By Ramesh Raja

British-Era Roads and Bridges

The road and bridge network inherited by Pakistan on 14 August 1947 was developed over more than a century of British rule. There was no single British officer responsible for all roads and bridges. Political authority rested with the Viceroy in New Delhi and the provincial governments, while construction and maintenance were principally undertaken through the Public Works Department (PWD), headed technically by Chief Engineers, Superintending Engineers and Executive Engineers.

Immediately before independence, Sir Evan Jenkins was Governor of Punjab at Lahore, Sir Robert Francis Mudie was Governor of Sindh at Karachi, Sir George Cunningham was Governor of NWFP at Peshawar, and Sir Geoffrey Prior was Chief Commissioner of British Balochistan at Quetta. At the all-India level, Lord Mountbatten was Viceroy and Governor-General.

The most important early Punjab engineering figure was Colonel Robert Napier, appointed the first Chief Engineer of Punjab. Under him, about 250 engineers and sub-engineers worked on the great Peshawar-Delhi road. The planned metalled road was 563 miles, or about 906 km, including 265 miles, or 426 km, from Peshawar to Lahore.

Part A: Roads

1. Grand Trunk Road: Peshawar-Lahore

The Grand Trunk Road was the principal British artery in northern Pakistan. The Peshawar-Lahore section was approximately 426 km, forming part of the wider 563-mile/906-km Peshawar-Delhi road. It carried military, administrative and commercial traffic and required numerous bridges and culverts. The Punjab PWD specifically undertook its improvement after 1849.

2. Peshawar-Khyber Pass-Jamrud Road

This strategic frontier road connected Peshawar with Jamrud and the Khyber Pass. It was developed principally for military and frontier administration. Its exact British-era length varies by alignment and historical period, so a single figure cannot safely be assigned.

3. Peshawar-Kohat-Bannu-Dera Ismail Khan Road

This was a major south-western frontier communication linking Peshawar with Kohat, Bannu and Dera Ismail Khan. British records identify the Peshawar-Kohat and associated southern frontier roads as important military communications. A consolidated pre-1947 length for the complete corridor is not reliably available.

4. Thal-Kurram-Parachinar Road

The Thal-Parachinar route provided access to the Kurram Valley and Afghanistan frontier. It was part of the extensive strategic road program of British NWFP. The individual sections changed over time, preventing a reliable single 1947 length.

5. Thal-Tochi-Waziristan Roads

The British developed roads towards the Tochi Valley, Waziristan and military posts including Wana. These roads were principally strategic frontier communications. Their individual lengths are recorded in different administrative reports rather than one consolidated register.

6. Peshawar-Hazara-Abbottabad Roads

The Peshawar-Hazara communications connected the frontier capital with Abbottabad and the northern districts. These included numerous subsidiary roads and hill communications.

7. Punjab District Roads

Beyond the Grand Trunk Road, Punjab possessed a large network connecting Lahore, Rawalpindi, Jhelum, Gujrat, Sialkot, Wazirabad, Multan, Chiniot, Jhang and other districts. Metalled-road mileage increased from 1,036 miles in 1891 to 5,473 miles, approximately 8,808 km, by 1944.

8. Sindh Roads

Sindh inherited approximately 1,039 km of blacktopped roads in 1947. Its principal artery was the Karachi-Reti road, approximately 664 km, forming the predecessor of the later National Highway corridor.

9. Balochistan Roads

British Balochistan developed strategic communications from Quetta towards Sibi, Chaman, Zhob, Loralai, Kalat and the Afghan frontier. Exact British-era lengths for individual routes are difficult to establish because later alignments changed substantially. The Quetta-Sibi-Chaman and Quetta-Zhob corridors nevertheless became the basis of later national highways.

Total Roads Inherited

The broader historical road series records approximately 50,367 km of roads inherited by Pakistan in 1947, comprising about 9,809 km of high-type and 40,558 km of low-type roads. A narrower series records about 22,136 km of national and provincial highways. The difference results from different definitions of the road network.

