'Serious' Longfellow flaws cited in study
State disputes, delays report
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.
The state spent $915,000 on the nearly four-month inspection last year by
The firm reported the bridge's support structure was in serious condition, a step below the poor rating it received from the state in August.
It did not, however, suggest that the century-old bridge, which carries about 135,000 commuters a day between Boston and Cambridge, poses an imminent danger to the public.
The Longfellow has long needed a full overhaul, but the work, once expected to start this year, has been repeatedly postponed for lack of funding. The latest projection is for the bridge rehabilitation to begin in 2011 and cost $250 million, more than twice the state's estimate in 2003.
The Globe had requested the inspection report several times, but state officials released it only this month after a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act.
The commissioner of the state Department of Conservation and Recreation, which owns the Longfellow, likened the disagreement with the engineering firm to a pair of doctors differing over a diagnosis while agreeing on the same course of treatment. Even as his agency disputes the inspection report, it is following the Jacobs recommendations by making immediate bridge repairs and restricting heavy traffic in the lanes closest to the Red Line.
"I'm not going to wait for the engineers to agree here on every little piece of that report," Commissioner Richard K. Sullivan Jr. said. "We've done what the report said needed to be done, in terms of posting the bridge for public safety, and we've done it with plenty of public notice."
Jacobs executives declined to comment. Erik Stoothoff of Jacobs said company policy calls for its clients to make official comments.
The unusually long and detailed inspection was conducted between August and November 2007 after the collapse of a bridge in Minneapolis prompted concerns about bridge safety nationwide.
The Longfellow is among hundreds of Massachusetts bridges deteriorated enough to be considered structurally deficient by federal standards. But the bridge came in for special scrutiny, because it is so heavily used by commuters and because it is so long overdue for reconstruction.
Documents released under the public records request suggest commuters may need to wait even longer for improvements, however. Messages exchanged among state officials say the interim repairs currently underway need to hold up for eight to 10 years, until the bridge is reconstructed. That suggests that the Longfellow renovation could be completed even later than the state's current estimate. Jacobs has also been hired to do the preliminary design of the Longfellow restoration.
In the meantime, DCR is spending some $4 million on more urgent repairs, shoring up steel beams that have been weakened by corrosion or worn through with holes. In December, Jacobs sent the state a 14-page list of bridge components showing "critical levels of deterioration requiring immediate repairs."
One state official complained via e-mail that Jacobs was not adjusting its report to reflect the repairs the state already had underway. While DCR agrees with Jacobs that many individual components of the bridge are deteriorating, agency engineers disagreed that the wear and tear on the parts leaves the bridge in serious condition.
In August, just before Jacobs began its inspection, state engineers conducted their own rough examination of the bridge and rated the structural elements as poor and the deck of the bridge as fair.
DCR engineers believe that, while many of the Longfellow's steel parts are deteriorating, the bridge itself is secure because of the way it is built. The bridge is supported by so many different structural elements that it can withstand the deterioration or loss of many parts without threat of collapse, officials said.
"The professional people who have lived with this bridge for decades feel strongly that some of the computer models that [Jacobs engineers] used . . . don't accurately reflect how this bridge was built almost 100 years ago," said Sullivan.
As a result, DCR's engineer has refused to sign off on the report, a formal action that must be taken before it is considered final.
Jacobs completed the inspection in November and submitted the report to the DCR at the start of the year.
However, when the Globe requested it in February, DCR spokeswoman Wendy Fox said she could not do so because the report was not final.
"We don't have a report," she said. "They've given us some preliminary stuff."
When pressed, Fox said: "I have no report yet that I can show you."
DCR allowed the Globe to review the inspection report and related documents this week, following a Freedom of Information Act request in March.
The state has submitted the data to the federal government, which compiles bridge inspection ratings nationally.
But Sullivan 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.
David Westerling, an associate professor of civil engineering at Merrimack College who coauthored a report on the deterioration of the Longfellow last summer, said that approach is unusual.
"That's not how it works," he said. "You don't do the work so you can give the inspection report. That would thwart the whole idea of an inspection."
State officials defend their actions, saying that they have been heeding the Jacobs findings: In addition to the many repairs below the bridge, contractors have repaired loose railings along the Longfellow's sidewalks and restricted truck traffic.
In an e-mail about the restriction, the Massachusetts Highway Department's director of bridges and structures expressed concern about Jacobs's calculations that the bridge's deteriorated components could not shoulder the weight of a 64-ton Red Line train at the same time as heavy truck traffic.
The report also called for an important review not yet done: a test of the integrity of the Longfellow's sidewalks. On the first weekend in May, a contractor will be testing the bridge with weighted plates to measure how much the bridge's cantilevered sidewalks bow and whether the walkways can still support the weight of a large crowd.
