About Pam Broviak

My name is Pam Broviak, I have 27 years of experience in the public works field and currently serve as the city engineer/assistant director of public works for the city of Geneva in Illinois. I started the Public Works Group in Second Life after hearing about Second Life and its unique format during a presentation given by Jon Brouchoud at Autodesk University in 2006.

Are Gaming Engines the New CAD?

Posted on February 28, 2012 by Pam Broviak

Over the past few years, I've spent considerable time online exploring many different virtual worlds or 3D immersive spaces. Some of these like World of Warcraft are designed to only offer a gaming experience while others like Second Life look like a game, but do not offer gaming as a primary function. My main reason for first visiting these environments was to explore their potential for supporting my work as a civil engineer. Even my decision to try out World of Warcraft was based on this – I only joined and started playing so I could attend a science conference held there in Spring of 2008. Of course, in my journey into 3D, I found there was so much more than what I could have imagined. While my focus had been on the use of these spaces to create or learn, I eventually realized these are actual places where people hang out and spend time with each other. Through the years, I've come to enjoy and appreciate the "metaverse" as a place to meet incredible people, attend classes or other events, or just spend some time having fun. But I've also continued to explore the possibility of using these spaces for my work. And even though I don't yet have any conclusions, I wanted to post some thoughts on how the technology is evolving to better fit into the delivery of AEC services.

Background

After my first few visits to Second Life, I began learning to build and create 3D content using their software. Coming from a primarily 2D CAD background with only some experience in 3D, I didn't at first pick up on the 3D modeling foundation built into the Second Life tools. However, for building and creating in Second Life, this really wasn't a problem – the creators of the software made the tool so user-friendly that you really didn't need to know anything at all about 3D modeling or CAD to create something. But one frustrating issue for people who do use CAD was the inability to easily import into Second Life something that was drawn in a CAD program. We also could not export something we built in Second Life to CAD. And this seemed to be the main reason most people I showed Second Life to didn't think it would be useful in our work.

Although Second Life still does not allow import/export of CAD drawings, the software was eventually changed to allow the use of 3D models. This development of alternative methods for creating objects in Second Life led me to work more diligently on developing my 3D modeling skills. As I started using programs like Blender, I was better able to see the similarities between the foundation of building in Second Life and 3D modeling. And my building experience in Second Life helped me to better understand and pick up 3D modeling skills.

Current State

Over the last few years, software has been developed by other companies to allow people to create virtual spaces. Most are not exactly like Second Life, but they are similar. Many offer the ability to import 3D models, but most don't offer the same flexibility found in Second Life to easily create objects entirely within the software. The only other software I have found with the same ease of use for building objects entirely within the software is Open Simulator (OpenSim) – a spin-off of Second Life. Other programs, like Unity3D, rely heavily on the import of 3D models. Based on my use of these programs, I've listed below a few of my observations in using these packages to create a representation of an AEC project:

Many AEC projects require the ground to be shown. If a contour file for the project is available, this information can be used by changing it into the proper format. The user can then apply these contours to the ground in both Second Life/OpenSim and Unity3D. (You can learn the most about doing this in Second Life/OpenSim by visiting Darb Dabney's blog: http://blog.3dg.is/.) In Second Life/OpenSim there is also an option to create ground from an object rather than the default ground or terrain.

Landscaping is also an important part of most AEC projects. In Second Life/OpenSim landscaping is created the same way everything other than the ground is created – by using objects. In Unity3D, generating landscaping is very easy because there are specific tools for creating trees and plants.

Design components present more of a challenge than the ground and landscaping. While tools like Second Life/OpenSim and Unity3D allow for the import of 3D models, neither work seamlessly with standard AEC CAD tools. So to create a road project, I could make a 3D model of it in a modeling program and import it. But I have not yet found a way to make sure the import retains the proper dimensions – in Second Life and in Unity3D, I've had to mess with the scale and then worry if the object is the correct size. I could try to work within the programs and create objects directly in the environment. This works well in Second Life/OpenSim but only for linear alignments – horizontal and vertical. And if I create only within the software, I am limited to the use of basic shapes. More complex shapes can only be accurately created using a 3D modeling program and imported in.

