Hartford Courant
06-25-07
Worry Over Bridge Safety
DOT Cuts Back On Inspections; Experts Question Change In Policy
By THOMAS KAPLAN, Courant Staff Writer
In an effort to save money, the state Department of Transportation has quietly cut
back on bridge inspections across the state over the past two years.
Under its new policy, the DOT will inspect most bridges half as often as outlined
under federal standards, and less often than it did at the time of the 1983 Mianus
River Bridge collapse, which killed three and caused the state to improve its
inspection standards.
Until the cutback, the DOT had inspected town and state bridges at least every
two years. But, citing budgetary pressures, the department has cut inspections to
every four years, raising safety concerns among bridge experts and from at least
one Connecticut town official.
The chairman of the legislature's transportation committee said he will ask the
DOT to reconsider its cutback in inspections, especially for some bridges that are
not in good condition.
Over the past two years, the DOT has sent a letter to nearly every town, seeking
permission to reduce inspections on about 1,200 bridges that are rated in "fair"
condition or better. The DOT has made the same change on about 2,500 state
bridges.
"Generally, going forward, our position is to [inspect] every four years, rather than
every two," DOT spokesman Judd Everhart said. "As long as the bridge is in at
least fair condition or better, that there are no load issues for that bridge, we
believe that ... four years is adequate."
But Old Saybrook balked, and the DOT agreed to continue inspections every two
years on the one town-owned bridge that qualified for the inspection program,
Everhart said. No other towns are believed to have objected, he said.
In a letter sent last April to Old Saybrook First Selectman Michael Pace, the DOT
asked to cut back on inspections of the town's one bridge, which carries Nehantic
Trail over Mud Creek.
The savings could help offset the cost of more frequent inspections on bridges
rated in "poor" condition and also help with rehabilitating bridges that most need
repairs, wrote Arthur W. Gruhn, chief engineer in the DOT's bureau of
engineering and highway operations.
But officials in Old Saybrook were concerned about causing a safety risk in the
name of saving money, Pace said. He declined to allow less frequent
inspections.
"As first selectman, I would encourage that the two-year review stay in effect, as
`fair' can quickly deteriorate in 24 months or less," Pace wrote.
Sen. Donald DeFronzo, D-New Britain, chairman of the legislature's
transportation committee, said he didn't know about the cutback until his office
was asked about it last week.
"There are very few issues I think that have greater sensitivity with legislators and
the general public than bridge safety," DeFronzo said. "I think everybody would
advise caution in moving away from the accepted schedule."
He said he would call on the DOT to explain its rationale and would raise the
topic at an oversight meeting with DOT officials this summer.
Bridge safety experts said the DOT's practice of fewer inspections is unusual,
since federal standards require states to inspect all bridges at least every two
years. Several factors, including the size and condition of bridges, enabled the
DOT to obtain an exemption, said Nancy Singer, a spokeswoman for the Federal
Highway Administration.
Still, most states follow the two-year rule for most of their bridges. Spokesmen for
the for the New York State Department of Transportation, Massachusetts
Highway Department, and Rhode Island Department of Transportation said their
bridges are inspected at least every two years.
Bridge experts said Connecticut's change in inspections could have
consequences for the long-term health of most bridges.
"The standard requirement is every two years," said Andrzej S. Nowak, a civil
engineering professor at the University of Nebraska and an expert in bridge
safety. "It's very clearly written that bridge inspections should be no less than
every second year."
Samuel Maggard, head of the bridge inspection program at New Mexico State
University, agreed. Although limiting inspections might save money, it also
increases the chance that a bridge's condition could steadily worsen without
anyone noticing, he said.
"You decided you're not going to go for your annual physical anymore. You
decided you're going to go every four years. Does that sound like a good idea?"
he asked.
Still, the change won't put most bridges in immediate danger, said Brent Phares,
associate director of the Bridge Engineering Center at Iowa State
University. In most cases, a bridge's condition won't change much in four years
compared with two, he said.
The ill-fated Mianus River Bridge on I-95 in Greenwich was rated "fair" by the
DOT in September 1982. Nine months later, a 100-foot section collapsed,
sending three motorists to their deaths and seriously injuring three more.
At the time of that collapse, Connecticut's bridges were inspected at least every
two years. The collapse and investigations that followed spurred increased
scrutiny of bridges in Connecticut and across the country.
Though the DOT's change reverses a decades-old policy, some said the DOT's
professional expertise was worth trusting. Rep. David Scribner, R-Brookfield,
ranking member of the transportation committee, said he was notified of the
DOT's policy change about a year ago and trusted its engineers' wisdom in
making the change.
Scribner said he didn't remember any serious objection about the policy change
when he heard about it.
"If the engineers within DOT are of the belief that there are no safety concerns by
doing it every four years as opposed to two ... then it's not an unreasonable
policy to establish," Scribner said. "I'm fairly confident from all of my direct
dealings with the officials at DOT that they would not in any way compromise
public safety on our roads, and in this case bridges, only for the purpose of
saving money."
Contact Thomas Kaplan at tkaplan@courant.com.