Part B: Major Bridges

1. Attock Bridge

Completed in 1883, the Attock crossing over the Indus was one of the most important strategic bridges linking Punjab with NWFP. The railway bridge incorporated a road/subway arrangement for wheeled traffic.

2. Lansdowne Bridge, Sukkur

Opened in 1889, this famous steel cantilever bridge crossed the Indus at Sukkur and became one of the outstanding engineering achievements of British Sindh.

3. Empress Bridge, Kotri

Completed in 1889, the Empress Bridge crossed the Indus at Kotri and connected Karachi with the interior of Sindh through the expanding railway and road network.

4. Khushalgarh Bridge

The British constructed a permanent Indus crossing at Khushalgarh to strengthen the Kohat and southern frontier communications.

5. Punjab River Bridges

By 1931, major road bridges existed over the Chenab at Wazirabad and Chiniot, Jhelum at Khushab, Beas near Dera Baba Nanak and Sutlej near Ferozepore, together with numerous smaller bridges and culverts.

The British Legacy in 1947

On 14 August 1947, Pakistan inherited not merely a few famous bridges and roads but an extensive communications system. The documented network amounted to approximately 50,367 km of roads, while Sindh alone possessed about 1,039 km of blacktop roads. The British also left major Indus crossings at Attock, Sukkur and Kotri and hundreds of smaller river, canal and stream crossings.

There is, however, no reliable single national figure for the total number of bridges inherited in 1947. Provincial PWD, railway, military and district records classified bridges differently, and a precise figure would require province-by-province archival reconstruction.

The important historical fact is that Pakistan began its independent highway development with a substantial British-built foundation of roads, bridges and engineering institutions, much of which subsequently evolved into today’s national highway network. (Continues)

Click here to read Part-1,

________________

The author of this article, Engr. Ramesh Raja, is a Civil Engineer, visionary planner, PMP certified and literary enthusiast with a passion for art and recreation. He can be reached at engineer.raja@gmail.com  

The post British Infrastructure Legacy in Pakistan-2 first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Abdullah Usman Morai | Sweden

There are some journeys in which the destination is the main attraction. Then there are journeys where the road itself becomes a story.

Our recent journey through Norway was one of the latter.

My friend Dr. Imran Jamali and I travelled through northern Norway, driving along roads where mountains rose dramatically on one side and deep blue water stretched endlessly on the other. We had expected spectacular scenery: fjords, snow-covered peaks, fishing villages and Arctic landscapes, but one thing repeatedly caught our attention: tunnels and bridges.

It seemed that wherever we went, there was either a tunnel ahead of us or a bridge waiting to carry us across something.

A mountain stood in the way? Norway built a tunnel.

A fjord separated two communities? Norway built a bridge or operated a ferry until a permanent crossing could be constructed.

A river cut across the road? Another bridge appeared.

And when the sea itself became the obstacle, we sometimes drove our car onto a ferry, joined other vehicles, and waited while the vessel carried us across the water.

After several days on Norwegian roads, Dr. Imran and I began joking that travelling through Norway meant moving continuously between tunnels, bridges and ferries.

But behind that observation lies something much more profound. Norway’s tunnels and bridges are not simply engineering structures. They are part of a national effort to overcome geography, making mountains less distant, fjords less isolated, and communities more accessible.

A Country Shaped by Obstacles

Norway is a country where geography does not easily surrender to human movement.

The mountains are immense, the coastline is deeply indented, and thousands of islands and fjords divide communities from one another. In many places, a journey that looks short on a map can become surprisingly long because a mountain, fjord, or body of water stands between two points.

This is why Norwegian road engineering is so closely connected with the landscape.

Instead of forcing roads through unsuitable terrain, engineers have often taken the road through the mountain.

Instead of driving for hours around a fjord, they have built a bridge across it.

And where a bridge is impractical, or where the seafloor provides a better route, they have gone underwater.

The result is one of the world’s most remarkable road networks.