And this brings me to the issue of texturing or applying the "pictures" or graphics to the objects. Texturing an object finalizes its appearance and helps make objects appear more real so it is very important. In Second Life/OpenSim each object created has a plywood texture or look as a default. In Unity3D, the object is white by default. What I've found is there's a lot of flexibility in texturing objects within Second Life/OpenSim, but not so much in Unity3D. For example, if I wanted to create a cube with six different textures on each face, this is easily done in Second Life/OpenSim by creating a basic cube object, clicking each face, and choosing the corresponding image to apply. But to do this in Unity3D, I have to create additional objects on which to apply the texture then attach each object to the corresponding face of my cube. Another method of doing this in Unity3D is to create an image file that when applied to the 3D object will wrap the correct texture around the object so that the proper image ends up on each face. While the wrapped image sounds fairly easy, the problem is that each time I want to change the image on one face, I have to create a new image to wrap around the cube. Unity3D is applying one image to the cube as a standard 3D modeling program would while Second Life/OpenSim offers the ability to apply different images to different parts of a model.

If you want others to visit your virtual project site, it's probably easiest to do so using Unity3D because it's easily accessed through a browser. Second Life/OpenSim require the download and installation of a viewer software program and registration to allow the user to log in. Both formats allow for both single user access and multiple user access. (Unity3D can be accessed by multiple users through an application like Jibe.)

Both programs allow for the ability to program objects, but the programming language and interface within Unity3D is more common and flexible.

Neither program seems to have an easy export out to CAD.

So based on the above points, a designer would choose between Second Life/OpenSim and Unity3D based on the project needs. If the final product would need to retain the flexibility to be changed, it's best to probably stick with something like Second Life/OpenSim. But if once completed, the project will probably not be changed, it's best to keep it in Unity3D. Fortunately at least two companies (Arch Virtual/Tipodean Technologies and Rezzable) are offering methods to either convert a project built in OpenSim to Unity3D or the ability to view a project built in OpenSim through a Unity3D viewer. So if a user wanted the flexibility of creation offered by OpenSim but the ease of access of Unity3D and didn't anitipate needing to change much after it was completed, they could build the project in OpenSim and convert to Unity3D or view through a Unity3D "window." The need for programming flexibility might also play a part in the decision, particularly if someone wanted to model traffic through a project site.

The Future

One of the big complaints about Second Life is that they don't understand their users. I sometimes wonder if it's because they set out to create a type of modeling or CAD tool and ended up unintentionally creating a place. And because they still view themselves as a software company creating tools, they have a diffcult time understanding how to manage and deal with this other aspect of their creation including the fact that most users want to use it as a place. (On a side note, I also work for a city so understand well the community management side of this and have been fascinated to watch how the company handles the same exact issues we face every day in our cities.) I am also not sure they are planning on shifting focus away from this "software first" attitude. They have made acquisitions and statements that lead me to believe they are further developing features and tools that could possibly enhance their existing offering. And because right now their creation tools offer the most flexibility, I am hoping they are moving in this direction even though I do also wish they would embrace the social side of their creation.

As for Unity3D, I think we will see the users develop the path through which this software can be implemented for AEC users. Perhaps with plug-ins and other developments with 3D modeling, this software might one day be better suited for renderings of AEC projects. Right now, one of the best examples of this type of use has been created by Jon Brouchoud working with his wife, Kandy, and Chris Collins. They have created a virtual representation of the downtown area of Dubuque, Iowa. Their project is also promoted on Kickstarter where people can donate to development of additional features. You can learn more about this project by clicking the widget below:

Most of you working in the AEC industry might wonder where our traditional CAD companies are in all of this. Unfortunately, the real innovation in 3D visualizations for the average user is not coming from Autodesk or Bentley. While Autodesk has amazing products that cover many of the aspects of the discussion above, they have not created a seamless path between them. And their programs seem to have a much steeper learning curve than those discussed above – not one person I have talked to who uses Civil3D has said it was a quick or easy program to learn. And there's just not been a strong showing by Bentley in the 3D arena.

The other side of all this is the cost. Anyone can use the Second Life/OpenSim/Unity3D tools for free while CAD programs from Autodesk and Bentley cost way too much for the average person to purchase and maintain a subscription. Perhaps if Autodesk one day better integrates all their tools, designs the tools with an easier user interface or improves the learning curve, and the price becomes more reasonable for the average user, they would most likely have an edge – particularly because many firms already have their CAD software. But based on the movement by these other companies, I wonder if one day in the future we'll be developing plans primarily using 3D modeling tools like Blender/Hexagon/ZBrush and gaming engines or tools like Unity3D and Second Life/OpenSim.

