and Paris; and 

I was asking them how do they majorly fund their transportation 

needs. And they told me it was not through gas tax but through 

toll roads. This is how they fund their major transportation system. 

How would some similar system work here in the U.S.? 

Secretary PETERS. Congresswoman Brown, thank you, by the 

way, for your Chairmanship on the Rail Subcommittee and for the 

work you have done on rail safety. 

You are correct. In Europe and many other parts of world they 

have used a much greater dependence on tolls than we have in 

America. Generally, the application here in America I believe 

would to be attract private-sector investment and recoup that investment through tolls or congestion pricing in our most congested 

areas. 

As I said before you had the opportunity to join the Committee 

meeting, there are roads that simply will not meet that test. We 

will not be able to use towing or congestion pricing, and they will 

require other public investment in those roads. 

Eventually, we may go to a mileage-based system of pricing 

where when we use the road, time of day, how congested it is, how 

many occupants in our vehicle, all is concerned in determining the 

cost in a utility model which has merit and has been tested in Portland, Oregon, I believe. 

You learned a lot on your trip, I hope, and would love to talk 

with you more about that. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Absolutely. One of the things in downtown London, for example, they charge $10 a day per car for—excuse me, sir, I cannot see the Secretary. Mr. Chairman? Excuse 

me—Mr. Kagen, I am sorry. 

They charged $10 a day per car to drive in the city. So it is actually a physical charge on a car to come to like downtown D.C. Per 

day. 

Secretary PETERS. That is accurate. That is not only being in 

done in London but also in Stockholm and in Singapore. In Stockholm, it was done on a trial basis, and the citizens were asked if 

they wanted to continue it, and they did. 

Here in the United States one of the urban partnership agreements that we awarded in August, as was referred to earlier, 

Mayor Bloomberg in New York has also proposed such a congestion 

pricing matter in New York City. It remains to be seen whether or 

not a commission that was established by State legislature will 

vote to move that forward. But it is something that we think does 

have tremendous promise in given areas, as long as it is looked at 

31 

very comprehensively; and we are very anxious to see what the 

Mayor and citizens of New York want to do in terms of going forward. 

The money that we allocated to them is contingent on their ability to move forward. If they are not ultimately able to get the authority to move forward, that money will come back and be reallocated to other congested areas. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. The spin-off is that it just drove up the 

ridership on the mass—train, and that is the key. It helped congestion, pollution. It was just a win-win for everyone. 

One other question, have you received any feedback yet on the 

inspection of the 750 steel arch bridges and the conditions? 

Secretary PETERS. We have, and I will ask the Administrator to 

give you that information. 

Mr. CAPKA. Yes, ma’am, we have. We hope to have all the information in by the end of November, but now we have better than 

50 percent of reports in from the States, and the reports are coming in with bridges in very good shape. We have not uncovered a 

systemic problem at all with the reports coming in thus far. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Can we get a tentative update of where 

we are? 

Mr. CAPKA. Yes, ma’am. We will provide that to you. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield 

back my time. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North 

Carolina, Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been tied up with 

a Judiciary hearing. I apologize for my belated arrival. It is good 

to have you all with us. 

For the past 5 or 6 years, Mr. Chairman, each time I speak to 

a civic club back home or a public group, I always have directed 

attention to our aging national infrastructure, including bridges. 

Unfortunately, my words were prophetic; and I am sure others 

have uttered the same thing here. 

Secretary, let me ask you a question. If that was asked prior to 

my arrival, I apologize. Some of the structurally deficient bridges 

in my area and I’m sure in the areas of my colleagues are very 

costly as far as repairing them and working them up to snuff. Previously, we granted States the ability to transfer dollars dedicated 

for bridge funding to a National Highway System or surface transportation program. I am applying hindsight now, Secretary. That 

is always 20/20, as you know. Should we continue to grant this authority, place a greater emphasis on using dedicated highway 

bridge funding for its intended purpose or permit States to transfer 

funding into a highway bridge program to address the deficiencies? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, what I believe we should do is 

be sure we are establishing the proper standard for which bridges 

should be maintained and only allow a transfer of money out of 

those dedicated accounts if the State can demonstrate that their 

bridges are meeting those criterion. This is part of what we will be 

looking at in the review of the bridge inspection program that the 

Inspector General, who you’ll be hearing from a little later, is looking at. 

32 

I believe it is based on standards. You are meeting the standards 

and have the ability to transfer the money to other purposes. If you 

are not, you may not. You must meet those standards. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Braley. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, I was very pleased to learn that in your opening remarks you identified your firsthand experience as a former 

State DOT director, and I appreciate that very much. Have you 

ever had an opportunity to work on a bridge crew? 

Secretary PETERS. Sir, I have not. I have done flagging, I have 

done a variety of things but not on a bridge crew per se, I have 

observed it being done. 

Mr. BRALEY. I had the good fortune to work on a bridge crew for 

4 years, and one of the things that we often don’t focus on in these 

discussions is that thousands of men and women put their lives on 

the line every day to build and repair our aging infrastructure all 

over this country. 

One of the things you learn very quickly when you are working 

on those jobs is that there is a lot more to putting together our 

aging infrastructure than just dollars and cents. One of the things 

we know is when we commit to reinvesting to an infrastructure 

there are ripple affects far beyond safety, far beyond transportation 

and goods and services and into the economy and all over the country. 

One of the other things you quickly learn when working for a 

county road department is there are ripple effects with highway 

projects that are being done at a Federal level and then Federal 

right of way gets abandoned to States on existing Federal highways 

that are no longer subject to the same type of road use and then 

those States end up abandoning to county government, and all this 

gets passed on and on and on. 

The cost of maintaining many of these structurally deficient and 

obsolete bridges is borne by lower level government agencies who 

many times do not have the resources that we do here in Congress. 

So as someone who represents a State that ranks number four in 

terms of overall structurally deficient bridges as a percentage of its 

population, this is a very acute concern to the Highway Department of Transportation and to many county supervisors all across 

our State in 99 separate jurisdictions. 

So what I would like you to do is talk about your perspective as 

a former State DOT director and how our Federal system of highway repairs and funding is impacted by all of these decisions we 

are making that are important not just from a safety standpoint 

but from the other areas. 

Secretary PETERS. Different States do things differently. For example, in Virginia, they are responsible for the entire system on 

primary and secondary roads. In other States and my home State 

of Arizona, that responsibility goes to county governments and ultimately to city governments as well. 

The national bridge inventory and national bridge inspection 

standards apply to all of those bridges. This was something after 

the tragedy in West Virginia that was pointed out how important 

it is to apply those standards to all bridges. 

33 

The funding in the Federal aid highway program is intended primarily for those who are federally aid eligible. States also have 

funding sources and can make those discretionary funding sources 

available to county and city governments. In Arizona, we allocated 

approximately half of the State discretionary revenues to local governments to use on their system. 

If there was a case where the Federal government was taking a 

bridge or road off that system and it was no longer part of the Federal aid system and National Highway System, perhaps then it had 

to be in good operating condition before it could be then allocated 

to a county government or to a city government. So before any 

transfer was made, it was insured that that infrastructure, whether it be a roadway or a bridge, was in good operating condition. 

Mr. BRALEY. But I want to clarify that. Because we have already 

talked in this hearing about the fact that many of these bridges 

that are classified as structurally deficient does not necessarily 

mean that those bridges are unsafe. So when you are talking about 

the classification of being in good operating condition, does that 

mean that they cannot appear on a structurally deficient listing or 

functionally obsolete listing? 

Secretary PETERS. In my experience, sir, that was the case. I do 

not know if that is the case in every State. I know you will be hearing from county officials a little later who may give more clarity 

to that. But I did always feel as the person responsible that we 

should not put problems on county or city governments who had 

even fewer resources to deal with than we in the State level had. 

Mr. BRALEY. One of the other questions I had relates to the rescissions we have been talking about. One of the things I have not 

heard you or the Administrator discuss is whether or not you think 

the policy that is currently in place with the 50 percent allocation 

is working, and I would like to hear from both of you on whether 

you think it needs to be adjusted. 

Secretary PETERS. I will give you my thoughts and then certainly 

ask the Administrator to give his. 

I believe what we should do in the aftermath of this tragedy and 

looking over the bridge program is to establish standards, ensure 

those standards are accurate to which the bridges need to be maintained and not allow transfer of money out of those accounts unless 

the State can demonstrate they are maintaining their bridges to 

that level or to that standard. 

Rick, please, you work more closely with this. 

Mr. CAPKA. Yes, sir. In the transfer in the rescissions that States 

have been dealing with, many of the States—in fact, if you take all 

50 and the District and Puerto Rico in aggregate, there are more 

funds transferred in from some of the other programs into the 

bridge investment than there are rescissions and transfers going 

out. I believe—and you will have an opportunity to check with 

some of the State officials later on—that the transfers and rescissions are made to create a more flexible ability to use those funds. 

In the aggregate, they get rolled back up into the bridge investment. 

I do think there can be some improvements made. Right now, the 

allocation of the bridging dollars, the apportionment that is done 

is based upon the condition of the bridge, as opposed to other charVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:02 May 18, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37652.TXT JASON
34 

acteristics which are just as important, the ADT, the average daily 

traffic demands on the bridge, the maintenance requirements and 

the maintenance investments, these preventive maintenance investments being made on bridges, the asset management programs 

that are in place are all very important to ensure investments are 

made wisely and effectively. I think we can expand the criteria 

against which these apportionments are made for bridge funding. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. LoBiondo? 

Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I really do not have any questions. 

The only thing I would say as we go about this, we are talking 

specifically about bridges, but I think more than ever that we really have to—the rail, the highway, the waterways, it is an entity 

now, and as we do not repair it or locks and dams and things like 

that—we can have a whole separate hearing and hopefully we 

would not have a tragedy that brings that about, although we have 

our normal hearings—but as those go into disrepair and not being 

used, and that forces that traffic onto the highways. 

Also, our rivers and things could stand a lot more traffic. 

So, again, as we think about these things besides—and I think 

I would echo what was said earlier, I think everything is on the 

table. We really do have to look at all these things. 

But, also, I would just encourage you to think in those terms of 

it being a total system. Some of our interstates—we could have 

north, south corridors that are not finished. We need to look at 

that. 

The other thing is, besides potential tax increases or things like 

that, I think we really need to look at incentives. How do you 

incentivize people not to do it in a positive way rather than—and, 

again, I think everything is on the table. 

But the other thing we have got going on in this country is a tremendous amount of obesity. We are in poor health as a country, 

and a lot of that is due to the fact that everybody in the family has 

a car now. I mean everybody from the teenage kids—when I go to 

church, many times we will have four cars there. Because I will be 

there, my wife sings in two services, my two daughters will meet 

me from someplace else. A few years ago that did not happen. 

So, again, that’s just kind of for what it is worth. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I think the gentleman. 

I just want to pick up on Mr. Capka’s response to Mr. Braley. 

You suggested broadening the criteria. That is a very valuable contribution. It is what I do in this bridge proposal. To include vehicle 

miles traveled on bridges, mobility, regional and national mobility, 

that is what we will do in this new iteration. 

Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much. I, too, was unfortunately delayed. Pleasure seeing you, Madam Secretary. 

I certainly agree with my colleagues in some of the questions 

about the bridges. There are 15 in my area alone, it has been covered. 

My concern at this point is into railroad bridges. I have not 

heard anybody mention those. You have no jurisdiction over them. 

35 

There is no accountability for maintenance and their upkeep. I 

know we have not heard of any catastrophes, but most of them 

were built in the ’30s. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And with the increase in traffic and the increase in the weight that they are bearing, how are we going to be 

able to say to the general public, ′′You will be safe, even with the 

rail bridges in your backyard, from a catastrophic release of chemicals,′′ if you will. 

What are you doing? What is being planned? Are you going to 

have something that is going to address getting the railroads to 

comply with an upgrading and the standards of the new technology? 

Secretary PETERS. Congresswoman Napolitano, you raise a very 

important question, and others have asked about this. But to be 

more specific about what is happening, as you mentioned, FRA 

does not have regulatory authority over the railroad bridges. We 

do, however, have the ability to establish safety policies for bridges 

and are moving forward to doing so. 

A recent GAO report cited the fact that we needed to do more 

in working with the railroads to improve rail bridges, and therefore, FRA is already working to develop appropriate criteria to better ensure that potential bridge safety risks on railroads are properly identified, evaluated and dealt with. 

The FRA has also—I am sorry—soon will be issuing a formal 

safety advisory on bridge safety issues, as well; and the administrator, Administrator Boardman, in June of 2007 initiated a railroad bridge safety roundtable to begin discussions with the railroad 

industry to ensure that we are having proper follow-up—proper 

evaluation and proper follow-up—to ensure bridge safety on the 

rail lines, as well. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Are you setting aside program money to be 

able to do the reports of the requests for the intensive, in-depth 

analysis, if you will? 

Secretary PETERS. Congresswoman, I do not have that data with 

me. I would be happy to look that up and get that back to you. I 

am thinking they are, since we are moving forward with this, but 

I would rather be accurate on the record. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentlewoman would yield—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I will do so. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. —Mr. Cummings and I and Mr. Mica in the last 

Congress asked the GAO for a report, an in-depth analysis and a 

report, on rail bridge safety. That report was delivered just last 

week, and we have not been able yet to get enough copies to distribute it to all Members on the Committee. But it is available online, and the Committee will provide the gentlewoman with a copy 

of it. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

What really is also, I would say—important to all of us, I would 

believe—is that we have a plan that is going to help us address 

some of the issues and ensure that those bridges are structurally 

safe, given their age and especially in an area like mine—— 

Secretary PETERS. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. —where we have increased traffic and expect 

more—tenfold, I understand—that they are going to be sufficiently 

36 

well-structured to withstand that additional load and the increase 

in traffic; and those are some of the things that I had in mind. 

Are you going to create any regulations? Do you believe that it 

is a necessity to be able to do that? 

Secretary PETERS. Ma’am, on the rail bridges, we will be looking 

at that. We have not yet arrived at that decision and want to work 

first with the rail industry to determine what we can voluntarily 

do together, and I think that it is our first course of action, but we 

have not conclusively reached a decision yet. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Do you have any reports of any accidents or 

any damages from any failure of rail bridges? 

Secretary PETERS. Ma’am, I do not have that data with me. To 

my knowledge and in recent history, I do not; but I do not want 

to say that without getting the data, and we will do that and get 

back to you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would really appreciate it. 

Then there was a question that one of my colleagues left with 

me. We are having the hearing because of the bridge safety issues, 

and the question he left was, what responsibility are you and the 

administration willing to accept for the condition of our bridges on 

the National Highway System? 

Secretary PETERS. Ma’am, I do think there is, indeed, a Federal 

responsibility—or a Federal interest, more accurately—in ensuring 

that the National Highway System, which includes the interstate 

highway system, does have adequately maintained bridges, and I 

think as we move forward both in the Committee deliberations— 

or in commission deliberations, rather—that I am having now with 

one of the commissions established in SAFETEA-LU, it is important to work with you during the next authorization period so that 

we do address those issues. 

Whether or not all of the funding has to come from the Federal 

Government, I think remains to be seen, but certainly, it is in the 

national interest to make sure those bridges are maintained appropriately. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Secretary PETERS. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I, first, want to thank the Secretary for her service. Also, as a 

Representative of south Florida where we are benefiting from the 

urban partnership, I want to thank you for that. It is great to see, 

Madam Secretary, that you are clearly thinking outside the box, 

and south Florida is one of those areas that I think will benefit 

dramatically from this innovation. 

And I think everybody agrees that Florida DOT is innovative and 

that it is doing a great job. When you look at, for example, bridge 

safety, there again, while some States have gotten some of that 

money and have spent it elsewhere, Florida has done, I think, a 

very good job. And the numbers speak for themselves in that they 

do emphasize bridge safety. It should come as no surprise when 

you look at the fact that in Florida the bridges are not only transportation, but they are also evacuation routes for hurricanes. 

37 

My concern, Mr. Chairman—and again, I state this up front—it 

is unfair because I have not had the chance to look at the Chairman’s bill in depth, but I would be very concerned at anything that 

would penalize States like Florida, because they have done a good 

job, if all of a sudden the funding is going to go to those where the 

bridges have not been taken care of. 

You are clearly disincentivizing and hurting those who have done 

a good job, whom we should be incentivizing and not 

disincentivizing, number one. 

Number two, I agree with what Mr. Mica said, which is, I think 

we have to look at the overall plan. We cannot just focus on the 

very important tragedy du jour or problem du jour, which we are 

going to have continuously. And we also need to focus on that—and 

this Congress did; with you, Madam Secretary, and your leadership 

and the Chairman, in particular with, for example, the bridge collapse. But, again, we need to make sure that we do not lose sight 

of the entire issue, number two. 

Number three, I, for one—I do not know about you all, but people 

in Florida are hurting with $3 a gallon. And at this moment, to be 

looking at increasing gas taxes—when I talk about looking at the 

overall picture, we also have to remember the user and the payer, 

which is, frankly, what it is all about; and I think increasing gas 

taxes now, frankly, would be a huge problem. 

And particularly—and again, as I said, this is an unfair criticism 

because I have not had a chance to look at the bill in depth, but 

in a cursory review, it looks like, for example, Florida would be 

paying in a lot more than it would be getting out because it has 

been doing a good job. 

I am concerned about what the rate of return would be. I am also 

concerned about creating a new program as opposed to fixing a program that already exists. 

Lastly, are we making sure that the States are using their funds 

correctly? Florida seems to be doing that, obviously, at least better 

than most States. Are other States not doing that? If not, what can 

we do to fix that? 

Madam Secretary, I think you have mentioned that time and 

time again. I appreciate that. I just want to make sure that we do 

not take any steps that, frankly, disincentivize the ones who are 

doing a good job, and incentivize or continue to incentivize those 

who are not doing a good job. 

I support State flexibility, but I need to make sure that that 

flexibility is accompanied by some common sense, and that if 

States are supposed to be using those funds for bridges and they 

are not, that they are not then compensated or given incentives to 

doing that in the future. And that is my concern with what seems 

to be in this bill. 

I agree with the Chairman that about 75 percent of the bill 

sounds really good. As to the other 25 percent, in a cursory review—and again, I state that, Mr. Chairman, overall, without having the opportunity to obviously spend too much time on it—I am 

concerned with some of the issues that I just brought up. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. All right. I thank the gentleman for his observation, and I respect his concern. 

38 

And out of concern for that very issue raised, we have a provision 

requiring the maintenance of effort by States, that is, taking into 

consideration the degree to which a State is willing to match the 

Federal funds, the degree to which States have participated in the 

bridge program in the past, to which they have transferred funds 

out of the bridge program; and those will be factors that we consider in the prioritization and in the allocation of funds. 

The matter of return on equity was something that we have debated diligently since ISTEA in 1991, TEA-21 in 1998 and with 

SAFETEA. We have gotten much closer to a fair return on equity 

in the SAFETEA legislation. This is a 3-year sunsetted proposal, 

however, targeted specifically to structurally deficient bridges, and 

it is limited to that purpose alone. So it is a different category than 

the overall surface transportation program which we will address 

again in 2009, and I expect the gentleman to be a part of that discussion. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. And I look forward to working with the honorable Chairman on all of these issues. These are important issues. 

I want to thank him for bringing up the debate. It is important. 

I have some concerns, but that is what the process is all about. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Great. Then I invite the gentleman to give further consideration as he has had an opportunity to evaluate the 

bill. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, as I have listened to my friends from this side of the 

aisle and as I have heard it in listening to some of the debate in 

my office, there seems to be a discussion, Mr. Chairman, with regard to dealing with transportation issues in general. And I think 

we all know, in being a part of this Committee, that we have a lot 

of issues with regard to transportation. 

Well, one of the things that concerns me so often is that when 

things like what happened in Minnesota happen—Mr. Chairman, 

you have been quoted as saying that this is a very critical moment, 

and it highlights that we need to be addressing a problem. What 

I fear is that without the efforts of the Chairman and the kinds of 

things you are doing, we will debate the debate and do nothing, 

and then another catastrophe will happen in 3 or 4 years, and then 

we will go through the same cycle again. 

One of the things that concerns me, Madam Secretary, is the 

whole idea of inspections and whether we have enough inspectors. 

The Chairman spoke just a moment ago in reference to a matter 

that was raised by Mrs. Napolitano, that we had requested this rail 

study of tunnels and bridges. One of the things that it said in that 

study was that there were only five FRA inspectors for bridges. 

This is with regard to rail. And in a few moments, we are going 

to have folks from DOT, their IG, and the NTSB talk about inspectors for our highways, and I am just wondering, what is our situation with regard to inspectors? Because certainly, if we do not have 

the man- and the womanpower to inspect those bridges—you know, 

we can do a whole lot of things. We can talk from now until forever, but if they are not being inspected, and we do not have the 

39 

personnel, I am just wondering, you know, whether that is something that you are concerned about. 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman Cummings, I am concerned. 

First of all, let me acknowledge your leadership on this issue, 

particularly on tunnels and particularly after the very tragic incident in the Baltimore area where there was a fire for a long period 

of time. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. 

Secretary PETERS. I do think we need to do a better job, and we 

need to look at our standards. And we are in the process of establishing standards for tunnels, largely as a result of your initiative, 

which I compliment you for, and I also compliment you, by the 

way, for the ′′man- or womanpower′′ in terms of inspecting those 

bridges or those tunnels. 

In terms of FRA, I do not have that information right with me, 

sir, but I would agree with you that we can have the best standards in the world, but if we do not have an adequate number of 

inspectors out there, they are not going to do us any good. 

And those are some of precisely the issues as it relates to this 

tragedy in Minnesota, that I would like the inspector general to 

look at. How are we inspecting today? Are we inspecting in the 

right way? Are we using the data that we get as a result of those 

inspections in the right way? Are we doing an adequate job? 

I look forward to reporting back to you when that report is complete. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I look forward to your response then. 

Let me just ask you this, Madam Secretary, if in the meantime— 

and you know, things around here happen slowly. In the meantime, 

if you were to find that we have insufficient inspectors, are you 

prepared to act or to—do you follow what I am saying? I do not 

want something to happen in the interim between your getting 

your information and then possibly coming up with the personnel— 

I mean, then something happens, and then we have got a problem. 

Secretary PETERS. No. You make a very good point, sir, and I absolutely am prepared if, in the short-term, we learn that we are not 

doing an adequate job of having the right number of personnel out 

there to act. In fact, in our budget submittal with the FRA, in particular, we ensure that we are not reducing the numbers of inspectors, but more to looking at making sure that we had everyone we 

needed out there. 

But let me go back and look at the data. I will get you numbers. 

But absolutely, yes, if we do not have the right number of people 

doing the job, then we must deal with that. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just very briefly, the inspector general of the 

USDOT has written in his testimony that the Federal Highway Administration cannot really provide data on how much Federal funding is actually spent on structurally deficient bridges. 

Do you intend to implement a system that will allow such expenditures to be tracked? 

Secretary PETERS. Sir, if I could have the administrator answer 

that question. 

Mr. CAPKA. Yes, Congressman Cummings. I was aware of the inspector general’s observation there, and it is a matter of taking the 

data that we do have within our national bridge inventory and, in 

40 

a way, manually right now cross-checking it with bridge codes that 

we do have. 

So it can be done, but it is a very laborious task of making that 

match. I think the requirement is for us to adjust the database 

that we do have to make that kind of analysis very easy to do. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman. 

Mrs. Miller. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I certainly want to commend you for holding this hearing. It is 

of a critical nature, certainly, and it is very appropriate that we 

dissect all of these issues today. 

You know, I guess the reality is—the brutal reality is, our Nation 

just has not invested enough in our Nation’s infrastructure over 

the years; and it is not only a question of safety, but I think it is 

a question economically as well. You can always think about how 

economics has followed the transportation grid throughout our history, whether they followed the wagon trains out West or the railroads or the interstates, now the aviation links, et cetera. 

Oftentimes, as well, to be very brutally frank, we have wasted 

incredible amounts of money on projects that maybe were not so 

necessary. You know, I do not know about the Big Dig, and I will 

not go through all of these things, but there are a lot of areas 

where we could have spent money more appropriately. 

I have not had a chance, Mr. Chairman, to look at your recommendation, your proposal. I certainly want to do so. I will say, 

coming from the State of Michigan that is a donor State—it has always been a donor State—we are always very hesitant about any 

idea raising the Federal taxes, the transportation taxes, because 

we do not get our fair share as it is. And so we do have that hesitancy, and we think about whether or not it would be better for us 

to raise our own money internally, and at least we can spend it 

where we think we need to have it spent. 

I will just make a couple of observations and then ask a question 

as well. I just want to mention—and I am sure every Member of 

Congress has one. I have my report here from my Michigan Department of Transportation. I am looking at all of these little green 

dots all over the State of Michigan of structurally deficient bridges 

that have been identified by MIDOT, and I have my own 

PowerPoint here in my own congressional district. 

Actually, I-94 and I-69 both have their genesis in my congressional district. At the beginning of both of those interstates is 

something called the Blue Water Bridge, which is actually the second busiest commercial artery on the northern tier of our Nation. 

I cross over it often. They have a bridge authority, and so they are 

inspected annually, and apparently, they meet—I should not say 

they meet—they exceed all of the Federal requirements. However, 

they do have a dedicated revenue stream. 

Three days ago, I transited the Mackinac Bridge, which goes between the two peninsulas here, which is about 5-miles long. I think 

it is the longest suspension bridge in the free world, and it is also 

run by an authority, inspected annually, and it exceeds all Federal 

requirements. 

41 

So we were talking about toll roads, and I will just point that out 

as some fantastic examples of bridges that do not have problems. 

I have a little bridge literally by my home, and we live on a river. 

Our local road commission is closing this bridge. It is the only way 

to transit in a huge area, and we are all, you know, obviously very 

exercised about that, but the local road commission—I do not think 

MIDOT has even worked with them on this, but they have put a 

weight restriction on the road, and now they only have a single 

lane that can transit, et cetera. 

And I guess I am pointing out some of these examples because 

there is a question that has already been asked, but I think it is 

so important that I am going to ask it again because, Madam Secretary, you just outlined, I believe, an idea essentially saying that 

there should be some mandating from the Federal level—I do not 

want to mischaracterize you, so I am going to ask you this question—that the States would utilize the bridge funding and could 

only move the dollars if they could demonstrate some overriding 

need. And I guess my question would be, again, how the Federal 

highway has actually encouraged the States to make sure that they 

are expending the funds for bridge work appropriately. 

Also, has the administration actually made a formal proposal, 

since the tragedy in Minneapolis, about this? If not, can we have 

some expectation of looking at a formal proposal, whether that is 

requiring legislation or promulgating rules or in the statute, what 

form might that take? 

Secretary PETERS. Congresswoman Miller, we have done several 

things since the tragedy in Minneapolis. 