Norway has hundreds of road tunnels, and the country’s official road database maintains detailed information on them. Historically, many Norwegian tunnels have been relatively short; an earlier Norwegian road-tunnel study found that a large proportion were under 500 meters.

When we hear about Norway’s tunnels, we tend to think about record-breaking structures such as the Lærdal Tunnel. But the real story is much broader. There are thousands of ordinary-looking passages through rock that may only save motorists a few minutes each, but together they transform the country’s transport system.

The World’s Longest Road Tunnel Is in Norway

One of the most extraordinary examples is the Lærdal Tunnel in western Norway.

At 24.5 kilometers, it is officially the world’s longest road tunnel. Opened in 2000, it connects Lærdal and Aurland and forms an important part of the E16 road connection.

Think about that for a moment. Twenty-four and a half kilometers inside a mountain.

For a traveller sitting behind the steering wheel, it may simply feel like a long drive through darkness. But behind that experience lies an enormous engineering achievement involving excavation, ventilation, lighting, safety systems, emergency facilities and geological challenges.

Interestingly, the Lærdal Tunnel does not feel like an ordinary endless tunnel. It contains large illuminated rock chambers designed partly to provide psychological relief to drivers. The tunnel is also being upgraded to modern safety standards, with work scheduled to begin in 2026 and continue into 2030/31.

Norway’s tunnel story therefore continues even after a tunnel has opened. Maintaining and modernizing these enormous structures is itself a major undertaking.

The Tunnel beneath the Sea

Norway’s ambition becomes even more impressive when mountains are no longer the only obstacle.

The country has developed a remarkable tradition of undersea road tunnels.

The Ryfylke Tunnel, for example, is around 14.5 kilometers long and descends roughly 292 meters below sea level. It is among Norway’s longest road tunnels and one of the country’s most remarkable subsea crossings.

But Norway is not stopping there.

The Rogfast project in Rogaland is being built to create what the Norwegian Public Roads Administration describes as the world’s longest and deepest subsea road tunnel. The project is expected to open in 2033 and will form part of the plan for a more ferry-free E39 along Norway’s western coast. The tunnel system will run beneath the sea and reach approximately 400 meters below sea level.

For us as travellers, this is fascinating because it demonstrates how Norway is gradually changing the relationship between road and sea.

Today, a ferry may be necessary. Tomorrow, the same journey may be made underneath the fjord.

From Darkness to Daylight: Norway’s Bridges

If tunnels demonstrate Norway’s ability to go through mountains and beneath water, bridges demonstrate its ability to go over obstacles.

During our drive, we repeatedly crossed bridges that seemed almost suspended between mountains and water.

Some were enormous. Others were modest structures crossing a small river or stream.

One of the country’s great bridge landmarks is the Hardanger Bridge.

The Hardanger Bridge is a 1,380-metre suspension bridge and is officially Norway’s longest suspension bridge. Its towers rise about 200 meters above the fjord, creating a dramatic meeting point between engineering and landscape. The bridge is also connected to substantial tunnel infrastructure on both sides.

Then there is the Hålogaland Bridge, particularly interesting to us because it is in northern Norway, close to Narvik.

The bridge is 1,533 meters long, with a main suspension span of 1,145 meters. It is Norway’s second-longest suspension bridge. The project also included several kilometers of road and tunnels, demonstrating something that became obvious during our journey: Norway rarely builds a bridge in isolation.

A bridge may require a tunnel before it. Another tunnel may follow it. Then a road may climb around the mountain.

Engineering projects in Norway often become a chain of interconnected solutions.

The Shortest Tunnels and Bridges Tell another Story

There is something else fascinating about Norwegian infrastructure.

Not every tunnel is a gigantic engineering wonder.

In fact, it is difficult to identify a single official “shortest road tunnel in Norway” because the national road database contains an enormous variety of structures, from major mountain and subsea tunnels to very short passages. Norway’s official tunnel dataset records road tunnels across the country but does not present a simple national ranking for the shortest tunnel.