Hoarders – The Untold Story

Posted on February 18, 2012 by Pam Broviak

One of the few television shows I watch is Hoarders – a program produced by A&E Television Networks that highlights attempts at cleaning up homes. The homes profiled on the show are not your average households. Instead they are structures completely filled with objects accumulated by people who do not want to give them up. The reason I enjoy watching this show so much is because at my last job I dealt with these types of homes on a regular basis. So while the show never really presents the city's or county's side of the story, I can just imagine what each agency has gone through in dealing with each one of these. And because the show has made me realize the general public was probably not aware that these homes are in every community, I thought I would relate a few of my experiences to share the agency's side of the story.

My First Hoarder Home

Through my childhood, I had been in a few homes where the owners were probably borderline hoarders. And during the years I dated, I had the unfortunate experience of having a boyfriend take me to visit one of his friends where I barely tolerated a few cockroaches crawling over us. But none of this prepared me for what I would experience as a building inspector for a city. I think the first time I encountered a hoarder house was when the mayor told the superintendent of public works and I to check on a home that had been deeded to the city by the homeowners because they could no longer care for it. From the outside, you would never have known what to expect inside, which is often how hoarder homes present themselves. But as soon as we opened the back door, there was no denying this was no normal home. The smell is always what hits you right away – something that can't really be conveyed on the television show. In this particular case, we had to walk through layers of wet newspapers supporting a full growth of mushrooms – another experience difficult to properly convey over TV. As we entered the kitchen, garbage and debris cascaded down from the kitchen counter over the table to the floor. At this point, I chose not to go any further. We tore that home down. And that experience was also the one that encouraged me to avoid eating at one of the local restaurants where the woman who had lived in that home worked. Aside from the absolute absence of running water and functioning bathroom facilities in her home, I had learned from one of the neighbors that one day when he drove the woman to work, a cockroach had crawled out of her sleeve into his car. So that experience makes me wonder when I watch the show if any of these people work in restaurants.

The Habitual Hoarder

One of the next hoarder homes we dealt with involved an abandoned building used to store a hoarder's possessions. This one took a while to deal with because the woman who owned it refused to clean the place up. After years of handling complaints from neighbors and years of taking the owner to court, we were finally able to post the condemnation on the building. Only after the court decided the place was condemned and had to be torn down did the owner end up deeding the property to the city. We immediately demolished the building, but unfortunately not before the owner had the chance to move all her stuff to another site in town. Some time after the first place was torn to the ground, our fire chief heard a story about how this woman had been allowed to store a significant amount of stuff in the gymnasium of an old school in our city. So we had the owner of the old school let us in to see for ourselves. It's amazing how much stuff you can cram into an elementary school gym. The additional space had definitely provided her the ability to expand her holdings – it must have been a hoarder's dream. But the problem with her storing the stuff here was the owner had set aside space in the building to house homeless people and had done so without following building codes. So I imagine from our fire chief's perspective, all that stuff presented a significant fire hazard and danger to people who were already at risk in that location. We told the building owner he had to immediately remove everything from the gym or lose his renters. This did result in getting the mess cleaned up. Unfortunately he also was supposed to bring the building into code compliance and never did. So in the end, he lost the homeless shelter anyway. Based on this experience, I always wonder if the hoarders on these shows just move along to hoard again somewhere else.

A Study in Entomology

Another home we focused on due to numerous complaints was one we chose to inspect as a group – the city attorney, myself, the mayor, and the police chief. The main memory I have of this home is that there were so many different types of bugs crawling everywhere. Many I had never seen before in my life, even at the zoo! If I hadn't been so worried about them crawling on me, I might have stopped to study them better. This was also the home where they had removed their kitchen counter and replaced it with OSB – not a recommended material for this purpose. And during my time in the basement, I could not help but think of the urban legend regarding this family. According to local and completely unsubstantiated gossip, they had kept their grandfather in the basement for six months after he died so they could continue to collect his social security check. Never really heard a similar experience on the Hoarder's show, but I am always wondering if they will find someone dead under all that junk!