First, we issued two advisories to the State. The first of those 

was to inspect all similar bridges, bridges which have fractured 

critical Members, which the engineer at the table here with me will 

explain in more detail if necessary. The second advisory was to be 

mindful of how they were loading construction materials and equipment in the event that they were doing construction on bridges. 

These were issued with an abundance of caution based on discussions that we have had to date about the particular bridge that collapsed, but I want to reiterate we do not know yet why it collapsed, 

and we do not want to jump to any conclusions. 

The Chairman of the NTSB certainly can talk more about that 

than I could, but what we are doing is asking each of our division 

administrators—the Federal Highway has a division administrator 

in every State—asking them to take these inventories such as you 

have, go to their States, talk with them about what they are doing. 

If they are flexing money, why is it a higher use? 

Those are things that are going on right now; and several of the 

State DOT Directors, I believe, are here and might talk a little bit 

more about that on a subsequent panel, and Rick can as well. But 

in the long-term, ma’am, we do want to look at the bridge inspection program. We want to look at what did happen in Minneapolis 

on the I-35W, and we likely will make recommendations, but—I 

would rather have that data in hand, but in the short-term, if we 

have any concern that a bridge is not safe, it would either be loadcontrolled, meaning it could only carry lighter loads, or it would be 

closed. And that is standard practice. No State DOT secretary, no 

county engineer or city engineer and certainly not the adminisVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:02 May 18, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37652.TXT JASON
42 

trator, nor would I ever allow what we deemed to be an unsafe 

bridge to stay in operation without some modifications. 

Rick, is there anything you would add? 

Mr. CAPKA. Madam Secretary, that is a great summary. And, 

ma’am, I also wanted to emphasize that we do have structurally 

deficient bridges that we are looking at, but it does not, as we have 

said before, equate to unsafe. And there are certain things that attract a State Department of Transportation’s attention immediately 

when they are doing an inspection and a critical finding, and it 

does not have to wait for an appropriation to provide resources to 

fix that immediate problem. 

Those critical findings really jump to the top of the priority list 

in any event, and they are handled very expeditiously. Sometimes 

it is a posting of the bridge. Sometimes it may be a closing of the 

bridge until the correct remedial action can be taken, but that is 

the process that we have in place to ensure that the public is not 

put at risk when they use our infrastructure. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Secretary, I know we had a time limit. 

We have only two Members remaining—Mr. Hall and Ms. Fallin— 

if you can spare a little more time for them. 

Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary and Administrator Capka, thank you for your 

testimony. I am looking forward to the results of the report when 

it comes out. Just quickly, I want to ask a couple of questions. 

Are the current intervals between inspections too long to prevent 

failure? Does finding a deficiency trigger a more frequent inspection to monitor any possible deterioration? 

Secretary PETERS. Sir, in terms of the duration between the inspections right now, we do not have any evidence to date to indicate that that is not sufficient. However, again, I have asked the 

inspector general to look at that as part of his analysis, and if 

there are any issues that cause concern, even outside of the normal 

inspection interval, State or Federal highway personnel in the 

State can ask for an inspection out of cycle, a more current inspection to happen; and that would be very important, I think, in terms 

of making sure that we are doing what we need to do. 

We certainly will, as a result of this in-depth look, look at the 

inspection program, come back and make further recommendations, but there is no indication to this at this point in time that 

the regular cycle, with ad hoc inspections as warranted, should 

happen. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. 

As the Congresswoman from Michigan, I am sure, knows, bridges 

and other infrastructure in my district face a challenge from a diversity of weather that States such as Florida may not face, so we 

see 100-degree temperatures, and we see zero-degree or lower temperatures. We see deicing and then sand and salt and all on the 

heaviest traffic bridges on the interstate system and other Federal 

highways. 

43 

Should the inspection regime be modified or has it been modified 

to require more frequent inspections in such areas of extreme 

weather? 

Secretary PETERS. That has been a factor in determining the frequency of inspections, Congressman—again, Rick, if you have anything more detailed on that—but it is something again we are looking at, at the robustness of the bridge inspection program as part 

of this analysis, and certainly would make recommendations. 

Another factor that you have in your district, as well as Congresswoman Miller, is that your infrastructure, on average, is older 

than that in the Sunbelt States as well. Not only does it have the 

weather extremes, but generally it is older infrastructure. That factor is absolutely taken into account in terms of determining the frequency. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. 

The only other question I had is whether the Department is considering or any of the technical people on your staff are considering, with bridges that have deficiencies, limiting in high-traffic 

volume times access to the bridge so as to avoid a full load of vehicles standing on the bridge or moving at very low speeds, bumper 

to bumper, on the bridge—you know, providing a load that may be 

in excess of the actual bearing capacity of the bridge. You see this 

with some highways where there will be a gated red-green light on 

it, an on-ramp to prevent the density from rising above a certain 

amount. I do not know if there is a way to do that on a bridge, but 

it is an idea. 

Secretary PETERS. The process you are referring to is ramp metering. It is often used on freeways to meter the number of vehicles 

that go on so that traffic can be kept moving or free-flowing. To my 

knowledge, I do not know that it has been used on a bridge. Bridge 

calculations, in terms of the weight that a bridge must be able to 

support, assume that it is fully loaded with vehicles, and given 

whatever type of bridge it is, that mix could be both passenger vehicles and heavier commercial vehicles. That weight would be static, and bridge loadings determined with those things in mind. 

I am going to let my engineer talk to you because he is smarter 

than I am on those issues. 

Mr. CAPKA. Yes, sir. That is a very good question. 

One way of controlling that kind of, I would say, posting load on 

the bridge, where you want to limit the bridge, is to close lanes; 

and the State DOTs and local engineers do that if the bridge requires a posting. The inspection cycle for bridges is 2 years, and 

many bridges are inspected on an annual basis and more frequently, depending on the specifics of the bridge. That is probably 

a more frequent cycle than you will see in many of the nations 

overseas. 

So we are looking at that very carefully, and as the Secretary 

said, the inspector general has that on his list of things to observe 

and will provide us some recommendations. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership and for holding 

this hearing. I have a statement I will submit for the record. I yield 

back. 

44 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Without objection, the statement will be included 

in the record. 

Ms. Fallin. 

Ms. FALLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate, too, your 

holding this hearing for us. 

Thank you so much for joining us today, both of you, and for giving us good information. I, too, am very concerned about our 

bridges in our Nation. Of course, in Oklahoma, you might remember back in the mid-2000s we had a bridge collapse. Of course, it 

was through an accident with a boat hitting one of the pillars of 

our bridge at River Falls, and I was actually the lieutenant governor of the State at that time, and was involved in the reconstruction of that bridge as the Chairman is going through right now in 

his State. So it hits close to my heart when we experience bridge 

deficiencies in our Nation. 

I was looking at our chart for structurally deficient bridges in the 

United States, and I see that Oklahoma appears to be ranked the 

highest, which does not please me, but I had the opportunity to 

meet with our Department of Transportation a couple of weeks ago 

and survey some of our bridges in our State. I am happy to say, 

Mr. Chairman, that our Oklahoma legislature has put forth some 

money, has seen the wisdom of allocating money in our State funds 

to match some of our Federal funds so that we can start rehabbing 

our bridges in our State and making that a priority. And I appreciate the Chairman’s comments, and I am looking forward to studying your proposal on how we can address the needs of our bridges 

in our Nation and looking at the States’ investing in equity and 

matching the Federal share and looking at some innovative ways 

that we can encourage our States to participate more, because I 

have seen my State do that. 

I will just say that I am concerned about how we fund that. I 

know that, Ms. Secretary, you tried to address some of the funding 

issues here in this meeting, and I hope in a minute you will continue to discuss how we can use the money that we have right now 

with our taxes to meet some of the rehab needs. I will just say, in 

my State, we had an initiative several years ago to raise the gasoline tax, and if I remember right, it fell by 78 percent, and with 

the cost of gasoline being as high as it is right now to our citizens 

and to our businesses, I know that that is a big concern. So I hope 

to work with the Chairman in looking at what are the alternatives 

and what are the innovative ways that we can look at meeting the 

needs of our Nation. 

I was especially pleased, Mr. Chairman, to hear you discussing 

setting priorities in donor States. Oklahoma, of course, is a big 

donor State to our transportation fund, and I know that Secretary 

Peters has visited with me about how we can look at some innovative ways for States to get some of that money back to prioritize 

their own needs, but my question is: 

You had stressed about our need to analyze the competing forces 

for Federal transportation spending and how to manage our existing transportation systems and programs more efficiently. 

Would you agree, in light of the discussion we have had today 

on rails, on tunnels, on congestion, that we need an overall transportation plan for the Nation, not just for the bridges, but to look 

45 

at the big picture of how our money is allocated and what we can 

do innovatively in our States and, of course, in working with the 

Chairman on these ideas. 

Secretary PETERS. Congresswoman Fallin, that is exactly what I 

have been saying this morning. 

As important as this issue is—and there are ways in the short 

term that we can reprioritize and make sure that we are making 

our infrastructure safe and ensuring our infrastructure is safe, in 

looking at the condition of that infrastructure. But I do think we 

have to look holistically at how our program is structured today, 

where and how we are spending money today and ensuring that we 

are using data, performance objectives, benefit/cost analysis, things 

like that, for determining how and when we spend our money before we ask Americans to take more of their hard-earned dollars 

and pay more gas tax. I think we owe it to them. 

Much like each of our families would do, if we had an unexpected 

emergency, we would not immediately go to our bosses and ask for 

a salary increase. We would probably say, ′′How can we ensure that 

we are using all of our money in the best way possible before we 

go to outside sources?′′ 

That is something where I absolutely applaud the Chairman’s 

initiative in putting this important issue in front of us. As he has 

said, we agree on many things, but I do think we owe it to the 

American public to first determine if we are spending their money 

wisely and well before we ask them for more money. 

Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Chairman, I probably should disclose that I may 

have a vested interest in the cost of gasoline. I have two teenagers 

who are driving, so it is really hitting me hard. 

Secretary PETERS. Ma’am, I do remember. I was at River Falls, 

Oklahoma, the day after the bridge collapsed there due to a barge 

hitting the bridge pier. Six people lost their lives—it was very tragic—and your leadership at the time in helping reestablish that important infrastructure was integral to making it happen. 

Ms. FALLIN. Thank you. 

Secretary PETERS. Thank you. 

Ms. FALLIN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentlewoman for her observations. 

Mrs. Capito. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I will defer 

questions to the next panel since I just arrived. 

Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

Secretary PETERS. I would be happy to answer questions on the 

record, ma’am. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Any questions that Members have can be submitted, and they will be sent to the Secretary for inclusion in the 

Committee record. 

I just have to observe that, amid all the hand-wringing about the 

high price of gasoline and adding 5 cents for the user fee, I did not 

see the President jaw-boning OPEC to bring their price of oil down. 

There is a lot of jaw-boning about 5 cents that will stay in America 

for American jobs—American steel, American cement, American asphalt. For the good jobs, send the kids to school and pay the mortgages and buy the snowmobiles and the ATVs. 

46 

I do not understand that dichotomy of thinking, but here is how 

it looks from the heartland of America. This is from the International Falls Daily Journal, their editorial a couple of days after 

the bridge collapsed and our governor, who twice vetoed an increase in the user fee passed by the State legislature, Your Tax 

Cuts At Work, a tragic commentary on the state of policy toward 

investment in infrastructure. 

Madam Secretary, you have been most generous with your time. 

You have been a very patient and enduring witness. I thank you 

for your endurance at the witness table. 

Secretary PETERS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Capka, thank you very much for being with 

us. 

Now I will proceed to our second panel. The inspector general of 

the Department of Transportation, the Honorable Calvin Scovel; 

and the Chair of the National Transportation Safety Board, the 

Honorable Mark Rosenker. 

Welcome, gentlemen. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CALVIN L. SCOVEL, III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; AND THE HONORABLE MARK V. ROSENKER, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Scovel, we will start with you. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica and 

Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today on FHWA’s National Bridge Inspection Program. 

The collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis has 

heightened concern about the safety of our bridges nationwide. 

Along with the President and the Secretary of Transportation, I 

saw the wreckage firsthand; and I join with you and the Nation in 

mourning the lives that were lost. 

While it is the responsibility of the National Transportation Safety Board to determine the probable cause of the Minneapolis collapse, my testimony today will focus on overall bridge safety inspection and is based on work done by our audit and engineering 

staffs over the past 3 years, including a detailed report issued last 

year. Our work in this area is continuing. I would like to briefly 

highlight three major issues. 

First, Federal oversight of bridge inspections and funding for 

bridge rehabilitation and replacement are and will remain significant issues for DOT. Second, FHWA must continue its efforts to develop an approach to bridge oversight that is driven by data and 

based on risk assessment. This should allow better identification 

and targeting of those bridges most in need of attention. Finally, 

FHWA can take action now, today, that will strengthen the National Bridge Inspection Program. 

First, oversight and funding. The safety of our Nation’s bridges, 

which has been a high-priority issue for 40 years, depends on a 

complex web of local, State and Federal activities. States are ultimately responsible for the safety of their bridges, while FHWA 

oversees the States and provides expertise and guidance relating to 

inspection, repair and maintenance. Bridges that are part of the 

National Highway System—and there are about 116,000—carry 

47 

over 70 percent of all bridge traffic nationwide. About 5 percent of 

these, or 6,100, are currently categorized as ′′structurally deficient.′′ 

The term ′′structurally deficient′′ does not necessarily mean dangerous. However, many in this category can continue to operate 

safely if they are properly inspected and their maximum load limits 

are correctly calculated and posted. Our written statement includes 

a breakdown by State of the number of structurally deficient 

bridges in the National Highway System. 

Congress has long provided States with funding to correct structural deficiencies. In 2005, $21.6 billion was authorized through 

2009. However, the need for funding is great, and the FHWA report issued in January of this year estimated that about $65 billion 

could be invested immediately to address current bridge deficiencies. We will be evaluating funding issues as part of our ongoing, comprehensive review of the agency’s oversight of the bridge 

program. 

Second, the importance of a data-driven, risk-based approach: As 

we reported last year, based on a statistical projection, more than 

10 percent of the highway system’s structurally deficient bridges 

may have had inaccurate load ratings. To combat such issues, we 

recommended that FHWA develop a data-driven, risk-based approach to address bridge problems most in need of attention. 

FHWA has initiated specific action to improve oversight of structurally deficient bridges, which we commend. These include updating guidance to its engineers and to its bridge program manual, implementing new inventory reports intended to identify problem 

areas and load-rating data, and promoting greater use of computerized bridge inspection management systems. Yet, more is needed. 

As these initiatives advance, it is essential that FHWA, as part 

of its overall risk management process, ensure that its State division offices are conducting rigorous and thorough assessments of 

potential risks related to load-rating and posting practices. As 

high-risk areas are identified, the agency must quickly follow up 

and ensure that actions to mitigate these risks are taken without 

delay. 

In addition, FHWA needs to reexamine the responsibilities and 

time constraints of its division office bridge engineers. In many 

cases, we found that the time that these engineers devote to bridge 

oversight is limited. For example, an engineer in one large State 

said that he spends only about 15 percent of his time on bridge inspections. The rest goes to other duties. 

Third, FHWA can immediately take action to strengthen the 

bridge inspection program. The agency needs to be more aggressive 

as it moves forward. The success of its initiatives rests with its 52 

division offices, and FHWA will have to monitor their progress 

closely. Actions that FHWA can begin to take now include, first, finalize and distribute the revised bridge program manual to division offices as soon as possible, and ensure that bridge engineers 

make better use of existing Federal and State data during compliance reviews. 

Second, identify and target those structurally deficient bridges 

most in need of recalculation of load ratings and postings using a 

data-driven, risk-based approach. 

48 

Third, ensure that division offices conduct complete, rigorous, 

thorough assessments of potential risks associated with structurally deficient bridges, and define how they will respond to identify high-priority risks. 

Finally, our audit work on these issues will continue in a comprehensive way, focusing first on assessing the corrective actions 

that FHWA has taken in response to our March 2006 report; second, studying several aspects of Federal funding for bridge repair, 

including how effectively these funds are being used and what the 

funds are being used for; and finally, reviewing FHWA’s oversight 

activities for ensuring the safety of National Highway System 

bridges. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy 

to respond to your questions. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much for your comments, and 

your complete statement will be included in the record. 

Chairman Rosenker. 

Mr. ROSENKER. Good afternoon, Chairman Oberstar, Ranking 

Member Mica and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank 

you for allowing me the opportunity to present testimony on behalf 

of the National Transportation Safety Board. 

When transportation tragedies occur, the Safety Board helps restore the public’s confidence in our transportation systems by conducting thorough, objective investigations and making safety recommendations so similar tragedies will not happen again. 

You will recall a little over a year ago when Congress turned to 

the Safety Board to investigate the collapse of ceiling panels in the 

Big Dig tunnel in Boston because of our reputation for thorough, 

independent accident investigations. What resulted from that investigation radically changed the thinking in the highway construction industry about the long-term structural properties of epoxy in 

overhead applications. We intend to do that same thing with our 

investigation of the bridge collapse in Minneapolis; that is, find the 

cause, propose solutions and help restore public confidence. 

Forty years ago, a bridge collapsed in Point Pleasant, West Virginia, killing 46 people. As a direct result of the Board’s recommendations, the Federal Highway Administration, along with 

congressional leadership, established national bridge inspection 

standards for locating, inspecting, evaluating, and correcting bridge 

deficiencies. 

Since then, the Board has investigated every major bridge collapse in this Nation. In each case, as a result of our recommendations, improvements have been made. 

For example, after the 1983 I-95 bridge collapse into the Mianus 

River in Greenwich, Connecticut, the Federal Highway Administration established a fracture-critical inspection program. After the 

1985 Chickasaw Bogue Highway 43 bridge collapse in Mobile, Alabama, the Federal Highway Administration established an underwater bridge inspection program. After the 1987 New York Freeway bridge collapse into the Schoharie River in Amsterdam, New 

York, the Highway Administration established a scour inspection 

program. 

Now let me turn to the issue at hand, the August 1st collapse 

of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis. As you know, the Safety Board 

49 

seldom rules out any potential causes of an accident during its initial phases of an investigation until we have had the opportunity 

to thoroughly investigate all potential causes. Much of the bridge 

superstructure is still under water, so there is still considerable 

work remaining for us to determine why it collapsed. That said, let 

me tell you what we do know and, perhaps more importantly, what 

we do not know as of today. 

First, we know that the bridge was 40 years old and that it was 

considered structurally deficient because of a relatively low rating 

of its superstructure. We do not know yet whether the age or the 

condition of the bridge caused it to collapse. 

We know that the deck truss bridge design is now considered obsolete, and newer bridges no longer use this design because of the 

inherent lack of redundancy in the structure. We do not know yet 

whether the design of the bridge was a factor in its collapse. 

We know that the bridge is composed of steel beams, held together by flat gusset plates and that a failure in one of these plates 

could have catastrophic consequences. We have not yet recovered 

all of the gusset plates, but we have observed damage in some of 

the gusset plate locations that warrants further investigation. We 

do not know whether these locations represent primary or secondary failure points. 

We know that deck bridge resurfacing work was taking place at 

the time of the accident and that 287 tons of construction materials 

and equipment were on the span. We are interested in this additional loading, and we are conducting a very detailed, finite element analysis of the structure so as to understand the effect of 

loading on each component. In addition, we must complete a sequencing study to determine the earliest identifiable fracture area 

or areas. 

Finally, we know that 190 people and 110 vehicles were involved 

in the collapse; 13 people were killed and 144 persons were injured. 

More than 50 agencies initially responded to the accident, and the 

Safety Board would like to express our gratitude to all of the organizations that continue to assist the Board in this investigation, especially the Federal Highway Administration, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Minnesota State Patrol, the Minneapolis Police Department, the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Department, and also the folks, the good folks, of the United States Navy, 

whose divers were able to recover the victims that happened as a 

result of this accident. 

Also, if I can leave my script for a moment, I want to thank and 

congratulate and applaud all of the first responders and civilians 

who came to help those people. Without their help, more people 

would have died. More people would have been seriously hurt. So 

I want to thank them, Mr. Chairman, the good people from Minneapolis and Minnesota who came to help. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. If the Chairman would yield, in fact, the House 

is doing that this afternoon in a resolution sponsored by the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Ellison, in whose district the accident 

occurred. We have a resolution echoing the Chairman’s comments. 

Mr. ROSENKER. Thank you very much. It is well deserved, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

50 

Mr. ROSENKER. The Board is still in the initial phases of its investigation, and as you can see, there is still much work to be done. 

As new and significant developments occur, we will be sure to keep 

the Committee and the public informed. 

NTSB investigators are still on scene today in Minneapolis, and 

they are likely to be there until November or however long it takes 

for the critical bridge components to be recovered. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I would be 

delighted to respond to any questions. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much for your testimony, Chairman Rosenker, and for the splendid work on site of your investigative team. I had a very informative and in-depth review on my tour 

of the bridge site as soon as Congress recessed, exactly a week 

after the bridge collapsed. As always, I am greatly impressed with 

the quality of NTSB personnel. 

Mr. ROSENKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Scovel, in your testimony, you say that, while 

the Federal Highway Administration tracks bridge funding, the 

agency is unable to track how much money is spent on structurally 

deficient bridges. 

Can they do that? Is it beyond their capacity to do that? Are 

there problems? 

This is money that is going out of the Federal Highway Trust 

Fund. The FHWA ought to be able to track that money. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Mr. Chairman, there are problems with that, as you 

heard Mr. Capka testify on the previous panel. He mentioned that 

while the overall Federal funding for structurally deficient bridges 

is tracked, it cannot be tagged bridge by bridge. That requires a laborious, essentially manual process to match codes against funding 

streams; and that is very manpower- and time-intensive. 

Our staff has run into the same problem in connection with our 

March 2006 report, and it is one of the areas that we will be exploring going forward in the second phase of our overall audit 

project that we have promised for the Secretary and for the Congress. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, how then do they assign—′′they,′′ the 

States—assign bridges to the national bridge inventory system as 

structurally deficient or functionally deficient? If they cannot track 

where the money is going, how can they track which bridge is 

structurally or functionally deficient? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Well, Mr. Chairman, those bridges are identified in 

the national bridge inventory, but it is FHWA’s financial management system that is deficient in its ability readily to identify what 

funds are going to what bridges. So it is not really the bridge inventory that is posing the problem. It is really FHWA’s financial 

management system. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Twenty years ago in these hearings, we identified 

that same problem, not I, but my investigative staff did. Witnesses 

did. Mr. Molinari, who was a Member of the Investigation and 

Oversight Subcommittee, raised very serious concerns about it at 

the time. Mr. Clinger did, the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee. We raised those very same issues. Do you mean there 

has not been any progress since then? 

51 

Mr. SCOVEL. It does appear to be a problem, sir, and as I mentioned, we are running into it even as we speak. 

The first phase of our audit project will evaluate FHWA’s response to our March 2006 report. Phase two, as we promised the 

Secretary, will explore in detail Federal funding to correct structurally deficient bridges. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, in the proposal I have set forth, a key element is to evaluate all of the structurally deficient bridges and to 

prioritize their condition State by State. 

What would you recommend as methodology for the States to 

achieve that objective? If they cannot track where they are sending 

the money now, how are we going to be able to do that in the future? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Well, as you know, I am not an engineer, and I 

would have to rely on engineering expertise in order to make some 

of those decisions that you ask for. 

Our findings illustrate the value of a risk-based and data-driven 

approach, as we customarily find in many areas that we audit 

throughout the Department of Transportation where oversight is 

the key. How is progress to be monitored? How is effectiveness to 

be evaluated? How can lessons learned be shared, in this case, between the States? What works and what does not? 

That needs a risk-based and data-driven approach. We would 

rely on our engineers, I would suspect, to evaluate those and to 

identify for us those conditions on those bridges that are deemed 

to be most dangerous. That priority list can then be organized in 

that fashion. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is fair, but I would welcome your recommendations after you have had an opportunity to fully evaluate 

the proposal that I have set forth on how we achieve that vital objective. One of the issues 20 years ago and 20 years before that was 

the effectiveness of bridge inspections. 

Mr. Rosenker, the NTSB has been at the leading edge of this 

issue. A witness at our hearings in 1987 said, ′′Eyes are the best 

inspection tool.′′ Hmm. But we have Eddy-Current technology 

which is used in aviation inspections, in the inspection of hulls of 

aircraft, to detect cracks and the propagation of cracks of 25,000ths 

of an inch to see what is happening with them each time the aircraft comes in for inspection. 

The same technology is available for bridge inspection and was 

referenced 20 years ago. Ultrasound, Eddy-Current, mag particle, 

and dipenetrant technologies that were available then are still 

available now. Over-bridge snoopers that look at the underside of 

something, we simulated way back then. Yet, we find State DOTs 

with a device dragging a chain over the bridge and listening to it 

and hearing how that chain sounds on the bridge. Now, engineers 

assure me that that really works. It sounds a little like snake oil, 

but you had an opportunity, both of you, to evaluate bridge inspection technologies. 

What is missing? What are States doing/not doing? Why does a 

gusset plate fail? Why is it so hard to do an inspection on steel 

when the manual on the steel making of the United States Steel 

Corporation—the making, shaping and treating of steel—cites all of 

these technologies? 

52 

This was 35 years ago. They said, ′′Here is how you inspect the 

steel that we produce,′′ and it appears to me that States are not 

using the available technologies to determine the structural integrity of steel members on a bridge. 

Mr. ROSENKER. Sir, you are right. All of what you said is there. 

Now, as it relates to the specific investigation of the bridge in 

Minneapolis, we are going to be looking at all of the procedures. 

We are going to be looking at the technologies that were used, the 

processes that, in fact, were used to inspect that bridge. We have 

already gotten all of the reports that have been made through 

2007. We have asked now for the preceding 10 years of reports so 

that we can understand the kinds of things that were done in the 

actual inspection process and then, of course, what happened afterwards. What was done to follow up from the deficiencies that had 

been seen in the years prior? 

But all of that is under part of our investigation process right 

now, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The first element of my bridge proposal is to raise 

the standards by which we determine the structural integrity or 

the deficiency of bridges and establish a national uniform standard 

that all States can use. 

Do you think that is a useful advance on bridge safety, Mr. 

Scovel and Chairman Rosenker? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Yes, sir, I would. I would think that would be most 

useful. 

If I can refer back to our March 2006 report—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. 

Mr. SCOVEL. —and I do not mean to say that we examined this 

question in depth, but—we were primarily focused on FHWA’s 

oversight, but in reaching that step, we did examine States’ inspections of bridges, and we found at that time, and we concluded, that 

they were generally accurate, complete and adequate. 

