Roadways_and_Bridges

STIPDG
Summer 2015
Roadways and Bridges
Abigail Lynne Davidson
Nish Patel
Edward Eskew
Pablo Herrera
Ryan Ball
Sterling A. Jackson
August 3, 2015

Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
Infrastructure Funding History ........................................................................................................2
Contract Accountability...................................................................................................................7
Bridge Monitoring and Accelerated Design Technology ..............................................................12
Road Maintenance and Traffic Control Technology .....................................................................15
Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................20
References .....................................................................................................................................23
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Chart of Federal Highway User Tax ................................................................................5
Figure 2: Highway Funding and Expenditures: 1970–2008 ............................................................6
Figure 3: FY 2014 & 2015 Projected Estimates for End-of-Month Cash Balances........................6
Figure 4: SPMT on West Nursery Road Bridge ............................................................................14
Figure 5: Temporary Shoulder Use on I-66 in Virginia ................................................................16
Figure 6: Dynamic Message Sign on I-70 in Ohio ........................................................................17

1
Introduction
In 2013, the American Society of Civil Engineers’ (ASCE) grade for America’s
infrastructure was an overall D+. Roadways had a grade of D, and bridges received a grade of
C+. Many bridges are either functionally or structurally deficient, which causes current and/or
will cause future problems. While large-scale rehabilitation, maintenance, or reconstruction is
required for many of these bridges, limited funding has hampered these necessary measures. The
same problems exist with deteriorated roadways. Frequent conditions associated with
deteriorated roads include potholes, declining shoulders, rutting, and cracking. According to the
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), the consequences of not fixing these roads
has been cars breaking down faster that can contribute to a significant number of fatalities.
When fatalities are an apparent result of the deficiencies in the roads, mitigating the deficiencies
should be a priority for researchers and practitioners.
Significant investment in infrastructure is required to achieve the high quality roads and
bridges which fuel our nation. With this being said, the United States currently has an unstable
funding situation. In order to alleviate the debt, plans to implement long-term, sustainable
infrastructure funding, as well as methods to improve performance at a reduced cost are
imperative. This report examines the history of funding for highway infrastructure, as well as
alternative contractual options to improve long-term performance of infrastructure. In addition,
this report will look into road and bridge techniques to improve safety and performance at
reduced cost. For bridges, this includes monitoring technology to optimize rehabilitation funding,
and accelerated bridge construction techniques to reduce the impact and cost of bridge
construction. For roads, active traffic management to improve road performance and safety, and
road maintenance to extend road lifetimes will be explored.

2
Infrastructure Funding History
To understand the current financial situation that controls spending decisions, it is first
important to understand the history of infrastructure funding. The United States was facing
difficult economic times as Franklin Roosevelt led the country through the Second World War.
Despite the economic hardships that came with going into battle, the president took control of the
transportation issues at home. He felt a reliable infrastructure and roadway system was the
backbone of a strong country, increasing national security and helping to stimulate the economy.
In an attempt to create jobs and revive the economy after the war, the Federal-Aid Highway Act
of 1944 was created. This law established a 50-50 formula for subsidizing the construction of
national highways and secondary roads. Twelve years later, President Eisenhower created the
Highway Trust Fund in the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, which went on to finance the
Interstate Highway System (National Highway Institute). The Highway Trust Fund uses funds
generated from the federal fuel tax to fund three major accounts; general road construction and
maintenance, Mass Transit Account, and Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
(LUSTTF). The federal gas tax is currently 18.4 cents per gallon with additional state and local
taxes that vary by state. The average gas tax including federal tax for the U.S. is 48.88 cents per
gallon; this varies from 30.65 cents in Alaska to 70 cents in Pennsylvania. These were the first
major pieces of legislation that set the foundation for the development of the nation’s
infrastructure.
As societal demands shifted over time, the distribution of funds changed. For example, as
people began to grow more conscious of the environment, the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) was formed. This placed financial requirements for projects to meet environmental
goals. As the population has increased in recent years, public transportation has grown