Make Sure to Bring a Change of Clothes

Although all of the hoarder experiences are unpleasant to deal with, this one was particularly sad. The local mental health organization had asked me to inspect the home of one of their clients. They were worried about the condition of the home, and they were right on target with their concern. This was the only home where I had to immediately take a shower and throw away some of my clothes after my inspection. I don't believe there was a working bathroom so the family had been using the entire bathroom to deposit their wastes. And they had animals who had used all the rest of the rooms to deposit their wastes. Pools of urine were located randomly throughout the home while cockroaches crawled in bright daylight over every surface. It was the only home I had been in where the bugs didn't even bother to get out of your way when you walked. While this home was bad, we had no complaints about it other than the request to check on it. And the owner had no where else to live so it was one of the few where I filed my report, and it didn't go any further. As for the show, I have not really seen one yet where the owner has more severe mental impairments, and I wonder how other agencies deal with hoarders who do.

Don't Open That Door!

This one could have also been labeled a habitual hoarder home. Unfortunately I had not made the connection between the owner of this home and the home she had previously owned and lost to a fire. If I had, I might have been better prepared for what we would find. Again, we inspected this home as a group because of complaints from neighbors. While we could make it into the kitchen, we really could not walk through the living room or the rest of the home – it was completely filled with garbage bags and other debris. However, there was a door near the entrance into the living room, and I made the mistake of opening it to see what was in there.What we discovered was the woman had not only hoarded objects, she had hoarded her urine and feces in five-gallon buckets that were neatly stacked from floor to ceiling in this room. It was probably the only time inspecting a hoarder home where I thought I would throw up, but it could have also been because I was pregnant at the time. This is definitely an experience difficult to convey over the television – nothing quite prepares you for entering a room with five-gallon buckets holding a multi-year collection of urine and feces. Oh, and regarding her previous house – according to the firemen, while fighting the fire there, they had found a hoard of urine in glass bottles in the walls of that home.

The Hoarder Home I Never Inspected

The last hoarder home story I will share is one I have no first hand knowledge of – only stories from one of our utility workers, the DCFS representative, and the demolition contractor. This home had been on our radar for some time due to the numerous complaints from neighbors. I had only inspected the outside because the family would have never allowed me in. They had no running water because their water was off due to unpaid bills. Because our utility person had to go in to shut off the water, we knew the basement was filled with garbage bags. DCFS had been involved on a regular basis because the father was alledgedly having sexual relations with his 14-year old daughter and their four-year old was sleeping outside on the concrete sidewalk and had been observed jumping off their garage into the swimming pool in the backyard. Other comments I had heard were there were so many cockroaches in this place the bugs were layered in several colonies on the walls. Of course, like the woman in a story above, the father worked at a local restaurant. Unfortunately it was one of my favorite restaurants so I would call first to see if he was working, and if he was, I would just not go that night. Eventually our only salvation in dealing with this home was that they had a mortgage. Once the bank that held the mortage found out about the condition of the home, they took possession, forced the family to move, and had the house torn down. The story I heard from the demolition contractor was he found a dead racoon or something similar to that under the little boy's bed. Because of our experience with this, I always wonder on the Hoarder show if the owner has a mortgage, and if so, why banks are not more involved in the process.

Hoarder Homes are Everywhere

I could go on and on with experiences of dealing with other homes, but those are fairly representative of what our city of only 10,000 dealt with on a regular basis. While people watching the Hoarders show cannot really experience the smells and feelings you get from being in close proximity to such conditions, they also don't hear about the time and money and work invested by the communities in which these homes are located. Our city spent time and money inspecting these homes, firefighters and water department employees were regularly exposed to dangerous conditions, we incurred legal fees, our citizens had to put up with the nuisances – usually smells, and many times our city ended up spending the money to demolish the structures because they had become unlivable. I am not sure if we had more than our share of hoarder homes where I used to work, but I do know hoarder homes are everywhere – it's not just an unusual occurrence profiled by a reality show. And more times than not, you would never be able to pick out the hoader homes in your community just from driving by. While these homes might make for interesting programming on TV, the side of the story not told is the potentially significant drain on public resources and community funds.

