FHWA not responsible for errors, reader says - Baloney & balderdash, twaddle & claptrap, we say
Posted Wed, 2008-02-20 21:47
One reader emailed that our reference to "errors in FHWA data... may be misleading, as the errors don't necessarily lie with FHWA."
He continues: "FHWA can only require information to be submitted for those bridges that meet the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) definitions. According to FHWA, privately owned bridges (e.g. many toll bridges) are not subject to the NBIS. And according to FHWA (see Q303-2/3 at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbis/index.htm). Therefore, as you point out, the information they do have is incomplete, but it is not their fault as they are only able to report information that is voluntarily submitted for these bridges."
EDITOR: I disagree completely. Like any publisher FHWA has a responsibility for the accuracy of material it puts out in its name. It is not an excuse, just an explanation, that they got bum information.
If they want respect they should insist that respondents respond accurately. They should do some checking of what the states send them. If they have doubts about the accuracy they should find other sources, like the web, google, maps, or wikipedia. Even IBTTA.
If errors get through they should retract incorrect material and make corrections. Any organization with a respect for the truth does that. It an inexcusable abrogation of responsibility to say: "We only publish what they tell us."
The worst tabloid newspapers don't pull that baloney.
The Bridge Inventory should not say there are zero toll bridges in Puerto Rico and South Carolina if they can't find out how many there are. It should say 'unknown'. Even a competent clerk can make that distinction. It doesn't take an investigative reporter to research the fact that Puerto Rico has a bunch of tollroads. They just have to be able to enter 'tollroads' or 'toll roads' and 'Puerto Rico' in the Google search box.
Contrary to the emailer the bulk of big privately operated tollroads and their bridges ARE subject to NBIS because they are merely leased under toll concessions for a contracted term 50, 75 years or whatever, to the private operators. Title is not transferred. So the Chicago Skyway, South Bay Expressway, Indiana Toll Road, Pocahontas Parkway, NW Parkway etc's bridges are owned by states and local governments and they should be on NBIS and in the statistics.
The nonsense of the 1990s all over again
There's a history to this. For years FHWA published ludicrously inaccurate statistics on tollroads because they had a person compile them who knew nothing about tollroads and no interest in them. She told me that. She treated her job as that of an unknowing, unquestioning clerk. She just sent out a questionnaire, then when she got the results back she did tabulations and additions and published whatever the states had sent her.
During her tenure some of the states obviously gave the job of responding to her inquiries to an intern at 4pm on a Friday afternoon. People in several state DOTs had concluded they could get away with sending any old rubbish answers to questionnaires from Washington DC. Why waste the time of someone valuable on responding to the FHWA. It didn't seem to care what they sent.
Major well known toll facilities were completely missing and there were a couple of completely non-existent ones listed in Florida. (Someone's joke on Washington DC at Turkey Lake?)
Data on electronic toll collection was patently absurd to people with any knowledge. Facilities were assigned to the wrong agencies, listed in wrong categories. And so on.
The result was that the FHWA toll statistics were a standing joke in the toll industry.
We whooped it up every time they put them out. Readers loved it!
At some point the shoulder shrugging clerk responsible for FHWA toll statistics disappeared. Someone above her had said "I want those toll statistics fixed."
Someone new was brought in to fix them. They are now pretty good solid statistics.
TOLLROADSnews 2008-02-20
He continues: "FHWA can only require information to be submitted for those bridges that meet the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) definitions. According to FHWA, privately owned bridges (e.g. many toll bridges) are not subject to the NBIS. And according to FHWA (see Q303-2/3 at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbis/index.htm). Therefore, as you point out, the information they do have is incomplete, but it is not their fault as they are only able to report information that is voluntarily submitted for these bridges."
EDITOR: I disagree completely. Like any publisher FHWA has a responsibility for the accuracy of material it puts out in its name. It is not an excuse, just an explanation, that they got bum information.
If they want respect they should insist that respondents respond accurately. They should do some checking of what the states send them. If they have doubts about the accuracy they should find other sources, like the web, google, maps, or wikipedia. Even IBTTA.
If errors get through they should retract incorrect material and make corrections. Any organization with a respect for the truth does that. It an inexcusable abrogation of responsibility to say: "We only publish what they tell us."
The worst tabloid newspapers don't pull that baloney.
The Bridge Inventory should not say there are zero toll bridges in Puerto Rico and South Carolina if they can't find out how many there are. It should say 'unknown'. Even a competent clerk can make that distinction. It doesn't take an investigative reporter to research the fact that Puerto Rico has a bunch of tollroads. They just have to be able to enter 'tollroads' or 'toll roads' and 'Puerto Rico' in the Google search box.
Contrary to the emailer the bulk of big privately operated tollroads and their bridges ARE subject to NBIS because they are merely leased under toll concessions for a contracted term 50, 75 years or whatever, to the private operators. Title is not transferred. So the Chicago Skyway, South Bay Expressway, Indiana Toll Road, Pocahontas Parkway, NW Parkway etc's bridges are owned by states and local governments and they should be on NBIS and in the statistics.
The nonsense of the 1990s all over again
There's a history to this. For years FHWA published ludicrously inaccurate statistics on tollroads because they had a person compile them who knew nothing about tollroads and no interest in them. She told me that. She treated her job as that of an unknowing, unquestioning clerk. She just sent out a questionnaire, then when she got the results back she did tabulations and additions and published whatever the states had sent her.
During her tenure some of the states obviously gave the job of responding to her inquiries to an intern at 4pm on a Friday afternoon. People in several state DOTs had concluded they could get away with sending any old rubbish answers to questionnaires from Washington DC. Why waste the time of someone valuable on responding to the FHWA. It didn't seem to care what they sent.
Major well known toll facilities were completely missing and there were a couple of completely non-existent ones listed in Florida. (Someone's joke on Washington DC at Turkey Lake?)
Data on electronic toll collection was patently absurd to people with any knowledge. Facilities were assigned to the wrong agencies, listed in wrong categories. And so on.
The result was that the FHWA toll statistics were a standing joke in the toll industry.
We whooped it up every time they put them out. Readers loved it!
At some point the shoulder shrugging clerk responsible for FHWA toll statistics disappeared. Someone above her had said "I want those toll statistics fixed."
Someone new was brought in to fix them. They are now pretty good solid statistics.
TOLLROADSnews 2008-02-20