That is not to say that there cannot be technological improvements; and I anticipate that when we get to that phase of our audit 

for the Secretary, it will comprise a comprehensive overview of the 

entire National Bridge Inspection Program, and we will be examining those points that the Chairman mentioned. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Chairman Rosenker. 

Mr. ROSENKER. We, as part of our investigation, will be taking 

a look at the standards that have been created under the national 

bridge inspection program. While the Inspector General does his 

independent investigation, we, too, will be doing a thorough, independent investigation and an assessment of those standards. If we 

believe that some of those standards are not robust enough, we will 

be making recommendations. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. I welcome that. 

These are non-cost. This is separate from any issue of trust fund 

or increase in user fee. These are things that we need to do in the 

short term and for the long term. 

Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

With your permission, I would like to defer my time and go 

ahead and move down to Mr. Baker. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Baker. 

53 

Mr. BAKER. I thank the gentleman and thank the Chairman for 

recognition. I really have more of a comment than a question of the 

current panel unless, of course, they wish to respond in some way. 

Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the timeliness and importance of this hearing and of the extreme nature of the problem in 

your State that warrants this detailed level of analysis, and I hope 

we can come to an appropriate resolution. However, with regard to 

the underlying proposal that I have reviewed and that you have 

laid out before the Committee, I wish to suggest a modest expansion of the scope of that proposal. 

Without regard to the revenue increases that may ultimately be 

considered, I think it highly appropriate we assess that need, but 

in my own State’s case, we have two unfortunate engineers who, 

every year, ride every mile of the State highway and conduct a subjective and objective rating system that results in a point-driven 

rating criteria for all construction projects contemplated that is 

subsequently reviewed at highway district level public hearings, 

which means they go around the State, which then leads to the 

construction of a program to which the legislature may not add 

projects that have not been subjected to the review process. They 

may delete a project if for some unknown reason they find it to be 

unwarranted. 

I would suggest that your type of prioritization that you have in 

mind for bridges be made applicable in a broader capacity to infrastructure generally, but that a significant component of that evaluation be the public safety. If we were to analyze bridges only, you 

would to a great extent obviate the ability to repair elevated roadways, which in my State are a significant number of miles which 

would, in essence, have the same structural deficiencies that a 

bridge would have. I do not know under the Federal definition as 

to whether an ′′overpass′′ and a ′′bridge′′ are viewed as strategically 

the same where you cross a rail with an elevated roadway, but 

those are concerns. 

Beyond that, in Louisiana, as the Chairman well knows, we have 

a number of roadways subject to significant inundation or tidal 

surge. We lost the twin spans across Lake Pontchartrain as a result of that very fact. Those factors need to be considered in determining what best serves the public interest, and I would hope, in 

going forward with the Chairman’s insightful proposal, that we 

may perhaps construct this around best serving the public safety 

of the motoring public on existing roadways, not just necessarily to 

go after increased capacity, or to do commercial development type 

things, but really focus on the significantly underfunded public 

safety issues that are across the entire transportation network. 

Lastly, we have two very high-utilization interstate corridors 

that intersect, and because of Katrina, we believe there has been 

an extraordinary influx of high-loaded 18-wheelers which have 

caused repetitive accidents and loss of life in an unparalleled frequency. Those kinds of safety issues should also be, I think, considered. 

And there are remedies. We would simply take those trucks off 

of that roadway and provide an alternate path if the road were sufficient to withstand the load. 

54 

Mr. BAKER. So I am very supportive of the Chairman’s direction 

and want to be helpful and supportive in any way that I can. I 

come to this with the view that the underlying elements of requiring the States to prioritize is absolutely essential. The disclosure 

of where those resources are spent certainly need to be made public 

at the Federal level, for the State to defend or brag as appropriate 

about the utilization of those resources. I certainly see no objective 

reason why someone would find that not to be an appropriate step, 

particularly where we may ask the motoring public to pay more for 

the service they should be able to clearly see and evaluate as the 

rate payer as to where their resources are going. So I would hope, 

Mr. Chairman, as we continue to investigate this matter, that perhaps a slightly broader view of the problem may be incorporated, 

and we can enthusiastically join together in moving something forward that would have a distinct and measurable impact on public 

safety generally. I thank the Chairman and yield back my time. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. This is why we have hearings, for issues of this 

kind to surface. 

The gentleman referring to the causeway, for example, in the vicinity of HOUMA—— 

Mr. BAKER. Yes. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. —the elevated roadway. 

To be more specific, where we have roadways which they cannot 

be built below sea level and we know that in a landfall of a major 

storm those roadways are going to be inundated, it may not be financially viable to elevate, but there may be alternative routes provided to get people out. Because what we saw in the contra flow 

between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, where thousands of people 

sitting in vehicles running out of gas with nowhere to go and no 

alternative to get off the interstate, they were literally locked 

where they were, those are the public safety issues which should 

be folded into our evaluation. If there is a way to do it, great; if 

not, we explored it, and we tried, and there is no alternative. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I think there is a compelling case to be made, as 

the gentleman has outlined. Having driven over those causeways, 

those elevated structures, I certainly concur. What we learned in 

the hearings of 20 years ago was that scouring of bridge piers is 

the single most important threat to bridge integrity; and you have 

that in spades when you have storm surge, which often is more 

powerful and more damaging than wind damage of hurricanes. 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I certainly concur in that. 

Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Just following up on that line of thought, first, Mr. 

Rosenker, on the daily fatalities which you mentioned in page 1 of 

your testimony, basically we are looking at 120 people a day dying 

on our highways. Now in the testimony from the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce they would attribute a third of those deaths to poorly 

maintained roads. I assume—I have to ask them whether they 

mean functional obsolescence, dangerous or poorly maintained. Do 

you have any data of that aspect? 

Mr. ROSENKER. No, other than a third of them are alcohol related. 

55 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. You can certainly have a—in this case, we 

have something unexpected and so dramatic in terms of the bridge 

and the immediate loss of 13 lives is an extraordinary event that 

causes us to rethink a lot of what we are doing. But you also look 

at 120 people a day. For those individuals and their families it is 

an unexpected event. It does not get the media attention because 

they were not all in one place at one time and it was not as spectacular. 

I guess what I am getting at here is the broader focus that the 

gentleman at the other end of the aisle raised, Mr. Baker raised, 

other things that really go to critical safety issues. 

It seems to me in the case of bridges functional obsolescence may 

be leading to loss of life. You do not have merge lanes and things 

like that on an incremental basis that we have come to accept 

which we do not need to accept. I’m trying to get at all the underinvestment and all the needs, but you do not have any fix on that 

right now so—— 

Mr. ROSENKER. Mr. DeFazio there are 7 million accidents that 

occur a year, 3 million injuries and the 43,000 or so that die every 

year. We have begun to look at things at the NTSB as preventive 

measures. Mitigation has been done fairly well; and I must applaud 

the work of the Congress, NHTSA and the Department of Transportation in mitigating by making better, stronger automobiles, the 

safety belt use laws that are in our State, both primary and secondary, the air bags in our automobiles and now NHTSA’s most recent regulation dealing with rollover electronic stability control and 

rollover mitigation being a requirement by 2012. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. We have been doing substantial progress in the 

capsules with which we travel, but the lack of investment and what 

may be causing those accidents to happen where you might be in 

a safer car today but still there are fatalities, so anything you could 

provide that would address the idea of how much functional obsolescence contributes to the problem also would be of interest to me 

as we address—— 

Mr. ROSENKER. I do not think we have done that type of work. 

It normally comes from the direct result of an accident. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Maybe it is something we could get from the very 

State. 

Again, in relation to the gentleman from Louisiana, we do not 

have the hurricane problem, but we have the earthquake problem, 

which could also, obviously, where a bridge is not earthquake proof 

can cause—we had the California instance and luckily it was at a 

time of day when—I mean, a number of people died, but it could 

have been a lot worse in terms of the collapse of the overpasses. 

Again, if we are looking at preventative things, I think that is 

something else that we need to look at in the bridge program. How 

many of—in earthquake-prone States, how many of these bridges 

have been upgraded for that? 

Mr. Scovel, the Secretary made a point of talking about how people should not be alarmed at all if bridges are rated as deficient; 

and I guess I find the gross scale rating not to be tremendously 

helpful. I understand there is a more detailed way of rating. But 

when you look at saying, okay, you are going to four and below on 

a scale of 10 is structurally deficient if it applies to one or more 

56 

of three components of the bridge—you’ve got superstructure, surface, substructure. 

Now I can understand why you would be concerned about surface 

in terms of puddles, travel and accidents and/or long-term problems 

with the bridge because of infiltration if the deck is bad. But it 

seems to me in the short term the most critical factor is for structural deficiency. Either go to supporting superstructure or substructure of the bridge, do they not? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Again, I am not an engineer. My staff has not had 

an opportunity to examine that in detail. A layman’s opinion would 

be to agree. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. In looking at it I don’t quite agree with the 

Secretary that people should not be concerned to hear that this has 

been a—because when I read 4, which is the highest of—the best 

of the structurally deficient, it says advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour. That does not sound good to me. Then we 

get down to 3, loss of section, deterioration, spalling or scouring, serious effect of the primary structural components. Local failures 

are possible, fatigue cracking and steel or sheer cracks in concrete 

may be present. 

Again, I think the traveling public should have some concerns, 

so I hope in reviewing the criteria you dig into, so to speak, these— 

what things we are rating and which present, like decking, longterm problems that you want to deal with, it is serious, but which 

present immediate problems of potential failure and have it look toward a different rating scale in the future. 

Mr. SCOVEL. We will, sir. That is one of the areas the Secretary 

has asked us to look into. 

Another slant on your question perhaps might be whether the 

American traveling public has the information it needs to make decisions regarding their travel, particularly over structurally deficient bridges. The term ′′structurally deficient′′ raises a red flag in 

the minds of many laymen. Hearings like this, reports like those 

prepared by my staff last year, and our upcoming reports, certainly 

the NTSB’s report and investigation into—specifically into the 35W 

collapse, all of those are important in getting information to the 

American public. But I would suggest that a key element ought to 

be greater visibility, transparency, accessibility through FHWA 

data to the American public. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I think that is an excellent suggestion. In fact, we 

might post every bridge. The bridge ahead is rated 4 on a scale of 

1 to 10, it is structurally deficient, and this is your last opportunity 

to exit before you reach that bridge. I mean, it is a little bit humorous, but it isn’t, really. People do not know. People are driving over 

a bridge—I mean, on their way home, on their way to a ball 

game—— 

Mr. SCOVEL. You are right. What they encounter—if I may—oftentimes they will encounter a load posting, 10 tons, 15 tons; and 

that does not really register with, I think, the American public that 

what they are encountering is a structurally deficient bridge that 

has safety problems. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. They think it was built that way, not built actually 

for 40 tons and we have downgraded it to 10 because it has some 

real problems. 

57 

Mr. SCOVEL. Right. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I think education would both help us as policymakers in terms of generating public support for the investment 

we need, but I think it is something consumers deserve. We have— 

on the Oregon coast now, we have posted all these signs that you 

are now driving through Tsunami area and expect people to become familiar with what they might do if there was a Tsunami and 

every motel room has little directions of where to go and how to 

go and all those things. I am not saying we have to go that far with 

bridges, but I think we need certainly need a higher level of understanding on the part of the American people, and I applaud 

you—— 

Mr. SCOVEL. Agreed. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. —for whatever you might be able to do. 

One last question if I could, Mr. Chairman. The staff prepared 

a question where they say there was a study from FHWA in 2001 

talking about the visual inspection, and they found in this study 

only 4 percent of the inspectors could correctly identify fatigue 

cracks, and many identified non-existent problems. Are you familiar with that study? 

Mr. SCOVEL. I am not. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I would urge your folks to be in touch with ours 

and see if you can find that. Because that goes to the issue raised 

by the Chairman about these kind of primitive methods that are 

being used. 

Again, in Oregon we do not know until one very alert bridge inspector found a number of stress cracks in our cast-in-place concrete bridges on Interstate 5 that we were experiencing virtual simultaneous failure of a large percentage of the bridges on our system because we used a pre-1960 form of construction. And no one 

knew that it would lead to these sorts of failures in a relatively 

short period of time almost simultaneously, but one very alert inspector found that. We want to give people the tools so this does 

not take one really good inspector to discover it. Obviously, it had 

been going on elsewhere and on some of these other bridges, but 

this one guy found it. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Right. Our comprehensive review of the bridge inspection program will tackle just that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. As always, the Chairman is on the right track. 

Before I recognize Mr. Shuster I just want to make two heartbreaking observations. One, our colleague, Paul Gillmor, was found 

dead in his apartment this morning. It touches me very much because Paul and I left the Rayburn building at the same time last 

night. He drove one car length ahead of me. 

And Jennifer Dunn, a former Member of this Committee who 

served on the Ways and Means Committee and retired from Congress, collapsed yesterday. 

Mr. Boozman just passed that information to me. We keep them, 

their families and loved ones in our prayers. 

Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

58 

I first want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. DeFazio 

on the ratings that we use, especially for the general public. You 

know, when you say structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, 

it sounds terrible. And in some cases it is terrible and in some 

cases it is not quite as bad. So I would encourage us as we move 

forward to try to figure out a way to give it a pinpoint to be better 

to rate these bridges so, as Mr. DeFazio said, the traveling public, 

the public at large knows what the bridge is like and so the political will back in our States is raised to say we need the funding, 

we need to divert the funding or fix this bridge or replace this 

bridge. Because, as I said, to me it is confusing and, in some cases, 

alarming. 

The question—and we talked a lot about the bridge inspections, 

the safety, the Federal, State and local working together. Where is 

that coordinated and who is charged with the responsibility of coordinating all of that so that we don’t miss things, we don’t have 

lapses? 

Mr. SCOVEL. That is a Federal Highways Administration responsibility, sir. There are 52 offices, one in each State, the District of 

Columbia and Puerto Rico. Each of those division offices has an individual designated the bridge engineer. That is his or her title. In 

larger States, he or she is supported by staff as well. 

Our finding—and it is outlined in our statement for the Committee today—however, is that those bridge engineers, to include 

their staff, are stretched very thin. We were told by one bridge engineer in a large State with a very large number of bridges that 

he was able to spend only 15 percent of his time on bridge oversight and inspection duties. Given the magnitude of the problem, 

a reprioritization by FHWA would seem to be in order. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Is that something that we can rate States on their 

safety, that there are enough people in place to spend enough time? 

Is that something we rate? 

Mr. SCOVEL. FHWA does do that as well. My recollection is that 

generally across the board nationwide FHWA is pleased with the 

State inspection efforts. In fact, my own engineers when we conducted our March, 2006, study found the same thing. At the State 

level, inspections were done properly and accurately. 

Where we took issue was with FHWA’s oversight, what it did 

with the data that was turned over to it by the States. And we 

made a number of recommendations to FHWA, and that led to 

really our overall conclusion that a risk-based, data-driven approach to measure the process would be most beneficial. 

Mr. SHUSTER. You feel comfortable and confident with the inspections and the repairs that you’ve seen going on across the board? 

Mr. SCOVEL. At this point. But that will be another item for comprehensive review that we owe the Secretary. We will be completing that sometime next year. 

Mr. SHUSTER. What tools or abilities does the FHWA have to encourage States to tackle these deficient bridges? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Very few in terms of a carrot or a stick, I guess. 

There is goodwill, there is jaw boning, there are the personal relationships established State by State through the division bridge engineers and their State counterparts. 

59 

FHWA has little control, if any, over where States currently 

spend their money. As you know, State can flex funds out of 

bridges and into other programs, sometimes from other programs 

back into bridges. We would encourage FHWA, if it has serious 

misgivings about a State approach, to raise it at the Federal level, 

certainly with you and Congress and the Secretary of Transportation, in order to bring visibility to what may be a serious problem. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I see my time is running short. 

I have a question for Mr. Rosenker. While you are doing an investigation in Minnesota, what is the typical time frame? I know 

it depends on the size. When do you expect to have a finding on 

the Minnesota bridge collapse? 

Mr. ROSENKER. That is a question that I get on every single one 

of my accidents. This is not unique. I wish I could give you a finite 

time, how long it will take for us to understand what happened, 

do the full analysis to guarantee that our findings are correct and 

write that report. I am hoping that we can do this within 12 to 14 

months. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROSENKER. With that said, if we find any glaring safety 

issues, we will make urgent recommendations to the appropriate 

authorities, whether it be at the Federal or State or local level. 

Mr. SHUSTER. If you know there is something that fails and there 

are a thousand other bridges you will make that recommendation. 

Mr. ROSENKER. Immediately, sir. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The question and response is appropriate. 

The NTSB in its classic performance reveals information as the 

investigation proceeds and shares that information. But, in this 

case, there are 740 some bridges built at the same time, under the 

same structural conditions as the I-35W bridge. Any significant 

finding is of great national importance because it will apply to the 

other structurally deficient bridges. 

Mr. SHUSTER. A question. Did not the Secretary of Transportation order those 700 so bridges to be immediately inspected? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The Federal Highway Administration was directed to step up its oversight of State review of those bridges. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Altmire. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the Chairman. 

We all have stories to tell on these issues with our districts and 

with our State. We heard from Mr. Baker about Louisiana and certainly the troubles that they have had. The Chairman certainly 

knows in his own State recently what can happen. 

Mr. Shuster and I both know in Pennsylvania we have the highest number of structurally deficient bridges in the entire country. 

Our own State Department of Transportation classifies 6,000 of our 

more than 25,000 bridges to be structurally deficient, including 800 

that are in need of outright replacement. The average age of these 

bridges is 50 years old, and in the six counties that I represent in 

South Western Pennsylvania many are over 100 years old. It is not 

uncommon. 

60 

The number of structurally deficient bridges in the six counties 

in my district which has over a thousand bridges in the district, we 

have 29 with sufficiency ratings on a zero to 100 scale that are 10 

or below. We have 566 just in my district that are rated at 50 or 

below. 

Insufficiency ratings, as you know, of 50 or below qualify a 

bridge for Federal funding and require the regular inspections that 

we are talking about today. 

Two of the bridges in my district, the Koppel Bridge and the 

Rochester Beaver Bridge, are steel truss bridges of similar design 

to the I-35W span. And in particular the Koppel Bridge, which carries Route 151 over the Beaver River in north Sewickley and Beaver County, was constructed in 1915 and has a current sufficiency 

rating of 8 out of 100. 

So as the State with the most structurally deficient bridges there 

is no shortage of examples in Pennsylvania or even in my district 

of bridges that are in dire need of rehabilitation, repair or even replacement. In total, the State estimates it will take $11 billion required to update the 6,000 plus structurally deficient bridges. 

So I just want to say, to start, that certainly Mr. Shuster and I 

are more than passive observers coming from the State which has 

the biggest problem of any State in the country. 

I would look forward to working with the panel and the Secretary in moving forward and want to be active in resolving these 

issues, and we do need to find a revenue stream do that. The 

Chairman has been a leader in that, and I want to offer my assistance in moving forward in that way. 

The question that I have on that zero to 100 scale, we talked 

about bridges in my district that are in the single digits. I know 

you touched on this briefly earlier. It would seem to me if you are 

in the single digits on a zero to 100 scale, that is by definition pretty low. So at what point, as Mr. DeFazio talked about, does the 

driver need to give a second thought when they are crossing these 

bridges? When you hear that low of a rating, what does that mean 

when you are at 8 on a scale of 100? 

Mr. SCOVEL. If I knew about it and were a driver in your congressional district, I would be very concerned driving over bridges 

of that low a sufficiency rating. 

That said, assuming your State inspection program is adequate 

and working properly and those bridges have been inspected on the 

required schedule and load ratings have been properly calculated 

as required, the decision as to posting has been addressed, if it is 

not posted, then a driver should be able to assume that the State’s 

load for that highway can be supported through and over that 

bridge. 

Those are a series of assumptions, but based strictly on the fact 

that there is a low sufficiency rating to begin with, I would be concerned. If I were a taxpayer, I would like to see it addressed. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. How confident are you at the U.S. Department of 

Transportation that the States in general are doing their job on 

that issue? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Based on our review that led to our 2006 report, we 

are confident. Pennsylvania was not one of the States we examined 

in detail. Those were Massachusetts, New York and Texas. HowVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:02 May 18, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37652.TXT JASON
61 

ever, based on the data that we turned up in those three States— 

and, again, we were focused primarily on FHWA oversight—it gave 

us concern, however. So we expanded our survey nationwide, and 

through statistical sampling we did reach bridges in Pennsylvania 

as well as every other State and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as well. Again, we found throughout that State inspections 

generally were adequate and accurate. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the panel, and I thank the Chairman. I 

want to be actively involved in this moving forward, and I look forward to working with you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank the gentleman, and we certainly will engage and enlist his support. 

Mrs. Capito. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 

panel. 

I would like to say my colleague from Pennsylvania referenced 

that everyone has a personal story. Well, that bridge that fell in 

1967 was in West Virginia, the Silver Bridge in my district. I was 

not representing the district then, but I am sure the Chairman was 

around at that time. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I was on the staff at the time, yes. 

Mrs. CAPITO. I thought that was a safe bet. 

When the tragedy occurred in August, those folks in West Virginia had a great deal of sympathy and empathy. It is a pain that 

never really goes away from a small community particularly, as in 

the case of Point Pleasant. 

I am pleased to know that was the precipitating event to then 

go forward with more detail and more precise ways of inspection 

and safety. 

Quick question to make sure I understand this. When you talk 

about structurally deficient bridges, does the State set the priority 

for where those dollars goes or is that done in conjunction with the 

Federal Highway Administration? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Currently, the State accepts those priorities. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Let me ask you this. This is kind of—I do not know 

if this is a ′′gotcha′′ question for somebody. When the Federal highway dollars come down through the State and the State is setting 

the priorities for bridge reconstruction or bridge inspection, is there 

a competition for dollars in terms of new construction, maintenance 

dollars and then the bridge dollars? 

Mr. SCOVEL. My office has not examined that in detail. It certainly assumed, I think, that new construction is often more attractive for a number of reasons, as opposed to rehabilitation or extensive repair work on existing bridges. 

Mrs. CAPITO. You stated earlier you really cannot say with much 

detail how much of the Federal dollars are being spent on what 

particular structure for reconstruction or repair. 

Mr. SCOVEL. That is true. For structurally deficient bridges in 

the Federal system, we have not been able readily—as Administrator Capka and I spoke to earlier, we can’t readily track the dollars that may or may not be reaching those bridges without a very 

laborious process. 

Mrs. CAPITO. So I would be safe to assume that the pile of Federal dollars that the State is using for Federal either construction, 

62 

rehabilitation or working on bridges is a little fuzzy math sometimes that we are relying on. 

Mr. SCOVEL. It can be, yes. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Is that part of your report? 

Mr. SCOVEL. We will be looking at the Federal funding of 

bridges, both, as I mentioned, how we are able to track that, if we 

can, and what recommendations we can make for improvement 

there. But also the uses to which States put those Federal dollars, 

how effectively and how efficiently those are made. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Two other kind of quick questions. 

We have heard a lot about—I think Congressman Baker mentioned that there are two bridge inspectors that go all through Louisiana. Would you think this is something we should look at in 

terms of legislation, would be providing funding for more inspectors? And I worry, too, also about the level of engineering expertise 

that bridge inspectors are—I am sure they have continuous study 

and updating, but is this part of what your study would include? 

Mr. SCOVEL. We will. But I’d like to say again that inspections 

are a State responsibility. Our focus has been on FHWA. Primarily, 

our concern has been on the bridge engineers for each individual 

office and the amount of oversight they have been able to bring to 

the bridge inspection oversight program. 

Mrs. CAPITO. My final question. Certainly going forward you 

mentioned, Mr. Rosenker, that the construction of the Minnesota 

bridge was of a particular type that might have ongoing questions 

of 300 some other bridges built of the same construction. In your 

history of investigating accidents of this kind, what kind of impact 

has it had on further construction and going forward trying to 

avoid these circumstances? 

Mr. ROSENKER. When we talk about construction issues, a la the 

Big Dig, we change the thought process as it is related to the epoxy 

process and utilizing it in overhead panels. Each time we do one 

of these significant accidents, whether it be at a construction type 

of a scenario or whether it is a major aircraft disaster or a railroad 

disaster, what we come up with—because these are unique accidents for the most part, are very unique. But we see some, in many 

cases, some general information that has not been understood before. And when we learn that, through our investigations, we either 

put it out in an urgent recommendation or at the end put it out 

as a full recommendation for regulatory change and operating 

change and manufacturing change. 

In the previous four accidents that I discovered, each one of those 

represented an improvement to the way that we look at inspections 

and design, and most of that goes to the Federal Highway Administration. The first one as a result of that catastrophic accident in ’67 

resulted with the good work of the Congress in creating the National Bridge Inspection Program. I believe the Chairman may 

have been on staff to help create that good work. 

Mrs. CAPITO. I thank you both. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank the gentlewoman for her observations. 

The hearing I cited was on the 20th anniversary of the Silver 

Bridge collapse. The hearing held December 1st and 2nd of 1967— 

1987, it was on the 20th anniversary of ’67 of that bridge collapse, 

and we are reliving some of the issues raised in that hearing that 

63 

were not sufficiently addressed. So what we are also reliving is the 

continuing saga of transfers out of the bridge fund by States to 

their National Highway System and Surface Transportation Programs. 

The States asked for flexibility. We provided flexibility for the 

States to shift dollars around on those various categories of funding. It is not 60 categories as the Secretary said, which I contested 

earlier today. It is more like 36 categories of funding. It used to be 

60. We whittled those down in ISTEA and TEA-21 to 36 categories 

of funding and gave States flexibility. 

Look what has happened in the last 10 years: $4,700,000,000 has 

been shifted by States out of the bridge fund to their NHS and Surface Transportation Programs. In the case of West Virginia, it adds 

up to $39 million. In the case of Pennsylvania, the largest amount 

was $1,950,000,000 they transferred over that decade, plus 10, 15 

years of their bridge money to other needs. 

Well, we gave States that flexibility. But then you have a bridge 

collapse, and it focuses all that attention again. And the issue is 

not Member High Priority Projects, it is what the States are doing 

with their money allocated to them under the Highway Trust 

Fund. 

A uniform, consistent approach to inspections, frequency of inspections, shifting from 2 years to 1 year would be of benefit, which 

I know both of you have cited, which is in my bill. Uniform standards to show the data submitted and included in the national 

bridge inventory is consistent among States will lead to a datadriven, performance-based program. 

Those are the key elements of Title I of the proposition I have 

set forth. 

Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Can I just say, first of all, I very much support 

Mr. Oberstar’s effort to provide leadership in this so important 

area and is doing a tremendous job in that way. 