House Transportation Bill: The Only Logical Solution

Posted on February 7, 2012 by Pam Broviak

I work at the bottom of the transportation food chain. At this level, we have some very basic needs. Each year, we need to fix roads, and we need to find the money to do so. And for the first time in my career, Congress seems to be considering a transportation bill that might just address these needs. Now, I've read all the articles condemning the bill and prophesying impending doom. But I don't believe any of these have been written by anyone actually managing transportation systems for an average community. They are written by journalists, politicians, organizations, bike and ped enthusiasts/supporters, transit supporters, planners, and members of the general public. Their complaints against the bill seem to stem from their hatred of roads and gas and their love of transit and bike/ped facilities and some from their reliance on the non-road programs funded by past bills. And while I might agree with them that roads and our reliance on gas are non-sustainable and antiquated, I cannot ignore that the majority of the public depends on our road system and wants us to fix roads.

The very basic fact of this situation is we currently have a population highly dependent on cars and roads for movement of people, goods, and services. Past transportation bills did not focus on the support of this system. Instead they took money paid by the users of this system and used it to pay for systems supporting bikes, peds, transit, museums, streetscapes, etc. I realize the reasoning behind this was that somehow by building all these other facilities we would offset the negative environmental impact of the road system. And while these other improvements did help offset some impacts and increased our quality of life, they did little to remove our reliance on the road system. Instead past transportation bills have depleted our user fees and left us with a crumbling road system that has been neglected too long with no way to pay for fixing it.

So it appears Congress has somehow figured out what all of us having to actually manage the road system have always known: if we are going to rely on the road system, we need transportation money to fix the roads. Just try to imagine if tomorrow you woke up and the roads were gone and all we had were bikes and transit as it exists today. How would you get to work? How would your kids get to school? How would your garbage get picked up? How would the grocery store where you shop get their product? How would an ambulance get to your home? If the water pipes broke in your home and you could not fix them, is the plumber going to ride his bike to your home pulling a cart with his tools? Whether we personally use roads or not, we all rely on roads. And as long as we do, can we really afford to ignore their repair?

The other problem Congress seems to be addressing is the gas tax issue. We have been losing revenue from the gas tax due to more efficient cars and less use of gas by the public. Congress does not want to raise the gas tax because that would be highly unpopular, and hopefully they realize that is not a sustainable solution even in the short term. Now, I am not even close to being very knowledgeable about how the whole energy ecosystem operates so I am looking at this from a very basic viewpoint. But it seems they have decided that if they can't raise taxes, they need to increase the public's use of gas. The only way that will happen is if gas prices fall. So it makes me wonder if this drilling provision is to increase the gas supply which could lead to a lowering of the prices. I realize there are probably other incentives and reasons for them to allow drilling, but those are unrelated to the gas tax.

While I am not supportive of the drilling provision, I can see why they would choose this route. Congress has ignored moving forward on the study of an alternative to the gas tax so any other solution would take too long to implement. Some alternatives also have the potential to be a disruption to the public and auto-related industries. So perhaps the drilling ended up as the most obvious solution to them for the moment. I am not sure there is another expedient solution other than raising taxes. And I've not heard any other solutions from the opponents of the bill.

It's somewhat ironic that the bill's opponents want Congress to enact the same old legislation that pays for all the non-road components with the money generated by the use of roads, but they don't want to pay to sustain the roads. That simply is not sustainable, and those of us working at the bottom knew eventually this would fall apart. It appears we are finally reaching that point. But because I share the opponent's frustration with our reliance on gas and roads and I enjoy and support bike/ped/transit facilities, I would prefer to see the opponents channel their passion and energy into making a real change. We need to admit the old way of paying for the non-road systems is not sustainable. And complaining about roads and urging Congress to neglect their repair is not practical. If we don't want our tax dollars supporting roads, we need to remove our reliance on them. And the only way to do that is to develop an alternative. We have a tremendous opportunity at hand to move forward and work together to create a well thought out infrastructure that is sustainable, efficient, more economical and friendly to the environment. A good start is to accept we need to unfortunately spend money to fix the system upon which we now rely and shift our focus to urging Congress to support the research and implementation of a new system that will meet our needs at all levels. Meanwhile, I'll go back to figuring out how to pay for fixing the 100 miles of roadway in our little community of 20,000+, but with a little more hope on the horizon.

Free 3D Software – Limited Time Offer!

