• Home
• About Me
• Contribute
• JFK’s Immortal Challenge
• We’re All in the Same Boat Now

FHWA Emergency Repair Program Manual Analysis

The FHWA Emergency Relief Program description is also online here in case you want to read it online: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/specialfunding/er/guide.cfm

Now, after reading the FHWA material I dug into its manual, available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/erm/ermchap2.cfm#a
Blue highlights are mine. Right on the first page we read:

The ER program provides for repair and restoration of highway facilities to pre-disaster conditions. Restoration in kind is therefore the predominate type of repair expected to be accomplished with ER funds. ER funds are not intended to replace other Federal-aid, State, or local funds for new construction to increase capacity, correct non-disaster related deficiencies, or otherwise improve highway facilities.

Added protective features, such as the relocation or rebuilding of roadways at higher elevation or lengthening or raising bridges, and added facilities not existing prior to the natural disaster or catastrophic failure, such as additional lanes, upgraded surfacing, or structures are commonly referred to as a betterment. Betterments are not generally eligible for ER funding unless justified. The eligibility of betterments is discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

…

2. Permanent Repairs

a. General

b. Restoration-in-Kind

1. The ER program provides for the repair and restoration of highway facilities to pre-disaster conditions. Restoration in kind is therefore the predominant type of repair accomplished with ER funds. Any additional protective features or changes to the function or character from that of the pre-disaster facility are generally not eligible for ER funding unless justified on the basis of economy of construction, prevention of future recurring damage, or technical feasibility.

c. Replacement-in-Kind

i. Existing Location

Where extensive damage has occurred, ER funds may be used for replacement-in-kind as the proper solution. If a facility has been damaged to the extent that restoration to its pre-disaster condition is not technically or economically feasible, a replacement facility is appropriate. Replacement facilities should be constructed to meet current design standards.

ER participation in a replacement roadway will be limited to the costs of a roadway built to current design standards, and of comparable capacity, (e.g., number of lanes), and character, (e.g., surfacing type, access control, rural/urban section), of the destroyed facility. ER reimbursement for a replacement bridge will be the cost of a new bridge built to current design standards for the type and volume of traffic the bridge will carry during its design life.

d. Deficient Bridges (note – QB not considered structurally deficient)

This category includes structural conditions only. It does not consider waterway opening, functional obsolescence or serviceability, etc. Permanent repair of a structurally deficient damaged bridge is eligible for ER funding provided a replacement bridge is not under construction or the bridge is not scheduled for replacement (in the FHWA approved STIP) with other Federal funds. Inclusion of bridge replacement work in a city or local agency capital improvement plan is viewed by FHWA as prior scheduled work and therefore is not eligible for ER funding (see Chapter II, Section C-7, Prior Scheduled Work). The intent is to ensure that ER funds do not replace other Federal funds that would have otherwise been used to construct a replacement facility. The following represent two common situations:

1. 1. Bridge is damaged but is repairable.

      ER funds may participate in:

      • Reasonable emergency repair to restore travel
      • Permanent repair of disaster damage if bridge will be structurally safe upon completion of disaster damage repair (meaning that repair of disaster damage corrects structural deficiency)
      • Permanent repair of disaster damage if other funds are used to simultaneously correct the structural deficiencies (meaning that repair of disaster damage will not correct structural deficiency)
      • No permanent repair if bridge is scheduled for replacement
   2. Bridge is destroyed or repair is not feasible.

      ER funds may participate in:

      • Reasonable emergency repairs to restore traffic
      • New comparable replacement structure to current design standards and to accommodate design-year traffic volume if bridge is not scheduled for replacement
      • No permanent repair if bridge is scheduled for replacement in the current FHWA approved STIP or local capital improvement plan or a replacement bridge is under construction.

Betterments:

Betterments, for the purposes of the ER program, are defined as (i) added protective features, such as the rebuilding of roadways at a higher elevation or the lengthening of bridges, or (ii) changes which modify the function or character of a highway facility from what existed prior to the disaster or catastrophic failure, such as additional lanes or added access control.

Betterments Involving Added Protective Features:

This category of betterments involves adding features to highway facilities that help protect these facilities from possible future damage from ER-eligible disasters or catastrophic failures. Examples include:

• Raising roadway grades
• Relocating roadways to higher ground or away from slide prone areas
• Stabilizing slide areas
• Stabilizing slopes
• Installing riprap
• Lengthening or raising bridges to increase waterway openings
• Deepening channels
• Increasing the size or number of drainage structures
• Replacing culverts with bridges
• Installing seismic retrofits on bridges
• Adding scour protection at bridges
• Adding spur dikes

If a betterment involving an added protective feature is included in an ER repair project, the betterment may be considered eligible for ER funding if it can be economically justified based on an analysis of its cost versus projected savings in costs to the ER program should future ER-eligible disasters occur within the normal design year for the basic repair work. This cost/benefit analysis focuses solely on benefits resulting from estimated savings in future recurring repair costs under the ER program. The analysis does not include other factors typically included in highway benefit/cost evaluations, such as traffic delays costs, added user costs, motorist safety, economic impacts, etc.

***************************************************

Bottom line is that the manual provides PLENTY of justification for having the Quechee bridge replacement fully funded under the ER program. The idiocy of rebuilding without doing the necessary hydrologic work comes through loud and clear in the engineering report. A longer, higher bridge will hold the Feds safe for 75 to 100 years. 

Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.