The Added Lesson of the Asce Report Card
By John G. Voeller, P.E.
For several years, the ASCE has done the nation a service by reporting on the state of the various infrastructure elements of our nation and where the needs are greatest for its improvement. This is perhaps the first time that a major engineering presence has been placed in the public eye and shows that it is possible for engineering to have a common voice much as the AMA, ADA or ABA has been doing for years. However, there is another side to this report card that suggests we as a professional population should pause and understand other aspects of this public visibility.
I have taken driving vacations every year for a decade including many trips of 7000 miles or more from Kansas City to Portland to San Diego and back. During the October through December months of 2001, I had the unusual opportunity to drive from Kansas City to Los Angeles three times using different routes. Two of these trips were conducted in rented trucks carrying my family and in-laws household goods, so the average speed and ability to sense road anomalies was somewhat enhanced. During these many trips, I have had a chance to view the extreme variations in road quality, materials, techniques and wear patterns. However, these past several trips carried a special expectation in this regard. I wondered how the billions of dollars spend on road repair and improvement would manifest itself. I guess my summary might be a simple, "where did the money go?" Unfortunately, that is only a preliminary observation. The more important summary for our profession should be, "who is minding the store?"
I witnessed things that cannot be explained as simple variation. I witnessed quality jumps as one crossed from one county to another with both having redone surfaces that were embarrassing. I witnessed decomposition of road surfaces that still showed oil bleeding from the drying asphalt. I witnessed concrete work that was incomprehensible in its poor quality. I witnessed surface reclamation efforts that caused road to bridge transitions abrupt enough to cause the car to hit the top of the spring travel or the truck to jump out of gear. I witnessed things we have all seen and perhaps muttered something about a "lousy contractor" or "dumb highway department" and simply moved on, while forgetting that all work still ends up the responsibility of someone in our profession, by law. But I witnessed these so often and in such volume that it qualifies as an indictment of our profession.
And, I witnessed things that were simply unexplainable. In numerous places, I witnessed a new surface that was done using such inappropriate mixtures of asphalt and filler that the trucks had carved a pair of dual grooves over an inch deep for miles on end. I guess for a trucker, this provides some feedback to stay on the road when things get a little boring, but for any other vehicle, it offers the opportunity to be whipsawed left and right repeatedly. That is, as long as all is dry. In the rain, it provides exceptional hydroplaning opportunity where none existed. I could never imagine a road with seven crowns, but this effect produces them. In some cases, the crown at the center of the dual groove is actually higher than the crown on the road itself, a unique circumstance in engineering. It enables ice to form below a plow line, to remain when the remainder of the road is dry and to form a unique black ice environment that is fascinating. Had I seen it once, I would have ignored it as a new form of contractor artifact, but it was in too many places in too many locales.
After the first several, I began to convince myself that these were newly formed, maybe unreported, maybe on some list to be addressed in some future lawsuit. But then, I really became embarrassed. I began to encounter sites where someone had decided that the best fix was to fill these grooves with something very hard and wear resistant. A wonderful combination of asphalt and pea gravel had been placed and rolled into the grooves. The effects were certain. The heavy trucks willing to ride on these half to one inch high ridges would mash the aggregate down, fill the groove and create a good wear surface; eventually. In the meantime, we now had a set of parallel mounds that made lane changes interesting for small cars and produced a new groove between them that captured the same water, snow and ice opportunities of the old grooves. In this case, even a slow change in direction from the passing lane, across the mound, through the valley and onto both mounds created multiple transitions in adhesion and directional stability that deserve honorable mention in the X- games. More importantly, it clearly showed that a second team of our profession had seen the first circumstances that deserved an "F"; and produced a second effort of little more intelligence.
As I finished my last trip, I wondered who held the report card on our profession. I wondered when they would see these actions and would publish our grades and mention that this came after such a substantial contribution by US taxpayers to our education as infrastructure builders. I remembered carefully that many of the roads I had traveled were much better and some showed signs of lasting long and riding better than they did a few years before. So there is one possible thing that might be occurring here that might make any future attempt better. Maybe some of those involved didn' t know the best ways to do things.
Is it possible that when a huge level of funding arrives in any industry that far exceeds the existing complement of providers to perform the work, that many new companies and performers might spring up; some with little real experience in how best to accomplish the task? Is the same possible for those providing the materials? Some would say this should not matter as all must meet codes and standards that come from years of testing, which is true, but maybe the volume also creates the need for more inspectors who also find themselves far down on the learning curve and under pressure to progress. Whatever the case, how does one ensure this will not occur and ensure that the best methods, materials, technology, quality control and oversight are provided to make sure the report card is genuinely better?
Perhaps one way to do this is to borrow from another industry that had its rear summarily kicked a decade ago. Years ago, manufacturing found itself threatened in every front. Even though the large companies were investing heavily in new methods and technology and making strides, they found that they could not do it all and were very dependent on their suppliers, vendors and specialty providers also raising their collective bars. In order to do this, all recognized that everyone in the providing chain had to have access to the latest ideas, methods, tools, materials and processes to be able to beat the power of lower overseas costs and enhanced logistics. What was born was a series of regional manufacturing help centers that had federal and state funding as well as consulting revenue which provided communication, training, consulting and testing. The results were significant and are still ongoing. Groups like CAMTC in California have tens of thousands of members and field offices all over the state. The question then becomes, ์is there a parallel entity for infrastructure?๎ Is there a place for a similar set of offices designed to ensure that everyone from the designer and engineer to the contractor and his labor are aware of what can be done? We have pockets of improvement in companies and groups much as manufacturing does, but we do not have the equivalent of technology centers. I believe that it is time for us to seriously consider creating such entities and engaging the government to help support their creation.
A system of providers patterned after the technology centers of manufacturing and designed to ensure that every investment in the future infrastructure of our nation is consumed wisely and provides maximum value is critical. The alternative is a new report card on the nation' s infrastructure a decade from now that points back to our profession and says, "this was on your profession's watch; what happened?" How do we ensure we make the grade?
About the Author: John G. Voeller, P.E., is Senior Vice President, Chief Knowledge Officer, and Chief Technology Officer of Black & Veatch, an international engineering firm. Mr. Voeller can be reached at voellerjg@bv.com.
The CSRF newsletter is published for SPECTEXT® subscribers and others involved in design and construction. To obtain your copy of Creating a Common Language®, please contact the CSRF Support Center by telephone at 1-877- SPECTXT or 410-838-7561 or you may e-mail us at supportcenter@csrf.org
© Copyright 2008, The Construction Sciences Research Foundation, Inc. Updated August 1, 2008.
Home | About | Board | Research | WebFormat™ | Contact Us | Newsletters
Publications | News Releases | Related Sites | Search