3
significantly. This triggered the formation of the Mass Transit Account, which was designed to
generate funds for all forms of public transit. As time went on, people observed trends in
accidents and took the necessary steps to lower the rate of fatalities due to transportation
problems. More attention has been given to pedestrian and bicycle safety to accommodate all
forms of transportation. This attention to alternative means of transportation has required funding
from the federal government. Programs have been created to assure bicyclists and pedestrians
receive appropriate funding. Over the years, infrastructure has matured with the increased
demands imposed by the growing population. Where there were once dirt roads for bicycles or
cow paths, there are now paved and marked roadways with signage and guide rails.
In an effort to stimulate economic growth in local communities and municipalities, the
Department of Transportation created the Transportation Investment Generating Economic
Recovery (TIGER) grant program. This competitive program received over 6,000 applications
from all over the U.S., the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico but has only been able to grant
$500 million spread over 342 projects (Foxx B). These grants are awarded to projects that would
generate economic development. It would also improve the nation’s access to “reliable, safe and
affordable transportation for disconnected communities both urban and rural, while emphasizing
improved connection to employment, education, services and other opportunities, workforce
development, or community revitalization” (Foxx B). These grants are very competitive, with
over $124 billion in requests through applications. The awards are selected by a rigorous merit-
based process.
While these grants are funding some infrastructure projects, ASCE estimates that $20.5
billion needs to be spent in order to bring the nation’s deficient bridges up to code by 2028. This
would require an additional investment of $8 billion per year in order to rehabilitate deficient

4
bridges. The Generating Renewal, Opportunity, and Work with Accelerated Mobility,
Efficiency, and Rebuilding of Infrastructure and Communities throughout America (GROW
AMERICA) Act is a six-year transportation investment bill that will increase the current funding
by 45% (Foxx A). In generating this stable source of funding for the Nation’s highways, bridges,
transit, and rail systems, this act will also help support millions of American jobs, stimulate the
economy, and improve the nation’s global competitiveness. Each State and local government is
allotted a specific amount based on size, population, and demand.
As with all funding bills, the major question that arises is where the money is coming
from. A combination of supplementing current revenues from the Highway Trust Fund and a
14% transition tax on the currently untaxed foreign earnings of US companies generated
overseas, resulting in upwards of $2 trillion, is funding the GROW AMERICA Act. This act will
invest $317 billion in the nation’s highway system and road safety and $115 billion in transit
systems (Foxx A).
GROW AMERICA Act proposes additional, alternative funding solutions as opposed to
the current funding situation. The U.S. is currently acting under the provisions of Moving Ahead
in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). It provides funds, guidance, and innovations for the growth of
the nation’s transportation infrastructure. Carryover interstate construction funding is available
for its purpose. The Act abides by pre-MAP-21 Interstate Construction programing. The
institution of taxes dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund, as well as apportionments and
allocations of funds, have expiration dates which must be extended periodically. The GROW
AMERICA Act is the potential future of transportation as outlined by the Obama administration.
The Act has been lengthened, and MAP-21 extends the obligation of highway-user taxes through

5
September 30, 2016. These taxes include highway motor fuel tax, an annual tax on heavy vehicle
use, and retail sales tax on truck and trailer sales.
(https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheet/htf.cfm)
Figure 1: Chart of Federal Highway User Tax
The balance of the Highway Trust Fund is a delicate operation. Under the current
organization, the Highway Trust Fund is set up as a pay-as-you-go reimbursement system. Jobs
are paid as they are gradually completed. Because of the nature of reimbursable programs there
will always be cash not for immediate use. The money in the Highway Trust Fund is not excess
cash but money needed to reimburse the States as vouchers are submitted. In the fiscal year of
1998 there was a beginning cash balance of $16.5 billion. Simultaneously, the Highway Trust
Fund maintained $50 billion of unpaid commitments (authorizations already apportioned or
allocated to the States). The trust fund cannot write checks for all projects they have authorized.

6
This situation is proper, but a steady revenue and organization are required for this operation.
The gas tax maintains the Highway Trust Fund gradually as it distributes money.
Figure 2: Highway Funding and Expenditures:
1970–2008
Figure 3: FY 2014 & 2015 Projected
Estimates for End-of-Month Cash Balances
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/hf/pl11028/chapter6.cfm) (http://www.transportation.gov/highway-trust-fund-ticker)
The battle between funding and expenditure is ongoing. Inflation has contributed to the
rise of all the lines to the graph on the left. Regardless, it is worrisome the gas tax has remained
stagnate since 1993. Since the adoption of 18.3 cents per gallon, the Consumer Price Index has
risen from 144.5 to 236.7. In 2009, the system was maintainable at spending of $143.8 billion
and funding of $193 billion. The continuing upward pace does cause concern. It is projected by
the end of the summer of 2015, The Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund to become
insolvent. The graph on the right demonstrates the decline of funds. If the department procedures
continue, reimbursements to states will be limited. The problem was foreseen by the
administration and action is being taken. Funds from the General Fund of the Treasury are being
brought into the Highway Trust Fund: $6.2 billion to be deposited in the Highway Account in
FY 2013, $10.4 billion to be deposited in the Highway Account in FY 2014, $2.2 billion to be