I guess my fear as I was listening to the discussion, many of the 

Members voiced support for prioritization program, which makes 

sense. We have a limited amount of resources, and I guess my concern is if we had a prioritization plan in effect I do not know where 

this bridge would fall. I suspect it would be fairly low or in the 

middle in the priorities. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania talked about the very low ratings on many bridges, so what I would like to know is, what are 

you all saying? In a sense, the process has broken down as far as 

the inspection. In this, we are not talking about a lot of money. It 

might be the methodology or whatever that we are doing in the 

sense this bridge, because it failed, should have been at 100 percent but was much lower on the scale. 

So you mention putting all the materials on the bridge. I had a 

friend who reroofed his house, and they stacked all the shingles on 

one corner of his house, and it caved in that area. Because of that, 

is that knowledge going out through the system right now that we 

are not doing that? Do we have that in place? Those are the kinds 

of things I would like for to you comment on. 

Again, the preliminary things that we are saying, I hope that 

somehow there is—I know that your investigation will go forward, 

64 

but I would hope we have some way as these things start to come 

up that we do not have a bunch of material stacked on a bridge 

similar to this one. 

Mr. ROSENKER. Thank you. As a result of what we learned and 

what we saw on that bridge, the Secretary of Transportation put 

out an advisory to be sensitive to the maintenance workers, State 

inspectors, the State Departments of Transportation. When you are 

bringing materials on to a bridge, be careful how you distribute the 

loads. 

We do not know yet for a fact that this was the cause, but it is 

clearly an area that we have a good deal of interest in, along with 

the design of the bridge. Forty years ago, that bridge was designed. 

What we’re looking at, did the construction adhere to the design? 

Were the materials specified to the right design capability? 

We are looking at calculations that were made when they designed that bridge. We have the original plans. We are checking 

those calculations to be sure they were done properly to hold loads. 

Then, of course, we are looking at the materials themselves. 

When I say ′′the material′′—the construction material, the actual 

gusset plates, the actual bars, the actual girders, much of which is 

still under water and we are trying to recover. 

So when we are able to pull all of those materials up and we can 

do a visual and ultimately a very granular type of examination, we 

will learn a great deal if it was an issue of aging infrastructure or 

if it was an issue of something other than aging infrastructure— 

poor design, load concentration or a combination of factors. 

But that is the problem we get when we begin—we try to be as 

open as we possibly can when we talk about what we have learned, 

but sometimes it takes us down areas that never pan out and 

sometimes it does. But what we do not want is to jump to conclusions. The answer that we ultimately will give you will be the right 

answer. It will be one that has been tested and we can guarantee 

with a great deal of confidence that is what caused the bridge to 

fail. Other things then faused the failure as secondary issues, but 

what was the real cause? We will learn that as we go through this 

investigation. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, what caused it to be number 50 rather than 99 or 100, 

that is kind of an underlying thing. 

Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman’s point is well taken. That is why 

we have crafted this legislation, to raise the standards by which 

bridges are evaluated on deficiency, structural, functional, and in 

the case of this legislation structurally deficiency. So there is a national uniform standard State by State. The standards vary, as we 

said today. 

Secondly, to have a priority rating system that will be established to those new, higher standards and have that priority rating 

system evaluated by the National Academy of Sciences so that we 

know it is a valid rating system. That is what we will attempt to 

accomplish. 

I thank the panel for their contributions, very grateful for your 

time before us today. Thank you. 

65 

We will proceed to Panel III: the Honorable R.T. Rybak, the 

Mayor of the City of Minneapolis, and Kathleen Novak, Mayor of 

the City of Northglenn, Colorado. 

I would observe that our Committee colleague, Mr. Walz, is now 

on the floor managing the bill reported from Committee to honor 

the first responders; and our entire Minnesota delegation, minus 

this Member, are on the floor paying their tributes to those who 

responded with such alacrity and skill. 

I might observe the Mayor of Minneapolis, our witness today, 

had the foresight to engage the city and the Metropolitan Council 

in a dry run in emergency response to just such a tragedy; and that 

was the principal reason those first responders were able to do 

what they did so effectively and so efficiently. 

I thank both of you for being here today. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE R.T. RYBAK, CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, MAYOR, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA; AND THE 

HONORABLE KATHLEEN NOVAK, CITY OF NORTHGLENN, 

MAYOR, NORTHGLENN, COLORADO 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mayor Rybak. 

Mr. RYBEK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It is an honor to 

be here to speak on this topic, and it is an honor in general to be 

before your Committee. You have done remarkable work. 

We especially want to thank the Committee and all the Congress 

for the swift response we had in addressing the emergency funding 

that was required in this situation and will obviously need to continue to work with you on that. 

I wanted to share with you a few thoughts I had about the situation in Minneapolis and the implications of what this Committee 

now faces as you move forward. As you do that, I want us to step 

back from this a moment and stop and think that every day in 

Minneapolis and certainly in the United States of America there 

are millions of us who cross paths without really seeing who the 

other person really is. We may cross on a sidewalk or in a shopping 

mall and not stop and look someone in the eye. We may be on a 

busy freeway and not see who is behind the wheel of that other car 

speeding by. We live in the same places, but rarely do we really 

stop and think who the other person really is. 

And then something happens. There is that moment, that realization when something occurs that you look up from your daily life 

and recognize we are all really in one place. That, of course, happened tragically in the City of Minneapolis on August 1st at 6:05. 

At that moment, there were many people moving in different directions. 

There was an amateur baseball player, who was heading home 

to his wife and two young kids. 

There was an insurance marketing director, whose husband and 

two daughters had dinner on the table. 

There was an immigrant from Cambodia, a nursing student who 

was pregnant at the time. 

There was another immigrant who was there with her son with 

Down’s Syndrome. They were inseparable, in fact, even in their 

death. 

66 

There was a vegetable salesman from Mexico, whose family is 

now spread across two different continents. 

There was a missionary who worked in the computer field. There 

was a construction worker who loved ice fishing and peach pie. All 

of them and six others are gone. 

There were many others who injured, some of them very, very seriously. 

Thankfully, there were some on that bridge who survived, including a school bus filled with children. All these separate lives lived 

very separately are now forever tragically woven together. 

It is at moments like that that we recognize we really are not 

all that separate after all, because all of us inhabit common 

ground. I say that because the notion of common ground should 

have certain resonance for those of us who are in public service, because we are the providers of that common ground. Roads and 

bridges are common ground and so are all the other things that we 

provide service for, here in the Congress and here in the city hall 

of Minneapolis, roads and bridges, garbage collection, public water, 

the common ground for the common good. That is what we do for 

a living. 

There are rules as stewards of the common ground. I believe 

there is a certain message that comes out of the tragedy in Minneapolis, and it is a message that I hope you take closely to you 

as you go forward in this work. The message is this. When we invest in quality government, we get quality results. When we do not 

invest, there are consequences. 

In Minneapolis, we have invested in public safety and emergency 

response. Over the past 5 years, we have invested in a strong partnership with the Federal government, more that $50 million in 

emergency preparedness. We did, as you referenced earlier, do a 

mock drill, a 3-day training for disaster in the City of Minneapolis. 

We trained for that 4 years ago. We learned from that. We purchased equipment on that, we trained for that, and because of that 

training and because of that investment we provided a quality response. This was a horrendous tragedy, but because we invested 

wisely we prevented it from being far worse. 

When you invest in quality government, you get quality results. 

When you do not invest, there are consequences. 

It is clear in my City of Minneapolis and my State of Minnesota 

and in the United States of America, we have dramatically underinvested in transportation. We do not fully know why this bridge 

collapsed, but we do know several things. 

We know that the most recent inspection of that bridge in June 

of 2006 showed some cracking and fatigue problems. The bridge 

had a sufficiency rating of 50 percent, which was referenced this 

morning, which is certainly a percentage that should merit great 

alarm. In December of 2006, the bridge was supposed to have undergone a $1.5 million steel reinforcement project that was delayed 

by the Department of Transportation, and they chose instead to 

move to inspections. Decisions like that are being made in Minnesota and all across this country as Departments of Transportation wrestle with underinvestment in transportation. 

When you do not invest in public infrastructure, there are consequences. I say this as a Mayor of a city that is reacting to a disVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:02 May 18, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37652.TXT JASON
67 

aster that was not an act of God. It was failure of man. For some 

time, we have known that our rates of investment are falling far, 

far behind. 

I say that also as a representative of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Because mayors around the country understand this. Mayors 

from my conference have been before this group during the debate 

on SAFETEA-LU. At that time, we supported the congressional efforts to increase the Federal gas tax to extend the Federal commitments and to put more money into infrastructure. We mayors were 

also here last month when this Congress looked at the transportation-related initiative included in the energy legislation, and 

again we supported the idea of increased investment in the infrastructure. 

Now as we start the debate today I would like to draw your attention to some of the issues that are leading to underfunding of 

some of the local priorities. Mayors across this country know that 

States, including my own, are underinvesting in transportation 

with new revenue. I think, as we were just hearing referenced, 

there has been also great concern that funds for issues like bridges 

have been diverted to other situations. 

When people are struggling for money, they will do desperate 

things. When you see that happen, mayors around the country recognize that there are investments being postponed. We understand 

there is no free lunch. Every day we face those challenges in our 

cities. Look at what happened in Minnesota. 

We really need to be honest about what happens when you 

underinvest in transportation. In Minnesota, people are driving 

more; and that is putting more pressure on our roads. Today, in 

Minnesota, we are spending 31 percent less per vehicle on transportation than we did in 1975. As a result, our roads are dramatically more congested than 5 years ago. The average driver in the 

Minneapolis-St. Paul region spends a full workweek stuck in traffic 

every single year. 

It is not like we do not know how to get out of this. We have 

a good plan. But the problem is that it has been dramatically underfunded, and we need both capital for that program and also 

money for maintenance. To give you an idea of the gap, the cost 

of catching up right now is estimated to be $19 billion for Minnesota over the next 20 years. 

We need to make a dramatic new investment in transportation, 

and clearly we need to make a dramatic new investment in maintaining our existing infrastructure. We simply cannot choose between the two. This is why I am strongly in support of Congressman Oberstar’s proposal to have a Federal gas tax to temporarily 

address these issues around the country. I am also in support of 

a gas tax in the State of Minnesota and have looked at the idea 

of regional sales taxes for pay for transit in the metropolitan area 

of Minneapolis-St. Paul. 

No one wants to sit before Congress or anywhere and advocate 

more taxes in the State or in my city. Yet it strikes me we pay now 

or pay later. We can invest now in the transit solutions that we 

know are going to lessen our dependence on foreign oil or we can 

watch as gas prices continue to skyrocket further and further 

ahead as we become more dependent on foreign oil. Pay now or pay 

68 

later. We can invest now in maintaining the transportation infrastructure we have or we can pay much more later as the issues 

grow further and further and become more and more dangerous. As 

we understand in Minneapolis, paying on the issue of transportation infrastructure can mean much more than dollars alone. 

When you invest in quality transportation, you get quality results. Let me give you two quick examples as I come to conclusion 

here. 

In 2004, the Hiawatha Light Rail Line was built in the City of 

Minneapolis connecting the downtown area with the airport and 

the Mall of America. Today, over 19,000 people ride that line. We 

have reduced congestion, we have built 5,400 housing units along 

that line, and we have seen $1.5 billion of investment along that 

line. The only problem is the State’s dramatic underfunding of 

transportation means we will probably only build a line about 

every 20 years. We are falling dramatically behind. 

In contrast, look at Denver. In November, 2006, Denver opened 

its newest light rail line in the southwest corridor; and their total 

investment now is $879 million. That is resulting in a 19-mile line 

that has generated $4.25 billion, which is really not a bad rate of 

return. They are able to do that because Denver, unlike my State, 

passed a regional sales tax that is putting $4.7 billion into that 

program. If you invest in quality transportation, you will get quality results. 

I want to finish by telling you a story about my experience yesterday as I went to meet the students of Oxford College as they 

opened their year. I welcomed them to the campus, and a girl 

walked up to me afterwards. She introduced me. I met her earlier 

at the funeral of her mother. Her mother was one of the people who 

died on that bridge that day. I told her where I was coming today, 

and I said I will try to do everything I can to convince them that 

this should never happen again. 

But I want us to think about that girl as she starts college. I 

want you to think about her sister, who knew that before the tragedy her mother was taking down all sorts of information about how 

to plan the wedding. That girl will graduate from college. That girl 

will go to the wedding. Their mother will not be there. 

It was not an act of God, it was a failure of man, and it was a 

failure of our ability to invest in basic core infrastructure. I hope 

we can think about that; and I hope we can think, as members of 

the generation that we are, the generation that was given an Interstate Highway System, and look at ourselves now as a generation 

that has left billions of dollars more to be invested and wonder if 

we can look that girl in the eye and answer the question, whether 

we can say we have done all that we can. 

I say, as a person who represents a city who was gone through 

a tremendous tragedy where lives have been broken, that we need 

to step up and take that action. I call on Congress to follow your 

lead, Congressman Oberstar, to make sure that that girl gets the 

justice that is deserved to her. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very, very much, Mayor, for that powerful testimony, that compelling image of that young woman who 

will have to face the future without her mother. 

69 

I lost my wife to breast cancer. Our three daughters have had 

to face that situation. I know how heavy that is, how heavy a burden it is. But when it occurs, a force that could have been controlled, it is all that more painful. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We have 5 minutes remaining on this. Mayor 

Novak, I will let you begin, but I think we may have to recess before you complete. 

Ms. NOVAK. Thank you. I understand. 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. 

I am Kathy Novak, Mayor of Northglenn, Colorado; and I am here 

on behalf of the National League of Cities, the oldest and largest 

organization representing local elected officials in America’s cities 

and towns. 

I appreciate the opportunity to present the views of local elected 

officials on the state of our Nation’s bridges and our transportation 

infrastructure in general. We appreciate the leadership of this 

Committee in protecting our Nation’s infrastructure, from water resources to bridge, highways and our transit and aviation system. 

This Committee has demonstrated your commitment to our Nation’s economy, environment and quality of life. 

As our transportation infrastructure shows its age, local elected 

officials want to work with you on a new commitment to rebuilding 

a robust and safe infrastructure that both serves our communities 

and keeps our economies moving. Under President Eisenhower’s 

leadership, this country created a national transportation system 

that has become the backbone of our Nation’s development from 

coast to coast and spurred unparalleled economic growth in our cities and towns, where today seven out of every ten residents live in 

cities in America. 

The tragedy in Minneapolis reminds us that investment in our 

transportation system cannot be assigned for the future. Maintenance and continuous improvements requires a renewed financial 

commitment at all levels of government and a long-term, comprehensive national plan for the future. 

Our transportation system, built to maintain through an innovative Federal, State and local government partnership and the private sector, continues to be and may now more than ever be the 

key to our Nation’s economic growth, business competitiveness, 

quality of life and national security. 

Federal support through the Highway Trust Fund has sustained 

the governmental partnership, and current levels of Federal spending fall far short of the actual cost of maintaining and improving 

our Nation’s infrastructure. The shortfall is too large for local governments to make up on our own. 

Estimates of the cost of maintaining the National Highway System. There is general agreement that the system is deteriorating 

and needs a significant upgrade that can only be achieved through 

a new national commitment to maintaining this infrastructure. 

The American Society of Civil Engineers gave our Nation’s infrastructure an overall grade of a D. Well, as the mother of five children and an instructor at the university, I would not be satisfied 

with that outcome, nor should we as a Nation be willing to allow 

the first-class transportation infrastructure we developed to disintegrate and risk harm to all of our citizens. 

70 

ASCE’s most recent estimates of the total cost needed by all levels of government to update our infrastructure, airports, bridges, 

roads and transit, brownfields, dams and levees, drinking and 

wastewater and inland waterways is $1.6 trillion. In the words of 

the House Appropriations Committee, it is well documented that 

our Nation’s transportation infrastructure is aging and the investment needs of our Nation’s highway and transit systems is significant. Without additional revenues for transportation investment, 

the Nation will be unable to reduce congestion, maintain aging 

bridges and highways or expand capacity. 

For my own State in Colorado, we confirm what ASCE and the 

House Appropriations Committee are telling us. Colorado has nearly 17,000 bridges, over 8,000 of which are part of the interstate system. Of those, 580, or 7 percent, are structurally deficient, two of 

them in my own city which bridge I-25 and really keep us together 

as a community. If anything happened to those bridges, there 

would be serious implications for my city. 

Ten percent of our bridges are functionally obsolete. As I am sure 

many of you did when the Minneapolis bridge collapsed, I thought 

about what the impact would be on my city and my State. Of the 

nearly 7 percent of the interstate system bridges that are structurally positioned, one is traveled by more than 139,000 motorists 

each day. 

Allowing our bridges to deteriorate further is a national calamity 

waiting to happen. 3,757 of Colorado’s bridges are owned by the 

State, and more than 4,700 bridges are owned by cities and counties. Of those State-owned spans, 110 are considered in need of replacement and another 375 are in need of rehabilitation. 

Ms. NOVAK. We spend in Colorado about $30 million a year on 

bridge repair and replacement out of an annual transportation 

budget of $1 billion. Locally, Colorado cities and counties commit 

billions of dollars to roads, bridges and streets. In 2005, local governments—cities and counties alone—spent $1,281,463,000 on 

these systems. The Colorado Municipal League and Colorado Counties, Inc. have estimated a total of $31 billion for improvements, 

maintenance and preservation needs through the year 2030. With 

an estimated $18 billion available, this leaves us a shortfall of only 

$12 billion. We estimate $1.6 billion for bridges alone over this 

time period. We continue to raise local taxes, find ways to fund 

transportation, but we cannot do it alone at the local level. 

One of the challenges is, as we are updating our local plan and 

transportation plan priorities from a 2030 plan to a 2035 plan, we 

need to cut $800 million out of that worth of projects just due to 

increased costs. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Mayor, I regret that I have to suspend 

there. We are down to zero time remaining on the vote on the 

House floor. We have a series of votes. We will recess for approximately an hour, unfortunately. 

[recess.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will come to order and resume its sitting. 

My apologies to the witnesses and to panel 3 and to subsequent 

panels. Unfortunately, the votes and the procedure on the floor 

took longer than anticipated with commemoration of the loss of the 

71 

two colleagues that I mentioned in the Committee—Mr. Gillmor, a 

current Member, and Ms. Dunn, a former Member. Then Mr. 

DeFazio and I were committed to meeting with the news media, 

and we did that on our way back, and he is off to another hearing 

in another Committee, and he will rejoin us later, but I am here, 

and I thank all of you for being here, and this is a familiar situation over the 33 years I have served in the Congress that, come 

late afternoon, the place just sort of settles down, and there are 

only those with endurance who remain. 

So, Mayor Novak, that is a very familiar name in my part of the 

country, Northern Minnesota. Novaks are Slovenes and Croatian. 

They are also Polish. In fact, the current mayor of Ely in my district is ′′Novak.′′ 

Ms. NOVAK. Well, I married well into the ′′Novak′′ name, but I 

come from a long line of good, old Irish folks, so it does not really 

fit the name. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. Under any flag, you are welcome, and 

I had to suspend while you were mid sentence, so you may continue. 

Ms. NOVAK. Well, you have my statement in front of you, so I 

will just conclude by just reinforcing that, at the local level and 

representing the National League of Cities, we believe that your 

proposal to fund a separate bridge program is a step in the right 

direction toward meeting our infrastructure investment needs and 

national goals. A more comprehensive approach to infrastructure 

and bridge repair is critical for the long-term. We look forward to 

working with you and the Committee to reauthorize Federal surface transportation programs and to reenergize our national vision 

for a national infrastructure program that keeps our citizens safe, 

helps move goods quickly and focuses on safety, congestion relief, 

protecting our air quality, and increasing energy efficiency and conservation and accountability for the billions of dollars spent on 

transportation programs and improvements throughout our country. 

As national and as governmental partners, we need to make the 

preservation, maintenance and modernization of our transportation 

system a national priority and a commitment, and I thank you for 

the opportunity to speak on behalf of America’s cities and towns. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, thank you very much for a well thought-out 

statement. It was well presented, earnestly, and was sincerely delivered. 

You heard testimony from previous panels—from the Secretary 

and then from the Inspector General and from the chairman of the 

NTSB. There was a great deal of discussion about how funds are 

distributed and how they are allocated. 

From the vantage point of a mayor, when you see dollars distributed for transportation—for bridges, for highway projects and for 

transit—do you feel that your city has a voice, has a say, in the 

prioritization and in the distribution of those dollars? 

Ms. NOVAK. I have to say, from my perspective in the Denver 

Metro area—and I am a board member for the Denver Regional 

Council of Governments, which is our MPO—we spend a tremendous amount of time prioritizing every single transportation project 

in the Denver Metro area. 

72 

I think the funds that we get are used well. The difficulty is that 

there just are not enough of them. For example, I-25 runs through 

my city. It is the major north-south interstate, and it runs from 

Canada down to Mexico. It is projected that, due to the growth and 

to the increase in usage, the capacity needs to be expanded by 200 

percent. 

Right now, there are no funds available for at least 25 years. An 

extra 83,000 homes will already be built, will already be impacted 

on a system that just cannot handle that capacity. The difficulty— 

you know, I heard some previous testimony in that there are bridge 

funds and that there are congestion mitigation funds and that 

there are highway funds, and that there are all of these different 

funding pots, but when I have a bridge that connects this side of 

my city with this side of my city over a major interstate, what is 

the best way to do that? 

Well, in order to meet the demands—current demands let alone 

future demands—that bridge really ought to be expanded. So 

where does the money come from? Does it come from the bridge 

fund because it is structurally deficient? Does it come from congestion mitigation? Does it come from capacity? Does it make sense to 

just build that bridge with bridge funds and ignore the roads on 

either side which happen to be State highways? Whatever we get, 

it is never enough. 

So, I think, in my experience in the Denver region, we are very 

good at prioritizing those funds, and we are very good at using the 

funds. The problem is the funds only get to the first 5 out of a list 

of 50. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. So you have a council of governments that works 

together, that is involved in the transportation investment 

plan—— 

Ms. NOVAK. Yes. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. —for the region. 

Is that plan then folded by the State into the STIP, the State 

Transportation Investment Plan? 

Ms. NOVAK. Yes, it is. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Who then makes the final decision on priorities? 

You have done your priorities within the TIP, within the COG, and 

then that plan is submitted to the State, and the State evaluates 

all of its needs. Who makes that final decision? 

Ms. NOVAK. We worked out a memorandum of understanding 

with the State. As you have heard, there are donee States and 

donor recipient States. The Denver Metro area is a donee. We donate funds to the rest of the State, and we have an agreement that 

a certain amount of those funds will be spent in the Denver Metro 

area and that we work in connection with our Department of 

Transportation, who has an advisory seat on our board, to develop 

that plan. When we get the funds, the funds are spent according 

to the priorities that we have developed together. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Are you aware that Colorado had the highest percentage increase of funds in SAFETEA-LU of any State in the Nation? 

Ms. NOVAK. Yes. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. 46.1 percent. 

73 

Ms. NOVAK. And we greatly appreciate it. Thank you. We also 

are—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That’s a very nice response. I like that. 

Ms. NOVAK. Our local region also, as was mentioned by the previous witness, chose to tax ourselves to the tune of $4.6 billion to 

build out a transit system. So we are working—you know, the transit system will be great, but if our roads are falling apart around 

it, that is not good. We need a comprehensive approach that takes 

all of these pieces and puts them together and funds them in a way 

that really makes sense. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The T-Rex project that I have visited on several 

occasions at one point involved, over one weekend, raising an entire 

bridge and shoring it up and, in effect, rebuilding it from the base 

on up and putting it back in place. That was an extraordinary engineering achievement. 

Ms. NOVAK. And T-Rex has been a great success in Colorado. As 

you know, under Tabor, we have some difficulties in bonding, in 

long-term debt, in raising any kind of taxes without a vote of the 

people, which is not a bad thing, but as many people say, as wonderful as T-Rex is, it addressed a part of the problem, and there 

are many that say that we borrowed money from tomorrow to build 

a transportation system today that was needed 20 years ago. We 

are that far behind, and even then, with that kind of investment, 

the need is still tremendous. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You mentioned the bridge in your town—in your 

city, I should say—of Northglenn. 

Ms. NOVAK. Northglenn. Uh-huh. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Where is Northglenn? 

Ms. NOVAK. We are a Denver suburb about 10 miles of downtown 

Denver. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Is it north? 

Ms. NOVAK. North, uh-huh, and we straddle I-25. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. My youngest daughter moved back to Colorado 

and her husband and daughter. They are in Fort Collins, but she 

was a speech pathologist in the Cherry Creek Elementary School 

system. 

Ms. NOVAK. No doubt she went through my city. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Oh, yes. I have been out there many times to 

visit. 

In your setting, what are the stresses on the bridge structure— 

vehicle miles traveled, weight limits or weight pressures on the 

bridge? Is it functional concerns? 

Ms. NOVAK. Yes. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Is it the freeze-thaw cycle? Is it salting or deicing? 

Ms. NOVAK. Uh-huh. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. All of the above? 

Ms. NOVAK. All of the above. In addition, we have the occasional 

semi which rams into the bottom of it, which is not helpful either. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Ah. 

Ms. NOVAK. That happened at another bridge where it actually 

hit the bridge, and that bridge went from like number 300 on the 

priority list to number 1 and was able to get funded and repaired, 

but yes, all of those things and capacity. That is, you know, a big 

74 

thing as well. You get more people driving. The Denver area is just 

booming, and we are not keeping up. A pay-as-you-go transportation system, which is what we have traditionally done in Colorado, is not keeping up with the needs and with the investments 

required. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. What is the basis of the funding of Colorado’s 

share of bridge and highway and transit investments? 

Ms. NOVAK. I do not know. I do not have that. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Is it from the State general fund? 

Ms. NOVAK. Oh, yes, it is. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. So you do not have the State equivalent of the 

Federal Highway Trust Fund? 

Ms. NOVAK. I do not believe we do, and out of that general fund, 

of course, only about 25 percent is really available for annual appropriations outside of the things that the State is committed to, 

and so those, you know, transportation dollars are competing with 

health care and higher ed and K through 12 and open space, which 

is huge in Colorado as well, and it is not glamorous.You know, it 

is hard to make the case for roads and bridges when it is easier 

to sell education and wildlife and open space. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, that is where the Federal Highway Trust 

Fund has been so effective and successful. People pay the tax at 

the pump or the user fee at the pump, and they know it goes into 

the fund that is reserved only for transportation purposes. Even 

though, over time, funds have been withheld to build up surpluses 

in the Highway Trust Fund, they cannot physically be used for 

anything else. They can just be borrowed against but not physically 

transferred; whereas, your general revenue dollars are fungible. 

They can be moved around to other programs. 

Now, within the context of the Federal Surface Transportation 

Program, we give States great flexibility to move dollars around. 

