Transcript PowerPoint Presentation - Save the Longfellow Bridge

Our Legacy of Neglect:
The Longfellow Bridge and The Cost
of Deferred Maintenance
(Photo by Christopher Penler)
The Longfellow Bridge Today
• The bridge was constructed out
of granite and steel in 1906,
using methods which are now
outdated.
• The bridge carries over
49,500 vehicles per day plus
an estimated 97,000 daily
MBTA Red Line transit
passengers.
Deterioration of the Bridge
The most recent inspection of the bridge was done in
September 2006.
• Some of the original deck
sections contain large rust
holes ( with 100% section
loss) and the arch ribs
also have heavy rusting
and section loss.
• The stringers, floor
beams and posts are rated
as “4-Poor”, on a scale of
1 to 9 (1-imminent failure
to 9-excellent).
Deterioration of the Bridge
• The substructure consists of the
10 granite piers in the river and
the 2 abutments.
• The pier walls have random
areas of cracked and missing
mortar joints. Four of the piers
have vertical cracks extending
down through four courses of
granite block and some have
vertical cracks extending all the
way down to the water line.
Maintenance History of the
Longfellow
The Longfellow has undergone two repair projects since 1907;
first in 1959, then again in 2003.
• The 1959 project
included some structural
repairs and replacements
and cost an estimated
$2M.
• The 2003 project
included structural
repairs, graffiti removal,
sidewalk repairs and
lighting, at a cost of
$3.2M.
Construction and Maintenance Spending
• Based on the ENR Construction Cost Index, the 1959
rehabilitation would be equivalent to $19.7M and 2002
rehabilitation equivalent to $3.8M in 2007 dollars.
• Thus the historical spending to date is $272.5M.
Date
Cost
Initial
Construction
1907
$2.6M
First Rehab
1959
$2.0M
Second Rehab
2002
$3.2M
Total Historical Cost to Date
Cost (2007 $)
$249.0M
$19.7M
$3.8M
$272.5M
Fixing the Longfellow Bridge could cost up to
$200 million, or more…
• Costs may escalate based on
engineering findings.
• Symptomatic of a larger
problem: Commonwealth’s
assets suffer from a
maintenance backlog in the
tens of billions of dollars.
• We lack a comprehensive, state-wide system to manage assets,
as well as the funding and political will to properly maintain our
assets. There is nothing to stop the problem from growing worse.
The Cost of Longfellow’s Deferred Maintenance
• In January 2006, the Executive Office
of Transportation, stated that “[t]he
current $70 million price tag could
rise to $100 million.”
• Currently, the official Massachusetts
Highway Department estimate is
$180 million.
• Transportation Finance Commission,
issued on March 28, 2007, estimated
repair costs at $200 million.
• Findings of engineering study may
radically escalate this estimate.
A New Bridge?
With an approximate total
cost of $480 million
(historical cost + estimated
cost of repairs), a new
replacement bridge begins
to appear economically
rational, but unreasonable
due to the bridge’s
significance.
After the existing bridge has been rebuilt or repaired, will
we again let it deteriorate without proper maintenance, or
will it be properly maintained?
Asset Life-Cycle
•It is expected that there is a 40 percent drop in quality over 75 percent
of an asset’s lifetime, then a more precipitous drop in the final quarter
of the asset’s life.
•The effect of not
maintaining an asset is
called “running to ground”.
100
Acceptable Condition Level
Maintenance
Restores
Asset Condition
Good
Condition
80
Asset Condition
•Maintenance can restore
the condition of an asset
before its condition reaches
the inflection point and
begins to decline rapidly.
120
60
Lack of Maintenace
Results in
"Run To Ground"
40
20
Poor Condition
0
0
20
Ref . Reece, GASB , Maze
40
60
Tim e
80
100
120
What Could Have Been Done
• The Longfellow Bridge
suffered from a lack of annual
maintenance compounded over
many years.
• Major repairs were
undertaken in 1959 and
lesser repairs in 2002, but
years of neglect have caught
up with the structure.
• The following three scenarios
evaluate different levels of
investment in maintenance that
could have been implemented
upon completion of the bridge.
Scenario 1
Invest 1 percent of the bridge’s capital cost each year in a
maintenance program.
• If an investment of 1 percent
each year in maintenance was
made that would be equivalent
to a total of $62.7 million in
today’s dollars.
• With the addition of a projected
$80 million in current
rehabilitation costs (equal to
40% of the estimate), the total
savings (relative to the actual
scenario) would be
approximately $80 million.
Scenario 2
Invest 2.5 percent of the bridge’s capital cost each year in a
maintenance program
• By investing 2.5 percent
each year in maintenance
that would be equivalent to
a total of $156.8 million in
today’s dollars.
• With the addition 20% of
the rehab cost, the total
savings would be $26.7
million.