7
deposited in the Mass Transit Account in FY 2014. These are temporary fixes to a much larger
issue.
The current system is operational and will maintain the U.S. at where it stands, but the
ground the U.S. is standing on is shaky. The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 provided a strong
foundation for the development of the nation’s infrastructure. The creation of the Highway Trust
Fund and gas tax provided for a steady source of income for transportation projects. Today, the
U.S. is facing the possibility of the Highway Trust Fund becoming insolvent. The main source of
income, the gas tax, remains stagnant at 18.4 cents per gallon. The economy needs stimulus and
the U.S.’s bridges are in need of repair and replacement. The U.S. needs to be smarter with their
money handling and find innovative ways for funding. MAP-21 showed progression with
TIGER grants that would be able to generate economic development. The most recent GROW
AMERICA proposes to tax foreign earnings of US companies overseas, thus adding an
additional source of revenue to transportation projects. The problems the nation is facing cannot
be ignored, and the U.S. needs to find a way to keep everyone accountable.
Contract Accountability
While efforts are being made to secure more funding for infrastructure projects, it is also
imperative to increase the benefit of each dollar spent. One way to attempt to increase the
efficiency of the money being spent is to look at contract accountability. The current process of
awarding contracts does not require the contractors to be held accountable for their work once
the relatively short-term warranty is up, leaving the onus on the accepting government agency to
pay for any deficiencies that the contractor leaves. The awarding process is as follows: first, the
contractor must review the scope of the project and make sure that they are qualified to meet the
expectations of the scope. Then they must evaluate if they have the necessary equipment and

8
work force in order to complete the project by the deadline. Once they request the plans from
their clients (state DOT, municipalities, private entities), the contractor will then look over them
and price the pay items required for the project. After all of the pay items have an estimated
price, the contractor adds up the total of the pay items and prepares a bid for that contract.
Typically, more than one contractor bids on a contract and whoever bids the lowest will be
awarded the contract, and be responsible for 100% completion by a certain deadline. However,
one of the most important objectives that the contractor needs to acknowledge is quality control.
Quality control is a system used by contractors to monitor, assess, and adjust processes to
ensure that the final project meets the specified level of quality. Activities that contractors will
need to do in order to assure good quality control include hiring reliable construction workers
and preparing a well detailed transportation management plan that illustrates how they will
acquire and transport materials to the job site efficiently. Materials like aggregate and Portland
Cement Concrete will need to be applied to the standards of state specifications and within a
certain time frame of production, so it is vital that the contractor develops a transportation
management plan that is easy to follow, and employ workers who will execute the plan
adequately. The contractor will also need to go through and document a series of processes such
as sampling, testing, and inspections including a soil test, density of material, and aggregate
quality. Many federal-aid highway projects actually have a quality assurance program with many
elements to abide by, including Contractor Quality Control, Agency Acceptance, Agency
Independent Assurance, Specifications, Dispute Resolution, and laboratory accreditation and
qualification. Once the project is completed, the contractor’s work will be judged by metrics
such as smoothness for user costs and pavement service life, density for pavement service life,
and future funding decisions and maintenance costs.

9
As mentioned previously, the nation's infrastructure received a D+ according to the
ASCE infrastructure report card, so it is imperative that the current procedures are changed to
maximize the performance of infrastructure projects. A problem exists because the traditional
contracts for highway and local road projects throughout the U.S have been unit-priced or work-
order oriented. Contractors are not paid for the quality of work being done but for the amount of
work they do. This traditional contract’s warranty usually lasts approximately one to two years,
so after the warranty is finished the financial liability of maintaining the project goes to the state
agency. With limited resources available for the state agencies, it is becoming more difficult to
repair immediate road and bridge deficiencies. This in turn may be the reason a significant
number of roads and bridges in the U.S. are deteriorating.
The outlook of increased contractor responsibility has led parts of the nation to consider
design-build project delivery. A once widely accepted form of infrastructure project delivery,
design-build places the responsibility of design and construction on one entity. It used to be the
most common method for project construction such as aqueducts, cathedrals, and other major
public buildings. The widespread use reflected the need to have the project leader, traditionally
deemed the “master builder”, intimately involved in construction to ensure proper execution of
the design. It allowed for progressive problem solving when constructability issues arose from
the design.
Design-build fell out of favor over time, as complications with the contractual model
arose, such as projects becoming increasingly complex, required specialization and higher levels
of skill for specific components of the job. The design and construction roles diverged to serve
the specialization needs of the market and to increase accountability and responsibility.
Favoritism and process manipulation such as from the Transcontinental Railroad influenced the