There are, however, very short tunnel structures and tunnel-related passages.

For example, a current Norwegian road project includes a ventilation tunnel only about 30 meters long. Other road tunnels can be only a few hundred meters long. The Norwegian Public Roads Administration has also documented tunnels of roughly 200 meters.

The same principle applies to bridges.

There is no particularly meaningful national “shortest bridge” record because a bridge can be a tiny structure crossing a stream or drainage channel, while another may span an enormous fjord.

For perspective, the Norwegian Public Roads Administration describes the new Strømmen Bridge in Nordland as approximately 30 meters long; the old bridge was only about 15 meters.

A 15-metre bridge may sound insignificant compared with Hardangerbrua. But for the people who use it every day, its importance may be just as great.

That is one of the lessons we learned on our journey: size does not determine importance.

A 24.5-kilometre tunnel can be a national landmark, while a 30-metre bridge can be the structure that keeps a local community connected.

Why Did Norwegian Tunnels Seem Narrower to Us?

During our journey, we also noticed something else.

Compared with tunnels we have driven through in Sweden, Norwegian road tunnels seemed narrower to us.

This was particularly noticeable in some of the mountainous areas. Of course, tunnel dimensions vary according to road classification, age, traffic levels, safety requirements and whether the tunnel has one or two tubes, so this is primarily an observation from our travels rather than a universal engineering rule.

But the landscape provides an obvious explanation for why Norwegian tunnel engineering can feel different.

In mountainous Norway, there may simply be very little space.

A road cannot always spread sideways. A steep mountain may rise directly from the fjord, while a village may occupy the narrow strip of usable land. A tunnel therefore becomes not merely an alternative; it can be the only practical way forward.

The narrower feeling of some Norwegian tunnels may therefore be closely related to the challenging terrain and the way roads have had to fit into the mountains.

Modern Norwegian tunnels are nevertheless designed with safety and traffic management in mind. The Lærdal Tunnel upgrade, for instance, includes emergency lay-bys, surveillance, improved lighting, communications, ventilation and emergency equipment.

What we see from behind the steering wheel the width of the road, lights on the walls, and signs above us is only the visible part of a much larger engineering system.

Ferries: The Old Solution Still Sailing

Despite all these tunnels and bridges, ferries remain an essential part of Norwegian travel.

And there is something charming about them.

We would drive onto a ferry with our vehicle, switch off the engine, and suddenly become passengers rather than drivers.

For a few minutes, the road disappeared beneath us.

The fjord or sea became the road.

Cars, buses, trucks, bicycles, and people shared the same floating platform. Then, after crossing the water, the ferry docked and everyone simply drove away, continuing the journey.

But Norway is gradually trying to replace some of these ferry crossings with fixed connections.

The Rogfast project is one example. It is explicitly part of Norway’s ambition to create a more continuous, ferry-free E39 along the western coast. According to the Norwegian Public Roads Administration, the project is expected to reduce travel time between Stavanger and Bergen by about 40 minutes.

This does not mean that ferries will suddenly disappear from Norway. The country’s geography is too complicated for that. But where economically and technically feasible, bridges and tunnels can provide faster, more predictable year-round connections.

Infrastructure That Gives Time Back to People

This is where I believe Norwegian infrastructure deserves appreciation.

A tunnel is not only a hole through a mountain. A bridge is not simply steel and concrete. A ferry-free road is not merely a transportation project.

They are all ways of giving time back to people.

Imagine a person who lives on one side of a mountain and works on the other. Imagine a child travelling to school. Imagine an ambulance carrying a patient. Imagine a truck transporting food, medicine or industrial goods. Imagine families who want to visit relatives without having to wait for the next ferry.

Every minute saved on a journey eventually becomes part of someone’s life.

This is why I found these projects more meaningful than many of the spectacular monuments we see around the world.

They are not primarily built for tourists to photograph. They are built for ordinary people to use. They are infrastructure in the truest sense of the word.