Scenario 3: Reality
Actual Scenario: No annual maintenance program, but a major
rehabilitation in 1959 followed by lesser repairs in 2002.
• Capital depreciation is
assumed to be 100
percent of the
rehabilitation cost,
currently set at $200
million. The total cost to
keep the bridge in good
repair is $223.5 million
• But these cost estimates
mask the reality of the
bridge’s poor condition
Maintenance Scenarios
(% asset value on Scenario 1
Maintenance; $M) (1%)
Scenario 2 Scenario 3
(2.5%)
(Actual)
Maintenance Cost
$62.7M
$156.8M
$23.5M
$80.0M
$40.0M
$200.0M
$142.7M
$196.8M
$223.5M
$80.8M
$26.7M
N/A
Current Cost to
Rehab
Total Cost to
Return Bridge to
Good Repair
Savings from
Maintenance
Statewide Backlog of Deferred
Maintenance
•Total depreciated value of state
assets at $24.9 billion in June 2006.
•Our study estimates a deferred
maintenance backlog of at least $17
billion.
•This deferral of maintenance is
caused by:
•Unwillingness to prioritize
maintenance over new projects
•Diffusion of responsibility for assets
across the public sector
•Incentives that discourage spending
on maintenance
Maintenance Backlogs
Entity
Citation
Mass Highway - Pavement
MHD 5 Year Pavement
Condition Tables
April 2007 PMT Advisory Board
Meeting
UMASS 2007 Financial
Indicators Report
11/12/06 Boston Globe Article
11/06 Roadmap
UMASS 2007 Financial
Indicators Report
10/06 Performance Report
Author’s Estimate
Gienapp Design Associates
6/26/07 Report
5/15/07 Press Report
MBTA
UMASS Amherst
DCR
State and Community Colleges
Remainder of UMASS (Boston,
Dartmouth, Lowell, Worcester)
Mass Highway - Bridges
County Sheriffs
Trial Court
Mass Pike - Bridges
Other – MWRA, Massport,
RTAs, Steamship Authority
Total Maintenance Backlog
Backlog Estimate
($B)
$6.2
$2.7
$1.6
$1.3
$1.2
$1.1
$1.0
>$1.0
$.5
$.4
Unknown
At least $17 billion
Disincentives for Maintenance
• Due to the current system, any maintenance spending from an
agency’s operating budget results in a reduction of funds available
for programs.
• By neglecting maintenance (and potentially running assets to
failure), operating funds can be maximized.
• The eventual failure of the building-related assets will result in an
emergency disbursement of capital funds, which come from DCAM’s budget
and will not impact the agency’s operating budget.
Current Asset Management
The Commonwealth does not have
overarching systems in place to:
• Adequately inventory assets
• Assess their condition
• Estimate the cost of deferred
maintenance
•DCR now utilizes FAMIS, the Facility
Administration and Maintenance Information
System, for their own assets, with the exception
of major bridges including the Longfellow.
•Longfellow will become part of the PONTIS
bridge maintenance system includes data and
analytical models for an inventory of the state's
bridges.
Options for Improving Maintenance
• The lines of responsibility for maintenance
should be clarified.
• The DCAM should be empowered to fulfill its
statutory ability to monitor the maintenance of
non-transportation, non-park assets.
• A report should be issued yearly on the status of
assets by department, including maintenance
progress and funding.
• The Governor’s Office and the Executive Office
of Administration and Finance should highlight
the importance of maintenance to program
managers and reward them and their programs
for improvements in maintenance practices.
Conclusions
• The lack of maintenance, and its
resultant cost, on the Longfellow is
symptomatic of a problem that
stretches across the assets owned by
the Commonwealth.
• We lack a centralized system to
comprehensively manage our
assets.
• There is no state-wide plan in place
to stop the problem from growing
worse.
• A regular program of maintenance
would have extended the bridge’s
useful service life and lowered
overall rehabilitation costs.
Recommendations
• Only build new structures and expand the
transportation network with a
comprehensive life-cycle management
plan in place.
• The Executive Office of Administration
and Finance should prepare a report on
asset conditions, condition trends,
maintenance efforts and maintenance plans
for each department and authority by asset
class and actively reward those agencies
that are addressing the problem.
• Each state agency should include in its
annual operating budget an amount equal
to 2 percent of replacement value for such
capital asset
Recommendations
•A Commonwealth Facilities Maintenance Reserve Fund should be
established, beginning with only 0.1 percent of the general fund in
the first year and rising 0.1 percent per year to 1 percent of the
general fund in the 10th year
•The Commonwealth and its political subdivisions should consider
utilizing the GASB 34 “Modified Approach” to promote active
asset management.
•The Governor should establish general principles for
infrastructure maintenance to be followed by all state infrastructure
agencies
•Governor should charge the Executive Office of Transportation
and Public Works, and the Division of Capital Asset Management
with responsibility for establishing a process to more fully develop
and oversee maintenance and reporting guidelines