The Government of St Lucia has pursued an extensive programme of bridge construction one that is unprecedented in the history of St. Lucia. The Minister of Infrastructure has rightfully determined that these bridges are part of the critical infrastructure of St Lucia and any disruption would have serious effect on the country. In my interface with the Minister, he has always readily admitted that he is not an engineer and always respects the view of his Technical Advisors. His role is the establishment of policy and the technical staff is to ensure that there is prudent use of funds in the execution of the policy.
My view is that the Minister has pursued a very sound policy of moving the critical infrastructure we call bridges to a state of resilience. The loss of a bridge crossing can have a serious impact on the transportation network causing significant dislocation within communities. History will be very kind to the Hon. Philip J. Pierre in his efforts to build resilience to the transportation network of St. Lucia.
How does one create resilience? Is there a difference between resilience and resistance? The understanding of the difference of these two words can cause a saving of millions of dollars. I have always been amazed at how phrases become common language within organizations. For centuries there were successful businesses being run, and then some academic came up with the idea that every organization needed a Vision and a Mission Statement. Suddenly, there was a rush to place these on the walls of business houses; many believed that there was something magical about this piece of art.
WASCO erected their Vision and Mission Statement which was proudly affixed to the wall as one entered the office. There was not even a flutter of change in my view. Another academic came up with the word ‘resilience’ and you would find that in every disaster related document coming from the CDB or the World Bank will have this nebulous term – ‘resilience’.
Interestingly, the UK Government has pursued a plausible approach in dealing with its infrastructure. They have set up a Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, and then they engaged in a categorization of criticality, which was dependent on the severity of the impact. Category 5 would have a catastrophic impact on the society. Category 0 will have little impact on the nation. In St Lucia for example, Hewanorra Airport would be a Category 5 on the Criticality Scale, and thus the Vieux Fort River becomes an important river course for attention. The Bridges over the Castries River might be a Category 4 as failure will severely disrupt essential services. A bridge in a small farm road would be a Category 0.
However when the conversation turns to the definition of Flood Resilience there is the introduction of the term – Flood Resistance. Flood Resilience is defined as designing an infrastructure asset that though it comes into contact with flood waters, no permanent damage is caused, structural integrity is maintained and where operational disruption occurs, normal operations can resume rapidly after a flood has receded.
Flood Resistance is defined as designing an infrastructure asset that floodwater is excluded during a flood event and no disruption occurs to the essential service the asset provides.
It means that a Flood Resilient bridge crossing can be temporary overtopped, yet must be operational after the water recedes.
So I turn my attention to the technical advisors/consultants in the Ministry of Infrastructure. Should we be building bridges based on Flood Resilience or Flood Resistance? Let us consider the Bois D’Orange Bridge which we were advised was designed by the US Corps of Engineers. We were told that a clear span is required to provide resilience, that we cannot replace the ARMCO culverts, as they will be blocked by debris and cause overtopping. Take a journey upstream of the Corinth River, up to the Piat Junction, for a tree truck to travel from here through Assou Canal, across the Corinth Bridge, under LIME’s Bridge, through the Bridge by Windward Gases, under Bryden’s bridge, through the culvert at Computer World and then to the Bois D’Orange, he would have done well.
Did we fully investigate whether a replacement of the ARMCO Culverts could have created a resilient structure? Or have we become so fixated that it has to be clear span for it to be resilient. The ARMCO Culvert would have resulted in a saving of $ 9.0 million and we all would have been driving through this section months ago. Should we spend another $ 15.0 million or more at CHOC, or can a resilient structure costing far less be built?
I listened to comments made after Hurricane Tomas on the Choc Bridge; the majority were without any engineering analysis. Most of the debris that was lodged came from the Union area near LUCELEC’s compound. In my humble view the ARMCO pipes have served the Gros Islet Highway well over the last 40 yrs and should have been considered in the replacement.
I recall a very revealing incident that happened almost 23 yrs ago, when I was Chief Engineer at the then Ministry of Communications Works and Transport. I had just celebrated my 29th Birthday, and was appointed Chief Engineer, we were then negotiating with the British Development Division ( BDD) to continue the West Coast Road. A meeting was arranged with the Technical Advisor of the BDD to discuss the section Anse La Raye to Canaries. The position of the BDD was that no funds will be spent on any Bridge Improvement and works will only be done on the roadway.
There was a standoff as I found this policy to be most wrong, and at one point things got very tense as I was not backing down on my position that you cannot have a road without proper bridge crossings. In the end there was a compromise and for the Anse Galet Culvert it was agreed that the Ministry will pay for the materials for the ARMCO culvert and that the BDD will fund the construction. It was also agreed that work will be done on the other bridges along the route to ensure safety. Looking back, the decision of the British Development Division to push that the funds be used to reach to Soufriere was the right one, had we considered the reconstruction of bridges to create flood resistant structures we would still be in Canaries by now. Sound Policy must always be supported by sound technical advice.