Posted on February 5, 2012 by Pam Broviak

Even though this offer has been Tweeted and posted all over the Internet, I thought I would add a quick post here to make sure our readers know about it. For the month of February Digital Art Zone (DAZ) is offering the following software free of charge – you can pick it up at http://www.daz3d.com/i/3d/free-3d-software-overview:

DAZ Studio 4 Pro 3D Software (Winner of 3D World's 2011 Software Innovation of the Year Award): Retail $429.95
Bryce 7 Pro 3D Landscape Software: Retail $249.95
Hexagon 2.5 3D Modeling Software: Retail $149.95
3D Photoshop Bridge: Retail $199.00

The company also said any downloads of these packages would be eligible for future updates at no charge. "We're excited to make this offer early in the year," said James Thornton, CEO for DAZ. "We wanted to give any digital artist the opportunity to experience DAZ free 3D software for the first time, and a full suite of 3D models and 3D animation software products is available on DAZ3D.com."

Even though 3D is still in its infancy in our industry with it only being used in large, high-profile projects, there will come a day when 3D renderings will be an expected deliverable on all projects. The challenge for those of us working now is similar to the one we faced in transitioning from the drafting table to CAD: how to train and ramp up on a new skill that is not immediately necessary so we are ready when it does become a necessity? One of the roadblocks we face is that few companies or agencies will invest the time or money to develop this skill until there is a paying customer or an expectation by citizens. Which is why this opportunity is so valuable. The software is free; all you have to do is invest your time to learn it. And even if DAZ is not the final product your company/agency ends up using, I've found the 3D skills learned using one product do transfer to the next as well as the familiarity with the general framework.

As for learning the software, there are numerous tutorials available. All you have to do is search through Google or YouTube to find them.

Plan Holder/Bidder List – To Share or Not to Share

Posted on January 27, 2012 by Pam Broviak

We currently have a project out to bid for the installation of about a quarter mile of 10-inch water main. As usual, after we release the notification to bidders, we begin receiving requests from companies asking for a list of bidders or plan holders. Our city's policy is to not release this list until after the bid opening because of the potential of affecting bid prices. For example, a potential bidder could submit a different bid based on who the competition is and how many other companies have picked up plans.

With the relatively new FOIA laws in Illinois, we've had companies trying to claim the information as a FOIA request. However, we have been denying the request under the following exemption stated in this law:

(h) Proposals and bids for any contract, grant, or agreement, including information which if it were disclosed would frustrate procurement or give an advantage to any person proposing to enter into a contractor agreement with the body, until an award or final selection is made. Information prepared by or for the body in preparation of a bid solicitation shall be exempt until an award or final selection is made.

We received a request the other day from a company outside of Illinois and sent them our standard denial letter based on this exemption. They ended up sending a letter to the State of Illinois arguing that we should release the information because they want to submit bids as a subcontractor and the information would encourage a more competitive bid. There are several issues with this.

First and most importantly, we believe we are exempt from releasing it, although the final decision will now rest with the State.
Next, if the State determines we must release the information, this would become a FOIA request for a commercial purpose which the company failed to mention and by failing to do so violated the law. However if the State determines we must release the information and if the company ends up properly requesting the information, we would have 21 days to respond since it is a request for a commercial purpose which means they would receive the information after the bid opening rendering it useless for their purpose.
Finally, the project involves no work that would require the type of services they appear to offer. It would be like bidding out a road resurfacing project and a supplier of excavators wanting to get a list of bidders to give them prices on new equipment. There's just no specific pay item for that work. So I am not even sure how giving a heavy equipment sales company a list of bidders for a specific project that has no specialty items helps lower our cost.

The end result is a waste of time for everyone. Where I worked before, I ended up not being able to even send out lists because we offered proposal materials online so we would not have known who downloaded them. And if we continue to have issues with this, we would probably end up choosing to do the same or just not keep a list. But I was wondering how other agencies are handling these requests, if others believe releasing the lists can affect the bids, and if other states require agencies to release the information prior to opening of the bid.

Is the ASCE Infrastructure Report Card Really a Good Idea?

Posted on January 13, 2012 by Pam Broviak

As a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), I regularly receive information and notices proclaiming their annual "grading" of our nation's infrastructure. There is even a website to promote this effort: http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/. My opinion on this might not be popular with my colleagues, but frankly I have never thought this report was valid or a good idea. Finally after reading a LinkedIn thread about how engineers get no respect and a related link criticizing the annual report card, I decided to share my thoughts, as an engineer, on this public relations effort.