Engineering against Isolation

Perhaps the most beautiful way to understand Norway’s tunnels and bridges is to see them as a response to isolation.

A fjord can divide two communities. A mountain can separate two valleys. An island can remain dependent on a ferry. A river can become an obstacle.

But a tunnel can pass through the mountain. A bridge can cross the river. A ferry can temporarily become a moving bridge. And eventually, another tunnel may go beneath the sea.

Every such structure reduces the power of geography to isolate people. That is why, during our journey, I began looking at these structures differently.

At first, I saw a tunnel simply as something we had to drive through. Gradually, I began seeing it as a connection between two places. A bridge was no longer simply something carrying our car across water. It became a connection between communities. And that, perhaps, is the real purpose of these structures: not merely to connect roads, but to bring people closer.

Connecting Roads and Hearts

Norway’s mountains are magnificent, but mountains can also separate. Its fjords are breathtaking, but fjords can also divide. Its islands are beautiful, but islands can also isolate.

Human beings have responded to all of this with extraordinary ingenuity.

They have drilled through mountains, descended beneath seas, stretched bridges across fjords, and sailed ferries between shores.

In doing so, they have created something greater than a transport network.

A road allows a worker to reach a workplace. A bridge allows a family to visit relatives. A tunnel allows a patient to reach a hospital. A ferry allows a community to remain connected to the mainland. A modern road allows businesses to reach customers and goods to reach markets.

In this sense, Norway’s tunnels and bridges are connecting not only places, but people and perhaps even hearts.

As Dr. Imran and I continued our journey through Norway, passing from tunnel to bridge and from bridge to ferry, I increasingly felt that we were travelling through a living example of how engineering can serve humanity.

The mountains remain. The fjords remain. The rivers remain. The sea remains.

Norway has not defeated its geography, and perhaps it never intended to.

Instead, it has learned how to live with it.

Where nature creates a barrier, people create a connection. Where a mountain says “stop,” a tunnel says “continue.” Where a fjord says “you cannot cross,” a bridge says “come over.” And where the water is still too wide, a ferry says, “I will take you there.”

Perhaps that is the most beautiful story hidden inside Norway’s tunnels and bridges.

They do not merely take us from one side to another. They bring one side closer to the other.

And in the end, that is what good infrastructure should always do: not simply shorten distances on a map, but shorten the distance between human beings.

Read: Reflections on Travelling Without Hurry

_____________________

Abdullah Soomro, penname Abdullah Usman Morai, hailing from Moro town of Sindh, province of Pakistan, is based in Stockholm Sweden. Currently he is working as Groundwater Engineer in Stockholm Sweden. He did BE (Agriculture) from Sindh Agriculture University Tando Jam and MSc water systems technology from KTH Stockholm Sweden as well as MSc Management from Stockholm University. Beside this he also did masters in journalism and economics from Shah Abdul Latif University Khairpur Mirs, Sindh. He is author of a travelogue book named ‘Musafatoon’. His second book is in process. He writes articles from time to time. A frequent traveler, he also does podcast on YouTube with channel name: VASJE Podcast.

The post Where Tunnels Meet Bridges first appeared on Sindh Courier.

• We cross them every day, but are we ignoring the growing threat beneath our wheels?
• Every hole in a young bridge deck should be treated as more than a pothole. It is a visible symptom of a potentially deeper engineering failure.

By: Ramesh Raja

Across Pakistan, people cross hundreds of bridges every day on NHA and provincial road networks. Yet an increasingly disturbing sight is becoming common: new bridge deck slabs developing cracks, spalling, exposed reinforcement and even holes within one or two years of construction. What should be durable structural infrastructure is, in some cases, beginning to resemble a deteriorating road pavement soon after opening.

This deserves serious national attention. An asphalt pavement may commonly have a design period of around 10 years before major rehabilitation, depending on traffic, climate and specifications. A bridge is fundamentally different. Major bridge structures are generally designed for a service life of 60 years or more. Their decks, girders, piers and foundations represent long-term public investment and are expected to remain safe and functional for generations.

