Federal and state government agencies collect valuable data on the quality and safety of every publicly-owned bridge in the nation, but they do not make that information available to the public in useable form, a newspaper investigation shows.
While there is no evidence that slow and incomplete delivery of bridge data violates any laws or covers up any dangerous bridges, it is clear that taxpayers aren”t getting their money”s worth when it comes to bridge information.
Federal officials admit serious access issues and say plans are in the works to make data more accessible. But Caltrans has no plans to change their data dissemination, despite criticism from U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer and the frustrations of news reporters and bloggers.
When the Minneapolis I-35W bridge plunged into the Mississippi River on Aug. 1, there was just one readily accessible source of information for thousands of reporters and millions of readers who wanted information on their local bridges; that was www.nationalbridges.org.
The Website is the hobby of New England bridge aficionado Alexander Svirsky, who put the rest of the nation”s bridges online as a courtesy. His source is the National Bridge Inventory, which all 50 states gather and submit to the Federal Highway Administration.
Paid for by taxpayers, the National Bridge Inventory was intended by Congress to be the key information tool in monitoring national bridge quality standards.
Within hours of the Minnesota bridge collapse, the massive wave of interest had knocked Svirsky”s server off-line.
With the private Website off for four days, the Investigative Reporters and Editors Library at the University of Missouri was virtually the only source of useable National Bridge Inventory information on local bridges. Investigative Reporters and Editors offers a variety of resources to journalists engaged in in-depth work.
This newspaper began searching for answers immediately on local bridges but found that District 1 Caltrans officials wouldn”t discuss the National Bridge Inventory — and for nearly a week after the tragedy were saying the inventory data wasn”t theirs.
Caltrans” headquarters released a small portion of the National Bridge Inventory in a hastily called press conference on Aug. 9. Caltrans Director Will Kempton used the National Bridge Inventory as his source for that press conference. Later, Caltrans did make an engineer available to answer questions bridge by bridge — but they still weren”t interested in dealing with the National Bridge Inventory as a whole.
The inventory is available on the Federal Highway Administration Website but in a massive, raw database, which is virtually impossible for the general public to translate. And if a news reporter does manage to translate it, government officials often weren”t willing to clarify the data.
Frustrating lack of access
Several newspaper reporters told this publication they were frustrated by the difficulty of accessing the National Bridge Inventory. But an extensive Web search showed TV and newspapers are unwilling to spend much time on problems with the inventory, even when it means lacking local information about bridges.
Weblogs specializing in bridges, mapping, computer software and databases did question why there is so little information about bridges, despite the existence of the National Bridge Inventory. A Weblog is like an online notebook the public can read; several bloggers expressed shock at government agencies” inability to convey useful data about bridges.
Coby Logen, who operates GovWatch, a blog whose sole purpose is to review the federal government”s use of Websites, had the exact same experience as this newspaper — being stonewalled by government bridge officials and being a little shocked that the University of Missouri and Svinsky are the useable sources of information on the National Bridge Inventory.
“There are many things I think should be done to improve the NBI database and Web interface,” Logen said. “It”s amazing that the NBI database does not have even the most basic query interface to learn the condition of specific bridges.”
Like dozens of news reporters, Logen turned to Svinksy last month.
“After the I-35 bridge collapse, Americans had to go to a tool provided by a private citizen to learn the conditions of the bridges they use,” said Logen. “Unfortunately for many, Alexander [Svinsky]”s site was not able to handle the amount of traffic it received and had to be taken offline for four days. The Federal Government cannot simply hope that someone else will do its job. The [Federal Highway Administration] should either develop an online NBI database query tool or create an official partnership with a company that will do so.”
Coby Logen is not his real name; he is a federal expert whose boss allows him to critique other agencies under a penname as long as he doesn”t use the name of his own division. He is known to this reporter.
“The [Federal Highway Administration] ought to make accessible to Americans the data we have already purchased with our tax dollars,” Logen said. “This will empower everyday citizens and more journalists to analyze the data, inform themselves, and find insights the [Federal Highway Administration] or state officials may not have seen. Otherwise, all we can do is trust the Secretary of Transportation, who, two days after the I-35W bridge collapse, reassured America, I do believe that America”s highways and bridges are safe.””
Logen spends much of his blogging energy on poor use of the Internet by health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control.
“I started the blog because I saw a lack of action from some government executives toward making needed improvements to their agency Websites. Government executives need to learn that Americans care about and depend on the quality of the main channel their government uses to communicate with them in the 21st century,” Logen said.
You have the data,
what”s the problem?
“The National Bridge Inventory ASCII files are not user friendly,” states the blog Free Government Information, which was founded by top university librarians and professors to discuss such problems. “They are in fixed-width format and have a zillion fields,” the blog states. ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange, pronounced “askee”) is a file format.