10
United States to pass key legislation (1893 Congressional Act, 1926 Omnibus Public Buildings
Act, and 1947 Armed Services Procurement Act) to firmly divide the two. Once it became
institutionalized through laws and regulations, design-bid-build became the traditional form of
procuring and delivering government infrastructure projects in the United States. Design-bid-
build was perceived as more favorable as it innately led to checks and balances between the
separate entities and it was seen as the best way to produce projects at minimum cost.
Despite the popularity of design-bid-build, design-build had its advocates proclaiming its
efficiencies. On non-government contracts, private companies have had great success in
stretching scarce financial resources and expediting projects. In the late 1960s, government
agencies at all levels began to experiment with design-build project delivery to reduce time and
optimize costs. It was not until the 1996 Federal Acquisitions Reform Act that government
contracts could engage in design-build projects. Over the last 15 years, design-build has greatly
accelerated in the United States. Use of design-build has increased by 10% from 2005-2013 for
non-residential construction (DBIA). Penn State performed research, compromising 351 projects,
and determined design-build is 33.5% faster in project delivery with 5.2% less in cost when
compared to design-bid-build (DBIA).
Since design-build challenges established project delivery roles, it is one of the most
controversial methods today. Larger projects most suitable for design-build exclude smaller
firms who are unable to lead both operations. The project delivery system reduces competition
because there are fewer contractors amenable to perform design-build. Traditional low bid
contractor selection becomes more complex or is eliminated, because design-build project
delivery inherently leads the contractor to abide by their preferred method. Although similar,
different contractors will have different ways to design and build their task, so negotiating price

11
one contractor at a time becomes appropriate. The designer and contractor are constantly at each
other’s necks to ensure no corners are being cut. The checks and balances from having the
designer and constructor work separately are eliminated, and fear is present that an inferior
product will be produced in an attempt for hyper efficiency.
State agencies are implementing new experimental policies to improve methods of
preserving the roads and bridges for longer than the current policies. One example is
Performance Based Contracts, which similarly to the traditional way of contracting, allows the
contracting agency to develop a long-term goal of how they see the project being completed.
This includes a detailed transportation management plan created by the contractor and a
reasonable deadline to where the project will be completed. Then the contractor decides the best
way to go about reaching the desired outcome. Unlike the traditional contracts, performance
based contracts allows for flexibility and innovative methods. Since this type of contract is only
based on the success of the end result, it gives contractors and engineers the drive to concentrate
on the quality of the product with possible incentives if expectations for the scope are exceeded.
“With performance based contracts, payment is based on achievement at different milestones,
rewarding contractors for high or exceptional performance with bonus payments and penalizing
them for poor performance with fines, and risks are transferred to the contractor”(Segal 7). This
is a concept that keeps both the contractors and the workers motivated to do their best on the
project because they want the incentives. Performance based contracts normally last five years or
more with a fence-to-fence warranty meaning they will cover anything in the right of way that
they have constructed. For example, if any potholes appear from traffic within the warranty, the
contractors would have to come back and patch them. Another type of contracting that assists the
improvement of the road conditions is warranty-type contracts. This contract is similar to a

12
performance-based contract, but once the job is finished, the contractor has a warranty anywhere
from ten to twenty years for anything that happens to the road. If there are longitudinal cracks
along the center line within this warranty, the contractor would have to come out and seal them
as part of that contract.
Bridge Monitoring and Accelerated Design
Bridges are a vital component of America’s national infrastructure, which requires
massive investment. Currently, America’s bridges are degrading faster than the nation is
repairing them. As of 2014 approximately 24% of the nation’s bridges are either functionally
obsolete or structurally deficient. 13.8% of the bridges are functionally obsolete meaning they
are unable to meet current design standards, and 10% are structurally deficient meaning
elements of the bridge need monitoring or repair and cannot support heavy traffic loads (FHWA,
VDOT). The efficiency of money being spent on bridges needs to be increased since there is
limited funding to begin with. Therefore, innovative ways to improve bridge performance over
time at reduced cost are being explored. These methods include monitoring bridges to determine
their condition and optimize spending based upon data-driven assessments, and improving bridge
construction techniques to reduce the financial impact of building or replacing bridges. These
methods aim to maximize limited funding while maintaining a safe and efficient bridge network.
Bridge monitoring is the process of inspecting a bridge over a period of time to detect
changes or defects due to damage such as corrosion, impacts, or cracks. This process is
commonly done by visual inspections. Currently, for bridges over 20 feet long, inspection
protocols are governed by the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). Inspections occur
every two years at a minimum, and inspectors grade and document different aspects of the bridge
for damage and deterioration. Current improvements on the methodology involve element-based

