Bill Overview
Title: Bridge Quality Preservation Act
Description: This bill establishes certain requirements to address corrosion control in bridge and railroad-bridge projects that receive federal assistance. Specifically, certified contractors must employ a substantial number of individuals who are certified by a qualified training program in corrosion control, mitigation, and prevention in order to work on certain aspects of bridge project activities. A certified contractor must also provide training for any non-certified coating applicators employed by the contractor to work on a project. The bill further requires bridge projects to implement a corrosion management system that utilizes industry-recognized standards and corrosion mitigation and prevention methods for construction, repair, and maintenance projects. In addition, the bill expands the scope of the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program to include corrosion control work on rail bridges. (This program provides direct loans and loan guarantees for the development of railroad infrastructure.) The bill also requires the Department of Transportation to study best practices for inspecting and addressing corrosion on weathering steel bridges. This report must be made available to state and local governments, metropolitan planning organizations, and regional organizations.
Sponsors: Sen. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA]
Target Audience
Population: individuals working in bridge and rail infrastructure sectors
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill targets professionals involved in corrosion control, such as certified contractors and those with specific training in corrosion control methods.
- It will affect workers involved in bridge and rail bridge construction and maintenance, particularly those who need certification in corrosion control techniques.
- The requirement for certified personnel and training programs may increase the need for skilled workers and educators in the field of corrosion control.
- The inclusion of corrosion control in the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program may affect railroad companies and associated workers who will access financing for related projects.
- Transportation Department staff and state and local government officials who work on infrastructure projects will also be impacted as they will need to incorporate corrosion management systems as outlined in the bill.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects people in the construction and maintenance sectors, particularly those involved in large-scale infrastructure projects like bridges and railroads.
- The need for certified contractors and trained coating applicators suggests a positive impact on employment in these areas, as well as a potential increase in training and certification programs.
- By focusing on corrosion control, the policy may positively influence safety and infrastructure longevity, though the immediate impact on individuals not directly involved might be low.
- Small businesses could face challenges if the certification process proves costly or time-intensive, impacting wellbeing.
- Non-certified workers may face disruptions but have opportunities for upskilling through training programs.
- Public sector employees involved in infrastructure planning could experience a workload increase due to new requirements and standards. This could translate into job security, albeit with added responsibilities.
Simulated Interviews
Certified Contractor (Ohio)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will positively affect my business as it emphasizes certified work, ensuring steady contracts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Bridge Inspector (California)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will likely create more inspection opportunities, enhancing career stability for inspectors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Railroad Maintenance Worker (Kansas)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Extra training requirements might be a burden, but long-term job security could improve.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Public Transportation Official (New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy increases workload, but improves project quality; could lead to stress without more resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Construction Apprentice (Texas)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It presents new opportunities for skills development and job stability through certification.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Training Instructor (Florida)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Demand for certification will rise, boosting the education sector and providing job growth.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Bridges & Infrastructure Consultant (Illinois)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy implementation reaffirms the work I advocated for my entire career, but may be costly for smaller firms.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 3 |
Small Business Owner (Washington)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Demand for certified applicators is good for business, but barriers for new entrants could rise.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Civil Engineer (Michigan)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This further legitimizes my field of expertise; more robust projects are to be expected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (Colorado)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It aligns with sustainability goals but there's concern for increased construction costs impacting eco-friendly materials.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 2: $160000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $190000000)
Year 3: $165000000 (Low: $135000000, High: $200000000)
Year 5: $170000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $210000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Training and certification for these specialized roles must be widely accessible to meet the policy's requirements.
- The balance between immediate implementation costs against long-term savings is pivotal for evaluating the bill's effectiveness.
- Potential federal and private partnerships in carrying out the certification and training programs could affect overall costs.