They can flex up to 50 percent of their bridge allocation to the National Highway System or to the Surface Transportation Program, 

and they can flex money out of those into bridges, but States have 

chosen to shift $4,700,000,000 over the last decade out of the 

bridge program into other needs, and then we have the Secretary 

coming to us and saying, well, Congress has not prioritized funds 

and has not done a good enough job. Well, wait a minute. We gave 

the States, at their request, authority to shift dollars among categories, and then they wind up with a deficit in their bridge program. It is not our problem. It is theirs. 

In the future, maybe we need to be more restrictive about certain 

programs and how much money can be shifted about. 

Ms. NOVAK. You know, I think it is difficult. The flexibility is 

much appreciated, you know, as I gave the example earlier. If a 

project is going to cost $60 million and you do not have enough in 

this fund, this fund, this fund or this fund or you partition it out, 

you cannot get the whole project done, so it never gets started. If 

you do not have full funding, it does not make sense to build the 

project. I have an example in my city. We have got a road, and we 

have deferred maintenance because we had other needs. We made 

other choices. We had other priorities. Now the road is to the point 

where the only way to fix it is to reconstruct the entire thing. The 

cost to reconstruct that road is $10 million. My general fund’s anVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:02 May 18, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37652.TXT JASON
75 

nual budget is $20 million. I have no—there is nowhere to get the 

money. We cannot raise it. We cannot raise taxes. We cannot borrow. We cannot bond it without going to a vote, and then how do 

you sell that against, you know, a recreation center or a library? 

So we can partition it. We will do the design this year. In 5 years, 

we will do phase 1, and in 10 years, we will do phase 2. Then by 

the time we get to phase 3, phase 1 needs to be rebuilt again. It 

is a huge dilemma. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And the cost of the construction dollar continues 

to erode? 

Ms. NOVAK. Correct. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It has eroded 47 percent in the last 15 years, but 

we cannot build $1 highways for 43 cents. 

Ms. NOVAK. Right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It just does not make sense. 

Ms. NOVAK. As we are updating our transportation plan in the 

Denver Metro area from the 2030 plan to the 2035 plan, we have 

to cut out $800 million in projects just because of the increased cost 

projections, so those bottom ones—we just keep lopping off the ones 

at the bottom in order to fund the priorities that are identified at 

the top. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. When a bridge is not available, as you described 

a moment ago, there are economic consequences, are there not? 

Ms. NOVAK. Not only economic, but public safety. I only have two 

bridges that cross my city. What happens when my police officers 

are on one side and a citizen needs help on the other? They would 

have to drive 10 miles out of their way to go up to the next bridge 

to cross the highway to respond. So it is a public safety matter. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And that is what is happening in Minneapolis 

where Mayor Rybak—I know he had to catch a flight back to Minneapolis, and the schedules have become more restrictive, unfortunately. I had the same experience in flying back and forth. 

But the bridge collapsed, on the one side, on a lock operated by 

the Corps of Engineers. On the other side is a railroad. The lock 

moves 2 barges a day of aggregate, sand, gravel and other materials, principally for construction. That means 275 additional 

trucks on the highway daily because that bridge shut down. On the 

other side, shutting off the rail, that means another 40 or 50 trucks 

on the roadway to haul the goods, and the trucking sector is 

strapped. They do not have enough trucks to haul all of the goods. 

They do not have enough drivers to move. The railroads do not 

have enough capacity, and so you shut down the barge line and the 

rail line at the same time because of a bridge collapse. That does 

not make economic sense whatsoever. 

Mayor, thank you very, very much for your patience and for 

being with us today and for your contribution to our hearing. We 

are very grateful to you. 

Ms. NOVAK. Well, thank you for the time and for the opportunity. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

Now, I am happy to welcome to the Committee my colleague, a 

new Member of Congress from the State of Minnesota, Mr. Keith 

Ellison, representing the city of Minneapolis, in whose district this 

bridge collapsed and who responded instantly that day. I remember 

when that story came out, and the gentleman met me on the House 

76 

floor and said, ′′I am heading back tonight.′′ He had his bag packed, 

and he was on his way. 

So thank you for being here for the resolution that was offered 

on the House floor today and that Mr. Walz managed on behalf of 

the Committee, and thank you for your splendid response to all of 

the needs of the citizens. I have heard many comments about your 

care, of your concern, of your personal intervention. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEITH ELLISON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It is, indeed, an 

honor to be before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 

I would like to start by thanking you, Mr. Chair, for holding this 

Committee hearing, and also Ranking Member Mica, and this is a 

very important and timely hearing on structurally deficient 

bridges. I would like to recognize Mayor R.T. Rybak for his tremendous leadership during the bridge collapse crisis. Mayor Rybak and 

his fellow elected county and State officials made Minnesota and 

our Nation proud with their strong and steady leadership during 

this calamity. I also want to thank Governor Pawlenty, Transportation Secretary Peters, and the NTSB for all of their work. 

Lastly, let me also thank the heroic efforts by first responders— 

firefighters, police officers, emergency medical personnel—whose 

heroism in the first minutes and hours after the bridge collapsed 

saved many lives, many lives, and saved many other people from 

more severe injuries that they would have suffered. 

Mr. Chair, I did take a moment to visit several hospitals in the 

Twin Cities area and the people who were in the bridge collapse, 

and many people had serious back injuries and others, and I am 

glad that that quick action by our first responders was able to minimize their injuries in many cases. 

As you may know, the tragic collapse of interstate 35W occurred 

within the 5th Congressional District, which is my district. It has 

been widely reported that the interstate 35 bridge was 

′′structurally deficient.′′ In fact, according to the U.S. Department 

of Transportation, one out of every eight bridges across the Nation 

is in that same category of ′′structurally deficient.′′ In my home 

State of Minnesota, about 10 percent of the 13,000 bridges in the 

State were recently rated as ′′deficient.′′ So the problem of structurally deficient bridges is not a theoretical one for any of us in 

America. It is a very real issue that demands our attention today 

so that other communities across the Nation can be spared the 

grief that my district and State had to bear on August 1st when 

the Interstate 35 bridge collapsed. 

I also want to thank again, Mr. Chair, you and all the Members 

of Congress who responded in a unanimous way to authorize the 

money for the reconstruction of the bridge. Of course, we have a 

little more work to do with the actual appropriation, but I am confident we will take care of that. 

As you know, Mr. Chair, we lost 13 Minnesotans. These were 

good people, one and all. The individuals were mothers, fathers, 

children, workers, good people, one child yet unborn, still growing 

in its mother’s womb. 

77 

Let me conclude, Mr. Chair, by respectfully asking this Congress 

to regard this tragedy as a national call to action to refocus on our 

domestic infrastructure. I want to join you in your call for that 

same thing, Mr. Chair, and I want to congratulate you on your bold 

efforts recently, but also on your prophetic efforts over the last 

number of years, I believe, even decades, when you, in a very prescient way, knew that we were heading down the wrong path with 

respect to investment in our basic infrastructure. 

Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I would have far preferred that your 

good advice would have been fully embraced so that we would not 

be in this situation, but your words were prophetic when they were 

made many years ago, and I want to join with you in your call to 

action for our Nation. 

On August 1st, we, as a Nation, were united in grief, Mr. Chair, 

for the victims, and later, were united in the recovery and healing 

efforts. I, myself, went to several funerals. Now let us be united in 

rebuilding our Nation’s ailing public infrastructure. For, if the Nation is a body, our infrastructure is the skeleton that holds it up. 

I will look forward to working with this Committee and with 

other Members of Congress in making a new national commitment 

to public infrastructure in America. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much for your kind words but, 

more importantly, for your public service and for how you conducted yourself in those tragic days after the collapse of the bridge. 

You showed yourself to be a person of not only compassion, but of 

action. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I said in the aftermath of the bridge, after we had 

passed the emergency relief bill and began drafting the proposal, 

that we have to act so that those who died will not have lost their 

lives in vain, that Minnesota and the Nation will have learned the 

lesson and will have acted on that lesson. 

In light of what I initiated 20 years ago on hearings of bridge 

safety out of which we simply got a national bridge status inventory, that is all it is, it would be immoral if I did not act further. 

I was Chairman of the Subcommittee then, of the investigative 

Subcommittee. We did not have legislative authority, but we signaled the problem. We made recommendations. We urged the Congress and the then Reagan administration to take action 20 years 

after the Silver Bridge collapsed, and we heard Ms. Capito talk 

about the effect in her district. Well, now we have had another one, 

and by damn it, it is not going to happen again if I have anything 

to say about it, and I thank the gentleman for his contribution. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. When we draft the bill, I will invite the gentleman to be an initial cosponsor. 

Mr. ELLISON. Let me embrace that on the record. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

Our next panel includes Mr. Bob McFarlin of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. He is the Assistant to the Commissioner for Policy and Public Affairs; Dan Dorgan, who is the Director of the Office of Bridges for the Minnesota Department of Transportation; Kirk Steudle of the Michigan Department of TransporVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:02 May 18, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37652.TXT JASON
78 

tation. He is the Director of the Michigan DOT; the Chief Engineer 

for Virginia’s Department of Transportation, Malcolm Kerley; the 

County Engineer of Palm Beach County, Florida, George Webb; 

and Susan Miller, the County Engineer for Freeborn County, Minnesota. 

TESTIMONIES OF BOB MCFARLIN, ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR POLICY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, MINNESOTA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ACCOMPANIED BY 

DAN DORGAN, BRIDGE OFFICE DIRECTOR, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; KIRK STEUDLE DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; MALCOLM KERLEY, CHIEF ENGINEER, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT 

OF TRANSPORTATION; GEORGE WEBB, COUNTY ENGINEER, 

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND SUSAN MILLER, 

COUNTY ENGINEER, FREEBORN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We are very grateful to have you participating 

with us today. Thank you for being with us, for your patience, and 

we will just start from left to right. 

Mr. McFarlin, I regret that the Governor was not able to participate or the Lieutenant Governor, but we have two people of signal 

competence who represent the State of Minnesota. 

Mr. MCFARLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Oberstar and Members of the Committee, thank you 

for this opportunity. 

August 1st was a tragic day for Minnesota and for the Nation. 

Thirteen people died in the collapse of the I-35W bridge, and many 

more were injured. We continue to mourn those who died; we comfort their families, and we are tending to the injured. We will not 

forget them nor this tragedy. 

Our thanks go to you, Mr. Chairman, and to Members of the 

Minnesota Congressional Delegation and to the entire Congress for 

quickly authorizing $250 million in emergency relief funds. The 

Congress’ overwhelming bipartisan support has been gratifying to 

Minnesotans. We also thank the Bush administration and the Federal agencies for the outstanding cooperation in helping Minnesota 

deal with this tragedy. Our appreciation also goes to the National 

Transportation Safety Board for its thorough approach in investigating the cause of the collapse. 

Today, there is one thing we know for certain. We do not know 

what caused the bridge to collapse. Minnesota is confident that the 

NTSB has the expertise to identify the cause, and we have pledged 

our cooperation in every way possible. 

Immediately following the collapse, Governor Pawlenty ordered 

MNDOT to begin an accelerated program to inspect all 3,800 

bridges on the State highway system by the end of the year. 1,650 

have been inspected as of August 31st, and the rest will be completed by December 1st. The inspection program is prioritizing 

bridges classified as ′′structurally deficient.′′ Current data shows 

127 structurally deficient bridges on Minnesota’s State highway 

system. To date, 102 have been inspected. Minnesota also has 230 

fracture critical bridges on State and local systems. MNDOT will 

inspect all fracture critical bridges, and to date, 81 inspections 

have been completed. 

79 

When the final victim was recovered on August 19th, MNDOT 

began the debris removal process in earnest. Bridge debris is being 

removed methodically under the direction of the NTSB. MNDOT 

anticipates completing debris removal and site cleanup in mid-October. Minnesota has also begun the process of rebuilding this important regional connection. The I-35W bridge carried 141,000 vehicles per day, including 5,700 commercial vehicles. The loss of this 

vital link is costing road users and the regional economy in excess 

of $500,000 per day. 

It is in the public interest to reconstruct this interstate without 

delay. The new bridge, which will be built as a design-build project, 

has a target completion date of late 2008. Safety will not be sacrificed for schedule, and quality will not be compromised in either 

design or construction. MNDOT’s preliminary design calls for ten 

lanes of traffic, two lanes wider than the former bridge. This additional capacity will be dedicated to future transit service, including 

managed lanes and bus rapid transit. The bridge will also be built 

structurally capable of carrying light rail transit in the future. 

Principal funding for the rebuilding project will come from the U.S. 

DOT’s Emergency Relief Program. The current cost estimate for 

the new bridge is $200 million to $250 million. The project’s RFP 

has been advertised, and MNDOT expects to award the contract by 

the end of September with construction beginning as soon as midOctober. 

Mr. Chairman, this tragedy was especially shocking because 

Minnesota has one of the strongest bridge programs in the Nation. 

Minnesota currently ranks the sixth best in the Nation in terms of 

the fewest number of deficient bridges. In recent years, Minnesota’s 

spending on bridges has consistently exceeded targeted Federal 

bridge funding. Minnesota’s total Federal apportionments under 

the Federal-Aid Bridge Program under the last 5 years have been 

$185 million for State, county and local bridges. Our obligation 

limit under SAFETEA-LU has been 85 to 90 percent, effectively reducing the spending authority for this program to, roughly, $160 

million. 

Since 2003, MNDOT has invested $390 million in the replacement or repair of State bridges alone, more than twice the amount 

available from Federal bridge funds for all jurisdictions. Minnesota 

routinely uses flexible funds from other Federal funding categories—the NHS, Interstate Maintenance and the Surface Transportation Program to pay for bridge repair and replacement 

projects. 

The NTSB investigation into the cause of the collapse may take 

up to 14 months, as Chairman Rosenker mentioned. Until the 

cause is determined, it is difficult to make specific recommendations on changes to bridge design, construction, inspection, and 

maintenance practices. Such changes, when they occur, should reflect NTSB findings and also be based on recommendations from 

organizations such as the Federal Highway Administration and the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and this Committee, 

the Minnesota Congressional Delegation and the entire Congress 

for so quickly coming to Minnesota’s aid in this tragedy. We are 

80 

also grateful for the response and continuing support of the administration and Federal agencies. It is imperative that we continue to 

work together to maintain the public’s faith in the Nation’s highways and bridges. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you for your testimony. 

I was on the House floor, managing the conference report on the 

Water Resources Development Act, which was the culmination of 

7 years of work. It had not moved through three previous Congresses. We moved it through this Committee in 6 weeks. We 

moved it to the House floor in the 7th week, and then it took all 

the rest of the time to get it through conference with the Senate. 

Just as we were concluding action around just a little after 7:00 

o’clock here, I got notice on my BlackBerry that the bridge had collapsed in Minnesota. I could not believe it. In a third world country 

but not in Minnesota. 

So I sat that evening with Committee staff and drafted the necessary language to remove the cap of the $100 million annual limitation on emergency relief, a $100 million cap per State, plus other 

provisions and the funding for alternative transportation under the 

transit program of $5 million. We introduced the bill that night. 

We had a markup scheduled in this Committee the next meeting, 

the regularly scheduled markup. So I am the Chairman. I can call 

it up. We moved it through Committee, and then we had to get a 

special rule to bring the bill to the House floor, and in 48 hours, 

we had that passed. I have not seen anything pass that fast in this 

Congress or in any Congress in a long time. 

Mr. Steudle. 

Mr. Dorgan, do you have separate testimony? 

Mr. DORGAN. No. Mr. Chairman, no. I am just here to help Mr. 

McFarlin answer questions. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to visit with 

you and with other members of the engineering staff of the 

MNDOT. 

Please proceed. 

Mr. STEUDLE. Mr. Chairman, representatives, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify today regarding the state of 

our bridges and Chairman Oberstar’s National Highway System 

Bridge Reconstruction Initiative. 

My name is Kirk Steudle. I am the Director and the Chief Executive Officer of the Michigan Department of Transportation. 

First of all, I would like to express my sympathy to the families 

who have suffered because of this tragic collapse of the I-35W 

bridge in Minneapolis. When a tragedy like this occurs, it ripples 

across the transportation industry. It might be a big country, but 

we are also a small community of transportation professionals. Believe it when I say that we transportation professionals take that 

very much to heart. 

Now, more funding for bridges is clearly needed, and I strongly 

urge you not to stop there. Additional funding should be combined 

with sound, long-term, data-driven, asset management practices. I 

emphasize that because Federal road and bridge funding programs 

have not kept pace with the state of the practice of asset management, and the rules that govern the use of those funds are not alVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:02 May 18, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37652.TXT JASON
81 

ways compatible with good asset management practices and principles. 

For example, in the past 2 years, MNDOT has spent less than 

90 percent of our Federal bridge funds, not because we were not 

investing in bridges, but because the rules for those funds were too 

restrictive, and they were not compatible with MNDOT’s asset 

management approach. 

As part of that approach, we inspect bridges more thoroughly 

and more often than required by Federal law. We set strategic 

goals for road and bridge preservation. We manage our network of 

bridges, slowing the deterioration with capital preventative maintenance. In order to achieve our bridge goals, we had to look outside 

the Federal Highway Bridge Program. We made a choice to dedicate an additional $75 million annually in State funds just for 

bridge preservation. Now, to put that in context, our entire bridge 

program for the next 5 years averages $190 million. $100 million 

of that is Federal funds. $90 million of that is State funds, State 

funds that are generated by gas tax revenues at the State level and 

registration fees. 

An asset management approach keeps bridges from deteriorating 

and systematically upgrades those in poor condition. In 1998, 

Michigan improved just over 100 structurally deficient bridges each 

year and added about 162 other bridges a year to that list. Fixing 

the worst first was a losing proposition because, as we focused all 

of our attention on the worst bridges, other bridges were still deteriorating. We were in a hole that we could not easily get out of, 

but today, as a result of our data-driven asset management choices, 

we are making progress. We have completely reversed those numbers, improving about 145 bridges a year off of the structurally deficient list while only adding 86 onto the list. 

If you put them in percentages, in 1998, we had 21 percent poor 

bridges. Today, that number is down to 14 percent, all in a time 

frame of when we had a significant amount of interstate bridges 

that were built in the 1950s and 1960s that were coming into that 

population and needing significant work. With MNDOT’s experience in mind, I would like to recommend that you revise the Federal Highway Bridge Program to allow the full expenditure of 

bridge funds under an asset management approach. To do this will 

require some very specific changes. 

First, eliminate the 10-year rule that prevents DOTs from using 

Federal bridge funds on a bridge more than once in 10 years so 

that you can pursue less expansive and less expensive preventative 

maintenance and bridge repairs so that you can preserve the bridge 

before it deteriorates. 

Second, eliminate the 100-point sufficiency rating system and the 

arbitrary cutoff points for bridge funding eligibility. If the State 

has an asset management program in place, it should be able to 

use the Federal funds for the slate of bridge projects to manage the 

whole bridge network, all of them together, effectively preserving 

the bridge network. If you do need to keep the sufficiency rating, 

at least give us more flexibility. 

For example, today, States are not allowed to use Federal bridge 

funds to improve a structurally deficient bridge deck if other eleVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:02 May 18, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37652.TXT JASON
82 

ments, such as the superstructure or the substructure, are still in 

good condition. 

Let me give you a specific example. In Michigan, we have 608 

structurally deficient bridges. 223 of those bridges are because the 

bridge decks are poor. The superstructure and substructure are 

rated in fair or good condition. Those 223 bridges are not eligible 

for the Highway Bridge Program funding right now. 43 of those are 

serious. They are rated at a 3 going back to that rating scale. So 

we are using the State funds to replace those bridge decks. From 

an asset management standpoint, this simply does not make sense 

because the structurally deficient bridge deck actually accelerates 

the deterioration of other bridge elements. It is like saying you will 

not replace the shingles on your leaky roof until the moisture has 

destroyed the drywall or cracked the foundation. 

In conclusion, let me say that a short-term bridge program is a 

good start, but I strongly encourage you to remember that the 

same challenge exists for the entire transportation system. They 

just have not been visibly and tragically demonstrated as they were 

recently with bridges. Bridges are tied to the roads that they connect. Many of Michigan’s structurally deficient bridges are on 

major freeways that are also in need of repair. In many cases, we 

just cannot fix the bridges without doing all of the major roadwork 

at the same time. 

As you heard from the Mayor from Colorado, many of those are 

massive, very expensive projects that, even at a State level, we 

would have trouble pulling those amount of resources together to 

pay for them. 

So thank you, Chairman Oberstar, for bringing this important 

and necessary debate on bridge funding and the programmatic reforms to the forefront. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much for that very enlightening 

testimony, which I will return as we get into the questions. 

Mr. Kerley. 

Mr. KERLEY. Good afternoon. 

Mr. Chairman, my name is Malcolm Kerley. I am the Chief Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. I chair the 

Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures of the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 

AASHTO. 

On behalf of AASHTO, I want to thank you for holding this hearing and want to express our support for your proposed National 

Highway System Bridge Reconstruction Initiative. I am here to 

provide you and the public with the answers to some critical questions that have arisen since the tragic collapse of the interstate 35 

West bridge. 

What have the States done since the accident to make doubly 

sure that the Nation’s bridges are safe? How are States investing 

their money? Are the current funding levels adequate for the job 

at hand? 

The State Departments of Transportation consider bridge safety 

and preservation to be one of our highest priorities and a responsibility we take very seriously. Every State conducts a thorough and 

continuing bridge inspection and rehabilitation program. America’s 

bridges are inspected at least every 2 years by trained and certified 

83 

bridge inspectors. Conditions are carefully monitored, and where 

deterioration is observed, corrective actions are planned and taken. 

While we know all States comply with the Federal bridge inspection standards, each State has a responsibility to ensure that it develops a more detailed program appropriate to its unique circumstances. Since August 1, in compliance with the Federal request, every State has reviewed, inspected or is in the process of 

inspecting its steel deck truss bridges. 

Based on reports from this review, it appears that all of these 

bridges are safe. Nonetheless, of the almost 600,000 bridges across 

the country, roughly 74,000, or 12.4 percent, are classified as 

′′structurally deficient.′′ This means that one or more structural 

condition requires attention. This may include anything from the 

simple deck repairs to the reinforcement of support structures. 

Classifying a bridge as ′′structurally deficient′′ does not mean that 

it is unsafe, but it does mean that work needs to be done. 

How are States spending their bridge funding? As age and traffic 

take a toll on bridge conditions, States wage a daily campaign to 

preserve them in good condition. The good news is that, since 1990, 

States have reduced, by almost half, the number of structurally deficient bridges on our Nation’s highways. Reports alleging a diversion of Federal bridge funds are misleading because they focus only 

on the Federal bridge program data and fail to look at the total picture of all resources States commit to bridge improvements. The 

fact is that States are spending dramatically more money on 

bridges than is provided under the Highway Bridge Program. 

In 2004, the Federal Highway Bridge Program provided $5.1 billion to the States. States actually spent $6.6 billion in Federal aid 

for bridge rehabilitation. State and local funding added another 

$3.5 billion for bridge repairs. As the FHWA reports, in 2004, a 

total of $10.5 billion was invested in rehabilitation by all levels of 

government. Transfers from Federal programs are simply a project 

management tool used by States and do not reflect actual levels of 

State bridge spending. Once again, in 2004, $10.5 billion was invested by all levels of government, and $5.1 billion was given to the 

States through the Federal Highway Bridge Program. 

Are the current levels adequate for the job at hand? Clearly, the 

answer is no. A huge backlog of bridge needs still remains. According to the U.S. DOT 2006 Conditions and Performance Report, 

needed repairs on the National Highway System bridges alone totaled over $32 billion, which includes over $19 billion needed on 

the interstate highway system. SAFETEA-LU increased guaranteed spending levels for highway and transit by 38 percent over the 

previous bill, but for the bridge program, SAFETEA-LU increased 

annual funding levels by only 6 percent. That funding has been 

eroded by dramatic increases in material costs—steel, concrete, 

fuel, asphalt—which have increased an average of 46 percent from 

2003 to 2006. Thus, we are left with a program that does not have 

enough funding to overcome the system backlog. 

AASHTO commends you, Mr. Chairman, and your efforts to improve the national transportation infrastructure. This bridge rehabilitation proposal is a good first step. We also recommend streamlining processes that delay needed repairs on our Nation’s highway 

84 

system and allowing the use of proprietary, engineering-related 

projects that could spur innovation and long-term solutions. 

The tragic Minneapolis bridge collapse has rightly focused us to 

examine our bridge programs nationally. AASHTO and the State 

DOTs stand ready to act upon any recommendation of the National 

Transportation Safety Board and to work with the Congress to address the Nation’s transportation investment needs. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Kerley. Please give 

my greetings to your commissioner—— 

Mr. KERLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. —Mr. Ekern, who served in Minnesota and in my 

district, with great distinction. 

Mr. KERLEY. Yes, sir. I sure will. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

Mr. Webb. 

Mr. WEBB. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee. My name is George Webb, and I am the County Engineer in Palm Beach County, Florida. 

Today, I am representing the National Association of Counties 

and the National Association of County Engineers where, this year, 

I serve as its President. County engineers and elected county officials consider bridge safety to be one of our top priorities and take 

this responsibility very seriously. 

First, I want to thank the Chairman and the Committee for the 

opportunity to present a local government perspective on the status 

and condition of bridges. In my county, an urban county with a 

population of over 1 million, my highway and bridge budget is 

about $140 million annually. We have 230 county bridges identified 

in the National Bridge Inventory System, and we are very fortunate that only one is considered structurally deficient, but we have 

49 that are functionally obsolete. This is due to the fact that, because of our financial emphasis on system preservation and 

growth-related investments, the majority of the bridges in my county were built or rebuilt in the last 30 years. Statewide in Florida, 

there are 260 structurally deficient bridges with 204 owned by local 

governments and 56 by the State. 

However, over the next decade or so, Palm Beach County’s 

bridges will be wearing out, in part because of the high traffic volumes. Some of our bridges carry over 50,000 vehicles per day, 

which is more traffic than many rural interstates. Palm Beach 

County already knows that we face having to replace three drawbridges in the next 10 to 15 at a cost of $50 million each. 

We simply do not have the funds for this. In contrast, the State 

of Florida also needs to replace another three to five drawbridges 

on the State system in my county, and they have access to both 

State gas tax revenue and the Federal bridge program to pay for 

these projects. 

As regards to bridge inspection, I have three staff that are certified to inspect bridges. More of my staff need to be trained, but 

we find that the National Highway Institute training programs, at 

least in Florida, have very limited slots for local governments. Let 

me add that, nationally, the bridge situation is more critical for 

local governments. Of the almost 600,000 bridges in the United 

85 

States, about 50 percent are owned by local governments. Of the 

73,784 bridges rated structurally deficient, about 70 percent, or 

52,000, are owned and maintained by local governments, mainly 

counties. 6,175 bridges on the National Highway System are almost all State-owned. However, in 38 of the 50 States, a higher 

percentage of local government bridges are deficient than State 

bridges, and in 31 States, the total number of local deficient 

bridges is higher than all State-owned bridges. 