13
inspection. Instead of inspecting components of a bridge and grading the entire section (ex:
bridge deck), element based inspections could be utilized. Element based inspections require
“each square foot of the bridge deck as well as its other elements, such as the joint seals to
receive a separate rating. Dividing bridge components into smaller, more manageable elements
ensures that engineers understand the extent of bridge deterioration. That, in turn, will help them
make more informed decisions about repair, preservation, and replacement.” (Nadeau). Element
based inspections would help inspectors and engineers to properly diagnose and monitor
problems, and suggest accurate solutions.
One alternative means of inspection currently being researched is structural health
monitoring (SHM). SHM is the process of monitoring a structure to detect changes in its
response due to the presence of damage or deterioration. The monitored response can be a
variation in the time and/or frequency domain. Measurements can include, but are not limited to,
strain measurements of girder webs, strain measurements of suspension cables, acceleration
measurements of girders, displacement measurements on girders, and acoustic monitoring of tie
bars. Numerous long-term, long-span bridge SHM systems have been implemented in China,
Japan, and the U.S. (Brownjohn). However, issues still remain, including limited measurements,
low damage sensitivity, random measurement noise, and environmental noise (Humar). Research
is currently being performed to mitigate the impact of those effects. Other types of monitoring
systems can be used to detect different damage scenarios for bridges. For example, the
University of Maryland's sensing whiskers for scour detection monitor for currents at locations
with the potential for scour such as embankments or submerged piers. Other techniques include
ground penetrating radar for analysis of subsurface features, and impact echo for detection of
damage in concrete bridge element (Ndtoolbox Bridges).

14
In addition to limiting costs by determining when maintenance is required after a bridge
has been built, efficient construction techniques can reduce the cost of building the structure,
reduce the impact on construction to motorists, and improve bridge performance. As new bridges
are required to meet increasing traffic demands and replace older bridges, these construction
techniques are becoming more prevalent. Accelerated bridge construction (ABC) techniques are
methods to rapidly construct bridges, thereby reducing the impact on motorists. These bridges
can also benefit from improved construction due to their frequent use of precast components,
which can offer higher quality control. One technique for bridge replacement involves building
the new bridge on a nearby staging area, and then using a self-propelled modular transporter
(SPMT), as seen in figure 1, to move the old bridge off the site and slide the new bridge in place.
Such a technique was successfully used in Maryland on the West Nursery Road project
(Maryland DOT).
Figure 4: SPMT on West Nursery Road Bridge (http://www.wagman.com/gafc/projects/west-
Nursery-Road-Bridge-Movers.asp#17)

15
Road Maintenance and Traffic Control Technology
With our nation's extensive and deteriorating, road network, significant savings can be
seen by implementing innovative and cost-effective traffic management and road maintenance
measures. Active traffic management is the ability to dynamically manage traffic based on trends
and current conditions. This type of traffic management has surged in popularity in recent years
with governments trying to improve highway congestion without committing to spending large
amounts of money to create new highways. Highway congestion is a huge problem discussed
amongst the transportation community. With more and more cars on the roads and limited
funding to create new roads, transportation authorities are looking for different ways to manage
the traffic with existing infrastructure. With new technology, automatic deployment of active
traffic management can optimize traffic flow and reduce congestion. Compared to operator
controlled deployment strategies, these new methods are much more efficient.
European countries were the pioneers of active traffic management, with the United
States slow to follow suit. Only within the past ten to fifteen years has FHWA taken a keen
interest in active traffic management, while European countries such as the Netherlands and
Germany have been practicing it since the 1970’s. With technological advances, these countries
have refined, improved, and automated their systems. The United States, in recent years, has
adopted some methods of active traffic management, and incorporated them into major highways
throughout the country. The most prevalent changes include variable speed limits, temporary
shoulder use, and dynamic signage. The New Jersey Turnpike has implemented many of these
in the past year to help offset the congestion anticipated from the closure of the Pulaski Skyway,
which is undergoing a massive reconstruction project.