National Bridge Inventory data downloads as a pile of numbers.
“The Federal Highway Administration makes NBI data available in a set of 51 complex ASCII text files, which would require hours to import into Excel or Access,” said Logen. Excel and Access are programs for computers that allow data to be analyzed through spreadsheets, tables and other tools.
“The [Federal Highway Administration] should also provide their database files in a format researchers can use without hours of error-prone reformatting. Excel, CSV, or Access formats are standard choices. One has to be an expert in computer programming and data analysis to succeed in using the NBI database files provided by the FHWA,” Logen said.
Svirsky saw the opaque nature of the data as an opportunity to make a difference.
“In 2001, as a database engineer with a hobby of researching historic bridges, I found the National Bridge Database and recognized it as a jewel in the rough,” Svirsky said. “It contains valuable information intended for an engineer to make readable. I designed a relational database around it and made the query search engine available to the public. At first I had included only New England, the focus of my personal interests, but grew it to include New York and eventually the fifty states.”
Svirsky provided a lengthy technical explanation of what he did to translate the massive data tables.
Is everything really OK?
Federal and state officials spent much of August assuring the public that bridges across California and the nation were OK and that the term “structurally deficient” did not mean any bridge was in danger of falling.
In California there are 1,620 state-owned bridges and 1,950 local bridges that have been rated “structurally deficient” under the federal rating system.
If those officials had released and used the data they are mandated to gather and share, they would have been able to show why bridges are listed as “structurally deficient.”
That, more detailed data, does show that local bridges on the deficient list are not considered dangerous. (Complete information will be included in part two of this story.)
Among Highway 1 bridges in Mendocino County classified “structurally deficient” are the Salmon Creek Bridge at Albion, Big River Bridge at Mendocino, Jug Handle Creek Bridge at Caspar, Hare Creek Bridge at Fort Bragg and the Ten Mile River Bridge. The Albion River, Jack Peters Creek and Russian Gulch bridges are all classified as “functionally obsolete.”
What is the NBI?
The National Bridge Inventory database is compiled by the Federal Highway Administration, with mandated reporting by state departments of transportation, (such as Caltrans) on all publicly-owned bridges and tunnels in the United States.
The Federal Highway Administration uses the inventory to monitor inspection standards and to submit a comprehensive report to Congress each year on the condition of the nation”s bridges.
In March 2006, the director of the Federal Highway Administration responded to criticism by its own inspector general, saying, “The National Bridge Inventory database, which is the official source of all national bridge information, contains several report tools for data analysis as well as a new module scheduled for implementation in April of 2006 that will allow bridge engineers to quickly identify changes in items that typically would not change from year to year, such as load rating data.”
The 2006 Inspector General report warned that errors by states in the inventory could be dangerous. That report, which focused on structurally deficient bridges, now sounds prophetic, based on what happened in Minnesota.
What is a structurally deficient bridge?
“A structurally deficient bridge is one that has major deterioration, cracks, or other flaws that reduce its ability to support vehicles,” states a definition provided by the Federal Highway Administration”s inspector general. “Proper and regularly scheduled reviews of the calculations of all bridges” maximum safe load ratings are important because as a bridge ages, corrosion and decay can decrease its capacity to support vehicles.”
“A structurally deficient bridge can suffer partial failures that further decrease its capacity and can pose a risk to public safety,” the report continues. “In the worst-case scenario, corrosion and decay of bridge structures can weaken a bridge to the point of collapse.”
Most federal bridge safety standards were created in 1968 in response to just such a catastrophe — an Ohio River bridge collapse, caused by corrosion, that killed 46 people in 1967.
“Despite the creation of new standards, four more major bridge failures in Connecticut, New York, Tennessee, and California from 1983 to 1995 killed a total of 28 people,” the Federal Highway Administration Inspector General report states. “All five of these major bridge failures were caused at least in part by structural deficiencies.”
The National Bridge Inventory, which some public officials are so disinclined to translate, was created by Congress as the key monitoring tool in keeping inspections on track on structurally deficient bridges. In its current form, it originated in 1998, as part of the ongoing revisions to bridge safety monitoring at the Federal Highway Administration.
One reason the newspaper wanted to discuss the National Bridge Inventory with public officials is the difference between cautionary statements like the above report and the repeated reassurances by Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration following the Minnesota bridge collapse that there are no unsafe public bridges in use.
Officials asserted that the inventory was primarily a way to prioritize funding for bridges.
The states with the highest percentage of structurally deficient bridges are Michigan and Pennsylvania with 15 to 20 percent, according to the inspector general”s report. Next worst are California, Oklahoma, Vermont, West Virginia, Alaska and Puerto Rico where between 10 and 15 percent of the bridges are structurally deficient.