The National Highway System Bridge Reconstruction Initiative 

proposes a trust fund approach modeled after the Highway Trust 

Fund and financed through a dedicated source of revenue. We generally support this concept for funding the new bridge program. 

That being said, we do feel the reach of the proposed legislation is 

somewhat limited and should be more inclusive and expanded to 

include all structurally deficient bridges, not just those on the National Highway System. 

Non National Highway System bridges that are structurally deficient do pose a threat to public safety and are often very important 

to a regional economy. In addition, we would recommend no requirement for a State or local match, which will get the new funds 

out to projects much more quickly and will not compete with other 

infrastructure needs by taking away State and local matching 

funds that have already been committed to other needed projects. 

Finally, we are concerned as to what would happen with the existing Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation 

Program in the next highway reauthorization if this new bridge 

program becomes law. We wonder if this could lead to local bridges’ 

no longer being eligible for Federal bridge funds. Finally, all levels 

of government need to continue to strive to accomplish system preservation on our deficient bridges. System preservation is not the replacement project of the major rehabilitation, which seems to grab 

the headlines, but instead, it is a containment program of inspection, maintenance and minor repairs needed to both maintain and 

to extend the life of the structure. We in local government have 

emphasized and have remained committed to system preservation, 

but we need your help in getting to a point where system preservation could more effectively be accomplished. Therefore, we strongly 

urge Congress to proceed on this new and, hopefully, expanded initiative to restore our bridge infrastructure nationwide. 

This completes my testimony, and I will be happy to respond to 

any questions. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much for your comments. Again, 

they were very thoughtfully delivered and carefully prepared. 

Ms. Miller, welcome from Southern Minnesota. 

Ms. MILLER. Good afternoon, Chairman Oberstar and Members 

of the Committee. It is an honor for me to be here today. 

My name is Susan Miller. I am the Freeborn County engineer in 

Southern Minnesota. Today, I am here representing the National 

Association of Counties and the National Association of County Engineers where, this year, I serve as its president-elect. 

Freeborn County is a small, rural county in the south central 

portion of Minnesota, bordering Iowa, with a population of about 

32,000 people. We have 176 bridges, identified in the National 

Bridge Inventory System, of which only 13 are considered 

86 

′′structurally deficient,′′ and we have none that are classified as ′′functionally obsolete.′′ We have submitted that it will take about 

$3.5 million for us to replace those 13 structures. By comparison, 

my neighbor in the county of Fillmore, with a population of about 

22,000, has 165 structurally deficient bridges out of their total of 

465 structures. Their county engineer estimates that that is nearly 

$50 million of transportation investment needed to replace those 

structures. 

Freeborn County does not receive Federal bridge funds but applies for bridge money from the State of Minnesota’s local bridge 

fund. Not all States provide an opportunity for funding local 

bridges that way. NACO and NACE would like to determine how 

much of the Federal bridge program funds get spent on bridges 

that are owned by local governments. There has been a lot of discussion here today about what money is being spent where and on 

what systems, and NACE and NACO would like to encourage the 

Committee to pursue that initiative with the Federal Highway Administration tied on it by how much money is being spent on which 

bridges, whether they are locally owned, NHS bridges in a structurally deficient system. 

Let me indicate how important Federal bridge funds are to many 

local governments, though. Unlike Federal and State governments 

that rely on user fees for highway funding, local governments rely 

primarily on our own source revenue, or local property taxes. Raising property taxes is often unpopular politically, as you all know, 

and from the perspective of many local citizens, the disconnect is 

there between raising property taxes and improving bridges. They 

do not see a direct connection. It is not a user fee-based system. 

While we understand the National Highway System is the backbone of our transportation network, I ask your consideration to not 

leave rural local government out of increased Federal funding for 

bridges. We just will not be able to raise property taxes enough to 

meet all of the needs of our users. 

I want to stress that, every day, even in our Nation’s rural areas, 

we face situations which could result in catastrophic collapses of 

one of our bridges. Perhaps the most amazing image captured after 

the I-35 tragedy was that of the dangling school bus where, thankfully, all were safe. As a mother of four wonderful kids, no picture 

haunted me more than that image of that school bus on that 

bridge, especially with yesterday being the first day of school and 

putting my kids on a bus and knowing that that bus goes across 

bridges that I am responsible for. 

I also think about the economic importance of bridges in rural 

areas. In my county, for example, renewable fuel production has 

emphasized how vital our transportation system is. We support one 

of the country’s leading bio diesel producers with an annual output 

30 million gallons per year and, additionally, two ethanol plants 

with an output of nearly 105 million gallons per year. A collapsed, 

closed or weight-posted bridge can have a tremendous negative economic impact to agriculture, mining or logging industries in our 

rural communities. 

We also have some observations on the bridge inspection program and the adequacy of training for local bridge inspectors. The 

current regulations note that State DOTs are the responsible party 

87 

for inspections of all non-Federal bridges regardless of ownership. 

However, it should be noted that some States delegate this authority to counties. The opportunity, availability and affordability of 

training are concerns to local agencies throughout the country. In 

some States, no Federal funds are made available to local governments for these inspections. The qualifications for personnel implementing the inspection program require that the State or a delegated agency must be accomplished by a licensed Professional Engineer and have completed the Federal Highway Comprehensive 

Bridge Inspection training programs. Many counties in some States 

do not even have licensed county engineers or licensed professional 

engineers and have very limited staff. I believe the education and 

training package may be appropriate, but it is very costly to local 

government agencies, especially small ones. 

The consideration of a tiered approach should be explored based 

on the types of bridge structures inspected. Many local agencies 

own bridges that are relatively simple structures. We do not have 

a lot of lift- or suspension-type bridges or other complex structures. 

Additionally, as noted by the previous witness, the National Highway Institute training is offered primarily to State agencies, and 

it is very difficult for local agencies to be able to get one of those 

slots and attend that training. 

We continue to encourage the repackaging of the National Highway Institute training and use the Local Technical Assistance Program as an avenue to reach out to locals and to get that training 

down to our systems in the most effective manner. 

This completes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any 

questions. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Again, thank you very much for the view from 

local government where the rubber really does meet the road in a 

very direct and powerful way. 

I want to welcome Ms. Drake, the gentlewoman from Virginia, as 

acting Ranking Member. Thank you very much for being with us. 

Mr. Westmoreland, thank you very much for being with us today, 

too. I am sorry. I did not notice you there. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. That is okay. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Okay. Now, what are the techniques that you use 

to conduct bridge inspections? What I am looking for are commonalities among the States and the counties in conducting bridge 

inspections. 

The reason I ask—it is quite transparent—is that, 20 years ago, 

we found that there were not common standards used among the 

States for bridge inspections. One witness, the Ph.D. engineer for 

the Center For Auto Safety, said bridge maintenance and inspection is in the Stone Age. This was 20 years ago. We highlighted a 

number of the issues, the needs to be addressed, and States have 

responded, but still, it is quite apparent that each State has different practices. You heard me describe earlier the statement of 20 

years ago. Eyes are the best inspection tool. Many people still believe that is the standard, the use of a device to drag chains across 

a bridge and then listen to the sound and see whether it sounds 

right or it sounds odd. Many engineers have told me, ′′Oh, you 

know, that is really a very reliable way of testing a bridge,′′ and 

they are on the front lines. They are doing it, but you have to wonVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:02 May 18, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37652.TXT JASON
88 

der about that. So I want to get your—I will start with Ms. Miller 

and work our way to the right. 

Ms. MILLER. Well, Mr. Chair, when I became a county engineer, 

that was one of my first issues or questions was how effective is 

our bridge inspection program, especially in the local system, and 

I will say that the Minnesota Department of Transportation in 

Southeast Minnesota has been extremely helpful and effective to 

the local engineers, and we did shadow inspections to make sure 

that our folks were trained to inspect bridges on the local system, 

are following the same procedures through the National Highway 

Institute courses and doing things the right way—following the old 

standards and the old techniques that are there. So we still use 

and employ many of those tools, and I do agree that your eyes are 

probably your best set of inspection tools. 

One thing I will add is there is a lot of technology that is out 

there. There are many new strategies out there that we can use for 

bridge inspection, but sometimes these can become very cost-prohibitive to the number of bridges that are owned and operated on 

the local system, and while we do not discourage the use of these 

higher technology tools, we would encourage that there be programs set up for sharing these on a district-by-district basis 

throughout a State or a centrally located set of tools that could be 

outsourced to local governments. That would be a concern for local 

governments that we have become so high-tech so fast that local 

government cannot react sufficiently to that. 

Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

As we go along, I do have a question that I am not asking you 

to respond to now, but I want you to think about it, and that is 

whether there is a better body of knowledge today on which bridges 

are in actual risk of failure. 

Do we have a better body of knowledge today than we did 10 

years ago or 20 years ago? 

Mr. WEBB. I would like to second what Ms. Miller just said; we 

have 230 bridges on the bridge inventory system that are inspected 

by the Department of Transportation typically by using consultants. So they hire consultants and do the inspections in our county. 

We have another 60 that are smaller than the 20 feet that are staff 

and specs. We have sent those to the National Highway Institute 

Training. I agreed that eyes are what we use, particularly on those 

structures which I am comfortable with as far as the type and 

structures that we have in our county and the newness of those 

structures. We have not, as you have talked about today, touched 

on any of the newer technologies. I think we are looking to see 

what is out there; in fact, letting the State sort of guide us in that 

fashion. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. Mr. Kerley. 

Mr. KERLEY. The State of Virginia pretty much controls all the 

bridges in the Commonwealth, VDOT does. We have about 100 inspectors about 43 inspection teams throughout the State. We do 

probably around 10,500 bridge safety inspections a year. There are 

consistencies, I think, between all the States from the viewpoint of 

utilizing the NBIS standards, the same training courses everyone 

is going to. 

89 

We are fortunate our location, where Virginia is located close to 

Washington D.C., Turner Fairbanks, which is the FHWA Research 

Center in McLean. We have a research center on the campus of the 

University of Virginia. So we have utilized some of the techniques 

you talked about earlier, Mr. Chairman, mag particles, nondestructing testing on those. 

But I think I agree with the previous speakers that the handson is the first initial to identify then what you might come to do 

with a more expensive-type technique. We have also used an infrared instead of dragging the chains on the decks. I have some good 

people who will tell you that chain-dragging works pretty well too. 

We try to utilize what we have in the program that all the States 

are using and supplement that with what technology can bring to 

us. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I cannot pass the opportunity to observe that 

when Senator Warner—very, very dear friend of mine with whom 

I have worked on a number of initiatives over the years—was 

asked at his news conference what was he most proud of, what accomplishment was he most proud of in his 30 years at the Senate, 

he said the Wilson bridge. It was an earmark, by the way. 

Mr. KERLEY. Yes, sir. It was a Federal bridge, too, until we took 

ownership when the new one was built. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That bridge carries 1 percent of the gross domestic product of the entire United States. That is how important that 

bridge was, which is why I was happy to partner with him to make 

that earmark happen. 

Mr. Steudle. 

Mr. STUEDLE. Mr. Chairman, I will echo Mr. Kerley’s comments. 

We use the National Bridge Inspection program, the NBI, that is 

to my knowledge used in almost every State. So we use that same 

system. All of our inspectors are trained and retrained and certified 

under that system. We have 21 bridge inspectors who work in 

teams of two, and some other team managers we have spread 

across the 83 counties in Michigan. There are about 4,400 bridges 

that are under the direct jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation in Michigan. 

We really do agree with the last three speakers. The first thing 

is you have to have eyes on the bridge. The first thing we did on 

August 2nd was to send those bridge inspectors back to four 

bridges in Michigan that have the same similar design as the Minnesota bridge does and had them, first of all, get different eyes on 

that bridge to make sure that what we saw 4 months earlier was 

exactly true. And we did confirm by late Friday afternoon on the 

3rd that what we had seen was in fact what was happening on 

those bridges and there were not any problems. There was one of 

those four bridges that was structurally deficient because it has a 

bad bridge deck, but the structure, the superstructure and substructure, were fine. If there are things that those inspectors see, 

then we clearly bring in more nondestructive testing, the magnet 

particle testing and ultrasound and infrared-type technology. It is 

not practical to use that on every bridge; there are just too many 

and it would be too cost-prohibitive. 

The single most cost-effective method would be to put eyes on 

bridges on all the structural components. Guys down there with a 

90 

hammer; it is not real glamorous, but you can bang on the concrete, there is a different sound. I have one of those engineers who 

grew up in the Department and actually dragged one of those 

chains across the bridge deck as well. It is not glamorous, but there 

is a different sound there. It does not need to be the end-all, but 

it certainly can be the canary that says you need to look at this 

a little closer. 

We think that is really one of the most important pieces. You 

physically have to have someone there, looking at them, to make 

that first assessment. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You are right. It does say seasoning and experience, to have the ear to hear and the eyes to see. And I do not denigrate those technologies at all. They have been used successfully 

for years. But we need to back them up. 

Mr. McFarlin, Mr. Dorgan 

Mr. MCFARLIN. I will cover what we do in Minnesota, just to give 

you an overview of that. Within the DOT itself, the State DOT, we 

have 75 team leaders. They would all meet the requirements of the 

National Bridge Inspection program. They had a 10-day course on 

inspection. Occasionally they have refresher courses within our 

State. That is mandatory every 4 years to go to a refresher course. 

In addition, those inspectors would have 2 to 5 years’ experience, 

2 years for an engineer, 5 for a non-engineer. That is on the State 

side. 

Among the counties there would be one team leader in every 

county, so an additional 87 team leaders within our county system. 

And beyond that we have others that we call level 1 inspectors that 

are working towards the team leader. There are 154 of those. 

So we have quite a large workforce that spends part of the year 

doing bridge inspections both on the State and county side and, 

again, refresher training became a requirement 2 years ago for our 

inspectors. 

A lot of comments have been covered by the others, but I know 

you asked specifically about the technology. Earlier you cited ultrasonic and some other means that were used. As others have said, 

the first thing one of the inspectors uses is their eyes to see what 

they can find visually. For steel bridges, it goes well beyond that 

and very much so in the case of a fracture critical bridge. Ultrasonic testing is regularly used, mag particle and dye penetrants 

also. But ultrasonic is actually what they are gravitating towards 

as the preferred technology for really critical structures. 

On our underwater inspections in addition to having divers, 

every 5 years we do underwater inspections, but we regularly do 

inspections with sonar, looking for scour holes looking for scour 

within our rivers. So there is quite a bit of technology used, and 

our equipment, we have four under-bridge snooper trucks at the 

moment, and one on order. They are manufactured in Duluth by 

Aspen Aerials; that is the vendor in our area. So we have a large 

investment there in equipment, too. 

And for our fracture-critical bridges, as County Engineer Miller 

mentioned, counties do their own inspection with the exception of 

fracture-critical, because our teams have the ultrasonic equipment 

and some of the other things needed for fracture-critical inspection. 

Those are all performed by the State for the counties. 

91 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. The snooper cranes were 

stimulated by the hearings that we held 20 years ago and highlighted a need for a more efficient way to get under the bridge, and 

this technology was just coming under practice. 

Mrs. DRAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Kerley, it is 

good to see you. Thank you for the work you do in Virginia for us. 

In regards to this legislative proposal that we are discussing, 

extra funding, new funding for bridges, you used the term ′′good 

first step′′ and then you also said innovation and long-term solutions. Are there recommendations that you could lay out for the 

Committee as we continue this discussion in regards to how to deal 

with this particular issue? 

Mr. KERLEY. Well, reference to good first step is that additional 

funding is needed in this particular area. I have gone through and 

looked at some of the proposals in there. The proposal of enhancing 

the inspection program, I think the AASHTO States would be supportive of that. Every tragedy we have had in the past has led to 

improvements in the inspection program. So moving toward improvements in the inspection program is something that all States 

would support. The concern would be is the funding with the 

amount of inspections that we are doing now and the time associated with that and those type of things would have to be considered. 

We would look to work with Congress and find out first what 

happened in Minnesota, what happened that caused that, and then 

try to improve the system so that does not happen again. And then 

it gives us an opportunity to look at the whole program once again. 

Recently there have been changes in the inspection program, increased requirements for inspectors, increased fracture-critical inspection cycles, those things. We have to see if they are working 

and what we can do to improve the program. So AASHTO would 

be happy to work with the FHWA and Congress to improve the 

program as much as possible. 

Mrs. DRAKE. Can you also walk us through how Federal funding 

for bridges is used in Virginia? How do we spend that money, or 

what decisions—is there a way to try to maximize it? 

Mr. KERLEY. In Virginia we utilize all the Federal funds that 

come in to the State. We have probably about $909 million that we 

receive in Federal funds, about 94 million of that is Federal bridge 

money. We utilize some of that in our maintenance program now, 

but Virginia will probably spend, if we receive $94 million in Federal bridge funds, we will probably spend an additional $150 million in State funds to supplement that. We have nine construction 

districts in the State of Virginia and each one of those has a bridge 

section who conducts the bridge safety inspections and is responsible for the bridges in their particular construction area. We oversee that from the central office. We utilize the reports to establish 

priorities; and our State bridge engineer, working with our Commonwealth Transportation Board, sets those authorities. In 2004 

the General Assembly put in budget language that requires all the 

Federal bridge money to be used on bridges utilizing the sufficiency 

ratings in determining where the priority would be. 

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask Mr. Steudle 

one question. 

92 

You mentioned part of the problem is the roads that the bridges 

connect to, and you made an interesting comment about this is bigger than just bridges. I do not know if you heard the opening statements, but Mr. Mica was talking at length about having a strategy 

and a strategic plan for transportation. I wondered if you wanted 

to expand on that, if there are others of you on the panel who agree 

with that. 

I am wondering if it isn’t a bigger issue, although bridges we are 

all so concerned about because we know what could happen, but if 

we should not take this opportunity to just do a bigger strategy for 

transportation. 

Mr. STEUDLE. You hit on that. Really, the key point is we are focused on bridges because of the tragedy and because of the fatalities that happened. It is hard to pinpoint how many people died because of a pothole, but it happens. It happens when someone loses 

control of their car. And it is because there is one here and one 

there and maybe three over here that it does not raise to the same 

level. 

My point was while we are focused on bridges—which we need 

to and I applaud you for going at that and I do not want to take 

any steam away from that—I really want you to look at the whole 

transportation system in and of itself. In some of the questions this 

morning to Secretary Peters, the Members were clearly thinking of 

how does this fit with the railroad structures and how does it fit 

with other pieces. 

That really is what my comment was driving at. We need to look 

at the entire system—how we fund transportation across all of the 

States in all the different modes. And then specifically within highways, how do we do it; is there enough for the road systems as 

well? 

Now, the example I gave, we have got a big mega-project that is 

a billion dollars for 6 miles of Interstate 94 through the city of Detroit that has about 38 bridges on it that are all listed as structurally deficient, and they have been on there for 10 years. We 

have been trying to get it through the environmental process, but 

even at the end, we end up with a financial constraint issue that 

says we do not have enough money to build this. 

How are we going to repair these bridges that desperately need 

to be fixed? We have been spending State money holding them together while this other project is moving through the system that 

would eventually widen it and put service drives and modernize 

that interstate that, frankly, was one of the first ones that was 

built. So it is a very, very old section of Interstate 94. We have not 

figured out how we will be able to fund that piece. 

So when we look at just the bridge piece, that is only a part, because we could throw a bunch of money at bridges, but then the 

roads connecting them would still have a bunch of deficiencies as 

well. 

Mrs. DRAKE. Thank you, Mr. Steudle. Thank you, Mr. Kerley. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We have begun the process with this Committee 

at the beginning of the year with hearings on the operation effectiveness of the safety legislation in August of 05 and laying the 

groundwork for the broader infrastructure initiative and reauthorization in 09. This is a step-by-step process, evaluating all the 

93 

pieces. We will do a top-to-bottom review as was done at the end 

of the interstate era with ISTEA. This will be a major restructuring of our Federal aid highway and bridge and safety and transit programs. Meanwhile, we have a high-profile issue that we have 

to address and we need to—is that the Grasho Road project you are 

talking about in Detroit? That major mega-project? 

Mr. STEUDLE. Grosse Ile? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. 

Mr. STEUDLE. No. It is about 4 or 5 miles apart. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It seems that has been under construction and reconstruction forever, given the times I have driven over it. 

Do you have something else you wanted to add? 

Mr. STEUDLE. I want to emphasize the work that you are starting for the reauthorization and understand that the bridge piece is 

something that there is an opportunity to deal with right now and 

I think we need to do it now. My comments really are let’s make 

that as the first step into the reauthorization process that you are 

kicking off and starting as well. Let’s not give people the false impression that we have taken care of the transportation problem because we have addressed some bridges. Once it gets outside of the 

transportation industry, people think you just worked on that, so 

it must be good for 20 years, when in fact what we did was preventive maintenance and we kept it in good condition. A lot of that 

comes with funding as well. They say, you just took care of that; 

you have enough. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Goodness, no. This is a dress rehearsal, if you 

will. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will not have any 

questions, I wasn’t able to come for the testimony because Mr. Mica 

asked me to meet with some Texas transportation officials. But I 

would like to say this: I read Chairman Oberstar’s proposal and I 

like about everything in there. 

One thing I did point out in my opening statement this morning 

was that Tennessee over the last several years has done quite a bit 

of work on our bridges and we have about half of the structurally 

deficient bridges as is the national average. I hope when we come 

up with whatever we come up with in the end, we do not shortchange States that have done a little bit more in regard to the 

bridges. And I hope we do not punish the States that have done 

the most work in that regard, because I do not think that would 

be fair, because we still do have bridges that need—we have a lot 

of bridges in our State, with all of our lakes and hills and rivers 

and so forth. 

I just hope we keep that in mind, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes, indeed. As I pointed out through the course 

of the hearing, I have set forth a proposal, not an introduced bill, 

this is a work in progress. The idea of hearings is to shape a bill. 

This is rather unusual that we follow this procedure, but I felt this 

was a fair and right way to do this, and to gather ideas. As Mr. 

Baker pointed out, there are unique circumstances in Louisiana, 

unique structures that need to be addressed in a different way, and 

we will fold that into this proposal. 

Mr. Westmoreland. 

94 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 

you for putting that proposal out and giving us an opportunity to 

have the input from these experts and also our input. 

Mr. Dorgan, I was reading some information about the I-35 

bridge. If I understand it correctly, it was due to undergo some renovation I think in December of 06, and because of maybe some 

structural concerns or whatever underneath, it was an option not 

to do that; is that pretty much correct? 

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. Sherman and Congressman Westmoreland, the 

years are slightly off there. We have considered different options on 

the structure. One was reinforcing—this was based on a study that 

the Department had done—to add reinforcing plates to the bridge; 

another was a thorough inspection of the fracture-critical areas 

that were of concern in the main truss; and a third was a combination of the two. Originally we had scheduled a contract to add the 

reinforcement. That would have gone to contract this fall, in October 07. Last winter we made the decision, based on some new information from the consultant that was doing the study, we made the 

decision to pursue the inspections last spring and we did those in 

May. We got approximately half the bridge inspected. This is the 

main truss spans now, and no evidence of any fatigue cracking was 

found. Given all the previous studies on that structure, the expert 

opinions were that if none had been experienced to date, we would 

not have fatigue problems with that. And to this day, well, I think 

the NTSB has to conclude their study as to the actual causes of 

this. But up to this time, fatigue has not been identified as an 

issue. There were certainly other things Chairman Rosenker referred to in his testimony. That was not one of them. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Chairman Oberstar brought up the point 

that 20 years ago this one piece of equipment was brought up at 

a hearing and has been put in place, so I think we are right at a 

point where there is some cutting-edge technology out there that 

is a little bit more than a guy with a flashlight and a hammer to 

go out. 

I know it is expensive technology, but there is one in Georgia, 

LifeSpan, that does this type of technology on a bridge, and I know 

it is more expensive. If I understand it correctly and since the tragedy on I-35, knowing that we would probably have these hearings, 

I started looking into some of this information. And I think that 

with some of this more sophisticated technology you may take a 

bridge that is a category 4, where if you use the sophisticated technology you may find out it that was a 6 or a 2 rather than a 4. 

So on some of these especially, Mr. Dorgan, did you ever, or did 

anybody at the DOT, ever think about going to a little more of the 

sophisticated monitoring system rather than just continuing to do 

the visual inspections, but go that extra step further to do any of 

this high-tech stuff? Would that have been a last resort? 

Mr. DORGAN. Congressman Westmoreland, actually regarding 

high-tech, it was done on this bridge. We used ultrasonic testing 

throughout those inspections that have been done over the years 

for fracture-critical; and particularly for the inspections done in 

May, it was both visual and ultrasonic testing that was done, and 

our inspection staff is very well trained in that. They are all cerVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:02 May 18, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37652.TXT JASON
95 

tified, American Welding Society certifications and ANSI certifications. No cracks, again, were found. So ultrasonic was used. 

Regarding I think the other technology you may have been referring to, monitoring systems, that were available from a different 

company. That was considered earlier in some of the previous 

study work. The monitoring systems, however, that we looked at 

were specifically for monitoring fatigue cracks when you had active 

fatigue cracks in a structure. This structure in the main trusses 

which was our area of concern had no fatigue cracks. So we had 

no cracks to apply monitors to monitor. 

In addition to that, of the weld details that were of interest, 

there were probably over a thousand locations in that main truss. 

It was made up of—- each truss has at least 64 members of it. So 

the monitoring systems we have seen that are practical work 

maybe well on girder bridges where it is one continuous piece of 

steel. This was a considerably different type of structure. So rather 

than relying on a monitoring system that we thought probably was 

not well-suited for the structure, instead we were doing very frequent inspections. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Let me say this in closing. I know all of you 

have a very difficult job with the money that is available and as 

many bridges you have to look after. I hope that with this proposal 

that Chairman Oberstar has put forward that we will start looking 

at some of the different technologies that we can use in some of 

this new stuff to determine the structural strength of these bridges 

and maybe get a more accurate reading. 

One of the other interesting things, I cannot remember who 

brought it up, about the divers going down and looking at the 

bridges. I know the I-35 collapse came on the news—whether this 

is true or not, I learned not to believe everything you hear on the 

news—the divers could not get close enough to read the tags on the 

car. So that would put a diver in a tough situation trying to examine the structure, the underpinning of a bridge under water if he 

is in water where he is having that kind of visibility. So maybe 

there is some kind of high-tech. That is all the questions I have, 

Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to 

ask them. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank the gentleman for his observations, very 

thoughtful contribution. 

Early in the testimony among this panel I heard concern about 

restrictive Federal rules, limitations on use of funds for bridge 

decking and a number of other concerns about the limitations 

under which you must operate in the use of your Federal funds. I 

want to point out those are regulations issued by the Federal Highway Administration. They are not founded in law. 