16
Temporary shoulder use is used in conjunction with speed harmonization in order to deal
with peak hour traffic. This method allows drivers to use the existing shoulder as an extra lane
during peak hours. While this causes safety concerns because disabled vehicles have no
shoulder to pull over to, the tradeoff of increased roadway capacity for critical peak hours is
provides an acceptable risk-benefit ratio. Many countries in Europe, and now the United States,
are utilizing temporary shoulder use to help with rush hour traffic. As seen in figure 2, the lane
can be changed from emergency stopping only to open to traffic depending on time and
congestion.
Figure 5: Temporary Shoulder Use on I-66 in Virginia
Dynamic signing and rerouting is the use of current traffic patterns to reroute vehicles
away from congested areas. A common example of this is with travel times to the nearest points
of interest, as seen in figure 3. Variable message signs can be changed to display the current
conditions and open roads. Variable message signs can also be used to indicate upcoming
construction projects to help drivers plan alternate routes to reduce congestion for necessary
repairs. These variable message signs can also be used in emergency situations to alert drivers of

17
current roadway conditions. One example of this is when Hurricane Sandy ravaged New York
City; the tunnels were flooded and had to be closed. Using the variable message signs, New
York City officials were able to keep drivers updated as the situation progressed about tunnels
being closed to emergency use only and other conditions lessening congestion near the tunnels.
Figure 6: Dynamic Message Sign on I-70 in Ohio
In addition to improving traffic control, roadway conditions also need to be addressed. .
As of 2013, 32% of US roads were in poor or mediocre condition (ASCE Roads). This can be
improved via the use of pavement rehabilitation to increase pavement life at lower costs, and
quality control (QC) to improve pavement performance. Pavement rehabilitation can include
techniques such as crack filling or sealing, hot in-place hot-mix asphalt recycling, and thin HMA
overlays for asphalt, and joint resealing, diamond grinding, dowel bar retrofits, and patching for
concrete (Peshkin 5). Pavement monitoring for quality control includes techniques such as the
real-time smoothness profilers to improve concrete smoothness as it is placed, or infrared
cameras to ensure consistent asphalt temperature (Ndtoolbox Bridges).

18
The Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2) was developed as an effort to
implement developmental research. The research that has been done in the past few decades
offers an opportunity to improve the safety and reliability of our highway system. Renewal
Project R26, an effort created under SHRP2, concerns the preservation of high-traffic-volume
(HTV) roadways. Preservation techniques are utilized on good to fair condition roads, and act as
preventive measures to extend the road’s lifetime and improve its performance. Traditional
methods of roadway upkeep involve heavy rehabilitation once the road is showing signs of
failure. Roadway preservation is a forward thinking mentality which needs to be done more
frequently, but can be done faster, cheaper, and with a lesser impact on the public than
rehabilitation. Pavement rehabilitation treatments are generally considered suitable for both rural
and urban roadways and for different climate conditions. However, some treatments may not be
appropriate for all traffic and climate conditions.
There is substantial research explaining how and why preservation is beneficial, but there
is a lack of successful projects proving preservation works. In SHRP2’s strategy for R26,
successful implementation of specific preservation treatments is demonstrated, and the benefits
of pavement preservation are shared with states. Funds and technical support are also provided to
encourage states to implement preservation projects. A concern among state engineers is the
belief that R26’s guidelines do not fulfill their unique situation/circumstances, such as
environmental conditions or traffic demands. In response, the R26 project team hopes to market
its findings as a framework and resource. Emphasizing that the preservation guidelines provide a
helping hand that can be adapted to fit state needs may open closed minds. The implementation
assistance program has had success in this regard. Once the Maryland State Highway
Administration reviewed the R26 decision matrix, the agency decided to made adjustments to its

19
pavement tool base. The Georgia Department of Transportation was motivated to create a
preservation selection process upon reviewing R26’s guidelines and decided to adopt the R26
resource.
Selecting an appropriate preservation treatment for a given pavement at a given point of
time is not a simple process. TRB created a manual, Guidelines for Preservation of High-Traffic-
Volume Roadways, which goes over the guidelines created from project R26. The guidelines call
for a significant amount of information about the existing pavement as well as the needs and
constraints of the treatments to be performed. The performance information of the pavement
should include both the current and the historical trends of its overall condition. The type of
pavement, severity of pavement, and amount of individual stresses are all important factors to
consider. Measurements of ride quality and smoothness need to be recorded as quantitative
values. Once it is known what is required for the road and what the road has experienced in the
past, preservation selection may begin.
State agencies are very curious as to how much of a return these preservation treatments
can provide. In particular, the time and effort required to apply the preservation technique, and
how many years will be added to the road’s lifetime from the preservation. The TRB booklet
coined this term as Expected Treatment Performance, and it provides a valuable tool to
determine the usefulness of a preservation technique. Most treatments offer an extension of 3-5
years to the service life of the road. The booklet created in the SHRP2 initiative includes tables
that go into great detail of pavement life extension by each preservation method. The cost of
each treatment depends on features such as the size and location of the project, severity and
quantity of distress, and the quality of a treatment’s constituent’s materials.

