I-85 Bridge Collapse in Atlanta, Georgia

Overview

Decision Situation

On the evening of March 30, 2017, during rush hour traffic, a fire broke out beneath a bridge on Interstate 85 (I-85) in Atlanta near the Piedmont Road overpass. The fire, fueled by construction materials stored under the bridge, caused a 92-foot section of the northbound lanes to collapse. Amazingly, no injuries were reported, and within a few days the most urgent safety concerns were abated.

However, the incident resulted in immediate transportation chaos that reverberated throughout the region. Commuters were forced to navigate lengthy detours and flocked to the cityʼs surface streets, putting significant strain on parts of the system not built for such heavy use. There were also immediate questions about how the fire started and why so much construction material was stored beneath the bridge, which put the Georgia DOT in an uncomfortable spotlight.

I donʼt think anyone would have ever thought this kind of thing would happen.
—Russell McMurry
Commissioner, Georgia DOT

As the leader of the Georgia DOT, Commissioner Russell McMurry was faced with two very different high-stakes decisions: what would the agency do to handle traffic and recovery, and what would they tell the public?

How the Decisions Were Made

In the heat of an emergency like this, following a predetermined step-by-step decision process may be unrealistic, given that so much is based on what surfaces minute by minute. Instead, McMurry found himself relying on a set of universally helpful strategies.

Strategy 1: Clear and Centralized Command

When the news broke, the Georgia DOT immediately transformed a centralized traffic management center into an emergency operations center so they could control messaging on display boards and could adjust signal timing dynamically.

Bringing everyone to a central physical location consolidated the communication and decision-making processes. “You need people to come together to triage within the fog of war,” recounts McMurry. Having everybody hearing the same physical voice at the same time helped immensely.

This was notably true at the very start of the ordeal. There were several entities in the room, including chiefs of staff from the governorʼs and mayorʼs offices, local fire and police officials, and even Homeland Security. The commissioner walked into the response center, and the first thing he asked was, “Whoʼs in charge?” The cityʼs police chief immediately looked up and said, without missing a beat, “You are, itʼs a bridge.” Having everyone in the room hear that together provided instant clarity on who would be leading, and the group could get to work.

Strategy 2: Have the Right People on Speed Dial Before the Emergency Begins

What allowed the Georgia DOT to move so quickly was that they had an emergency response plan in place before the situation arose. While the planned emergency was for something more common, such as a hurricane, they could still stand up the same strategies to mobilize quickly. Turning the traffic center into an emergency response center, for example, was in the plan and could be implemented before leadership even arrived on the scene.

The start of an emergency is NOT the time to get to know your friends in local government. You want them on speed dial.
—Russell McMurry
Commissioner, Georgia DOT

The commissioner was also helped immensely by the fact that he had spent the first two years of his tenure getting to know the leaders in local agencies. This meant that he knew the right people to call across the region, had their cell numbers already on speed dial in his own phone, and had built the necessary relationships so they would actually pick up the phone when he called.

The Georgia DOTʼs planned response had a defined set of stakeholders who would come together for any emergency situation that included entities such as the state police and the

mayorʼs office. However, this initial list needed to be tailored to the situation, and additional experts were brought in. In this case, the right people included

• Local government officials: The City of Atlanta was closely involved in the early response and would play a key role in necessary traffic adjustments.
• Bridge engineers: There were a lot of technical questions about bridges that needed to be fielded, and information about this specific structure was needed to ensure early safety.
• Fire Department: Local fire officials were needed first to contain the fire and then to assure the group and the public that the danger from the fire had passed.
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security: With the cause of the fire initially unknown, terrorism was a real concern. Bringing in Homeland Security at the start meant they would be ready for any kind of response should terrorism have played a role.
• Communications: Communications staff were also key participants at the response center. Having them embedded in the process turned out to be crucial, so they could always know the latest status and could accurately and confidently serve as the voice of the organization.

It helped immensely to know what the process should look like, who the players needed to be, and to have their contact information ready when they needed to get together quickly.

Strategy 3: Accommodate Natural Curiosity

The fire broke out during the 6:00 news hour, and the media demanded updates immediately, with many news outlets already going out to the scene to get their own live feeds. The commissioner knew that the Georgia DOT had to tell the media something, but at this early stage, no one knew how the fire started or how long the repairs would take. Nonetheless, the agency committed to giving a public response in time for the news agenciesʼ 11:00 broadcast. The commissioner and the Georgia DOT spokespeople gave as much information as they could, telling the media what they knew, what they did not know, and what the region could expect next.

If you donʼt tell your story, someone will tell it for you.
—Russell McMurry
Commissioner, Georgia DOT

After this, the Georgia DOT recognized that they would need a communications cadence with the press to discuss construction activities and opted for daily press briefings while construction was getting underway. But even these briefings were not enough to satisfy curiosity, and news crews continued to set up at the scene of the fire. Having so many people in the area made the

Georgia DOT staff concerned about safety and potential interference with construction activities. McMurry had to decide how to push back on the press to stop this unsafe activity.

The commissioner knew that telling them to stop and restricting their access would not remove their questions or stop attempts to find good content on this topic of intense public interest. It could also start to look like the agency was intentionally blocking information. After talking it through with the Georgia DOT communications and construction teams, the commissioner decided that they could provide an outlet for the mediaʼs desire to see behind the scenes by having the main bridge engineer lead official tours of the construction site for members of the press once a week. It gave news crews B-roll video content and interviews with key personnel. This approach offered news crews consistent access they could use to plan their ongoing reporting, which made it easier for the Georgia DOT to discourage unauthorized visits to the work zone.