Caltrans” response
Barton Newton, a Caltrans bridge engineer, said the agency would not be the conduit for information about the National Bridge Inventory, stating it is available elsewhere.
“I think the information is available through various public sources. It may not be easy to manage, but it is available ? Because it is provided on another source, the department has not provided that information,” said Newton. He indicated that would continue to be the state agency”s position.
Caltrans did provide a priority list of four bridges needing replacement in Mendocino County. The first two are on the coast, Ten Mile River Bridge first and the Greenwood Creek Bridge in Elk. (Full list next week.) The Ten Mile Bridge replacement project is under way. The Elk bridge is set to be fixed in 2009-2010.
Newton said Caltrans would discuss specific questions about any bridge. He also repeated the statement made by Caltrans following the Minnesota incident — that Caltrans would immediately close any bridge that was truly dangerous.
“Every bridge has a story,” he said.
Newton quickly provided the stories on the four bridges listed by the inventory as most unsafe in the county; showing one was a temporary bridge now replaced and others weren”t as bad as they sounded. (Full list in next week”s segment.) The Usal Road bridge over Usal Creek was one of just two in the county to get the worst designation possible in the inventory: “Basically intolerable requiring high priority of replacement.” Usal Road is located off Highway 1 between Rockport and Laytonville.
The Minnesota bridge had a much higher rating than any of the four, and was judged to meet minimum standards and OK to stay in place.
Newton said there were some serious problems with the timbers in the remote Usal bridge, which was closed, then repaired and reopened.
But his own knowledge of bridge stories is why the press and public can”t really use the National Bridge Inventory without the help of a reluctant Caltrans. The Usal bridge has been fixed and reopened recently and its score is likely to leap upwards when the next inspection report is filed.
“There is a lag,” Newton explained.
But without that interpretation, the public data would mislead readers into thinking that the bridge is still dangerous — and open.
Caltrans officials had not responded to queries for a week after the collapse and then responded by saying Caltrans Director Will Kempton”s safety assurances and hand-picked data would be all that was forthcoming.
Another result of public officials” failure to make the inventory palatable came when MSNBC.com broadcast a full summary of the inventory the day after the Minnesota bridge collapse, accurately cracking the dense data. MSNBC reported that Fort Bragg had one of the worst bridges — a bridge over the Noyo River that rated a 2 on a scale of 1-100.
That was picked up by several sources, including KZYX&Z news, which then corrected the baffling information. The rating was for the old Noyo River Bridge; the replacement bridge was completed in summer 2006.
When the newspaper asked about the 2 rating, Caltrans Spokeswoman Ann Jones cited that as part of the reason Caltrans wasn”t commenting on “somebody else”s information.”
The newspaper went back into the National Bridge Inventory information produced by Caltrans and found that deeper in the 120 information fields was a field that said the old bridge had been replaced. Also in the inventory is the new Noyo Bridge, which rates an 80.6 percent on a scale of 1 to 100.
That”s a key danger in news reporters and bloggers acting alone to interpret government data from private sources. Such errors in translating massive databases are common, not just by reporters but by state agencies.
“It is interesting that you note how prone your analysis is to error, because that is cited as a problem in Exhibit 300 of the [National Bridge Inventory],” said blogger Logen.
“The Exhibit 300 document summarizes the problem as, There are numerous data errors being made by the State users (this refers to agencies like Caltrans, not the media) that are impacting the usefulness of the data.” In fact, the Department of Transportation has cited this problem in every budget request since 2005 … The [Federal Highway Administration] has known since at least 2005 that analysis done using the [National Bridge Inventory] database is plagued with errors and still has not solved the problem,” said Logen.
Several blog advocates say the errors are another reason why the Federal Highway Administration needs to present the data so that everyone can see and use it and help find errors.
Each page of the truncated data Caltrans released in the special online news conference was topped with an admonition in all capitals, “DO NOT MISCONSTRUE THE TERM STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT TO MEAN A BRIDGE IS IN DANGER OF COLLAPSE.”
But because Caltrans omitted vital data, which was available in the National Bridge Inventory, it was impossible for reporters to know from Caltrans” information which of the bridges classified as structurally deficient were the best and worst. (More information will be presented in next week”s segment.)
Newspaper reporters in other parts of the state knew better than to ask Caltrans for detailed bridge information.
“Caltrans Sacramento distributed a list of structurally deficient bridges in California,” said an investigative reporter at a large Southern California daily newspaper, “but it turned out to be just the list of the state and federal highway bridges that they are responsible for maintaining. That left about half the state”s bridges, the locally-maintained bridges that Caltrans inspects, unaddressed.”