Therefore, when holes appear in a bridge deck within two years, it is not simply a maintenance issue. It is a warning that something in the chain of design, materials, construction, supervision, durability, traffic loading or maintenance requires investigation.

We Have Standards, Plants, Laboratories and Consultants. So What Is Going Wrong?

Pakistan cannot be accused of having no technical standards. Modern projects use automatic concrete batching plants, sophisticated laboratories, independent consultants and quality-control systems. ASTM, AASHTO, BS, EN and project-specific specifications are routinely incorporated into highway and bridge contracts. Concrete cubes are tested, aggregates are approved, reinforcement is inspected and volumes of documentation are generated.

Yet premature deterioration continues.

This suggests that the problem is not necessarily a lack of standards, but a gap between documented compliance and actual field performance. An automatic batching plant can accurately measure and mix materials, but it cannot turn poor-quality sand into good sand. A laboratory can certify a cube, but a few specimens cannot represent every cubic meter of concrete placed under variable site conditions. A consultant can certify compliance with drawings, but certification alone cannot guarantee decades of durability.

The engineering question should therefore change from “Did the paperwork comply?” to “What physical mechanism is causing the bridge to fail?”

Expansion Joints, Drainage and Water Ingress

Expansion joints should be among the first elements investigated in prematurely deteriorating decks. They must accommodate repeated thermal and traffic-induced movement while preventing water and contaminants from entering the structure.

A defective or leaking joint can initiate a destructive sequence: water ingress, reinforcement corrosion, cracking, delamination, spalling and ultimately loss of deck concrete.

Poor joint installation, incorrect movement gaps, inadequate anchorage, defective seals, insufficient concrete compaction around anchors and ineffective drainage can all contribute. Waterproofing must also be properly connected with the joint system.

For a bridge designed for 60 years or more, an expansion joint cannot be treated as a minor finishing item. It is a critical life-cycle component requiring proper selection, installation, inspection, maintenance and planned replacement.

Sand, Aggregates and Concrete Durability

The quality of sand and aggregates is another critical but often underestimated factor. Fine aggregate containing excessive silt, clay, chlorides, sulphates, organic impurities or harmful reactive constituents can adversely affect concrete performance.

Poorly graded or contaminated sand can increase water demand. If additional water is introduced to obtain workability, the effective water-cement ratio increases, producing more permeable concrete. The sequence can become:

Poor aggregate → increased water demand → higher water-cement ratio → porous concrete → water and chloride ingress → corrosion → cracking and spalling.

Read and watch: Viral video exposes substandard work of a flyover in Karachi

An approved source does not guarantee uniform quality forever. Actual materials delivered during each major concrete operation should remain traceable and subject to appropriate testing.

For bridge decks, compressive strength alone is not a sufficient measure of durability. Low permeability, resistance to chloride ingress, shrinkage, cracking and other exposure-related characteristics must also be considered.

Curing and Field Construction: The Hidden Gap

Pakistan’s climate makes curing particularly important. High temperature and rapid evaporation can cause plastic and drying shrinkage, surface weakness and increased permeability if concrete is not adequately protected and cured.

Similarly, poor vibration can cause honeycombing and voids. Inadequate reinforcement cover exposes steel to environmental attack. Poor construction joints can become pathways for water. Excessive surface finishing or improper finishing over bleed water can weaken the surface.

These defects may not appear in laboratory reports. They are field-performance issues.

This is why bridge-deck construction requires intensive inspection during reinforcement fixing, concreting, vibration, finishing and curing, rather than relying primarily on the final test certificates.

Overloading Must Be Measured, Not Assumed

Heavy-vehicle overloading is undoubtedly a serious issue on Pakistan’s roads. Excessive axle loads increase fatigue stresses, dynamic effects and repeated wheel-load damage. However, overloading should not become a universal explanation for every premature bridge defect.

