TRAFFIC GURU
By Ed Drass
A stitch in
time saves nine. This is apparently the lesson we are to learn from
the collapse of a vital bridge in suburban Montreal. Many have
linked the viaduct’s downfall to government spending on
infrastructure upkeep. It may be too soon to tell whether the
failure of the concrete overpass was due to bad design, inept
construction, delayed maintenance or poor inspection practices. Or
all of the above.
It’s even
possible that it was a fluke. Of course, such an explanation won’t
satisfy the people who build things. Many of those with the letters
“P. Eng.” after their names (Professor of Engineering) will react
viscerally to this latest collapse -- as a reflection of their
entire field and even themselves personally.
In the absence
of a thorough inquiry, discussion has gravitated toward the
condition of all bridges, roads and pipes. Not surprisingly,
engineering experts have steered the public dialogue toward the
nation’s “infrastructure deficit,” aided by various lobby groups.
It’s human
nature to deflect feelings of guilt or embarrassment, and to turn
the focus elsewhere. From what I know of professional engineers, any
sense of shame will be overshadowed by a collective desire to know
exactly what happened to this viaduct -- and there will be great
efforts to eliminate any chance of the same mistake recurring.
The shock of a
common, heavily-used bridge falling has already prompted a
reexamination of the transport network as a whole -- not just in
Quebec. Governments across the country are looking at their own
assets, and private companies should be scrutinizing every structure
more closely.
They had
better; motorists will be peering up at overpasses with trepidation
and many will see rust marks, chips and holes. It may alarm some to
learn that inspectors in Montreal saw pieces of concrete that had
fallen from the bridge structure, and done nothing. Just take a
closer view of the underside of any bridge. You’ll see bits missing,
especially near the tell-tale signs of corrosion -- that reddish
stain of oxidizing metal within the structure.
Toronto’s
Gardiner Expressway has regularly shed big hunks of concrete onto
the sidewalks and busy roadways beneath it. We apparently trust that
officials would shut down the road if it got too dangerous.
However, just
as we’d like to save money on our automotive budget by ignoring the
manufacturers recommended servicing schedule, so too does society
close its eyes to the real price of infrastructure.
We need to know
the entire life-cycle cost of a highway or train line or building --
before we build. That’s construction, maintenance and operations.
How long will it last? How much will upkeep cost in materials and
labour?
We trust that
future generations will take on the burden of fixing the structures
being built now, but how much is too much? The huge backlog in
repairs to existing subway tunnels and roads has been one reason why
so little new infrastructure is being erected. You can’t widen roads
when an increasing share of the transportation budget is going
toward fixing the old stuff.
Heavier trucks,
salt and exponential traffic growth are weakening our existing
assets: We’d be fools to enlarge the network before making sure
everything is in a state of good repair.
That’s where we
come in. Let’s agree not to build anything without a life-cycle cost
projection. Let’s admit we need more realistic financing, or else
learn to live with less. Reality is uncompromising, but better to
face it now than later.
Ed Drass
edrass@nationalpost.com