First of all, imagine going to the Infrastructure Report Card website as an average citizen – not an engineer. On the site there is a listing of all the different categories of infrastructure we are responsible for designing, building, and maintaining such as water, wastewater, dams, bridges, roads, parks, etc. Not one of them has a grade above a C and the average is a D. Now imagine going to the medical association's website and seeing a listing of items for which they are responsible such as cancer, common cold, fractures, etc. and a related listing of grades. How would you feel about the medical profession if they gave themselves all C and D grades for those? Because on the face of it, that is how it looks to someone who is not involved in the industry – engineers are grading themselves for the work they do and the infrastructure for which they are responsible, and can't manage to get above a D average! Then we wonder why we get no respect!

Now, I realize those responsible for setting up this effort would respond by explaining that no, it's not a grade on our efforts, but a wake up call that government is not giving us enough funds to adequately build and maintain the infrastructure. Because that's what this is really all about, trying to convince legislators they need to funnel more money into infrastructure. But I don't think it's working, and it should be no surprise why not. If I was funding work by a group and the reports kept coming back every year that the work was underperforming, I would start asking some questions such as why is your work failing, what progress is being made with the funds, and what else can be done besides throwing more money at it?

As an engineer, I am well aware of the need for funding, but as one who has worked in a severely economically depressed city for many years, I also realize that part of my job as an engineer is to figure out how to get the most from the money we have and explain to the elected officials the trade-offs for the different funding levels. Because that is what engineers are supposed to do best – analyze a problem, figure out solutions, attach dollars to them, and let elected officials decide which level of service they want. Then we build the best system we can with the money we receive.

In the last city where I worked, I would have graded our infrastructure efforts as an A because by working together, we were often able to figure out ways to get things done at a very acceptable level with very few dollars. If you drive through that community today, just about every road is in great shape while the neighboring community, whose coffers were always filled with millions more tax dollars than ours, has a proliferation of crumbling roads. This shows that while money is an important component, a successful system also requires people in government working together and making the right choices for the public good with patience and understanding of the goals and the ability to implement creative solutions.

And my past employer is far from unique – the fact is that many cities have systems that are well managed and maintained. I can't imagine anyone traveling across the U.S. coming to any conclusion other than the infrastructure in our country is very good. The true measure of success is demonstrated by the fact that the majority of us make it to work each day without even thinking of the roads we drive on, the water we use to get ready for work, the wastewater system that disposes of all the water we use, the stormwater systems that prevent any rain from keeping us from traveling safely, etc. So the real question is, how are we really measuring this grade?

I get the impression ASCE determines this grade by assuming a life for our assets and assigning a replacement cost then comparing that to funding levels. And because these levels don't match the replacement costs, we must be failing. The flaw in this is that just because something like a water main is more than 50 years old does not mean it is at the verge of imminent failure. But according to ASCE, if politicians don't give us money to rip it out at year 51, that main drops to a D. I've worked in cities where mains were 120 years old and were still delivering water to homes and businesses with no breaks or signs of failure. That's not a D, and it is irresponsible as an engineer to lead people to believe that it should be replaced strictly based on its age. Yesterday an engineer with a national consulting firm told me that in their experience they've noticed the older a main gets, the less chance it actually has of failing. And based on my experience, I agree. We also heard from that engineer and another at a different national firm, that most water main failures are occuring in mains built in the first few years after World War II because there was a decrease in the quality of materials at that time. And I can't understand how anyone can assign a life to PVC water main pipe since we don't have enough experience with it yet to really know how long it will last. Based on all this, it appears age is definitely not the only factor in determining the need for replacement.

So while it is a good idea to have some report of the state of our infrastructure, let's not fabricate the data just to get more business for our profession. And let's not use a grading system that leads people to believe we are all failures at the job with which the public has entrusted us. Instead we should choose to use an accurate and reasonable method of identifying and assessing our assets and reporting the actual projected costs to keep up with the management and maintenance of our system. Because no engineer I know really believes the Infrastructure Report Card is an accurate reflection of our nation's public works systems, it's not achieving the purpose for which ASCE has developed it, and most of us are not too happy that an organization representing our profession is falsely leading people to believe we are failures at our jobs.

Public Works Group Blog

An Online Resource for Public Works Professionals

Author Archives: Pam Broviak