ODOT falling behind on replacing state’s aging bridges, new report says

More than one in five bridges in Oregon was in “distressed” condition in 2024. That’s according to the Oregon Department of Transportation’s annual bridge condition report. Oregon also has the fewest number of bridges in “good” condition as determined by federal standards compared to six other Western states. Under ideal conditions, ODOT says it would be able to replace 27 of those bridges per year. But with its current resources, it’s only on pace to replace three.

Tova Peltz is a statewide capital program engineer at ODOT. She joins us with an update on how the state’s bridges are faring.

Note: The following transcript was transcribed digitally and validated for accuracy, readability and formatting by an OPB volunteer.

Dave Miller: From the Gert Boyle studio at OPB, this is Think Out Loud. I’m Dave Miller. More than one in five bridges in Oregon was found to be in distressed condition last year. That’s according to the Oregon Department of Transportation. Under ideal conditions, ODT says it would be able to replace 27 of those bridges annually, but with its current resources, it’s only on pace to replace three a year. Tova Peltz is the statewide capital program engineer at ODOT. She joins us with an update on this crucial infrastructure. It’s great to have you on Think Out Loud.

Tova Peltz: Thanks for having me.

Miller: So as I just mentioned there, 22% of the state’s bridges are considered distressed. What does distressed mean?

Peltz: Distress means that they’ve experienced, I’m going to say wear and tear, that they’re weathering, they’re experiencing damage from paint wearing off or exposed steel, concrete spalling, various wear and tear.

Miller: So is it fair to say that there’s a really broad spectrum of severity there? A little bit of peeling paint doesn’t seem like that big a deal, but more structural things might also be included?

Peltz: Absolutely. And what we see is, like paint is a good example. Paint protects the structural members of the bridges and when we start losing paint, the structural members are more exposed and the likelihood of deterioration is greater. So paint is one example, but certainly I think a lot of the things that a lot of bridge distress is happening behind the scenes, below the surface, so we’re not necessarily seeing it as folks traveling over bridges.

Miller: What does go into determining a bridge’s condition? I’m just wondering how many inspectors or engineers even have the ability to look at it on an annual basis.

Peltz: That’s a great question. Our inspectors are crawling all over our bridges.

Miller: Crawling?

Peltz: Well, I mean, in some cases crawling. We also have some very cool equipment ‒ a snooper crane can reach over the side of a bridge so somebody can look underneath the bridge. As you know, there we have bridges that cross a lot of rivers in Oregon and access to the undersides of bridges can be challenging. And so we use remote sensing tools. Our inspectors are walking the bridges, climbing under the bridges, and as I said, using this snooper crane. And then there is also some remote sensing technology to look at conditions. We do some very fine drills to look at conditions inside the bridges, which doesn’t deteriorate or doesn’t impact the structure of the bridge, but gives us information about what’s going on inside our bridge members.

Miller: Would those be for wooden bridges or you’d be drilling into metal as well?

Peltz: That’s a good question, and I sadly have not been out crawling on bridges doing the inspection myself so I’m not sure if that’s true for timber bridges and steel and concrete bridges, but there are a lot of different tools that get used. And I think one of the things that’s pretty amazing about our inspection teams is that they are continuously inspecting bridges. All the bridges are inspected on a two-year cycle, and we produced this bridge report on a yearly cycle. So we’re continuously checking on the status  and state of our bridges.

Miller: In last year’s report, which covered 2023, you noted the first drop in distressed bridges statewide since 2016, so a little bit of good news. What was behind that?

Peltz: That was actually the outcome of a change in the rating system and the measurement system that the federal government uses to assess bridges. So it really didn’t reflect suddenly an uptick in condition of the bridge.

Miller: It’s always disappointing that the small bit of good news [laughter] that I can point to is just more like a clerical, not a filing error, but just… okay...

Peltz: I know. I am sorry.

Miller: So it wasn’t like all of a sudden bridges got better. The feds said, look at these in a different way.

Peltz: Yes.

Miller: Okay. Wah wah. How is Oregon doing compared to some of our Western peers in terms of the status of our bridges?

Peltz: Well, Oregon has quite a few more bridges than Idaho and a similar number to Washington and what we see is that Oregon has fewer bridges in good condition, or percent of bridges in good condition, than adjacent states. However, we also have fewer or a smaller percentage of bridges in poor condition. So we have more bridges in fair condition as a state.

Miller: Are those broad categories? How significant are they? I mean, for example, how big a difference is there between fair condition and poor condition? If I’m driving over it, how much should I worry about poor versus fair?

Peltz: Well, as a driver, you shouldn’t be worrying about fair versus poor because because a bridge in poor condition is still safe to drive over. But I think that you might see ‒ if you are driving over a poor condition bridge ‒ you may see more maintenance happening on the bridge on a more frequent basis, because we are taking more care to preserve that bridge, and we take a lot of care to keep our fair bridges out of poor condition. And so as bridges age and deteriorate, they require more care and feeding, and we spend more time in maintenance and operations on the bridges doing rehabilitation projects and preservation projects and just bridge maintenance projects to take care of those bridges and keep them out of poor condition.