20
Road preservations provide the ability to extend the service life and performance of
roadways, for reduced impact and cost. While preservation techniques have significant potential
benefits, many agencies are leery of their use due to the increased risk inherent with the use of
unfamiliar techniques. Part of the SHRP2 program involves demonstrating these pavement
techniques, and supporting agencies as they implement initial projects, to gain familiarity with
the techniques. Ideally, this will lead to an increased awareness, comfort, and utilization of
preservation techniques, which should provide safer, higher quality, and cheaper roads.
Implementation and the practice of preservation by highway agencies will involve working
through a variety of institutional obstacles but the effort is moving forward. Several key
implementation barriers exist, such as the disparity of preservation use in high and low traffic
volumes and the ability to convince agencies and the traveling public of its benefits.
Comprehensive guidelines for pavement preservation have been made and are readily available
to interested participants. Implementation efforts are ongoing as the R26 team works with the
States to be keener of the idea and to ultimately adopt aspects of the guidelines. Nevertheless,
preservation has a working foundation from the efforts of the SHRP2 initiative. An ongoing
marketing and research effort continues to show and prove preservation to be a cost-efficient and
beneficial alternative method.
Conclusions
With actions in Congress reflecting their acknowledgement of the nation’s failing
infrastructure, legislation such as the GROW AMERICA Act will greatly impact the economy
for current and future generations. More programs like the competitive TIGER grants should be
used to help stimulate economic growth in local communities and metropolitan areas alike.
Setting aside these funds will create jobs for many Americans and connect people and places

21
safely, easily, and efficiently. It is time for more attention and funding to be dedicated to
strengthening the backbone of the U.S.
Furthermore, performance based, design-build, and warranty-type contracts are smarter
and more reliable options than traditional contracts. When a contractor receives rewards for
doing an exceptional job on a project, they will be motivated to go above and beyond. If a
contractor knows that they will need to take care of the road for another 20 years, they will
attempt to build a road that will not deteriorate as quickly so they will not have to spend extra
money on repairs. Using contracts like these are an example of what can help fix and maintain
roadway and bridge infrastructure in the U.S.
In addition to increased, long-term, sustainable funding, improved applications of
funding are being developed to better implement the limited resources for maximum output.
Bridge monitoring offers the capability to actively determine the condition of bridges, which can
be used to optimize maintenance and rehabilitation while improving safety, though there are
concerns with the measurement and analysis quality. Innovative and efficient bridge construction
techniques allow bridges to be built with high quality control and minimum impact on traffic,
reducing construction costs in terms of traffic disruption. Active traffic management offers tools
to increase the efficiency of existing highways by increasing flow, reducing congestion, and
eliminating bottlenecks without requiring new, expensive construction. And roadway
preservation allows for the extension of the life and performance of existing pavement, reducing
the need for costly new pavement construction.
The nation is currently facing a crisis due to a lack of infrastructure funding, and a long
term dilemma due to increased traffic demand coupled with deteriorating roads and bridges.
Many initiatives are being implemented to address this, including long-term sustainable funding

22
solutions, innovative contracts, bridge monitoring and efficient construction, active traffic
management, and roadway preservation. While all of these solutions have their pros and cons,
together they help provide some of the tools necessary to maintain our nation's infrastructure
using the limited resources available, for the present and future generations.