Where overloading is suspected, actual axle-load surveys, traffic counts, fatigue assessment and damage-pattern analysis should be undertaken and compared with design assumptions.

Engineering conclusions must be based on evidence.

From Test Passing to Performance Proving

The fundamental reform required is a shift from quality-control paperwork to life-cycle performance.

For major bridges, material sources should be strictly prequalified and continuously monitored. Fine and coarse aggregates should be tested for grading, silt, clay, chlorides, sulphates and relevant durability characteristics. Concrete should be controlled for actual water-cement ratio and, where appropriate, permeability, chloride resistance, electrical resistivity, sorptivity and shrinkage in addition to compressive strength.

Actual reinforcement cover should be verified using cover meters or other non-destructive techniques. Expansion joints, waterproofing and drainage should have dedicated inspection and acceptance procedures. Curing should be treated as a critical construction operation, particularly during extreme temperatures.

Independent verification testing should genuinely be independent and include random checks of critical materials and completed works.

Strict Measures for Durable Bridges

Pakistan should establish a stronger life-cycle durability framework for major NHA and provincial bridges.

Every major bridge should have a documented service-life assessment covering environmental exposure, corrosion, fatigue, traffic growth, flooding, climate effects, drainage and replacement of vulnerable components. Durability requirements should become contractual obligations, not merely recommendations.

Material sources and individual concrete pours should be traceable. Unauthorized addition of water should be prohibited. Aggregate moisture corrections should be verified. Reinforcement cover should be checked in the completed work, not merely accepted from drawings.

Expansion joints should undergo independent checks for movement capacity, installation, anchorage, sealing and water-tightness. Deck drainage and waterproofing should be treated as essential durability systems.

Major bridges should receive systematic condition surveys at one, two, five and subsequently defined intervals, with detailed inspections according to condition and risk. Each bridge should have a permanent digital asset record containing drawings, mix designs, material sources, test results, construction records, inspection findings and repair history.

Most importantly, a significant premature defect should trigger a forensic root-cause investigation. A hole should not simply be patched without determining why it developed.

Accountability Must Extend Beyond Inauguration

A bridge should not be considered successful merely because it is completed on schedule, passes laboratory tests and is opened to traffic. The real test begins after inauguration.

If serious deterioration occurs within two years, the investigation should establish whether the cause was design, materials, construction, curing, inadequate cover, expansion-joint leakage, drainage, waterproofing, environmental exposure, overloading or inadequate maintenance.

Where negligence or non-compliance is established, responsibility should follow the evidence.

Repairing symptoms without eliminating causes merely creates recurring expenditure. If the joint is leaking, repair the joint. If water is penetrating through defective waterproofing, rectify the waterproofing. If corrosion is occurring, address its source and mechanism. If concrete durability is inadequate, determine why. If overloading is accelerating fatigue, enforce axle-load regulations.

Building for Generations, Not Inauguration Day

Pakistan already possesses the engineers, consultants, laboratories, technology and international standards necessary to build durable bridges. The challenge is to connect these resources with strict field enforcement, independent verification and long-term accountability.

A major bridge designed for 60 years or more should not develop holes within two years. For strategically important structures, Pakistan should aspire to a 100-year durability vision, supported by appropriate design, inspection, maintenance and planned replacement of vulnerable components.

Every hole in a young bridge deck should therefore be treated as more than a pothole. It is a visible symptom of a potentially deeper engineering failure.

We must stop asking only whether a bridge passed its tests on the day it was completed. We must ask whether it will continue to perform safely decades later. The objective should not merely be to build bridges that pass inspection. It should be to build bridges that pass the test of time.

Read: Karachi –A City Without Trees

____________________

The author of this article, Engr. Ramesh Raja, is a Civil Engineer, visionary planner, PMP certified and literary enthusiast with a passion for art and recreation. He can be reached at engineer.raja@gmail.com  

The post Bridges Built for Decades, Failing in Years first appeared on Sindh Courier.