Miller: Maybe that has to do with a civil engineer’s use of these adjectives and the and the general public’s use of it, because when I hear that a bridge is in poor condition, I find that to be sort of terrifying. You’re saying don’t worry, you can drive on it. It’s safe to drive on. So, what am I missing? What does it then really mean for a bridge to be in poor enough condition that an engineer says this is poor?

Peltz: Well, I think that the rating system is intended to help us identify the level of maintenance and capital investment we need to make in our bridges to some extent. And I think that bridges that are in poor condition, that isolates where we should be in some cases focusing our attention. Well, in all cases focusing our attention. I think poor bridges, bridges in poor condition, wind up needing more work on a regular basis to take care of them than a bridge in fair condition and certainly more so than a bridge in good condition.

As a driver, as a traveler, I think that I appreciate your sentiments and the words and we definitely get wrapped up in words, but mostly I think what folks will experience traveling over bridges that are in like that in fair condition versus poor condition, bridge decks could be more rutted and it could be a bumpier ride. I think one of the big factors is that we spend more time on those poor bridges, taking care of them. Truly, that’s probably like what a driver will experience more than anything.

A lot of the things that can designate a bridge to be in poor condition the driver isn’t going to see because it’s happening underneath ‒ like, underneath the bridge. It’s happening on the bridge columns, the bridge piers, and so on. And so sometimes you’ll see maintenance happening that’s on the bridge deck or bridge rails, and sometimes it’s happening underneath the bridge and folks aren’t seeing it at all.

Miller: This year’s report focused on Oregon’s interstate-era bridges. What are these and what are the challenges generationally that these represent?

Peltz: So, the interstate-era bridges were all constructed as part of the federal government’s interstate-era road building. So in 1956, there was a federal law passed to invest and construct the interstate system nationwide, and that was an epic bridge and transportation infrastructure building era. And so across the country, we were building our interstate system, and that includes many, many bridges, and that happened... In Oregon, I think that turns out to be something like 60, there were about 60 bridges a year constructed during that period. That started in 1956 and so those bridges are beyond 50 years old now. In general, bridges are built for like 75-100 year life spans. And so we’re thinking about how those interstate era bridges are aging and what it’s going to take to slowly replace them in the future.

Miller: Without being flippant about this, it really does seem like the engineering version of the baby boom generation that is aging and all people, all things die. I don’t mean that in a flippant way. Obviously, human life is important and bridges are just stuff, but when bridges fail, humans can die as well.

Peltz: Well, certainly I don’t think we’re talking about bridges failing, interstate-era bridges failing. I think one of the things that I appreciate about the conversation is that we are really looking out to the future and thinking about when those bridges are reaching their design lives, what is it going to take to continue to preserve them because we certainly won’t be able to replace them at the rate that they were constructed. So we have to think about the level of effort it’s going to take and costs in terms of maintaining and operating those bridges, and we need to think about what our financial plan will be in the future to replace those bridges. And that’s really in the same way we think about generational responsibility for the planet, we have to think about generational responsibility for our public infrastructure. Those bridges aren’t going to reach that age and that increase in preservation need probably in my career lifetime. That will be will be future engineers that are thinking about that.

Miller: So, if you put this out ‒ I don’t know how old you are ‒ but let’s say 30 years out. You’re saying it’s not so urgent that we need to figure this out in the next five or ten years.

Peltz: I think that we need to have a plan and start piecing together what it will take and what the increased level of investment will be needed both in terms of maintenance and operations and replacement costs. I think like always, planning is a good thing and planning for that, knowing that it’s coming, is a good thing.

Miller: Before we say goodbye, I just want to touch on another federal report that was released not that long ago from the National Transportation Safety Board about bridges that could use a vulnerability assessment around ship collisions, including Astoria-Megler and St. John’s bridges. What should Oregonians have in mind? I mean, this is apropos of the catastrophe on the East Coast. What should we be thinking about our bridges and ship collisions?

Peltz: Well, I think that I would like Oregonians to know how much time and effort goes into both inspecting our bridges to ensure that they’re in safe condition and safe for folks to travel over, including the Astoria-Megler and St. John’s Bridge. And also be aware that we are working in partnership with with Wash DOT because we have shared ownership for Astoria-Megler, as well as the Lewis and Clark Bridge at Longview Rainier with the Washington Department of Transportation, and also with the Coast Guard and with the river pilots who are responsible for the shipping on the on the Columbia River. And we’re collaborating on how to maintain safety in that shipping channel and we’re and we’re also doing the recommended analysis from the National Transportation Safety Board. We’re completing it for those two bridges. So we’ll follow the next steps depending on the outcome of that analysis.

Miller: Toba Peltz, thanks very much.

Peltz: Thank you.

Dave Miller: Toba Peltz is a statewide capital program engineer at ODOT. She joined us to talk about the conditions of Oregon’s bridges.

Contact “Think Out Loud®”

If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983. The call-in phone number during the noon hour is 888-665-5865.