DCR Confused About Another Bridge

The state Department of Conservation and Recreation has a problem about the Longfellow Bridge: they don't agree with their own consultant's report about its current condition, according to a report in the Boston Globe. The DCR also wants to hold up reporting of the bridge's inspection until after repairs can be made, and a newer inspection made:

An independent inspection of the Longfellow Bridge found the span to be in worse condition than the state had previously determined, but officials dispute the findings and refused to release the report to the public for several months...

But [Commissioner Richard K. Sullivan Jr.] said he wants Jacobs to conduct a follow-up inspection and issue a final report this summer, after the repairs are complete.

"I believe there's general agreement that, when those repairs are done and Jacobs does the reinspection, the rating will be better, and there will be an agreement at that time," said Sullivan.

Last summer, the DCR told the Boston Herald that the BU Bridge was not structurally deficient (archive fee):

“It may need work, but it can still take the statutory loads,” said Wendy Fox, spokeswoman for the state Department of Conservation and Recreation, which owns the bridge connecting Boston and Cambridge. “The point is, it’s not on the list because it’s not considered to be structurally deficient.” [italics added]

despite that the bridge was listed as structurally deficient in the federal National Bridge Inventory database -- as well as the Boston Herald's compilation based on the federal database. Oh, and you can see the holes through the bridge's surface from below.

Few people would likely disagree that the DCR (and its predecessor agencies) has a poor record in maintaining their infrastructure, although some blame could easily be pointed at the State Legislature and/or Governor for failure to allocate sufficient funding. But the DCR should do a better job at recognizing and reporting the condition of the infrastructure under their control, rather than making public misstatements or engaging in peculiar reporting practices. The public statements of DCR officials about the current condition of their bridges is straining their credibility.


Longfellow Bridge image by lstrong2k through Creative Commons license.

The BU Bridge Redivivus

When I posted Tuesday a photo of the BU Bridge's sorry state of concrete holes, I didn't realize that the Boston Herald had posted a story two days earlier on the BU Bridge. Stupid me, I don't read the Herald on a daily basis. The Herald's story was a response to their request for "Citizen Inspectors"; I responded to them two days earlier than that, on Friday 8/3, telling them about the BU Bridge (see comment #3). People have been discussing online the Boston Herald article on the BU Bridge. The Herald also posted a database of the 560 Massachusetts bridges classified as "structurally deficient" in the National Bridge Inventory.

So why do I revive this over-done story on the BU Bridge?

In the Herald article, the DCR spokesperson said that the bridge is safe, and is not structurally deficient:

The Boston University Bridge - an urban eyesore of rusting metal, crumbling concrete and perilous sidewalk cracks - is due for rehabilitation work but is not considered to be one of the state’s 560 “structurally deficient” spans.

“It may need work, but it can still take the statutory loads,” said Wendy Fox, spokeswoman for the state Department of Conservation and Recreation, which owns the bridge connecting Boston and Cambridge. “The point is, it’s not on the list because it’s not considered to be structurally deficient.” [italics added]

Yet the Herald's database lists it as structurally deficient (see last entry that page), my extraction from the NBI database finds it to be structurally deficient, and I even included a Google map link based on the latitude and longitude in the NBI database to show which bridge the NBI is referring. The NBI classifies with a "1" (="structurally deficient") in character #427 of each entry line in its database to identify this class of bridges.

Assuming I haven't made a mistake in figuring out which bridge is which, or in understanding the entries and classifications in the NBI, then it sure sounds to me like the DCR doesn't even know which of their bridges are classified as structurally deficient. How embarrassing, if not outright incompetent on the part of the DCR.

Boston Herald Calling All Citizen Inspectors About Bridge Safety

The Boston Herald, apparently juiced up about good coverage about their online databases of state and city employee salaries, have created an online database of Massachusetts bridges classified as "structurally deficient" in the National Bridge Inventory's database.

The Herald's new database isn't is useful as their previous products, since all the information is already available online -- just in a clumsy format. (The salary data were not, however, available online until the Herald posted it.) That's why I could cull out those bridges closest to Brighton in a previous post.

The Herald is asking for citizens to contact them with information on bridges that people are worried about. Better yet, they are asking for photographs and/or video documenting the concerns.

Worried about the Eliot Bridge, which has a steel truss design similar to Minneapolis's 35W bridge that collapsed? Enjoy peering down through the cracks in the concrete of the BU Bridge to see the boats below? Here's a picture of those holes in the BU Bridge taken from below. I was on a boat taking a guided tour of the Charles during the Riverfest event of the Brighton-Allston Bicentennial.