The reporter is not allowed to be quoted by name in other newspapers but is known by this newspaper. She has specialized training in database use. With Caltrans issuing truncated data, she did the work from the raw information.
“I downloaded the National Bridge Inventory for California from the federal government Website,” she said. “I used the record layout and the federal book on coding bridge inspection data to arrange and analyze the data in (database manager) Access.”
Caltrans has no plans to change its stance on data handling, as the following email exchange with headquarters shows:
? Newspaper: “Are there any plans to change anything about bridge information reporting based on the hearing at the Capitol or other things that have happened this summer?”
? Caltrans headquarters: “No. We will be discussing the bridge rating system with the Federal Highway Administration and our local partners.”
Highway Administration response
The National Bridge Inventory was originally intended to be used by engineers but has always been a public record.
“This was not originally intended as the tool it has become, but times have changed,” said Nancy Singer, spokeswoman for the Federal Highway Administration. “We recognize that we have the Internet now, and we are looking at some improvements that need to be made in the data.”
“Essentially, the data is used as a tool for us to determine which bridges are candidates for federal funding or replacement,” she said.
Agencies appear to be within the law
Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, said as long as Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration are releasing data in the form they use, they are within the law.
“Many of these government databases are old and often in outdated software designed specifically for them that in today”s terms are basically garbage. These are not replaced, often because of cost.
“It may be inscrutable, but if it is in a form the agency normally produces it, they are not obligated to convert it to use by off-the-shelf software.”
The ASCII format the National Bridge Inventory arrives in is a cut above many databases provided by the government, but the extensive fields beg for interpretation and confirmation.
Much of the inventory data is broken down by the Federal Highway Administration and available on their Website or in annual reports to Congress. But that does not include any regional and local specific information, which the states could also break down and provide.
“The structured reports provide good summary information for lawmakers and appropriators,” Logen explained. “However they tell motorists nothing about the conditions of specific bridges.”
Logen offers a solution to the National Bridge Inventory problems. “What the [Federal Highway Administration] should do is provide: (1) an easy-to-use NBI search tool that is available during periods of high online traffic and (2) database files already in Excel and/or other database application formats,” Logen said.
Logen has gotten no responses from the Federal Highway Administration, despite emailing all those involved. The newspaper is seeking comments from the highway administration before next week.
“The [Federal Highway Administration] may be trying to avoid unfounded fear about the condition of American bridges,” Logen said, “but as the I-35 collapse shows, public vigilance is justified. Every citizen has the right to perform due diligence on their commute to ensure they and their family are safe. Americans pay at least $650,000 per year to compile bridge inspection results into the NBI database. It is their right to have reasonable access to this public information.”
Boxer criticizes
bridge information
There have been calls by important California politicians for better information on bridges.
U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, conducted a special hearing at the state Capitol to learn of the state”s efforts to review bridge safety. She came away unsatisfied, the Associated Press reported.
“I feel I don”t have enough information,” she said. “They should please give me the most updated, honest assessment I can get. If it”s not a good-news assessment, we can act on it,” the story by Paul Sakuma of the AP stated.
Boxer chided Caltrans Director Will Kempton for suggesting one of the things the federal government can do to help in the wake of the disaster is to change what he called “inflammatory” terms used in the federal bridge rating system.
Kempton, asserting that 95 percent of those bridges were flagged because of surface problems that have nothing to do with their structural safety, said the rating is “misleading” and unnecessarily alarms the public.
“I do not favor changing the language,” Boxer responded, the story reported. “That”s a poor signal to send, and people would be very cynical.”
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nu?ez of Los Angeles echoed Boxer”s concerns, the AP reported.
“We have not done a thorough enough job of making sure our bridges are structurally safe,” Nu?ez said. “It”s the necessary thing to do.”
Kempton has repeatedly assured the public that bridge safety is not a cause for alarm in California. “Our bridges in California are safe,” he testified.
He noted that because of seismic safety regulations, California bridges are built to higher standards than those in other parts of the country. All bridges, he testified, are inspected at least every two years.
COMING NEXT WEEK
How does the bridge you cross every day rate? Next week, this newspaper will present National Bridge Inventory scores of Mendocino Coast bridges, along with a look into the data to see why some old bridges are rated better than current standards, some are structurally deficient and a few truly need replacement. We will present the worst and best bridges in the entire county, and the surprising good rating of the county”s oldest bridge. We will also answer questions such as why the Big River Bridge, and many others in California, remained structurally deficient after a multi-million seismic upgrade. Caltrans” “fracture critical” county bridge list will be presented and explained, along with the status of a California Public Record”s Act request into recent inspections on all major structurally deficient bridges on the Mendocino Coast. Open government advocacy groups are concerned public officials may use Homeland Security exemptions to block release of bridge inspection results.