I am glad you raised this for—the purpose of having this hearing 

is to hear from the practitioners the concerns they have in operating the Federal program. We can clear the deck, if you will. We 

can clean out those Federal regulations in the upcoming legislation, 

and along the way as we move ahead with this bridge initiative. 

If the Federal Highway Administration is putting you in a straitjacket on your operation of the program, that certainly is not intended by law. 

96 

Preventive maintenance, for example, is specifically allowed by 

law. It has been since 1987, and then in 91 in ISTEA and then 

TEA-21 and in the current SAFETEA-LU. So we have worked to 

give States broad flexibility. 

The concern expressed by Ms. Miller and Mr. Web about training 

of inspectors and supervisors. In the proposal I have set forth, we 

have a provision to require training to higher standards and more 

skills for inspectors and supervisors. We will provide funding for 

that in this bridge initiative; inspectors generally, without restrictions. We will do our best to give the broadest flexibility that you 

need. Any other such limitations that you think are obstacles, send 

them to us. We would very much welcome your input and we will 

take whatever steps are necessary to make things better. 

In Minnesota we have had a goal in previous years of ensuring 

that 65 percent of bridges are in good condition. Michigan raised 

its standard. Minnesota, according to reports that I have heard, 

lowered the goal to 55 percent. Tell us what Michigan did. 

Mr. STEUDLE. First of all, it is 85 percent, good and fair. So I 

cannot comment on what the Minnesota numbers are because I do 

not know their system. But I do know that Michigan’s goal is 95 

percent of the freeway bridges in good or fair condition and 85 percent of the non-freeway bridges in good or fair condition. 

We had a goal. We started this in 1998 and our goal was to get 

there by 2008. It is important to note that in 1998 we were at 

about 79 percent and we have increased that number up to about 

86, a significant boost at a time when we had a lot of aging bridges 

coming at us. But frankly, a lot of that was an influx of State dollars that, as I said before, is about 50 percent State dollars, 50 percent Federal dollars and an emphasis on the bridge program and 

looking at the entire bridge network as a complete network, and 

understanding that you have to manage them in different stages of 

life. Not every bridge needs to be reconstructed. You need to be fix 

what needs to be fixed on those structures. We have had a concerted effort for the last 10 years, and that is why I brought the 

example of the bridge decks; 223 bridge decks out of 608 are structurally deficient because—our bridges are structurally deficient because the bridge decks themselves are poor. The rest of it is fine. 

Those are in our program, mostly being paid for—completely being 

paid for with State funds. So those bridges will come off of the 

structurally deficient list. So we manage them as an entire network 

of bridges and not just as multiple phases of their life. Not just one 

particular structure and one fix fits all. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

Mr. McFarlin. 

Mr. MCFARLIN. Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Dorgan is crunching some 

numbers to help answer the question, I just want to mention the 

goals that you mentioned are part of a much larger performance 

measure package that Minnesota DOT uses to guide its investments not only in bridges, but in safety in the roadways and other 

aspects of what we invest our funds into. We also review those performance measures regularly to see not only—they are measures 

we have set. We are measuring against ourselves, and we review 

them to see if they are realistic, if they might be too low or too 

high. It is a constantly evolving process to peg our performance 

97 

measures to where we think we ought to be. We are very proud of 

that effort to guide our investments based on actual measurements 

and performance of our system. 

I think Mr. Dorgan, off the top of his head, has some numbers 

on bridge performance goals. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. But that was announced that Minnesota had set 

the goal of 55 percent. Why was that reduced from 65 percent? 

Mr. DORGAN. Congressman Oberstar, the goal of—back in 1997 

when we established performance measures, there was a goal of 

maintaining at least 65 percent of our bridges in good condition— 

that would be by the NBIS classifications—and that was also 

State-owned bridges, regardless whether they were interstate or 

not. As the years unfolded, we realized that that level at 65 percent 

was probably unrealistic to maintain. At the time we set that goal, 

we were at about 62 percent. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Unrealistic from what standpoint; cost? 

Mr. DORGAN. Unrealistic when you consider the life span of a 

bridge. When you consider how when we want 75 to 100 years of 

life to maintain it with that much inventory at 65 percent in good 

condition, in order to achieve that we would have had to have been 

replacing bridges prematurely to get that number of bridges up to 

65 percent. 

So our current goal, once we took a more realistic look at that— 

this is all State-owned bridges—we set that level at no less than 

55 percent in good condition; our fairs plus poors are no more than 

16 percent; and our poors no more than 2 percent. 

Now, when I just checked with Mr. Steudle to check how Michigan figures their numbers, if we compare to Michigan’s goal, the 

goods through fair condition, Minnesota right now would be at 96 

percent of our bridges in either good through fair condition. What 

that leaves is bridges in poor condition at under 4 percent, so it 

would be a little bit better than 96 percent against that standard. 

I think each State is setting their own performance goal so it is 

somewhat tough to compare to each other until you can figure out 

what each other is actually measuring. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is why we need a national standard. That 

is why we need to have one set of rules by which everybody plays, 

everybody understands, and measurements can be equitably and 

accurately made. And that goes to the data-driven aspect of a national bridge program. 

Mr. DORGAN. I would agree, Congressman. A lot of States are in 

to performance measures now. And since we are all setting our own 

performance measures—but a national set of performance measures would give us a basis of comparison. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That would be the first title of this proposal. 

I was very encouraged, Mr. McFarlin, to hear you say that safety 

will not be sacrificed for schedule in the reconstruction of this 

bridge. I probably need not, but I will anyway, recall the 1962 and 

the rush to finish a portion of I-35 that resulted in a great brouhaha in Minnesota. We do not want another one of those. 

Mr. DORGAN. I can assure you that this bridge will not cause a 

brouhaha. We are very confident in our design-build method and 

our approach. We’ve had great success and the design-build area 

and Minnesota has built many large projects in the State that have 

98 

gone forward very successfully, come in on time, very close to budget, very small overruns, good cooperation with not only the contractors but with local units of government and with citizens. We are 

very confident and I can assure you that this is going to go forward 

very well. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I want to thank you very much. You have all 

made a valuable contribution. I urge you again to think through all 

those restrictive rules that you have been saddled with through the 

Federal Highway Administration. Make a compilation for us, and 

especially county engineers with your national network, and send 

that in to us as soon as you can. That is a matter we can fix. 

Good. Thank you very, very much. 

Panel V. 

We have Mr. Andy Herrmann, Managing Partner, Hardesty & 

Hanover, New York; Mr. William Cox, Corman Construction, Inc., 

here on behalf of ARTBA; Mr. Tim Lynch, American Trucking Association, Senior Vice President; Ms. Janet Kavinoky—I was wondering where to put the accent on that. I love that, a name that 

has real weight. And then Don Kaniewski. Now, there is a real— 

that’s an odd name that everybody—the Federated People’s Republic of the Soviet—the core of my district—can understand and pronounce. And let me take this opportunity, Mr. Kaniewski, to congratulate you on 30 years of service with the laborers. 

I will give you a big applause. I have been around long enough 

to remember your predecessor, Jack Kerr. 

Congratulations. We will start with Mr. Herrmann. 

TESTIMONY OF ANDY HERRMANN, P.E, HARDESTY & HANOVER, MANAGING PARTNER; WILLIAM G. COX, PRESIDENT, 

CORMAN CONSTRUCTION, INC.; DONALD KANIEWSKI, LEGISLATIVE AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

CONSTRUCTION ALLIANCE; JANET KAVINOKY, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AMERICANS FOR 

TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY; AND TIM LYNCH, SENIOR VICE 

PRESIDENT, AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. HERRMANN. Thank you, Chairman Oberstar, and Members of 

the Committee. Good morning. My name is Andrew Hermann. I 

serve on the board of directors of the American Society of Civil Engineers. I am the managing partner of Hardesty & Hanover, a 

transportation consulting engineering firm headquartered in New 

York City. During my 34-year career I have been responsible for 

many of the firm’s major bridge projects. I want to thank you for 

holding this hearing. I can say there are a few infrastructure issues 

of greater importance to Americans than bridge safety. 

ASCE is the country’s oldest national civil engineering organization, representing more than 140,000 civil engineers. ASCE strongly supports the National Highway System Bridge Reconstruction 

Initiative introduced by Chairman Oberstar. We look forward to 

working with you to enact this important legislation. 

More than 4 billion vehicles cross bridges in the United States 

every day and, like all man-made structures, bridges deteriorate. 

Deferred maintenance accelerates deterioration and bridges become 

more susceptible to failure. In 2005 ASCE issued its latest report 

99 

card for America’s infrastructure, which stated that in 2003, 27.1 

percent of the Nation’s bridges were structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, which was an improvement from the 28-1/2 percent in the year 2000. In fact, over the past 12 years the number 

of deficient bridges has steadily declined from 34.6 percent in 1992 

to 25.8 percent in 2006. However, this improvement is contrasted 

with the fact that 1 in 3 urban bridges were classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, much higher than the national average. The 10-year improvement rate from 1994 to 2004 

was a decrease of 5.8 in deficient bridges. 

Projecting forward from 2004 yields an estimate of 46 years to 

remove all deficient bridges. But, unfortunately the rate of deficient 

bridge reduction from 1998 to 2006 is decreasing, with the current 

projection from 2006 estimated at 57 years for the elimination of 

all deficient bridges. While progress has been made in the past in 

removing deficient bridges, our progress is now slipping or leveling 

off. There is a demonstrated need to invest additional resources in 

our Nation’s bridges. 

The National Bridge Inspection Standards in place since the 

early seventies require biannual safety inspections for bridges to be 

performed by qualified inspectors. Approximately 83 percent of our 

bridges are inspected once every 2 years. Standard condition evaluations are documented for individual bridge components as well 

as ratings for the functional aspects of the bridge. These ratings 

are weighted and combined into an overall sufficiency rating for a 

bridge on the zero to 100 scale. 

A bridge’s sufficiency rating can define it as structurally deficient 

or functionally obsolete. Both trigger a need for remedial action. A 

structurally deficient bridge may be restricted to light vehicles and 

reduced speeds because of its deteriorated structural components. 

While not necessarily unsafe, such bridges are at the point where 

replacement and rehabilitation will be necessary. 

A bridge classified as functionally obsolete is safe to carry traffic, 

but has less than the desirable geometric conditions required by 

current standards, and may not safely accommodate current traffic 

volumes, vehicle sizes and vehicle weights. These restrictions not 

only contribute to traffic congestion but also pose such major inconveniences as lengthy detours for school buses or emergency vehicles. 

Bridges and their components are structurally load-rated at inventory and operating levels of capacity in their present inspected 

physical condition. The inventory rating is the design level for a 

bridge for normal traffic. The operating rating level with a reduced 

factor of safety is intended to define infrequent overload vehicle 

permits, and generally describes the maximum permissible live 

load to which the bridge may be subjected. Allowing unlimited 

numbers of vehicles to use a bridge at the operating level may 

shorten the life of the bridge. 

Bridge inspection services should not be considered a commodity. 

Currently NBIS regulations do not require bridge inspectors to be 

professional engineers, but do require individuals responsible for 

the load rating of the bridges to be professional engineers. 

ASCE believes that non-licensed bridge inspectors and technicians may be used for routine inspection procedures and records, 

100 

the pre-inspection evaluation. The actual ratings and condition 

evaluations should be performed by licensed professional engineers, 

experienced in bridge design and certified as bridge inspectors. 

ASCE strongly supports the establishment of a dedicated funding 

source to repair, rehabilitate, and replace structurally deficient 

bridges on the National Highway System as a complement to the 

current FHWA bridge program. This initiative would be a first step 

in addressing the long-term needs of the Nation. However, this effort should not detract from the investment needs debate during 

the reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU in 2009. 

The requirement to distribute funds based on a formula which 

takes into account public safety and needs is an excellent step in 

creating a program that addresses public safety first. Successfully 

and efficiently addressing the Nation’s transportation issues would 

require a long-term, comprehensive, nationwide strategy, including 

identifying potential financing methods and investment requirements for the safety and security of our families. We as a Nation 

can no longer afford to ignore this growing problem. Aging infrastructure represents a growing threat to public health, safety and 

welfare, as well as the economic well-being of our Nation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my statement. I would 

be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We very much appreciate the presence of the 

ASCE, you are a watch dog on the Nation’s infrastructure, and a 

very credible one—one frequently cited in the lay press, if you will. 

Mr. HERRMANN. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Cox. 

Mr. COX. Chairman Oberstar, Representative Duncan, my name 

is Bill Cox. I am president of Corman Construction in Annapolis 

Junction, Maryland. I am here today in my capacity as Vice Chairman of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association. 

While ARTBA welcomes today’s discussion on how to best meet 

the enormous bridge needs, we deeply regret the circumstances 

that led to this hearing. Bridges can be rebuilt and roadways repaired, but lives touched by tragedy can never be made whole. Our 

membership offers its condolences to those families who lost loved 

ones or had been injured in the I-35 bridge collapse. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to applaud your leadership in proposing a bold and targeted Bridge Safety Initiative. I also want to 

commend Representative Mica for his call for the development of 

a comprehensive national transportation strategy. These objectives 

are not mutually exclusive and can be pursued concurrently. The 

Minneapolis bridge tragedy demonstrates the significant public 

safety threat that exists from delaying repairs to aging bridges. 

ARTBA believes immediate action on Chairman Oberstar’s proposal to rehabilitate National Highway System bridges is a logical 

first step towards restructuring Federal surface transportation policy to ensure unmet needs are addressed. 

Mr. Chairman, in my remaining time I would like to provide a 

broader perspective on the debate that has unfolded since last 

month’s disaster in Minnesota. Not surprisingly, since the accident, 

certain groups have put forth the same stale arguments as to why 

Federal leadership to help rehabilitate the Nation’s bridges is not 

101 

warranted. In doing so, we believe they really missed the point. 

The U.S. is suffering from not just a bridge crisis but a systemic 

transportation crisis. We need to dramatically upgrade the Nation’s 

bridges, roadways, public transportation facilities, rail lines and 

airport infrastructure. 

An example of this rhetoric is the suggestion that if it were not 

for congressional earmarks, sufficient resources would be available 

for transportation needs. The fundamental assumption behind this 

claim is that earmarked funds are not used for needed highway 

and bridge improvements. We need to remind ourselves, about 

projects like the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge project, the largest 

single earmark in the 1998 surface transportation bill. There are 

countless other examples of high-priority road and bridge projects 

that have been earmarked and, many, a part of State transportation plans. 

I am proud that my company has been involved in the Woodrow 

Wilson project and will have played a role in addressing one of the 

Nation’s worst bottlenecks and a major impediment to the safe 

movement of freight and people along the east coast. It is not only 

an example of a critical project that came to be through the earmark process, but also a mega-project that will be delivered on 

time and on budget. 

Mr. Chairman, as we work to overcome the pervasive transportation challenges, we need to utilize all financing solutions, not 

take some off the table. Public-private partnerships, innovative financing, tolling and new user fees are all part of the solution. 

In the days after the bridge collapse, however, there seems to be 

more interest by some in trying to utilize the Federal motor fuels 

tax as a political wedge issue instead of rolling up our sleeves and 

finding a comprehensive solution to bridge deficiencies and other 

transportation challenges. We need to recognize the foundation of 

any successful transportation financing structure must continue to 

be the Federal motor fuels tax. It has been demonstrated to be the 

most effective and fiscally responsible method to finance transportation improvements, and will be for years to come. 

While the increasing fuel efficiency and alternative motor fuels 

may ultimately have a dilutive effect on gasoline tax revenues, that 

point is decades away. The only thing antiquated by the gas tax 

is its current rate. To suggest that drivers can receive comparable 

results from contributing the same level of financial support to 

maintain and improve the Nation’s transportation network as they 

did 15 years ago lacks all credibility. Since that time, the population has grown, the economy has grown, the number of vehicles 

have grown, demands on the system have grown, and the cost of 

road and bridge improvements have skyrocketed. 

In closing, ARTBA believes the targeted proposal to rehabilitate 

the Nation’s national highway bridges is necessary to address the 

immediate public safety threat neglected bridges represent. This 

measure would provide the quantifiable results and accountability 

that Americans demand and our Nation’s citizens deserve. We urge 

all Members of Congress to support Chairman Oberstar’s NHS 

Bridge Reconstruction Initiative as a critical first step towards 

achieving the goal of a comprehensive national surface transportation plan. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

102 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you for your contribution, I am very much 

encouraged and inspired by that. Thank you. 

Mr. Kaniewski. 

Mr. KANIEWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman Duncan, thank you for your kind words. 

My name is Donald Kaniewski. I am the Political and Legislative 

Director of Laborers’ International Union of North America. I testify not only as a representative of the Laborers’ today, but also on 

behalf of the unions that are members of the National Construction 

Alliance. That includes the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and 

the International Union of Operating Engineers. Together we represent well over 1 million highly skilled construction workers who 

build America’s infrastructure day in and day out. Our members 

are the ones that take congressional authorizing legislation and 

convert it into real-world concrete and steel transportation projects 

that move this country. 

I want to take a moment to say that on August 1st, we had many 

members on the bridge, and we believe that they were doing the 

wrong job; they were conducting resurfacing when perhaps they 

should have been engaged in replacement. In an inherently dangerous industry, we want to see our members take those risks, be 

doing the right job for the country in building and repairing the infrastructure in the needed way, and not be subject to such tragedy 

in an unsafe world. We did lose one member of the Operating Engineers, but all others were safe after the fall of the bridge. 

It is no longer a secret that America has serious infrastructure 

problems and needs a comprehensive infrastructure policy for the 

21st century. The tragedy in Minnesota, the explosion of the underground steam pipes in New York, the failure of the levees in the 

gulf coast all underscore the necessity of a national commitment to 

repairing and modernizing infrastructure. 

The NCA has been a longstanding advocate for robust Federal 

investment in our Nation’s infrastructure system. It is our belief 

that a solid infrastructure system across a range of modalities from 

highways, airports, harbors, freight and passenger rail, forms the 

physical backbone that is critical to maintaining and enhancing 

economic growth, competitiveness, productivity and quality of life 

in this country. 

Mr. Chairman, your proposal is a significant part of a solution 

that moves our Nation closer to closing the gap between available 

revenues and documented need. That is why the three unions of 

the NCA strongly support your bridge improvement proposal. Your 

plan is a critical step in the right direction for the following reasons: It provides immediate dedicated funding for bridge inspection, repair, rehabilitation and reconstruction; creates a dedicated 

trust fund to ensure new revenues to utilize for their intended purposes; it implements a needs-based funding proposal with strict 

prohibition on earmarks. It considers all options to generate the 

necessary revenues for the program, including an increase in user 

fees. 

This specific approach is exactly what is needed to solidify public 

support and reinvigorate political will behind infrastructure investment. America’s support of increased investment in infrastructure 

has to be based on trust, and your plan strikes the balance by first 

103 

assessing need before stipulating funding. Now that we have the 

focus of the Nation on the chronic underinvesting and the aging 

and ailing infrastructure, we must not lose it. We must take on 

those whose rigid ideology and rhetoric automatically straitjacket 

by refusing to put all the revenue options on the table to address 

the problem in a forthright manner. 

Once the need is clearly established, then the issue is one of establishing an efficient revenue source to realistically address or investment needs. 

The NCA strongly believes that building and maintaining a 

world-class 21st century infrastructure system, one that makes the 

Nation competitive in a global economy, is inherently a Federal responsibility. Furthermore, we believe that in order to improve investment in a Nation’s infrastructure, we must maximize all existing revenue sources. As we all know, the Federal gas tax is the sole 

source of revenue for investments in highway and transit. Until another equally efficient method of funding is identified, we believe 

that the most straightforward approach to increasing revenue lies 

in increasing the user fee. 

Let me be specific. A gas tax increase is the most direct way to 

address the short-term revenue needs to fund this particular bridge 

proposal. Such a direct correlation between revenues and spending 

is fiscally responsible, especially in a pay-go budgetary environment. 

With regard to more comprehensive reauthorization of the highway transit program, we would support various fee modifications 

and other additions that are tied to a trust fund that is dedicated 

to the purpose of funding and improving the Nation’s infrastructure system. A gas tax increase or transformed into a sales tax or 

fee based on vehicle miles traveled, or a combination thereof, all acceptable to us, and, we believe to the public, if they have the confidence that they will get what they pay for and the funds will not 

be diverted. 

We are not averse to innovative financing, particularly for large 

projects of national significance. Bonding and financial leverage 

and other tools should be part of mix. Although we are not experts 

on all methods of innovative financing, we believe everything that 

enhances investment must be considered. 

In conclusion, while we recognize the need for a comprehensive 

systemic approach to America’s overall infrastructure needs and 

how best and most effectively to finance those needs across a range 

of modalities, we strongly encourage a singular focus on the 

present bridge deficiency issue before us as the most politically doable piece of the broader infrastructure problem facing the country. 

A 5-cent gas tax increase to raise the necessary $25 billion for 

bridge inspection and repair and replacement is a finite, achievable 

objective in the remaining months of the 110th Congress. We respectfully urge recognition of this reality and encourage the Committee and both bodies of Congress to act quickly to pass desperately needed legislation to ensure the infrastructure system that 

America relies on is safe. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much for a resounding statement. 

104 

Obviously saved the best for last. Ms. Kavinoky. 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished 

Members of the Committee. Thank you for calling this important 

hearing on the state of America’s bridges. 

Today, your Committee meets at a time when the Nation’s attention is focused squarely on infrastructure, but under the worst possible circumstances. Now is the time to move on a robust, thoughtful, and comprehensive plan to build, maintain, and fund a worldclass 21st century transportation system. 

We cannot afford to delay. If we fail to address our challenges 

we will lose jobs and industries to other nations. If we fail to act, 

we will pollute our air and destroy the free, mobile way of life that 

we cherish. And ultimately if we fail to increase investment, we 

will see more senseless deaths on our bridges and roads, not to 

mention on our rails and waterways. It is likely to get much worse 

if we do not act. 

We have a system that is overworked, underfunded, increasingly 

unsafe and without a strategic vision. Bridges are the critical links 

in the multimodal system that moves goods and people. 

And, Mr. Chairman, the Chamber applauds you for your leadership in proposing a strong plan to address the Nation’s deficient 

bridges. 

Ms. KAVINOKY. After the tragic collapse in Minneapolis, we all 

became acutely aware of the magnitude of the problem. Today, one 

quarter of our Nation’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, and that figure does not include 16 percent of elevated transit structures that are in substandard condition or worse. 

In addition to the painfully obvious safety concerns, there is an 

economic impact. Take bridges in Oregon, for example. The Oregon 

DOT says that the potential economic impact of structurally deficient bridges in that State alone could be $123 billion over the next 

25 years. 

Mr. Chairman, we support your proposal to identify needs first 

and then to tackle the backlog of bridge maintenance through a formula funding approach without earmarks and with improved oversight. This is the right way to do the job. 

The Chamber also encourages the Committee to address the 

shortcomings in current law. We strongly support holding States 

accountable for the expenditure of the resources provided in 

SAFETEA-LU. Without addressing the current diversion of bridge 

dollars to other Federal funding categories, new programs may essentially create a substitution effect, rather than increasing the 

funding dedicated to bridge needs. 

While the events of August have shone a spotlight on the state 

of our Nation’s bridges, it is important to recognize that the collapse of the I-35 West bridge is symptomatic of a much larger infrastructure problem, and it is time to create a new era in transportation. This country’s current approach to delivering transportation infrastructure is not set up for today’s robust economy or for 

the economy of the future. We do need a national plan; and, as 

Ranking Member Mica aptly articulated earlier this year, the Federal government must take the leading role in developing the national strategic transportation plan. We thank him for his continued vision and leadership on this issue. Every level of government 

105 

must step up to the plate, and the Federal government must bear 

a significant part of the responsibility and will perform a critical 

role. 

For our part, what is the Chamber going to do? We are launching 

a major, multi-million dollar initiative called Let’s Rebuild America, with four key goals to support your work and this industry’s 

work. 

First, we will document the program with research. Second, we 

will educate the public, the business community and policymakers. 

Third, we will spur private investment in critical infrastructure of 

all kinds. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we will foster an 

honest dialogue on how to find the public money to meet critical 

infrastructure needs. There is no single answer to that question, 

which means all the options must be on the table, including increasing user fees. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the question facing America is this: Are we a nation of builders? Are we still a ′′can 

do′′ society? Are we still the kind of people who can rally to a great 

cause with a shared sense of mission and a national purpose? Surely, we ought to be able to create the vision, forge the consensus, 

secure the resources, and find the political courage to make this 

happen. I believe that we can and I believe that we will and business will lead the way. It should not take a disaster like the bridge 

collapse to focus the Nation’s attention on our vast infrastructure 

challenges, but now that we have that focus we must not lose it. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today, and 

I look forward to answering your questions. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Ms. Kavinoky. 

You are right. It should not take a bridge tragedy to focus attention, but, regrettably, that is what happens in this country, and 

now and again there is a tragedy. 

A few years ago—in fact, it was in 1990—18 feet ripped off a 

Boeing 737 of Aloha Airlines. It was not supposed to fail. That was 

not supposed to happen. They were built so that if there were a 

structural failure it would rip to a stress point and stop, but it 

ripped off and all of aviation sat down. 

Then I crafted the aging aircraft legislation, something I had 

been talking about for years and was not able to advance. But a 

tragedy happened, and now all aircraft at 15 years of age was sat 

down, torn down to bare metal and inspected from stem to stern, 

and parts were replaced. Well, it has taken another tragedy to get 

us to think about the Nation’s infrastructure. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Lynch. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you very much, Chairman Oberstar, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan. We appreciate the invitation for the American Trucking Associations to testify on the condition of the Nation’s infrastructure and bridges. 

Members of this Committee well understand the importance of 

the Nation’s infrastructure. It is unfortunate that it took the tragic 

collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge to focus the public and, perhaps more importantly, the media’s attention on the vulnerabilities 

of the highway system. We must not lose this opportunity to educate the American people about the very real safety and economic 

consequences of failing to adequately maintain and improve the 

106 

system. We thank you for providing a forum that will help to inform the debate and that will hopefully move us toward an agreement on solutions to the challenges we face. 

The trucking industry and the highway system that supports it 

are the lynch pins of the Nation’s freight transportation system. 

The industry hauls 69 percent of the freight by volume and 84 percent by revenue. In addition, the trucking industry plays an important role in the movement of intermodal rail, air, and water 

freight. Truck tonnage is projected to increase, reaching toward the 

14-billion-ton mark by the year 2017. This growth, of course, means 

that a lot more trucks will be on the road. We estimate another 2.7 

million trucks will be needed to serve the Nation’s economy, or a 

40 percent increase. 