Throughout the recovery and then reconstruction, the Georgia DOT staff continuously provided information to the media. The construction manager got in front of a camera once a week to give updates on the progress in rebuilding. In addition, the commissioner made himself available for on-site briefings as major milestones were approaching, and the governor got to give the good news at the end when the milestones were reached. Finally, at the end of each briefing or update, the Georgia DOT told reporters when they would be able to talk again. The regular updates and consistent access to top decision-makers gave hungry media outlets a reliable source of information to build their stories on and assured them that they were getting the full story.

Strategy 4: Prepare for the Hard Questions

While the Georgia DOT tried to provide as much information as possible proactively, the team knew there would still be additional questions from the public and media that would be uncomfortable to answer. As more was learned, it came to light that the fire was fueled by material the Georgia DOT had stored under the bridge. There would undoubtedly be questions about the Georgia DOTʼs responsibility for the fire and whether any agency decisions had contributed to it.

Put the ugly on the table.
—Russell McMurry
Commissioner, Georgia DOT

To prepare for this, the commissioner asked the agencyʼs communications team what they thought the media would ask the following day. This led to the commissioner and other agency leaders participating in regular preparation sessions in which the communications and legal staff asked their bosses the “ugly questions” that no one wanted to be answering for the first time with a microphone in their face.

This allowed spokespeople to work through their responses in advance, think about how responses might play out publicly, and develop strategies to get them to play out the way they wanted. It gave them a chance to think about how the media would portray different aspects of each response and to get their intended message out successfully. It was from these intensely focused discussions that the agencyʼs broader public communication strategy emerged.

One of the difficult questions that went through this process was, “How could the Georgia DOT allow someone to store rolls of flammable plastic under a bridge?” At first the agency stood by their choice, relying on messaging the nuanced difference in the meaning of “flammable” versus “combustible.” But over time, the team realized they should yield to experts and public opinion and change their policy, and they acknowledged that material like this should not be stored in such locations.

Strategy 5: Make Small Decisions Fast

Dealing with the bridge itself was just the first part of the situation for transportation officials to figure out. In the aftermath of closing one of the busiest routes in Atlanta, drivers had to find alternate routes for their daily commutes. Georgia DOT traffic engineers set to work with local officials to manage the response and provide new and flexible options to these drivers now clogging city streets.

McMurry acknowledges that, in hindsight, the agency and its partners could have moved faster on these early traffic solutions. At the time, everything felt high stakes, and officials wanted to avoid missteps in their response. This led the group to spend more time than was ideal analyzing possible options and delayed helpful interventions that were needed on the ground immediately. “We can always repaint those initial lane lines,” concedes the commissioner.

Engineers often tend to err on the side of being conservative in recommending solutions. Staff can get so wrapped up in protocol that they cannot “call an audible” when circumstances make protocol moot. McMurry sees a leaderʼs role as understanding when to push people to just go. In times of crisis, decisions need to be made fast and without all the facts. Sometimes the wrong decisions will get made, but these are times when it is more important to keep moving forward.

Strategy 6: Trust Your People and Make Sure They Trust You

McMurry was at the helm of the situation from Day 1, and he asserts that it is essential for leaders to be present and out front throughout a crisis. However, he is just as adamant that full

staff collaboration was essential to success. There was the core group of senior advisors and leaders at partner agencies, but there were also phone calls to discuss specific decisions for which “everyone was on the line.” With so many small decisions to make, there was no time for indecision in any corner, and choices had to be made at the lowest levels possible.

As much as possible, the commissioner sought to create the expectation that anyone could speak up on these calls, even staff he did not know. To promote this, he would “go around the horn” from maintenance, bridge, traffic operations, communications, and legal to give each area room to speak and provide the perspective from their specialty. This created an environment for everyone to contribute, participate, and be honest.

McMurry believes that he sees the best of humanity and the best of the Georgia DOT organization at times like these, with everyone singularly focused on the mission at hand. Trust in your people is a huge asset in crisis situations and can be built over time through training and learning opportunities for everyone, particularly middle managers.

Decision Reception

The NTSB investigation did emphasize the role of stored construction materials under the bridge in fueling the fire. The report concluded that the Georgia DOT was “at least partially responsible” for the bridge collapse because of its decision to store such flammable materials under the bridge and failure to recognize the potential risks. The NTSB recommended stricter regulations regarding the storage of flammable materials near bridges and improved risk assessment practices for infrastructure projects.

So does GDOT assume any responsibility for the fire?—The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The Georgia DOT ended up creating a new policy to update storage procedures and helped disseminate the lessons widely to peer agencies. They helped AASHTO develop and distribute a memo on the materials and issues in question and ways to make sure something similar does not happen somewhere else.

In looking back on perceptions about the Georgia DOT, the commissioner acknowledged that the agency had a fairly negative reputation in the nineties and early 2000s. By the time of the incident, they had improved that to neutral. The week following the fire and bridge collapse was a very difficult one in which everyone played “the blame game,” and the narrative took a negative spin for the Georgia DOT. It looked like public perception was going to sink once again.

Miraculously, however, the opposite happened; the Georgia DOTʼs response and efforts were soon being praised by observers and the media alike. McMurryʼs work to communicate regularly

succeeded in allowing the Georgia DOT to control the message, and the agencyʼs openness to confronting uncomfortable critiques and learning from them produced a positive reception of its efforts to return the system to normal.

This rare alignment of satisfaction among diverse parties is an indication that McMurry was able to make a series of objectively good decisions. They followed clear principles, relied on the facts to the extent possible, got input from relevant stakeholders, considered many alternative solutions despite the compressed timeline, and updated strategies as new information came to light.