23
References
ASCE. “2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure.” Web. 7/05/2015.
<http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/executive-summary/>
Brownjohn, James MW. "Structural health monitoring of civil infrastructure."Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering
Sciences 365.1851 (2007): 589-622.
CH2M Hill. "Summary of Interviews and Proposed Marketing Goals and Strategies." Interview
by Larry Galehouse, Georgene Garey, Jerry Gieb, Geoff Hall, and Colin Franco. Print.
"Consumer Price Index Data from 1913 to 2015." US Inflation Calculator. CoinNewsMeda
Group LLC, n.d. Web.
Dbia. What Is Design-Build? Design-Build Institute of America, n.d. Web. 02 Aug. 2015.
"Design-Build Effectiveness Study." FHWA. USDOT - Federal Highway Administration, Jan.
2006. Web. 03 Aug. 2015.
Dot.state.oh.us,. 'Dynamic Message Signs (DMS)'. N.p., 2014. Web. 13 Oct. 2014.
Foxx, Anthony. "GROW AMERICA Act." U.S. Department of Transportation. 04/25/2015.
Web.07/05/2015.
<www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/GROW_AMERICA_Overall_Fact_She
et.pdf.>
Foxx, Anthony. "TIGER Discretionary Grants." Department of Transportation. 04/03/2015.
Web. 07/15/2015. < http://www.transportation.gov/tiger>
FHWA. “Deficient Bridges by State and Highway System 2014.” US DOT. 05/28/2015. Web,
07/02/2015. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/no10/defbr14.cfm>

24
Humar, J. L., A. Bagchi, and H. Xu. "Challenges in vibration-based structural health
monitoring." Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Structural Health
Monitoring and Intelligent Infrastructure. 2003.
International.fhwa.dot.gov,. 'Active Traffic Management: The Next Step In Congestion
Management | Office Of International Programs | FHWA'. N.p., 2014. Web. 13 Oct.
2014.
Maryland DOT. “Replacement of the West Nursery Road Bridges over MD 295.” Web,
07/10/2015.
<http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/webprojectlifecycle/AA259_51/htdocs/Documents/Addi
tional_Documents/Fact%20Sheet%202_Bridge%20Details%20and%20Timeline.pdf>
Miller, PhD, Ted R., and Eduard Zaloshnja, PhD. "STUDY: Majority of Highway Fatalities
Caused by Deficient Road Conditions." Autoblog. 2 July 2009. Web. 14 July 2015.
<http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/02/study-majority-of-highway-fatalities-caused-by-
deficient-road-c/>.
Nadeau, Gregory. “Bridge inspection program stronger with more precise data.” Fast Lane. U.S.
DOT, 06/12/2015. Web. 06/17/2015. <https://www.transportation.gov/fastlane/bridge-
inspection-program-better-data>
National Highway Institute. "Fundamentals." Federal-Aid Highways 101. Washington, DC:
USDOT Federal Highway Administration, 2014. 1-40. Print.
Ops.fhwa.dot.gov,. 'Active Traffic Management: Approaches: Active Transportation And
Demand Management - FHWA Operations'. N.p., 2014. Web. 13 Oct. 2014.
Ops.fhwa.dot.gov. 'Synthesis Of Active Traffic Management Experiences In Europe And The
United States - Section 3'. N.p., 2014. Web. 12 Oct. 2014.

25
Ops.fhwa.dot.gov. 'Efficient Use Of Highway Capacity Summary: Chapter 3 Critical Issues -
FHWA Operations'. N.p., 2014. Web. 12 Oct. 2014.
Peshkin, David G., et al. “Guidelines for the Preservation of High-traffic-volume Roadways.”
Transportation Research Board, 2011.
SAIC, AECOM Consult, and University of Colorado at Boulder. "Design-Build Effectiveness
Study." Design-Build Effectiveness Study. FHWA, Jan. 2006. Web. 17 July 2015
Segal, Geoffrey F. "Contracting for Road and Highway Maintenance." Canadian Institute of
Food Science and Technology Journal 16.1 (2003): 1-27. Www.rppi.org. Public Policy
Committee. Web.
Ndtoolbox.Strategic Highway Renewal Program (SHRP2). Web. 7/12/2015.
<http://ndtoolbox.org/>
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). “Bridge Inspection Definitions.” 7/30/2015.
<http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/bridge_defs.pdf>
United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Data Collection
Guide for SHRP 2 R26 Pavement Preservation Projects. By Kelly L. Smith and David G.
Peshkin. N.p.: n.p., 2014. Print.
United States. National Research Council. Transportation Research Board, Second Strategic
Highway Research Program. Preservation Approaches for High-Traffic-Volume
Roadways. By David G. Peshkin. N.p.: Transportation Research Board, 2001. Print.
United States. U.S. DOT. FHWA. A Guide to Federal-Aid Programs and Projects. U.S.
Department of Transportation, n.d. Web. 27 July 2015.
United States. U.S. DOT. FHWA. Highway Trust Fund and Taxes. U.S Department of
Transportation, 12 Sept. 2013. Web. 27 July 2015

Roadways_and_Bridges

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Roadways_and_Bridges

Roadways_and_Bridges