A reliable network of highways is crucial to our industry’s ability 

to deliver goods safely, efficiently and on schedule. Since deregulation and the completion of the interstate highway system over the 

previous quarter century, the trucking industry has made continuous improvements that have allowed its customers to significantly 

reduce inventories and to create manufacturing and supply chain 

efficiencies that have saved the U.S. economy billions of dollars, increased salaries, slowed consumer price increases, and created innumerable jobs. Any disruption to the movement of freight on our 

Nation’s highway system can well jeopardize those gains. 

Mr. Chairman, our highway and infrastructure is a network of 

roads, bridges and tunnels that link our Nation together. That network includes superstructures like the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and 

the previously mentioned today Woodrow Wilson Bridge that are 

vital links in moving people and goods. However, that system also 

includes bridges over creeks and streams that may only carry a few 

cars and trucks on any given day. Both are important and both 

need to be maintained. But tragedies like the I-35 bridge collapse 

highlight how vulnerable our system is when a structure on a 

major highway is damaged, closed or load-posted. The resulting 

traffic disruptions distress local and regional economies due to 

higher freight rates and lost business opportunities. Significant 

costs are also incurred due to lost time, wasted fuel by sitting in 

congestion and by having to divert to alternate routes. 

Mr. Chairman, earlier this afternoon, you mentioned the amount 

of rail and barge traffic due to the collapse that now will have to 

move on the highway system. While I am certain that there is a 

trucker out there who will benefit from that, as a Nation that traffic probably should remain on the barges and on the rails, but that 

is just another cost that goes into the equation. 

Mr. Chairman, much of this Nation’s traffic moves on the National Highway System. This 162,000-mile network comprises just 

4.1 percent of total highway miles, yet it carries nearly 45 percent 

of total vehicle miles. When this network experiences inefficiencies, 

whether due to posted bridges or daily congestion, the economic impacts ripple throughout the supply chain and can greatly impact 

the health of regional and national economies. 

Despite its obvious importance to the Nation, significant portions 

of the NHS are in poor condition, are routinely congested and have 

been starved by insufficient investment. Of the more than 116,000 

NHS bridges, over 6,000 are structurally deficient and more than 

107 

17,000 are functionally obsolete. Furthermore, and perhaps more 

importantly for my industry, 760 NHS bridges are currently loadposted. The posting of bridges forces trucks to use alternative 

routes, increasing freight transportation costs and requiring greater fuel use, which produces more emissions. While this hearing and 

the public’s attention are understandably focused on bridges, we 

must not forget that bridges are individual components of the overall highway network. 

Mr. Chairman, we applaud your initiative on the National Highway System Bridge Reconstruction Initiative. We believe it is an 

excellent model for future highway investment decisions. The emphasis on prioritizing investment based on greatest need are principles that can and should be applied to the entire Federal program. 

I earlier made note of Congressman Baker’s comments about 

what they have done in Louisiana with respect to the prioritization 

of the bridge program in that State; and, frankly, we want to find 

out quite a bit more about that. 

Over the past 20 years, the Highway Bridge Program and its 

predecessor, the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation 

Program, have been funded at a level equivalent to roughly 11 to 

14 percent of total annual transportation program apportionments. 

Under SAFETEA-LU, the program provides an average of $4.1 billion annually for the bridge program. However, beginning with 

ISTEA and including now the SAFETEA-LU, up to 50 percent of 

State apportionments can be ′′flexed′′ to non-bridge-related projects. 

Mr. Chairman, I will tell you that one of the things I have always loved about being at these hearings, even sitting on the peanut gallery side, is that you learn some things. We were not able 

to determine how much of that has actually been flexed out. If I 

understood your comments earlier, some $4 billion has been flexed 

out over the last decade, and we would certainly encourage that as 

the Committee considers both this proposal as well as reauthorization that that be something that you take a very long and careful 

look at. 

Mr. Chairman, even the most well-designed and best-maintained 

bridge will deteriorate over time for a variety of reasons. All vehicles, including trucks, play a role in this process. It is important 

to understand, however, that bridge collapses are generally the result of singular events and not usually caused by the slow progression of deterioration. 

If a bridge does collapse due to fatigue or due to other structural 

issues, it is likely that this may have been prevented by better inspection, maintenance or management practices. Therefore, Mr. 

Chairman, we very much support your efforts to enhance inspection procedures, techniques and to improve bridge management. 

The ATA looks forward to working with the Committee to address the Nation’s bridge and other highway infrastructure needs. 

Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, we recognize our responsibility to 

help finance these needs. However, Mr. Chairman, we believe and 

we believe the public at large shares this view that highway user 

charges have to be viewed as an investment in both mobility and 

safety. We look to Congress, the administration and the States to 

108 

allocate that investment in a rational manner, in short, to ensure 

a good return on their investment. 

Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to testify. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Lynch, for a very thorough, farreaching, comprehensive presentation. 

Most striking was your projection of 2.7 million more trucks to 

be needed over what period of time? 

Mr. LYNCH. That would be over a 10-year period. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Over a 10-year future period? 

Mr. LYNCH. Correct. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. A 40 percent increase. That is a result of just-intime inventory, isn’t it? The just-in-time delivery of goods making 

our trucking system rolling warehouses. This is economy driven. 

This is not the trucking companies. It is your customers. It is what 

the producers and consumers want. They want this just-in-time delivery, and so your members have become inventory purveyors, if 

you will. 

Mr. LYNCH. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Notwithstanding occasional glitches on the highway, we are not out there for sport or 

to aggravate the public. We are out there to deliver the freight. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You are out there because the economy demands 

it, and if we do not maintain this portfolio of highways and bridges 

in top condition then your members cannot do their job. The public 

sector has to do its job so the private sector can do what it does 

best, provide jobs, services and deliver goods. 

Mr. LYNCH. Absolutely. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. All of the witnesses have provided, I think, just 

remarkable testimony and presentations that will benefit our ultimate product. 

I thank Mr. Kaniewski for saying, ′′Everything that enhances investment should be considered as a way of revenue stream.′′ We 

will do that. 

You know, when I proposed this initiative, we were discussing it, 

and there were thoughts. Well, don’t talk about how you are going 

to finance it, because that is what will catch the headlines. Well, 

it is irresponsible not to set forth an objective, to set forth the goals 

of ′′this is what we need to do,′′ and it is what we need to do. The 

cornerstone of any investment in surface transportation has to be 

the user fee. Call it the ′′gas tax′′ or whatever you want to do. Then 

there are other means of financing. 

Mr. DeFazio has held extensive hearings, in-depth hearings—and 

he will continue to do that—on the investment needs of our Surface 

Transportation Program and the merits of various proposals, but if 

I did not set forth how I proposed to achieve this objective that 

would be the next question. All right. You have got this great idea. 

How are you going to do it? Well, I have set forth. So now let them 

all come and make their criticisms. 

Ms. Kavinoky, I love the Chamber’s theme, Let’s Rebuild America. Terrific. You, too, said all options must be on the table, including the user fee, and we accept that, and we will work with the 

Chamber to do that. 

Mr. Donahue came from the trucking sector. He has had a long 

commitment to and a familiarity with surface transportation. 

109 

Four years ago, it was the Chamber’s objective to fully fund the 

Aviation Trust Fund. We did not quite get there, but, without the 

Chamber, it would not have had the nearly 100 percent funding 

that we had, that we did achieve for the Aviation Trust Fund at 

a time when the now Governor of Indiana was the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Daniels, and who did not 

want to make that full—he wanted to hold back $600 million of the 

Aviation Trust Fund that was needed for investment in taxiways 

and runways. That was in early 2001. The Chamber was out there 

ahead and provided the energy we needed. 

Mr. Herrmann, our earlier witness, Ms. Miller, for the county engineers, said, ′′Most counties do not have a licensed public engineer.′′ That really was shocking to me. I thought they were up to 

date, but they are not, and you observed that licensed public engineers are necessary for the proper development of surface transportation and bridge programs. 

Mr. HERRMANN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Basically, a bridge inspector, once you get to a reasonably sized 

bridge, should be able to have the expertise to know the load paths, 

the critical numbers, the fatigue-prone details, and to test potential 

areas of distress in the particular type of structure being inspected. 

They have to evaluate not only the condition of the individual 

bridge components but how the components fit into and affect the 

load paths of the entire structure. The bridge engineer may have 

to make immediate decisions to close a lane, to close an entire 

bridge or to take trucks off a bridge in an effort to protect the 

public’s safety. 

You need someone—I mean, right now, the requirements, I do 

not even believe, need an engineering degree. There are various 

categories of bridge inspectors, and one of them is without a degree, and I think an engineering degree is needed and also the professional credentials and past work in bridge design and inspection 

to inspect a bridge properly. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I totally concur. We have had experience in my 

district with at least one county that did not have an engineer. In 

fact, it did not have one because the engineer they did have asked 

for an increase in pay, and the county board said no, so he left for 

a job elsewhere. Then when it came time to plan the future investments for that county, they were out in the cold. They did not have 

anyone to speak up for the surface transportation needs of that 

county. They have learned their lesson. They have one now. 

Mr. HERRMANN. Mr. Chairman, we have found in some instances 

where the cost of bridge inspection does control. We have had experienced engineers, licensed engineers with 20, 25-plus years’ experience who we could not use on a bridge inspection because they cost 

too much. And it is not that they did not want to use them. It is 

just that they did not fit into the budgetary program. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, one of the previous witnesses also said that 

there are too many bridges and it is too costly to use the more advanced technologies that I cited earlier. Well, that is why we need 

this investment. 

Mr. DeFazio, let me compliment the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the intense work that he has done since the beginVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:02 May 18, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37652.TXT JASON
110 

ning of this session on the overview of the existing Surface Transportation Program. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As always, thank you 

for your leadership in proposing an initiative to move forward. 

As I made the point earlier when the Chairman was being beleaguered by the press about all of the specifics of his proposal, I said, 

′′You do not understand that this is a different Congress, and it is 

not like the Congress of the last 12 years. This is a real legislative 

process. We are here today to listen to people and to get ideas and 

to figure out how to improve our product, but we are committed to 

addressing this problem and to not putting our heads in the sand 

like the administration.′′ 

So I appreciate the Chairman’s leadership, and we are truly here 

to listen, and I appreciate a lot of the testimony we have gotten 

today. We need allies, obviously, in this fight. You were all, most 

of you, here earlier. 

I guess I would first go to Ms. Kavinoky from the Chamber. You 

know, I was just walking out as you mentioned the word ′′Oregon,′′ 

and I was walking back in as you mentioned the words ′′user fees.′′ 

You know, I would just like to understand how the Chamber got 

there, having heard the Secretary’s testimony earlier. I mean, you 

had some statistics that I quoted earlier about the deaths that relate to poorly maintained roads. 

Do you know, does that include a design flaw like the kind of 

thing we were talking about where we have structurally and functionally obsolete bridges? Is it that or do you just mean bad maintenance generally in terms of that attribution of one-third of the 

deaths? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Mr. Chairman, that statistic comes from TRIP, 

the road information program. Actually, I heard you ask that question and called over to TRIP to double-check their background. 

That includes maintenance issues, but it does also include design 

deficiencies, structural design flaws. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. Because that was the point I was attempting to make earlier, which is that this is a horrible tragedy and so 

unexpected—the collapse and 13 people in the blink of an eye—but, 

on a daily basis, if we attribute a third of the deaths every day to 

something that has to do with maintenance and then just take a 

portion of that and say, well, it has to do with functionally obsolete 

bridges and other infrastructure which creates dangerous conditions, then on a daily basis we can make the point that our obsolete and insufficient infrastructure is killing more people. 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Sir, that is exactly the Chamber’s point, yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right. Then your second point, which, I think, 

goes sort of again to—well, you make a couple of others, but you 

talked about the $67 billion in extra vehicle repairs. Is that also 

from that same group? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. It is from TRIP, yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. Okay. Again, that would be where the Chamber would, perhaps, come down where they do not normally always 

come down on the idea of increasing some user fees, which is, hey, 

with the economic competitive issues which you raised with the 

GDP investments of our competitor nations, with the problems 

with a lot of your members in just-in-time delivery and with the 

111 

increased costs they actually incur just because, you know, that is 

a lot of money on extra vehicle costs. I mean, if we could fix half 

of the problems and get that number down by half on an annual 

basis we would come out ahead in the end. I assume that you have 

come to somewhat of a similar conclusion with the Chamber. 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Sir, we have a formal policy process as, of course, 

do most associations; and I cannot tell you that from a very formal 

policy declaration perspective that we are coming right out and 

saying, ′′It is time. Let us do it.′′ But what the Chamber is saying 

is there is ample evidence. There is ample evidence from a safety 

perspective, from lives lost, from an economic perspective and not 

just with regard to bridges, which are critical links in the overall 

infrastructure, but with infrastructure across the board that this 

Committee has actually addressed, including waterways. 

And we certainly commend you for moving WRDA this year with 

regard to the Federal Aviation Administration. We think it is absolutely critical that we modernize the air traffic control system, but 

we recognize that there is a fundamental cost to providing the economic underpinnings of the economy, and I believe that if we can 

link the benefits of the transportation system and the investment— 

just as Mr. Lynch said—with what is being paid, we have got a 

very credible case to sell to the business community and to the 

American people that they are going to get what they pay for. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Exactly, and I believe there does need—you know, 

if you are talking to someone who is sitting in congestion, they 

want to hear that you are somehow going to address that problem. 

Or if you want to talk to someone who has lost a loved one or whatever in a tragedy, they want to hear that you are addressing that. 

So I fully support that. 

Mr. Cox, if I could, as to your testimony on page 4, you talk 

about ARTBA as advocating the inclusion of a new Federal program, the Critical Commerce Corridors, as part of the SAFETEALU reauthorization effort that is funded outside the Highway Trust 

Fund and that is dedicated to building the transportation system 

capacity. Can you expand on that a little? 

Mr. COX. Well, our vision there is that, yes, there are problems 

with congestion. Yes, there are problems with maintaining the existing system, which is growing older by the decade, as we know. 

But the one thing that we really need to face up to, just as was 

brought up by Mr. Lynch, is that the trucking part of our economy 

is really a driver of the economy for the big stores, the small stores. 

As he talked about, it is 69 percent by volume and 80 something 

by revenue. 

What we see is, in time, a critical problem of getting from ports 

to highways around the big cities if there is not some thought given 

to providing maybe not special roadways but roadways that are designed to move freight from the container ships to the trucks to the 

highways to the interstates so that the American economy, which 

is really the leader in the world in that aspect, will continue to be 

so. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And you would feel that that would be significantly 

a Federal responsibility? 

Mr. COX. I would think yes. If you are talking countrywide, you 

would have to start off with the Federal government. Certainly, 

112 

there would be State participation, but we would have to see that 

there has to be a leader to get the thing started. So, yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Great. I hope you will convey those thoughts down 

to DOT. They seem to be a little reluctant to go there on some of 

these issues. 

On page 5, I thought this was—again, this is just for the record, 

because earlier we had some very confusing testimony from the Department of Transportation about whether or not there is a need 

and whether or not we are spending $40 million a year on conditions and, therefore, you know, we are doing just fine, et cetera, 

which seemed to contradict their own conditions and operations report. 

You talk here, according to the U.S. DOT C&P Report, Federal 

highway and bridge investments are $20 billion below the amount 

necessary to simply maintain current roadway and bridge physical 

conditions and congestion levels each year. Is that accurate? 

Mr. COX. I only can go with the information that was given to 

me by the people at ARTBA who prepared it. I presume that it is. 

I presume it is as accurate as any of those kinds of estimates are, 

but I do not think it takes, really, what you read in books. I think 

anybody who drives around our urban areas notes the fact that we 

have not been keeping up with the growth not only in businesses 

but in homes and with all of the other needs that transportation, 

both public transportation and vehicular transportation, provides. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. Then if I could, Mr. Chairman—I know I am 

a bit over my time here, but if I could direct a question to Mr. 

Lynch. 

Again, sir, referencing back—I mean, you did a very good job of 

quantifying, you know, the obligations we are putting on the National Highway System and the amount that is actually already 

load-posted and those functions. I mean, you really did a good job 

of reiterating those things. 

Then you get down into meeting the needs. You said there, today’s $70 billion investment in highways and bridges would nearly 

have to double to $132 billion to significantly improve highway conditions and to reduce congestion. The Federal investment in highways must rise 50 percent above forecasted levels by 2015 just to 

maintain current levels of highway condition and performance. Do 

you stand behind that? 

Mr. LYNCH. Absolutely. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. Again, you need to be shipping some of this 

work down to DOT and see if we can get some attention down 

there. Because, you know, I would agree with those numbers, but 

I do not feel that we quite have them on board yet with that magnitude. 

Mr. LYNCH. We have had ongoing dialogue there. As the Chairman knows, we have a few issues about financing that we do not 

quite see eye to eye on with the Department, and we have made 

it very clear to them that our preferred financing mechanism needs 

to continue to be the fuel tax, recognizing that over some period of 

time we probably are going to be transitioning perhaps to a system 

like you have and with which you are experimenting in Oregon 

with a mileage-based tax. But we have certainly made our thoughts 

113 

known about some other financing mechanisms, particularly in 

New York City and in a few other places. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right. One last point. When you talk about the 

capability of flexing money out of high-priority bridge projects into 

other non-bridge related, what would you suggest? What should we 

do? I mean, should we just close down that flexibility until a State 

has addressed all of its structurally and/or functionally obsolete 

bridges? Or how do you think we ought to deal with that? 

Mr. LYNCH. I think that is, perhaps, one of the tougher issues 

that you are going to have to deal with. 

On the one hand, you have States essentially saying we need 

more money. Give us the money, but do not tie a lot of strings to 

how we use that money. 

As one of the users and as one of the payers into the system, 

while we are comfortable in having a certain degree of flexibility 

there, we will never be able to sell a fuel tax increase. Now, whether it is imposed on us, that is a whole other issue, but we will not 

be able to sell that to our own membership if they believe that the 

money is not going to the things that they believe it was intended 

to go to and the fact that—I was, frankly, surprised to find out that 

50 percent of the funds could be flexed out of the bridge program. 

That is arguably very, very critical, and that is certainly a focal 

point of not only this hearing but, I think, now of a lot of the public 

concern about the infrastructure. 

So we would certainly recommend that the Committee and Congress take a very careful look at, if you allow that degree of flexibility out of the program, what happens to the condition of the 

bridges in this country. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman yield on this particular 

point? It is a very significant one. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Absolutely. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We invited the National Governors Association to 

testify. They declined. Specifically, the Governor of my State declined. He has aspirations for a place on the national stage. This 

was an opportunity as he is the incoming Chair of the National 

Governors Association. 

But this particular issue of flexibility was one that the National 

Governors Association insisted on in ISTEA, in TEA-21 and again 

in SAFETEA-LU to ′′give us the authority. We are the managers. 

Give us the flexibility to move these.′′ Then what did they do? They 

moved $4,700,000,000 over the last decade out of the bridge program and then complained they do not have enough money for 

bridges. We gave them the flexibility, and they misused it. That is 

outrageous, but they did not come here to defend their flexibility. 

When we move into the reauthorization process, that is something 

that is going to be very high on the list; and I will tell you that 

there will be no flexibility in moving funds out of this bridge trust 

fund that I have proposed. 

I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Further, Mr. Chairman, I might suggest—not to 

sort of try and write the legislation here, but I would suggest that, 

you know, when we are looking at criteria for the new program, 

however, that might be funded that one measure be whether a 

114 

State is fully utilizing its apportionment under TEA-LU to address 

the bridge problem; and if they are not, then I guess I would really 

question why it would be in the queue for the special fund to deal 

with this issue. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. In fact, that is a condition of this proposed legislation. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Ah, the Chairman is always ahead of me here. I 

missed that detail in the outline. They did not give me enough of 

a detailed outline. That was probably in your head and not in 

print. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It is in print. It is there, yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right. I read it quickly. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no more questions. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman very much. 

Again, I just am in admiration of his diligent work on the review 

of the Surface Transportation Program. 

In the course of this day—let me sum up. Item one of the initiative is to establish uniform processes and standards for inspection 

of structurally deficient bridges and for inspector training. The Secretary agreed to that. Mr. Capka agreed to that. The county engineers agreed to that. Every panel has agreed to that. That is 25 

percent. 

The distribution of funds based on public safety and need, requiring the Department of Transportation to develop an administrative 

formula for the distribution of funds. The Secretary did not disagree with that. She embraced it. Mr. Capka embraced it. Our previous panels embraced it. All of you have addressed it in one way 

or another. That is 50 percent. 

The accountability by prohibiting earmarks by the administration, by the States in the prioritization of structurally deficient 

bridges under this new standard to be done by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the States and then reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences. The Secretary agreed 

with that. Other panelists agreed with that. That is 75 percent. 

Then the Bridge Reconstruction Trust Fund with dedicated funding. Well, we had a little disagreement on that matter, but I think 

everybody understands, at the end of the day, we are not going to 

have a bake sale to fund the construction of bridges. Mr. Duncan 

observed, very thoughtfully, that if we were not spending all of this 

money in Iraq—$45 billion on their infrastructure that is being 

blown up as fast as it is being built—we would have money here 

at home. Right. Meanwhile, we have a means, we have a way, we 

have options. I have laid the options on the table, and we will address that matter. So I think we are about 95 percent of the way 

home on this. 

I just have to observe, in closing, Mr. Mica, earlier in the day in 

his opening remarks, compared this proposal to ignoring the crumbling foundation, leaking roof and obsolete plumbing of a 50-yearold house; it is just paving the driveway. 

Well, the house I grew up in—that is still my home—in Chisolm 

is about 70 years old. It was built by my father, uncles and grandfather, who was a carpenter. Grandpa Grillo came from Naples, 

Italy. There is a picture of me pounding a nail in that old house. 

I put a new roof on it. The foundation was leaking. We fixed that. 

115 

Just 2 weeks ago, the faucets were leaking, and the kitchen drain 

was—and I fixed the faucets, and then I had to run off to a 4th 

of July parade, and I will admit that I put the faucet washers in 

backwards so they were not working right. But I got a plumber in, 

and he fixed that, and he fixed the kitchen drain and the basement 

drain, and he left a note on my table saying ′′aging residential infrastructure in need of repair.′′ We fixed it, and we are going to fix 

this as well. 

Mr. Mica also, in a news release that he issued, called it a ′′duplicative bridge program and a gas tax increase without examination of existing highway bridges.′′ What does he think we are 

doing here? What have we been doing all day? Examining the 

Highway Bridge Program. 

Twenty years ago, I examined bridge safety in those hearings. 

This is no novice coming to this subject matter, and we intend to 

do something about it. It would be immoral to have this bridge collapse and do nothing about it in a very targeted, focused, deliberative, sunsetted, 3-year initiative to attack this problem with a credible, effective and workable initiative. 

I thank you for your support of it. 

Mr. KANIEWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 6:00 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

116 


37652.010
117 


37652.011
118 


37652.012
119 


37652.013
120 


37652.014
121 


37652.015
122 


37652.016
123 


37652.017
124 


37652.018
125 


37652.019
126 


37652.020
127 


37652.021
128 


37652.022
129 


37652.023
130 


37652.024
131 


37652.025
132 


37652.026
133 


37652.027
134 


37652.028
135 


37652.029
136 


37652.030
137 


37652.031
138 


37652.032
139 


37652.033
140 


37652.034
141 


37652.035
142 


37652.036
143 


37652.037
144 


37652.038
145 


37652.039
146 


37652.040
147 


37652.041
148 


37652.042
149 


37652.043
150 


37652.044
151 


37652.045
152 


37652.046
153 


37652.047
154 


37652.048
155 


37652.049
156 


37652.050
157 


37652.051
158 


37652.052
159 


37652.053
160 


37652.054
161 


37652.055
162 


37652.056
163 


37652.057
164 


37652.058
165 


37652.059
166 


37652.060
167 


37652.061
168 


37652.062
169 


37652.063
170 


37652.064
171 


37652.065
172 


37652.066
173 


37652.067
174 


37652.068
175 


37652.069
176 


37652.070
177 


37652.071
178 


37652.072
179 


37652.073
180 


37652.074
181 


37652.075
182 


37652.076
183 


37652.077
184 


37652.078
185 


37652.079
186 


37652.080
187 


37652.081
188 


37652.082
189 


37652.083
190 


37652.084
191 


37652.085
192 


37652.086
193 


37652.087
194 


37652.088
195 


37652.089
196 


37652.090
197 


37652.091
198 


37652.092
199 


37652.093
200 


37652.094
201 


37652.095
202 


37652.096
203 


37652.097
204 


37652.098
205 


37652.099
206 


37652.100
207 


37652.101
208 


37652.102
209 


37652.103
210 


37652.104
211 


37652.105
212 


37652.106
213 


37652.107
214 


37652.108
215 


37652.109
216 


37652.110
217 


37652.111
218 


37652.112
219 


37652.113
220 


37652.114
221 


37652.115
222 


37652.116
223 


37652.117
224 


37652.118
225 


37652.119
226 


37652.120
227 


37652.121
228 


37652.122
229 


37652.123
230 


37652.124
231 


37652.125
232 


37652.126
233 


37652.127
234 


37652.128
235 


37652.129
236 


37652.130
237 


37652.131
238 


37652.132
239 


37652.133
240 


37652.134
241 


37652.135
242 


37652.136
243 


37652.137
244 


37652.138
245 


37652.139
246 


37652.140
247 


37652.141
248 


37652.142
249 


37652.143
250 


37652.144
251 


37652.145
252 


37652.146
253 


37652.147
254 


37652.148
255 


37652.149
256 


37652.150
257 


37652.151
258 


37652.152
259 


37652.153
260 


37652.154
261 


37652.155
262 


37652.156
263 


37652.157
264 


37652.158
265 


37652.159
266 


37652.160
267 


37652.161
268 


37652.162
269 


37652.163
270 


37652.164
271 


37652.165
272 


37652.166
273 


37652.167
274 


37652.168
275 


37652.169
276 


37652.170
277 


37652.171
278 


37652.172
279 


37652.173
280 


37652.174
281 


37652.175
282 


37652.176
283 


37652.177
284 


37652.178
285 


37652.179
286 


37652.180
287 


37652.181
288 


37652.182
289 


37652.183
290 


37652.184
291 


37652.185
292 


37652.186
293 


37652.187
294 


37652.188
295 


37652.189
296 


37652.190
297 


37652.191
298 


37652.192
299 


37652.193
300 


37652.194
301 


37652.195
302 


37652.196
303 


37652.197
304 


37652.198
305 


37652.199
306 


37652.200
307 


37652.201
308 


37652.202
309 


37652.203
310 


37652.204
311 


37652.205
312 


37652.206
313 


37652.207
314 


37652.208
315 


37652.209
316 


37652.210
317 


37652.211
318 


37652.212
319 


37652.213
320 


37652.214
321 


37652.215
322 


37652.216
323 


37652.217
324 


37652.218
325 


37652.219
326 

Æ 


37652.220